Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

This thread is mainly for TWD39, though other people who believe the flood, Noah and so on really happened are welcome to chime in. It is an extension of the other thread discussing language and the tower of Babel, which started some questions about Noah's flood.

If you believe that the Flood happened as the Bible states, then you must have rational answers to the following questions:

 

 

1 Were babies also killed in the flood? Were they deemed sinful, or just collateral damage? What about the unborn? (in case you think people are born with sin..) Is God an innocent baby killer?

2 If the flood covered the whole earth, where did the water come from, and where did it go afterwards?

3 If the flood was caused by rain for 40 days and nights, and rain covered the earth, then it would need to rain 112 million cubic kilometers each day. The water vapour that’s needed to be suspended in the air to achieve this would render the air unbreathable - people would have drowned by breathing this air. How did Noah and his family survive this?

4 How did the animals get to the arc? If Noah gathered them, how did he get around the world so quickly? If the animals came of their own accord, how did the giant tortoises get there in time? How did animals that can’t swim cross seas to get there?

5 How did Noah feed the animals? Some animals have very specific diets (pandas eat only bamboo, koalas eat only eucalyptus, for example) so how did Noah get these foods, which don’t grow in Mesopotamia?

6 How did Noah keep meat fresh for the hungry carnivores?

7 How did the freshwater fish survive? Did the arc carry fresh water? How were these fish collected and stored?

8 The flood would have killed all plant life. What would the ‘saved’ herbivores eat? What about those that feed only on adult trees that take a long time to grow?

9 What about the carnivores? They must have had to eat the herbivores – they were on the arc for over a year, so any corpses would be completely rotten, as well as being buried under sediment.

10 Where would the animals find fresh water to sustain themselves?

11 How did the plants survive being underwater for more than a year? Some might have seeds that survive, but vast numbers of plant species would have become extinct. How come the are still here today?

12 When the flood ended, only 6 people survived that would go on to breed. The bible indicates that the tower of Babel happened 100 years after the flood. How were there enough people to build the tower, which must have been massive?

13 How did the Native Americans, and Australian Aboriginals get to their continents (Which don’t have land bridges with Asia) after the flood?

14 How did God ‘create’ the rainbow as part of the promise he’d never flood the whole world again? If there was refracted sunlight and rain ever before the flood, there must have been rainbows.

15 Why did god change his mind about how many of each type of animal had to be taken into the arc? Genesis 6 says take 2 of each, Genesis 7 says take up to 7.

16 Lastly, why did god go to all the trouble?

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:That makes no

caposkia wrote:
That makes no sense... the fact that they're all different books alters pretty much everything...

How so? I remind you of the context:

Vastet wrote:
The bible isn't even 2000 years old. It is not proof of a god. It is proof that people can make up a bunch of things and get other people to believe those things.

Now if some of the books of the bible were 3000 years old and others 1000, then you'd have a minor point in that you'd proved my claim of the bible not being 2000 years old wrong. But all the resources I looked into agree that none of the stories in the new testament predate christ, so I'd be interested in seeing your sources. As far as I can tell, my statement was quite accurate whether you consider the bible as one book or one million books. None of them were written before the so-called birth of christ, so bundling them altogether has no impact on my statements veracity.
However, the context of my comment effectively renders it a moot point. In order to be evidence of your god, there would have to be something more than that. The books would have to be much older. On the order of tens or hundreds of thousands of years. The capability to believe in gods has been with humanity at least as far back as cave paintings. If your god were real, why did it wait so long to reveal itself? There is absolutely no abrahamic symbology in any ancient art. The first of the abrahamic religions didn't even begin compiling their religious book until about 1400 BCE, a mere 3400 years ago. If you want to use the age of a religion as evidence supporting that religion, a figure representing less than 0.00001% of the time Earth has been existent and less than 0.1% of the time humanity has been existent is insufficient.

caposkia wrote:
they weren't all written at the same time, but at different times over thousands of years... that's quite significant if you ask me.

I agree, though not for the same reason. I would think a god would lay it all down fairly quickly. If all the writings of christianity were done in a year, that would make a compelling reason to think there was more at work than people making things up. But if it took thousands of years, there is no such compulsion. People have written grander tales than the bible in far less time, albeit only relatively recently (to my knowledge).
Also, why were all the books written ONLY by people already familiar with christianity? It would be FAR more impressive if each book were written by a different culture and then later compiled when those cultures met. It is not at all surprising that one has to be introduced to your religion before one can write a book that the church would consider scripture. That's exactly how logic would dictate the invention and spread of a human created mythology.

caposkia wrote:
A collection of books contained in a book is still a book, but it's also still a collection of books... a collection of books from different authors from different generations and walks of life.  I can't comprehend how you can downplay that logically.

Simply because it isn't relevant to the point I was making.

caposkia wrote:
empirical evidence for something no living creature on Earth has ever experienced?

Well you asked it of me. Turn around is fair play.

caposkia wrote:
I do believe God experiences time differently.

But it still experiences time.

caposkia wrote:
alright, did you ever read that the clocks on satalites have to be set different than clocks here on Earth?

Yes.

caposkia wrote:
YOu can easily google how time on Earth is unique to Earth and that time anywhere else is going to be moving at a different pace because each object moves through time at a different rate.  God does not live on Earth so it is logical that He would experience time differently. 

I'm going to dispute the suggestion that Earth time is unique to Earth. The sheer vastness of the universe allows for the possibility of multiple planets that have the exact same mass, spin, and velocity. It is also not necessarily impossible to recreate Earth-like conditions through artificial means.
Beyond that, Earth time itself is not the same everywhere on Earth. A clock on a mountain will need synchronisation with a clock in a valley every so often.
However, I have no cause to dispute the suggestion that god experiences time differently than people. I would assume as much as a given.

caposkia wrote:
The theory now is that when time stops nothing can happen... but the concept of time stopping is illogical be it that it's understood by Einstein that time is not what is moving, but rather we are moving through time.

That is a misrepresentation of Einsteins theories. The theory of relativity postulates that the existence of space, matter, energy, and gravity creates and manipulates time. Not that time moves or doesn't move nor that anything moves through time. Time is a result of things moving and changing, the measurement of that movement and change. If there was no movement or change, then any measurement of movement and change would be impossible, and thus time wouldn't exist.

caposkia wrote:
In conclusion, it seem that to those who are moving through time, the one who is in a state of no time progression would appear to be doing nothing.

You don't need no time to create those conditions. If you could survive the conditions of a black hole, as you got sucked in you would see stars going nova like a fireworks display, going faster with every second until the last star died and there was nothing left to see. Anyone outside the influence of the black hole who looked at you would never see you move, even if you were constantly moving. It would take millions of years of observations to see you blink. All parties involved would still experience time, just differently from each other.

caposkia wrote:
So what happens when we stop moving through time?

A simple question gets a simple answer. Nothing would happen.

caposkia wrote:
Then again, Those who have experienced time differential [namely astronauts and anyone who has exceeded the sound barrier a few times over] have not personally experienced a differential in time, but rather noticed that atomic clocks were slightly off and/or their watches were off by several minutes when returning to Earth.

Yes there is a discrepancy between clocks and no the people do not perceive any change in times flow, but all parties still experience time. Time is relative to the object(s) perceiving time. The faster you move, the slower you perceive time relative to everything else. It isn't something you can perceive, else the astronaughts would perceive it. But it does happen, as the clocks empirically demonstrate.

caposkia wrote:
In conclusion, it seem that to those who are moving through time, the one who is in a state of no time progression would appear to be doing nothing... if that person is even percieved.  They may faze out of existence for those who are moving through time especially at an Earth pace. Though that person might still feel quite normal and be able to do things.

Because they still experience time. Just because they experience it differently doesn't mean they don't experience it and don't need it to do anything. Outside observers may not be able to measure any changes in a hundred or a million or even a trillion years, but that doesn't mean the object they observe isn't experiencing time.

caposkia wrote:
There are other theories that suggest someone who is in a state of no time progression could see all time past, present and future and observe any and all moments in history and was is to come.  I don't fully agree with the future aspect of it, but it makes sense too be it that we are moving through it.  it would make more sense to me that to the person in a state of no time progression that the person themselves might not be frozen, but everything around them might appear frozen be it that it all is moving through the time that they are stationary in. 

You're referring to light speed, which would require infinite energy to attain. And make you infinitely massive should you attain it (In other words, it can't happen. It would violate the laws of physics.).
But even at light speed you would experience time, it would just be so different from anything elses perceptions that attempting comparisons would be fruitless, and frankly impossible.
No matter what you perceive, you still experience time. No matter how god perceives it, god still must be experiencing time in order to do anything. It may operate so fast that humans can't see it unless it stands still for eons (from its perspective), or so slowly that eons pass and humans can't see it move at all (despite it constantly moving), but it must still experience time regardless.

caposkia wrote:
Alright, but my perspetive is based on evidence around the world, in the Bible and others understanding and experiences of coming to know God.  What is your perspective based on?

Observation and experience and logic. It is not reasonable to expect someone to believe in something that is contradictory to their observations unless you give them sufficient information to come up with the conclusion you desire. I have not received that information, else I'd have reached the conclusion you say god wants me to come to.

It is very simple. Subtleties and coincidences and primitive writings are not sufficient information to bring me to any religion. I need substance. If the bible described light speed or evolution, the bible would have substance. Instead it merely contains the best information available to people at the time it was written, which is evidence that the god it speaks of doesn't exist.

caposkia wrote:
absolutely it does.... and here's a perfect moment to restate my intentions on this site.  I come here with an open mind, to learn more about Truth, whatever that might be.  What makes sense is a very subjective matter, because I could just as confidently say; 'after considering all the possibilities humanity has come up with, considering the possibility that there is a God makes the most sense...'  So we're back to the now what question.

lol. I can't definitively disagree that you've concluded as much, and I recognise that. So I guess the ball is in gods court.

caposkia wrote:
funny you mention time here.  It's not God that's running out of time.  It is my understanding that God is waiting for you.  You said there's a little piece of you willing to consider the possibility.  What would be the tipping point for that little piece of you?  If that little piece is waiting for a grande' entrance from God in some way, that's not the way to God.  It's like sitting on the other side of a night club waiting for that hot girl in the corner to make the moves on you... not gonna happen my friend, she's waiting for you to make the move.... and it doesn't matter whether she knows your waiting or not.  It comes down to whether you really want to work on a relationship with God or not.  If you don't make the trip over to the girl, you will never meet her... If you don't make the walk to God, you will never know Him. 

Why do you need to make the effort?  Because God wants to know you're not only going to want the relationship with Him, but you're going to work to keep it.

Ok now look at it from my perspective: I don't see a hot girl on the other side of the night club. I see an empty chair. If there is a hot girl sitting in the chair, she's invisible to my eyes. I can't touch her or see her or smell her or hear her or taste her. Is it possible she's there anyway? I suppose so. But trial and error suggests I'll have more luck approaching the girl I can see than I'll have talking to an empty chair.

Your god isn't the only one who needs to know there'll be a commitment to a relationship. I need that too. I won't date a girl who has no interest in me, who never speaks to me and always tries to stay out of sight. From my perspective, she has no interest in a relationship and isn't going to be there for me when I need her. I could try anyway, but I'm not the self abusing type. If she's not interested, neither am I. I want someone who cares about me as much as I care about them. An empty chair doesn't care about anything.

--------------

I have to go make dinner so I'll continue this later. I'm posting just in case there's a power flicker or my system freezes or something else happens that would delete what I've written so far.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:not to

caposkia wrote:
not to me.

No offence, but your opinion on this isn't something that matters to me.

caposkia wrote:
my response that you don't understand what he was presenting proves that I don't understand what he was presenting?  I said it was relevant... you seemed to suggest here that it in fact was.  Sounds like there might be one of us that does understand... no, it's not you.. I know you'd try to respond with taht.

I never suggested it was relevant. Omniscience, as defined by the English language, is not subject to the uncertainty principle. It is the absolute, limitless knowledge of everything. A being which is omniscient could predict the future with a 100% accuracy, PERIOD.

Bob argued against this by throwing out omniscience as a bullshit word that describes the impossible. YOU have not thrown out omniscience as a bullshit word that describes the impossible, despite my challenging you to do so more than once; therefore his argument is inapplicable and your continuous reference to it is a demonstration of your ignorance of the subject matter. You agreed it was poorly defined, but you have not discarded it as a description of qualities your god possess.

Having said exactly the same thing a good dozen times now, I'm done trying to explain this very simple concept to you. I end with one final attempted challenge: renounce omniscience or accept your god KNOWS with absolute certainty what lies in the future. Whether because that knowledge is part of its omniscience or a result of it is irrelevant, your god must have this knowledge if it is omniscient.

caposkia wrote:
ok, but omniscience is a philisophical understanding, and science is based on philosophy... it actually originated with philosophy. 

No. Science started with philosophy, but they parted ways centuries ago. Omniscience has nothing to do with science. Using the term is, in fact, a rejection of science, as science has shown that it is impossible to know everything.

caposkia wrote:
if you're trying to compare your mindset to Bobs, you're not even close.  I actually comprehend how he can't grasp the concept of God.  My perspective of you is still aprehension and lack of understanding.

Then your perceptions are wrong. If you can comprehend why he can't accept your god, then you also know why I can't. Everything I've said has been an attempt to get you to comprehend my position, but in fact my basis for rejecting god is a mirror of Bobs. Logic, evidence, experience, and science.

caposkia wrote:
no, they're empirical based on other situations such as these.  Either way you need not address them.

No, they are opinions. Empirical observation on my part shows that not everyone who read my comment would understand it. Someone young or new to English, or someone with an impaired sense of humour wouldn't necessarily understand what I said and why. Your opinion to the contrary is simply laughable, and demonstrably false.

I will ignore any further comment on this as it not only is wrong, but also has nothing to do with the discussion on the veracity of the flood nor gods in general.

caposkia wrote:
well, I'd steal that exact quote above, but that would get a bit redundant... debates aren't based on opinions of self sufficiency.

You could, but then I'd list examples of you doing exactly what I said you did, and your dishonesty would be even more evident than it already is. The difference between us is I can point out where you failed to address a point and where I refuted a point. You cannot do the opposite, because it never happened.

caposkia wrote:
let me know if that happens

If it happens and I can tell you, I will.

caposkia wrote:
I know Bob would agree here, but Bob wouldn't need to be it that his take on God is non-existent. 

What exactly are you suggesting here? The vagaries of English allow for multiple interpretations of this comment.

caposkia wrote:
Schrödinger's cat defies the law of non-contradiction when being discussed beyond the molecular level.  If you want to get literal with that whole concept, then nothing ever dies.  But I think you're getting way over your head with that reference.

What you think and what is are two very different things.

caposkia wrote:
well, there is objective proof, but not all proof is objective, only the evidence.

Every time you speak of evidence and proof you prove my earlier statement that you don't know what evidence and proof is in the first place, and therefore attempting to tell you what would qualify as evidence or proof for your god would be a waste of time.

caposkia wrote:
then there really is no part of you that would accept God, even if you heard that voice in your dream because if you do hear it, you already know that voice doesn't actually exist.

Nope. We already covered this when I admitted I can be wrong about things. Every single thing I know and/or believe is subject to new evidence that could contradict things I know and/or believe, resulting in new knowledge and/or belief. Such a voice would be compelling evidence, the first of its kind. I would HAVE to reevaluate my position.

caposkia wrote:
it's interesting becuase I find that I trust people more as a believer... granted I don't trust everyone, but I find true followers more trusting than non-believers.  I think the catch 22 is in your head.  Your reasoning doesn't hold water... unless you want to start talking Bible.

I find believers less trustworthy than non-believers, generally speaking. There are possibly exceptions, but I can't think of any right now.
A believer in christianity only has to repent to be forgiven by god, at which point they are just fine in gods book. They must acknowledge it to themselves and to god, but need not go any further than that.
A non-believer must repent first to themselves and then to other people to be forgiven, which is much harder, requires much more effort, and doesn't actually guarantee forgiveness.

The catch 22 is a catch 22. If I'm to accept evidence for your god, people can't have anything to do with it.

caposkia wrote:
I would be  more than happy to talk about many things besides religion if we ever met.  Though I do not limit my conversations about religion to the internet, I tend to restrict those conversations to those who intentionally focus on the topic

Hockey it is then! XD

caposkia wrote:
none of what you said was insulting.  it is a very dispensationalist perspective, i see where it comes from.  the sheep of the flock is a very accurate term to describe the average believer.. the issue with that perspective is that the priests and evangelists would also fall under the category of "simple sheep of the flock" and would not be viewed by God as any different than the rest.

True enough, though as I'm not god I don't see them all the same way, and have a need to distinguish one from another. Hence my separation of them.

caposkia wrote:
I thank you for being so candid with me about your life.  It shows you're really trying to be sincere.  I can see better where you're coming from.  Funny thing is, you're right Biblically when you say; "I didn't have to believe in a god of some kind.  I didn't have to think anything was greater than anything else without an adjective clause to properly categorise the question to make it answerable.  I was free".  You are free in all of it regardless.  I see it that God makes us free, but you see it as no God makes us free.  I see you were trying a lot of new things and not getting much satisfaction out of them.  God never promised contentment when following Him.  He only promised life.  He warns us that walking in Jesus is a dangerous path and that there are a lot of negative things that could happen to us because of that. 

Your teacher was obviously way out of line.  And when you got accused of stealing the keys you prayed... you failed to realize the answer to your prayer likely was you not getting expelled when that would have been the logical result if they were so sure it was you.  if they never found the keys then they never found the culprit most likely.  Which leads me to believe that it's likely they never stopped thinking it was you.... but you didn't get expelled.  Of course I don't know all the details, so it's really speculation. 

I think you look for big events when prayer happens and the realistic result is usually extremely subtle, but it's like the butterfly effect... the subtle results now turn into big changes later.

Ah but not getting expelled would be a significant change for god to make, and you say he doesn't work that way. If he can make that big of a change, why can't he do something more objective?
Good or bad really doesn't matter in the long run. If your god exists, then by definition he trumps my ethics. I might consider him a dick, but he made everything so he decides what is good or bad, and that makes me the dick.
The people who ran the school were muslim, so it stands to reason that if a god interfered, it was the muslim god.
Also, within a year or two of the incident, a new school opened up near me and I started going there, and it was a much better school. All said and done, if I could go back and change things, I would have been happy to be expelled. I was scared at the time because I was an ignorant kid who didn't know the consequences. Today I know that I just would have ended up in a different school, and my parents would have saved some money. Considering some of the shit that happened at that place, it would have done me a world of good to be put back in the public system. But nothing happened.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: That's pretty

Vastet wrote:
That's pretty cool thanks. I even understand it lol. 40-50 feet is a shitload of rain. Did your research tell you what kind of area that could cover? This makes me wonder how quickly that rain would drain away. I suspect it would drain fairly quickly for the first couple of feet, but then the rate would slow as the ground became saturated and the atmosphere became extremely humid from the evaporation. At some point it would drain so slowly as to be imperceptible. Then it would result in new bodies of water where before there was plains and especially valleys, which should be capable of altering the climate in the affected region. Such changes should be detectable in core samples.

The closest comparrison we have is Cherrapunji, India which saw 30.5 feet in one month July 1861. The heavy rainfall is mostly orographic, which means that low elevation clouds are blown into large mountains by the wind. When they are forced upward quickly, it results in a "cloud burst" which means all of the water built up in the cloud is released instantly, causing extremely heavy rain but only for a short period. The area of rainfall is pretty condensed and falls only on one side of the mountain. It is like a gigantic bucket of water is dumped as oppossed to the normal rain pattern. The other side of the mountain is completely dry, so you are dealing with maybe a square mile or two, so instead of going through the effort of building a fucking Ark, god could have told Noah to walk around the mountain. Of course, being the sadistic SOB he is, I guess making Noah build an ark was more fun. But yeah, there is a lot of geological evidence left behind every time it happens. There are entire canyons that have been carved by the water hitting the mountains and running back into the ocean. 

By far, the largest floods in history were not due to rain. They were a result of the glaciers melting after the ice age where large bodies of water were dammed in by ice. The ice melted and when it became weak enough, all the water was released at once. The largest of these by far occurred in Altai, Russia and the North Western US where ice dams broke and had an estimated maximum flow of 17-18 million cubic meters a second, which is an absolutely terrifying and amazing amount of water (the largest meteorlogically caused floods are around 100,000 cubic meters/second). The force of those floods caused significant modifications to the geology of the area. The flood in the US is called the Missoula flood and flooded approximately 1/2 of what is now the state of Washington and occurred 13-15 thousand years ago and had a depth of approximately 4,200 feet. So you have a lot of flooding, but it is in a limited area globally speaking. The other problem you have is that the worst floods occurred in the US and in Russia, and invariably they left a ton of geological evidence. There is no evidence of a similar flood anywhere in the mideast and a lot of reason to believe that such floods are impossible in that area due to the geological structure. No doubt, to anyone living in eastern Washington at that time, the Missoula flood was a worldwide flood. Although, it is relevant to point out that humans did live and managed to survive even these massive floods, so if the bible is true, Noah's flood would have needed to be even worse than these glacial floods,  

 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1254/pdf/circ1254.pdf

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Awesome. lol @ noah. I

Awesome. lol @ noah.

I thought that there was a flood like that in the mideast, though it was because of ocean levels rising and overcoming the land holding it back instead of melting glaciers. It was a long time ago that I read about it, so I don't remember all the details. I think the black sea or the dead sea was the final resting place of the flood, ending up twice the size it was before. It's possible that new evidence overturned this or I'm remembering wrong.

That picture reminds me of one I saw showing previous lava flows from a volcano in the region which is expected to erupt in the next 10 odd years. The flood area looks remarkably similar to the lava flows, though a fair bit bigger.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Awesome. lol @

Vastet wrote:
Awesome. lol @ noah. I thought that there was a flood like that in the mideast, though it was because of ocean levels rising and overcoming the land holding it back instead of melting glaciers. It was a long time ago that I read about it, so I don't remember all the details. I think the black sea or the dead sea was the final resting place of the flood, ending up twice the size it was before. It's possible that new evidence overturned this or I'm remembering wrong. That picture reminds me of one I saw showing previous lava flows from a volcano in the region which is expected to erupt in the next 10 odd years. The flood area looks remarkably similar to the lava flows, though a fair bit bigger.

 

Yeah, there was a major flood in the Black Sea roughly 7,000 years ago, but the initial hypothesis that it rose 50-100 meters was proven false. I don't know if you have access to any mass journal database, but the relevent journal article was titled "Was the Black Sea catastrophically flooded in the early Holocene?" in Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 28, January 2009. It turns out that the flood was likely 5-10 meters and flooded roughly 2000 kilometers of land. A massive flood, and likely the kernel of truth in the myth. But hardly a flood that killed everyone in the world let alone all the animals. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Thanks. Even if I can't

Thanks. Even if I can't access the actual article I should be able to find references and summaries. Much appreciated.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Not for

Beyond Saving wrote:

Not for the most recent ice age. There is a theory stating that there was an ice age millions of years ago that came suddenly from a comet impact that killed off the dinosaurs. There are many millions of years between dinosaurs and humans. There was an ice age much more recent from 110,000 to 12,000 years ago that wasn't sudden at all. (The peak glaciation was about 22,000 years ago)

well, I believe this one was still understood to have had some sudden drops in temperature.    The peak did take a while to achieve... coming on and peaking are two different things in weather.  e.g. a hurricane can come on fairly quickly, but you won't feel the peak for several hours after the inital rainbands. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Any model that suggests the capacity of 240 feet in 40 days. Since I am generous, I'll settle for any model that can suggest 100 feet in 40 days. Absolutely any model that even suggests that it is possible. I am setting the bar lower than a crack whore...

...and what pray tell would this model be based on? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm ignorant of meteorology, not a fucking idiot. I understand modeling very well. I work with quadratic, exponential and logarithmic models on a daily basis. So throw the most complex model you have at me. If I don't understand it, I will ask questions. A linear model means nothing if it has zero relation to reality. I'm not interested in an elementary discussion, push the bounds of my abilities. When you can honestly reply to me saying "You're just an idiot who doesn't get it" we are on the right track and I will work to make myself less of an idiot. 

There are also others reading who might not undersatnd, but fine, from here on oout, I'll be more "technical".... the model would have to be based on something, what would the model be based on?  I guess I'd start looking at climographs to see where it could have taken place and why... you'd likely see a fairly siginificant climatological flux due to such a drastic event... it likely woudl have dropped the world temp by an observable amount... however, if it is more localized like we rationalized earlier on this thread, then it might be harder and we'd have to look at more concentrated climographs... which likely don't exist so far back be it that usually there's a focus on world climate change and not localized climate change which woudl be insignificant to our needs today. 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Where is this model outside the movie? Every climatologist I have ever seen reference the movie had nothing to say but how terribly unrealistic it was. Where is the climatologist who said it has any accuracy whatsoever? Can you at least provide a source for this one small point?

ok, this makes me realize something new here.. unelss a model is based on observable data, e.g. ice cores, etc.  why would you assume every model made was accurate? 

Considering the model used in the movie, it was taken from the 1993 "Storm of the Century" map, added to and multiplied to make it look like it was repetitive and covered the whole globe.:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Storm_of_the_Century#mediaviewer/File:Storm_of_the_century_satellite.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Storm_of_the_Century#mediaviewer/File:1993_storm_century.jpg

Why that was used is not only becasue it caused significant snowfall in places that otherwise wouldn't normally see snow, but it's reasoning that weather is becoming more extreme due to the global climate change and is theorized that a similar situation happened to start the last ice age...

 

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Yeah,

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yeah, but Cap is arguing that it wasn't really a worldwide flood (don't ask me how one can base their argument on the Bible being right and then claim that the Bible is wrong on a rather large detail) he is arguing that it was localized and all life on the planet was apparently in the same place. Cap initially suggested 240 feet of rain in 40 days, which even if it was in a localized area I could agree that it would essentially be worldwide for prehistoric man and many animals. If proven, I think a flood that large would certainly be evidence that there is some reality behind the story.

er.... perspective of the writer??? possibly???

Beyond Saving wrote:

Anyway, I found the topic interesting and had hoped to glean some knowledge from Cap because he claims significant experience in meteorology. I can only conclude he lied about his credentials, is lying about what is possible and thinks I'm an idiot, or he is a genius that has some new meteorlogical model that is better than anything so far created.

Since Cap is unable or unwilling to share his knowledge let alone link to some relevant sources I could learn from, I've done some research on my own. Pulling the rainfall world record numbers from NOAA and analyzing them in terms of inches of rain by minutes. Doing what I would call an initial trend analysis, I discovered that there is in fact a consistent trend.

I started with 38 data points from 1 minute up to 43200 minutes (30 days). That led me to a trend line using the exponential equation y=1.5661*x^0.5262. A third order polynomial equation seemed to get the best fit, but those are useless when you try projecting beyond the known data. The exponential had an R-squared of 0.99, so that is incredibly strong correlation. (For those who don't work with stats an R-squared of 1.00 is perfect correlation and 0 is no correlation at all- so 0.99 is excellent.

Quite happy with this equation, I did some more research and found more data points bringing the total up to 55 with world record rainfalls up to two years. The equation performed fairly well with its predictions ranging from 78%(at 4 days) to 168% (at 330 days) of actual recorded world records. On average, the equation predicted 107% of the actual record with a definite trend that the longer the rainfall the prediction tended to be higher than actually recorded. No doubt limiting factors such as seasons start coming in to play when you are talking several months, which this simply model makes no effort to account for. It is assuming that it is always the rainiest season. The standard deviation for the equation related to recorded rainfall was 20%. That means if the data is good, we can statistically be 99.7% certain that any prediction of a record rainfall using this equation will be between 47%-167% of the actual record.

At 40 days, this equation predicts 500.9 inches. 41.7 ft. Not far from the 36 ft predicted by Dr. Lyons. After I noticed that, I plugged in his predictions and discover that he also used an exponential equation. Specifically, y=2.3831*x^0.4745. Which puts it much higher with short term rain (under 15 minutes) and leveling out and being lower for long term rain. However, since the question was what is the maximum theoretically possible rain, and both my equation and Dr. Lyons occasionally dipped below 100% of recorded rainfall, I decided to tweak the equation a little to give Cap the best chance possible. 

I decided to put an inherent upward bias in the equation, using y=1.925*x^0.5262 I like the 0.5262 exponent better than Lyons because it results in smaller deviation from the records I had available-maybe he has more data than me- regardless, it makes the numbers larger so that helps Cap and I am really bending backwards to give Cap the best possible numbers for his argument.) This resulted in a curve where no point fell below 102% of what was actually recorded. On average, it was 132% of the recorded rainfall and had a standard deviation of 25%. That equation predicts 616 inches after 40 days. So call it 51 feet. That is the most I could get to and is most likely unrealistic since all my biases were towards making the equation higher.

Using a linear equation like Cap has continued trying to do y=1.5*x results in a near 0 R-squared and predictions average of 15,879% of actual recorded results with a standard deviation of 30,914%. In other words, the equation is not at all related to the data and you would be better off throwing darts at a wall of random numbers to predict maximum possible rainfall. Which someone with a background in meteorology should know offhand.       

...and I told you from the beginning that we don't know the limits, but you decided that there must be a limit, so then we started discussing the possibilities.  See post 467.

I'm glad you finally did some homework on the subject though.  I think you've effectively proven my point.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Sketch

 

A link to a basic sketch of the equations. The orange one is Dr. Lyons, the blue is mine and the green most closely matches the records I had access to. And Cap's is the laughable red. It goes out 40 days. 

that makes no sense... you're assuming a constant, which we also discussed is not likely throughout the days.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: As far

Beyond Saving wrote:

 As far as the idea of a weather system stalling, Cap is also wrong. It is a frequent cause of severe weather, but it cannot last indefinitely. I had trouble finding info at first because it is called 'atmospheric blocking' which someone who majored in meteorology should know... anyway, turns out there is  a good amount of research. Surprise, surprise, our atmosphere is different from Jupiter. 

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/356/art%253A10.1007%252Fs00376-012-2006-y.pdf?auth66=1407168653_d8fb55eef67e849b6a46a77cd9...

http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/phdtheses/The%20predictability%20of%20atmospheric%20blocking.pdf

 

 

The comparison to Jupiter was to emphasize the limitations of weatehr.. and how we really can't determine them.

stalled systems happen all the time

Boy you're really reaching for straws here.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:That's pretty

Vastet wrote:
That's pretty cool thanks. I even understand it lol. 40-50 feet is a shitload of rain. Did your research tell you what kind of area that could cover? This makes me wonder how quickly that rain would drain away. I suspect it would drain fairly quickly for the first couple of feet, but then the rate would slow as the ground became saturated and the atmosphere became extremely humid from the evaporation. At some point it would drain so slowly as to be imperceptible. Then it would result in new bodies of water where before there was plains and especially valleys, which should be capable of altering the climate in the affected region. Such changes should be detectable in core samples.

To the contrary... if a farily large amount of rain falls in an area that has not seen rain for a while, or is typically drier, rainwater is more likely to not drain away unless there is an outlet nearby e.g. a river or stream.  The ground would not be ready to receive a large amount of water and the initial rainfall would yeild a higher level of water whereas toward the middle it would get lower, then your suspicion would take place where the volume would start to rise again due to ground saturation...  This of course is also dependent on the local water table. 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:...and what

caposkia wrote:

...and what pray tell would this model be based on? 

I don't know. You are the one with the meteorology background who is telling me it exists. Personally, I think you are a fucking liar and I think that should be obvious to anyone following this discussion. I eagerly await the point you prove me wrong and provide a relevant link, but I'm not holding my breath. 

Caposkia wrote:

There are also others reading who might not undersatnd, but fine, from here on oout, I'll be more "technical".... the model would have to be based on something, what would the model be based on?  I guess I'd start looking at climographs to see where it could have taken place and why... you'd likely see a fairly siginificant climatological flux due to such a drastic event... it likely woudl have dropped the world temp by an observable amount... however, if it is more localized like we rationalized earlier on this thread, then it might be harder and we'd have to look at more concentrated climographs... which likely don't exist so far back be it that usually there's a focus on world climate change and not localized climate change which woudl be insignificant to our needs today. 

 

Okay, where is the evidence? We have evidence of how the climate has changed, what the temperatures were, how much it rained, how often it rained etc. As someone who majored in meteorology, that should have been part of your classes right? Link me to the evidence. Otherwise, I just have to assume you are a fucking liar blowing smoke our your ass. 

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Where is this model outside the movie? Every climatologist I have ever seen reference the movie had nothing to say but how terribly unrealistic it was. Where is the climatologist who said it has any accuracy whatsoever? Can you at least provide a source for this one small point?

ok, this makes me realize something new here.. unelss a model is based on observable data, e.g. ice cores, etc.  why would you assume every model made was accurate? 

Most models are not accurate. Which should go in your favor since most models should be capable of predicting a storm that is not actually physically possible. You are the one who claimed to have knowledge of meteorology, so point me to the model. (as it turns out, most models in use today are named after the person who created them, so the model should have a first name. Right now, I will settle with a model from the 70's that has been proven false; even that much would mean that maybe your knowledge is just outdated and maybe you are not an outright liar.)

 

Quote:

Considering the model used in the movie, it was taken from the 1993 "Storm of the Century" map, added to and multiplied to make it look like it was repetitive and covered the whole globe.:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Storm_of_the_Century#mediaviewer/File:Storm_of_the_century_satellite.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Storm_of_the_Century#mediaviewer/File:1993_storm_century.jpg

Why that was used is not only becasue it caused significant snowfall in places that otherwise wouldn't normally see snow, but it's reasoning that weather is becoming more extreme due to the global climate change and is theorized that a similar situation happened to start the last ice age...

 Do you know the meaning of the word "multiplied"? As soon as you multiply, the result becomes substantially different from reality. There is no question that the movie took real events and multiplied them. Movies do that all the time. That doesn't make their results real. Do you have even ONE link to a credible scientist that supports ANY of the claims you have made? Seriously, before this sidetrack I just assumed you were ignorant. Right now, I believe that you are an outright liar, because every comment you have made about meteorology does not match what I have been able to find on the net. Granted, I started very ignorant on the subject- so it is very possible I am missing something. But when I ask you for sources, you provide me with MOVIES and fucking WIKI. Ask me about any subject I am knowledgeable about, and I can provide much more credible sources. With movies and wiki, you are either not as knowledgeable about the subject as you claim, or you assume I am a fucking dumb ass- which I am not. I have put quite a bit of effort and time on this subject because it interested me. You, claiming that you know about it, have failed to provide even one legitimate link and EVERYTHING you have stated as a fact, I discovered is false. Can you at least link me to the theory that the weather was more extreme the last ice age? ONE FUCKING LINK to ANY semi credible source is all I am asking. Anything or anyone that backs up the claims you have made because frankly, I believe you are a liar and I don't trust you at all without a source. Prove me wrong, I really wish you could because I would love nothing more than to have a real intelligent meteorlogical discussion and learn something. Fortunately, I have managed to learn quite a bit without your assistance thanks to the web. But I would love learn more from someone who actually knows this shit and could direct me to places to learn.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
That makes no sense... the fact that they're all different books alters pretty much everything...
How so? I remind you of the context:
Vastet wrote:
The bible isn't even 2000 years old. It is not proof of a god. It is proof that people can make up a bunch of things and get other people to believe those things.
Now if some of the books of the bible were 3000 years old and others 1000, then you'd have a minor point in that you'd proved my claim of the bible not being 2000 years old wrong. But all the resources I looked into agree that none of the stories in the new testament predate christ, so I'd be interested in seeing your sources. As far as I can tell, my statement was quite accurate whether you consider the bible as one book or one million books. None of them were written before the so-called birth of christ, so bundling them altogether has no impact on my statements veracity.

The whole Old Testament was written betfor the birth of Jesus Christ.   Consider that it is generally understood that the Gospels were written somewhere between 50 and 250 or so years after the birth of Jesus, the OT stories, specifically the pentateuch were written much earlier.  Many books, including the Gospel books are konwn to have used other older sources as well to compile the writings from.  According to Zondervan Study; "many scholars have claimed to find the Pentateuch four underlying sources.  The presumed documents, allegedly dating from the tenth to the fifth centures B.C..."

To add to that, though documented much later into a book form, the book of Job is said to possibly be the oldest book in the Bible..  There is literary evidence dating the story 2000 years B.C.  Though no one really knows its origin. 

The biggest issue with 'dating' the books is that we don't have any of the "original" texts in our hands.  only copies.  The sources of the copies suggest meticulous rendurings from the originals, but that leaves dating the original writings virtually impossible... so as I said, we have dated the writings of some of the Gospels as early as fifty years after Christ's birth, but that is still a copy of an earlier manuscript.  Plus Mark and... I believe it was Luke are said to have a common source for writing that has yet to be found known as Q.  No one knows how old Q is... no not the one from Star Trek, though they don't know how old He is either.  Coincidence???? yea, actually I think so.  

Though I'm quoting quickly here from my Zondervan Study Bible, you can easily google any of this and find that same information.  I"m pretty sure they have many sources covering these topics.

Vastet wrote:

However, the context of my comment effectively renders it a moot point. In order to be evidence of your god, there would have to be something more than that. The books would have to be much older. On the order of tens or hundreds of thousands of years. The capability to believe in gods has been with humanity at least as far back as cave paintings. If your god were real, why did it wait so long to reveal itself? There is absolutely no abrahamic symbology in any ancient art. The first of the abrahamic religions didn't even begin compiling their religious book until about 1400 BCE, a mere 3400 years ago. If you want to use the age of a religion as evidence supporting that religion, a figure representing less than 0.00001% of the time Earth has been existent and less than 0.1% of the time humanity has been existent is insufficient.

how about just the ability to write and compile a book.  It's logical that a book would not have been compiled so far back.  Historically people relied on word of mouth to pass stories down from generation to generation... with assistance from cave drawings.  but not until writing became soemthing possible were things actually documented.  Also, if the Bible is true, then God did reveil himself to the very first humans.  The Bible paints a fairly clear picture of how he slowly got pushed out of humanity's way of life several times over the melenia. 

Vastet wrote:

 I agree, though not for the same reason. I would think a god would lay it all down fairly quickly. If all the writings of christianity were done in a year, that would make a compelling reason to think there was more at work than people making things up. But if it took thousands of years, there is no such compulsion. People have written grander tales than the bible in far less time, albeit only relatively recently (to my knowledge). Also, why were all the books written ONLY by people already familiar with christianity? It would be FAR more impressive if each book were written by a different culture and then later compiled when those cultures met. It is not at all surprising that one has to be introduced to your religion before one can write a book that the church would consider scripture. That's exactly how logic would dictate the invention and spread of a human created mythology.

you must consider several points here:

first, God spoke to the people during that time in relevant terms for people during that time, so it was not necessary to write it all down at once... Much of the Bible is written for all time, but it was specifically spoken for the people fo the time in question.  God let humanity paint the picture of Bible progression.  IF you read through you see it is quite necessary to show the progression, the rise and fall of humanity and how God reacted to it.  IT's not a dictation, but an experience of what has happened and what the result was.

Second, you must take into consdieration who the authors were. YOu ask why all the books were written ONLY by people already familiar with Chrstiianity.  well, probably the same reason why court documents were written by people who were there.  but not all were dedicated to the faith really.. Take Moses... yes born a Jew, but sent down river in a basket before he was able to experience that lifestyle and raised by the Pharaoh who was enslaving the Jews.  MOses knew his family history, but was not raised a Jew.  He was also a murderer... but He ended up being a big part of the Exodus.  Some claim He wrote some of those books... there is debate.

Matthew was a tax collector.  One whom people hated... He would be like they were, harsh and agressive when demanding tax money, but He wrote a book in the Bible.  I believe it was Paul who persecuted Jews before repenting and becoming one himself.  I am pulling this from the top of my head, so please forgive me if I'm mistaken.. it was either paul or peter. 

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
empirical evidence for something no living creature on Earth has ever experienced?
Well you asked it of me. Turn around is fair play.

What empirical evidence did i ask of you that no living creature has experienced?  I honestly don't remember.

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I do believe God experiences time differently.
But it still experiences time.

either experiences it or witnesses it.  It is said that God is was and will be always the same... Sounds to me as if He might be frozen in time.... or outside of time.

Vastet wrote:

 I'm going to dispute the suggestion that Earth time is unique to Earth. The sheer vastness of the universe allows for the possibility of multiple planets that have the exact same mass, spin, and velocity. It is also not necessarily impossible to recreate Earth-like conditions through artificial means. Beyond that, Earth time itself is not the same everywhere on Earth. A clock on a mountain will need synchronisation with a clock in a valley every so often. However, I have no cause to dispute the suggestion that god experiences time differently than people. I would assume as much as a given.

ok, consider that the planet that would have the exact same mass, spin, and velocity to be comparable to EArth time would also have to be moving through space at the same rate, which means it would have to be in a similarly sized Galaxy in the exact distance from the center of the Galaxy and that Galaxy would have to have the exact rotation speed and movement as ours... it is highly unlikely that antoher planet in the universe would have the same time as Earth time. 

but I digress.  it seems we agree about God experienceing time differently.

Vastet wrote:

That is a misrepresentation of Einsteins theories. The theory of relativity postulates that the existence of space, matter, energy, and gravity creates and manipulates time. Not that time moves or doesn't move nor that anything moves through time. Time is a result of things moving and changing, the measurement of that movement and change. If there was no movement or change, then any measurement of movement and change would be impossible, and thus time wouldn't exist.

That then leaves the question of what allows time to progress rather than regress.... unless all movement is an event moving time forward, which then would make time reversal impossible.  Though then too things would nto be frozen and there would likely be no such thing as the absense of time... thus even if I was in a state of time where it was virtually non-existent, I could still make a movement which then would reinstate time for the duration of the movement. 

Basically it all comes down to God and time..  The Bible makes a reference somewhere... more metaphorical, nto literal, but the idea is literal be it that our time is like seconds to God..  It says; "with the Lord, a day is like 1000 years...."  2Peter 3:8

Vastet wrote:

 You don't need no time to create those conditions. If you could survive the conditions of a black hole, as you got sucked in you would see stars going nova like a fireworks display, going faster with every second until the last star died and there was nothing left to see. Anyone outside the influence of the black hole who looked at you would never see you move, even if you were constantly moving. It would take millions of years of observations to see you blink. All parties involved would still experience time, just differently from each other.

I believe we're in agreement about time.

Vastet wrote:

lol. I can't definitively disagree that you've concluded as much, and I recognise that. So I guess the ball is in gods court.

really, cause I have no doubt in my mind that God exists. 

Vastet wrote:

Ok now look at it from my perspective: I don't see a hot girl on the other side of the night club. I see an empty chair. If there is a hot girl sitting in the chair, she's invisible to my eyes. I can't touch her or see her or smell her or hear her or taste her. Is it possible she's there anyway? I suppose so. But trial and error suggests I'll have more luck approaching the girl I can see than I'll have talking to an empty chair. Your god isn't the only one who needs to know there'll be a commitment to a relationship. I need that too. I won't date a girl who has no interest in me, who never speaks to me and always tries to stay out of sight. From my perspective, she has no interest in a relationship and isn't going to be there for me when I need her. I could try anyway, but I'm not the self abusing type. If she's not interested, neither am I. I want someone who cares about me as much as I care about them. An empty chair doesn't care about anything. -------------- I have to go make dinner so I'll continue this later. I'm posting just in case there's a power flicker or my system freezes or something else happens that would delete what I've written so far.

\

I understand that perspective... but here's the other part of it.  YOu do see an empty chair... but you have a large percentage of the club you're in telling you she's there.  You still don't accept it... that large percentage is telling you they not only see her there, but know her well and know that she is someone you can trust if you're willing to approach her.  Have faith in her.  Of course you don't know any of those people in the club, so why believe them.. but why not believe them?  What would it do to you to actually go over to that chair.  Most people like you would look for the more obvious and more likely result, but I'd say they'd be missing something big if they didn't at least try. 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I'm glad you

caposkia wrote:

I'm glad you finally did some homework on the subject though.  I think you've effectively proven my point.

What the fuck. I have been asking you for WEEKS to provide a fucking link. I have done my homework. I probably know significantly more about meteorology that YOU ever have known. And all I have learned says you are a fucking liar making shit up and pulling numbers out of thin air. Either the entire meteorlogical community is wrong, you lied to me, or you are completely ignorant about meteorology. What respect for you I had is completely gone, and I kind of feel like a fool for spending as much time on you as I did. The only solace I have is that I have learned a lot about meteorology that I didn't know before which is certainly interesting and I was able to share some of that knowledge with Vastet who I know appreciates learning.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Seeing as how I didn't set

Seeing as how I didn't set any initial conditions I don't see how you can claim I'm wrong based on one possible set of initial conditions out of dozens of possible initial conditions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:The

caposkia wrote:

The comparison to Jupiter was to emphasize the limitations of weatehr.. and how we really can't determine them.

stalled systems happen all the time

Boy you're really reaching for straws here.

Except for the fact that we can determine them, yet another bald faced lie. Stalled systems happen often, but we know why, we can predict them to some extent and they are not infinite; we can predict approximately how long they last. Systems only stall when pressure systems are changing. It doesn't take forever for them to change. Usually it is days, occasionally it is weeks. It is all predictable, and the worst can be predicted and is accounted for in the models used to predict weather today. NONE of those models predict anything near the rainfall that YOU claimed was physically possible. You reached for straws because apparently you thought I would never educate myself. You were wrong, I was willing to put in the time and learn and I discovered that you are a fraud and a liar. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I never

Vastet wrote:
I never suggested it was relevant. Omniscience, as defined by the English language, is not subject to the uncertainty principle. It is the absolute, limitless knowledge of everything. A being which is omniscient could predict the future with a 100% accuracy, PERIOD. Bob argued against this by throwing out omniscience as a bullshit word that describes the impossible. YOU have not thrown out omniscience as a bullshit word that describes the impossible, despite my challenging you to do so more than once; therefore his argument is inapplicable and your continuous reference to it is a demonstration of your ignorance of the subject matter. You agreed it was poorly defined, but you have not discarded it as a description of qualities your god possess. Having said exactly the same thing a good dozen times now, I'm done trying to explain this very simple concept to you. I end with one final attempted challenge: renounce omniscience or accept your god KNOWS with absolute certainty what lies in the future. Whether because that knowledge is part of its omniscience or a result of it is irrelevant, your god must have this knowledge if it is omniscient.

I have a better understanding of the whole concept than most people.  You don't need to explain anything, what you did need to explain is your perception on the idea... and you did.   Let's look at it this way, the Bible makes it very clear that God can predict teh future with 100% accuracy, however, that in no way determines the future, only what God has predicted will come to be... I still believe God can see all possible futures and due to his infinite knowledge can deduce the future that will happen, but that future is not predetermined by God and God likely has also changed futures that He has seen would come to be if He didn't intervene. Those particular instances would then be predetermined.   God is not tricked by a changed future, but the future is still up to a choice we make.  God knows the Butterfly effect of my hypothetical fender bender and how that alters the future for both parties involved.  Or maybe that was right in line, but it's still a future that happened due to a choice... or in that case lack of judgement, which is still a choice... i shouldn't have been texting, or whatever the case may be. 

I ask God to guide my future because I know He is capable of making it end up where He knows it will be best.  It is said we are either a slave to God or a slave to sin.  If you want to look at it as a means of predestination, then we are predestined for two futures, a future guided by sin, or a future guided by God.  God does not determine the futures of a sinner, a sinner determines their future.  God knows that the sinner will not have a future that leads to Him and can say that, but that was not predetermined.  God can also inform his followers that someone has a future that is destined to not lead to Him in hopes that we make a choice to help them choose a better future.  This is where God influences it.  God does hope on us, but has determined the outcome as outlined in Revelation.  The Book of revelation would be a perfect example of Gods Omnipotence and OMniscience. 

Vastet wrote:

 

No. Science started with philosophy, but they parted ways centuries ago. Omniscience has nothing to do with science. Using the term is, in fact, a rejection of science, as science has shown that it is impossible to know everything.

science has shown that it is HUMANLY impossible to know everything... not that God can't know everything.  The term in no way rejects science... and yes, science started or originated with philosophy as I had said.

Vastet wrote:

  Then your perceptions are wrong. If you can comprehend why he can't accept your god, then you also know why I can't. Everything I've said has been an attempt to get you to comprehend my position, but in fact my basis for rejecting god is a mirror of Bobs. Logic, evidence, experience, and science.

I haven't seen that aspect in you yet... my perceptions are based strictly on conversations we have.  You have anger, denial and apprehension toward the subject, sprinkled with bits of reasoning... Due ot your previous post about your past, I understand your anger and apprehension.

Vastet wrote:

You could, but then I'd list examples of you doing exactly what I said you did, and your dishonesty would be even more evident than it already is. The difference between us is I can point out where you failed to address a point and where I refuted a point. You cannot do the opposite, because it never happened.

here you go with the dishonesty thing again... This is where you're running away again.  You can try to piont out where I failed ot address a point and you can reference any point you want... every time you claim I falied to point something out, I attempted to address it... . again.  I have nto intentinoally ignored any points you've made or have been made on this thread.  I ahve told you directly to point them out if I missed them or misunderstood so that we can readdress them... yet above you call me a liar and claim that you constantly point out places where I failed to address and you refuted.  YOu claim I cannot do the opposite, but who are you trying to fool here?  I now must call you a liar.

Vastet wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
I know Bob would agree here, but Bob wouldn't need to be it that his take on God is non-existent. 
What exactly are you suggesting here? The vagaries of English allow for multiple interpretations of this comment.

Bob doesn't believe that there is a God and therefore would not be necessary for comment.

Vastet wrote:

 Nope. We already covered this when I admitted I can be wrong about things. Every single thing I know and/or believe is subject to new evidence that could contradict things I know and/or believe, resulting in new knowledge and/or belief. Such a voice would be compelling evidence, the first of its kind. I would HAVE to reevaluate my position.

then I must admit something here.. you might have a stronger faith than I, because I'm not sure that I would have accepted a voice in a dream as God when I was not a beleiver.  Then again, you're probably thinking this would be quite a lucid dream right?

Vastet wrote:

 I find believers less trustworthy than non-believers, generally speaking. There are possibly exceptions, but I can't think of any right now. A believer in christianity only has to repent to be forgiven by god, at which point they are just fine in gods book. They must acknowledge it to themselves and to god, but need not go any further than that. A non-believer must repent first to themselves and then to other people to be forgiven, which is much harder, requires much more effort, and doesn't actually guarantee forgiveness. The catch 22 is a catch 22. If I'm to accept evidence for your god, people can't have anything to do with it.

only have to repent to be forgiven... do you know what that means? 

Vastet wrote:

 Hockey it is then! XD

sounds good

Vastet wrote:

 True enough, though as I'm not god I don't see them all the same way, and have a need to distinguish one from another. Hence my separation of them.

understood

Vastet wrote:

Ah but not getting expelled would be a significant change for god to make, and you say he doesn't work that way. If he can make that big of a change, why can't he do something more objective? Good or bad really doesn't matter in the long run. If your god exists, then by definition he trumps my ethics. I might consider him a dick, but he made everything so he decides what is good or bad, and that makes me the dick. The people who ran the school were muslim, so it stands to reason that if a god interfered, it was the muslim god. Also, within a year or two of the incident, a new school opened up near me and I started going there, and it was a much better school. All said and done, if I could go back and change things, I would have been happy to be expelled. I was scared at the time because I was an ignorant kid who didn't know the consequences. Today I know that I just would have ended up in a different school, and my parents would have saved some money. Considering some of the shit that happened at that place, it would have done me a world of good to be put back in the public system. But nothing happened.

I don't believe I said He doesn't work that way... at least in this context... I did say that He doesn't work that way in the context that He would just do a significant thing just to prove His existence to you.... and it's not that He can't, but He won't.  Your ethics idea is spot on.  He is the one that determiens good and bad.  If this God is the almighty, the God doesn't have to be any particular God to interfere in any situation be it that this God would overrule all other gods.  Though technically speaking the Jewish, Christian and Muslim God are all the same God, just different followings and understandings of that God. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:The whole Old

caposkia wrote:
The whole Old Testament was written betfor the birth of Jesus Christ.   Consider that it is generally understood that the Gospels were written somewhere between 50 and 250 or so years after the birth of Jesus, the OT stories, specifically the pentateuch were written much earlier.  Many books, including the Gospel books are konwn to have used other older sources as well to compile the writings from.  According to Zondervan Study; "many scholars have claimed to find the Pentateuch four underlying sources.  The presumed documents, allegedly dating from the tenth to the fifth centures B.C..."

Lol I was basically right via rounding. But fine, I know how desperately you need a victory. Any victory. I'll rephrase my statement:

The bible isn't even 3000 years old. It is not proof of a god. It is proof that people can make up a bunch of things and get other people to believe those things.

caposkia wrote:
To add to that, though documented much later into a book form, the book of Job is said to possibly be the oldest book in the Bible..  There is literary evidence dating the story 2000 years B.C.  Though no one really knows its origin.

I literally just looked it up and apparently scholars agree it most likely originated between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE.
Kugler & Hartin 2008, p. 193.
+ Encyclopedia Britanica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/304284/The-Book-of-Job

2000 years my ass.

caposkia wrote:
The biggest issue with 'dating' the books is that we don't have any of the "original" texts in our hands.  only copies. 

So you can't even say they are accurate! They could be completely different from the originals and you'd never know. There might not even be originals.

caposkia wrote:
how about just the ability to write and compile a book.  It's logical that a book would not have been compiled so far back. 

The Illiad predates EVERYTHING in christianity. The original jewish holy book predates even that. Your logic is mush. Obviously humans were writing books for hundreds of years, if not even longer, before anyone decided to make your god up.

caposkia wrote:
you must consider several points here:

first, God spoke to the people during that time in relevant terms for people during that time, so it was not necessary to write it all down at once... Much of the Bible is written for all time, but it was specifically spoken for the people fo the time in question.  God let humanity paint the picture of Bible progression.  IF you read through you see it is quite necessary to show the progression, the rise and fall of humanity and how God reacted to it.  IT's not a dictation, but an experience of what has happened and what the result was.

Cop out. That can be achieved merely by reading the books in the right order. You have nothing to justify the idea that it was written at different times based on different needs, merely your opinion.

caposkia wrote:
Second, you must take into consdieration who the authors were. YOu ask why all the books were written ONLY by people already familiar with Chrstiianity.  well, probably the same reason why court documents were written by people who were there.  but not all were dedicated to the faith really.. Take Moses... yes born a Jew, but sent down river in a basket before he was able to experience that lifestyle and raised by the Pharaoh who was enslaving the Jews.  MOses knew his family history, but was not raised a Jew.  He was also a murderer... but He ended up being a big part of the Exodus.  Some claim He wrote some of those books... there is debate.

Failure to cite a single confirmed author as a non-christian, and another ridiculous analogy that doesn't even address the issue. Your god is everywhere, therefore its teachings should be everywhere. Even if a dozen societies rejected your god, individuals would have embraced and written about it. But they didn't, and only people who already believed the mythology wrote books to support it. Which is circular logic at its finest.

caposkia wrote:
What empirical evidence did i ask of you that no living creature has experienced?  I honestly don't remember.

You asked me the exact opposite of what I asked you.

caposkia wrote:
either experiences it or witnesses it.  It is said that God is was and will be always the same... Sounds to me as if He might be frozen in time.... or outside of time.

Witnessing is an action, which requires time. Sounds to me like god is as stuck in time as everything else. Time > god.

caposkia wrote:
ok, consider that the planet that would have the exact same mass, spin, and velocity to be comparable to EArth time would also have to be moving through space at the same rate,

That's covered already. See velocity.

caposkia wrote:
which means it would have to be in a similarly sized Galaxy in the exact distance from the center of the Galaxy and that Galaxy would have to have the exact rotation speed and movement as ours...

Ridiculous. There's no reason that a host galaxy MUST be identical. That's sheer make believe bullshit. Velocity is velocity is velocity.
Not that it matters. How do you know the Milky Way doesn't have a twin?

caposkia wrote:
That then leaves the question of what allows time to progress rather than regress.

The fact that things don't go backwards. Stop thinking of time as an entity or a road. It isn't.

caposkia wrote:
unless all movement is an event moving time forward, which then would make time reversal impossible.

Bingo.

caposkia wrote:
Though then too things would nto be frozen and there would likely be no such thing as the absense of time.

Bingo.

caposkia wrote:
thus even if I was in a state of time where it was virtually non-existent, I could still make a movement which then would reinstate time for the duration of the movement. 

Say what? Uhm... ok?

caposkia wrote:
Basically it all comes down to God and time..  The Bible makes a reference somewhere... more metaphorical, nto literal, but the idea is literal be it that our time is like seconds to God..  It says; "with the Lord, a day is like 1000 years...."  2Peter 3:8

Lol so the bible and I DO agree on something. Time > god.

caposkia wrote:
I believe we're in agreement about time.

Uhm... ok...

caposkia wrote:
really, cause I have no doubt in my mind that God exists.

So much for an open mind.

caposkia wrote:
I understand that perspective... but here's the other part of it.  YOu do see an empty chair... but you have a large percentage of the club you're in telling you she's there.

NO. What I have is a BUNCH of different people pointing at a BUNCH of different empty chairs. All of them are saying their particular chair has a hot girl sitting in it, and furthermore say the people pointing at other chairs are liars. There's also a small but significant percentage of people standing at the bar who are bewildered by all the claims, and see exactly the same thing I do: empty chairs.
Logic kicks in, the fallacy of popularity automatically renders all percentages of the clubs population null and void, reducing the question to one person for each chair and one person at the bar. Occams razor then deletes the chairs and the people pointing at them, leaving me with one hot girl at the bar who agrees the place is empty. WIN

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I have a

caposkia wrote:
I have a better understanding of the whole concept than most people.  You don't need to explain anything, what you did need to explain is your perception on the idea... and you did.   Let's look at it this way, the Bible makes it very clear that God can predict teh future with 100% accuracy, however, that in no way determines the future, only what God has predicted will come to be.

Wow. Just wow. Clearly there's no point continuing this part of the discussion. Your blinders are firmly in place.

Skipping forward now...

caposkia wrote:
I haven't seen that aspect in you yet... my perceptions are based strictly on conversations we have.  You have anger, denial and apprehension toward the subject, sprinkled with bits of reasoning... Due ot your previous post about your past, I understand your anger and apprehension.

I don't have any anger on this issue. The only thing about religion that makes me angry is attempts to force, through law, people who disbelieve in a religion to practice and accept it as if it were true.
I don't have any apprehension either. Else I'd not so eagerly approach every theist who comes here. My post count alone shows a lack of apprehension.
Any denial is based on reason and logic, and therefore justified.

caposkia wrote:
here you go with the dishonesty thing again... This is where you're running away again.

It amazes me to be told that I'm running away moments after delivering a brutal uppercut that knocked my opponent on his ass for a ten count.

caposkia wrote:
You can try to piont out where I failed ot address a point and you can reference any point you want... every time you claim I falied to point something out, I attempted to address it... . again.

And failed... again.

caposkia wrote:
I have nto intentinoally ignored any points you've made or have been made on this thread. 

Have you been drinking? Or maybe you're on a phone? Or maybe you're excited? Your spelling has gone to shit. I don't care, don't get me wrong, but it's odd.
Anyway, I never said you ignored anything or didn't respond to anything. When I say 'failed to address a point', the terminology I use explicitly acknowledges that you TRIED to address a point, and that your attempt was unsuccessful.

caposkia wrote:
I ahve told you directly to point them out if I missed them or misunderstood so that we can readdress them... yet above you call me a liar and claim that you constantly point out places where I failed to address and you refuted.  YOu claim I cannot do the opposite, but who are you trying to fool here?  I now must call you a liar.

I don't have to fool anyone. This topic and others prove what I say is true. I'll tell you the most glaring example was when I pointed out the equation for the probability for life that you posted requires life to exist in order for life to form, and you had no answer. I believe you suggested that must mean there is no probability for life, continuing to support an equation that had just been completely discredited.

There is a liar here, but it's not me.

caposkia wrote:

then I must admit something here.. you might have a stronger faith than I, because I'm not sure that I would have accepted a voice in a dream as God when I was not a beleiver.  Then again, you're probably thinking this would be quite a lucid dream right?

If it wasn't a lucid dream before the voice, it certainly would be after. I have never experienced a disembodied voice in my dreams. There's actually a slight chance it would wake me up completely, because it is so far outside the realm of my experience my mind might decide I have to be conscious for this event.

caposkia wrote:

only have to repent to be forgiven... do you know what that means?

Yeah. You have to be sorry. For real. You have to confess to god and ask for forgiveness, often through a priest, though I know not all denominations of christianity use the confessional. And you have to try to change your evil ways. Though since you're inherently evil it is inevitable that you'll still sin, and the cycle continues until you die.

It's a lot easier than repenting to your victim(s) and the public at large, where all the same requirements exist plus you have to deal with being exposed.

caposkia wrote:
I don't believe I said He doesn't work that way... at least in this context... I did say that He doesn't work that way in the context that He would just do a significant thing just to prove His existence to you.... and it's not that He can't, but He won't.

Then I'll never be able to believe in him. If he was responsible for my not being expelled, he didn't do me any favours. And the fact I wasn't expelled has a very rational explanation already: expelling a child and sacrificing the tuition that childs parents are willing to pay over a set of keys that costs a few cents to replace is not a smart business decision.

caposkia wrote:
Your ethics idea is spot on.  He is the one that determiens good and bad.  If this God is the almighty, the God doesn't have to be any particular God to interfere in any situation be it that this God would overrule all other gods.  Though technically speaking the Jewish, Christian and Muslim God are all the same God, just different followings and understandings of that God. 

So then you have no argument against the faith of a muslim or jew?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Lol I was

Vastet wrote:

Lol I was basically right via rounding. But fine, I know how desperately you need a victory. Any victory. I'll rephrase my statement:

The bible isn't even 3000 years old. It is not proof of a god. It is proof that people can make up a bunch of things and get other people to believe those things.


No the Bible is not.. many of its books are... many of the stories are considered a bit older. The Bible is not proof of God it is details as to who God is. The proof is in the history and how it's stood not only the test of time, but also the test of thousands of years of skeptics... just like you.
Vastet wrote:

I literally just looked it up and apparently scholars agree it most likely originated between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE.
Kugler & Hartin 2008, p. 193.
+ Encyclopedia Britanica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/304284/The-Book-of-Job

2000 years my ass.


yea, read that again... it wasn't talking about the origin of the story, but rather the writing itself.
Vastet wrote:

So you can't even say they are accurate! They could be completely different from the originals and you'd never know. There might not even be originals.


haven't heard that before... Considering the evidence of literally thousands of 'copies' through many thousands of years that we do have in our posession from many different translaters and sources... most of those copies are said to be identical... there is no reason to consider the originals were drastically different.
Vastet wrote:

The Illiad predates EVERYTHING in christianity. The original jewish holy book predates even that. Your logic is mush. Obviously humans were writing books for hundreds of years, if not even longer, before anyone decided to make your god up.


Christianity is based on Jewish writings.... Jesus was a Jew.
Vastet wrote:

Cop out. That can be achieved merely by reading the books in the right order. You have nothing to justify the idea that it was written at different times based on different needs, merely your opinion.

right, history is always a cop-out.... did you ever consider the reason why the books were compiled in the order they are in?
Vastet wrote:

Failure to cite a single confirmed author as a non-christian, and another ridiculous analogy that doesn't even address the issue. Your god is everywhere, therefore its teachings should be everywhere. Even if a dozen societies rejected your god, individuals would have embraced and written about it. But they didn't, and only people who already believed the mythology wrote books to support it. Which is circular logic at its finest.

you're reaching hard aren't you.. just to grasp anything to hold on to. Why do you fight it so much? Trying to make everything I say look irrelevant doesn't bode well for your credibility. e.g. Failure to cite a single confirmed author as non-Chirsitan... alright, fine... any author of any Old Testiment book that has been confirmed as an author according to your sources. None could claim to be Christian because they were all written before Jesus' time. Funny you don't find Moses a cited source.
Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
What empirical evidence did i ask of you that no living creature has experienced?  I honestly don't remember.

You asked me the exact opposite of what I asked you.


...and that was?
Vastet wrote:

Witnessing is an action, which requires time. Sounds to me like god is as stuck in time as everything else. Time > god.


or is it that you can see all time from a point outside of time? There is a thought that if time is circular, the being in the center can observe time at any point. Maybe they need to step out to literally watch something in time, but then they can step back in and go to a different point.
not really relevant to our ultimate goal in this conversation, but interesting none-the-less.
Vastet wrote:

That's covered already. See velocity.

was not covered already.. Velocity was not specified as universal movement of the object... the odds of finding that are quite small.
Vastet wrote:

Ridiculous. There's no reason that a host galaxy MUST be identical. That's sheer make believe bullshit. Velocity is velocity is velocity.
Not that it matters. How do you know the Milky Way doesn't have a twin?


I never said it couldn't, but you just argued that it would be bullshit anyway, so why even ask? Velocity is velocity is velocity, but there are different things happening that involve velocity, so velocity is rotation, velocity is orbit, velocity is vortex motion and velocity is galaxy movement through space.
Vastet wrote:

The fact that things don't go backwards. Stop thinking of time as an entity or a road. It isn't.


What is it then? Time is something we move through as proven by atomic clocks. Whether it's an entity or a road is up for debate, I dont think that time has a thought process or makes choices, but I do think it is something that is moved through by other objects. It might be a force like gravity, but we still move through it.
Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
really, cause I have no doubt in my mind that God exists.

So much for an open mind.


so... belief in God's existence = closed mind... disbelief = open mind?? explain your logic here.

Vastet wrote:

NO. What I have is a BUNCH of different people pointing at a BUNCH of different empty chairs. All of them are saying their particular chair has a hot girl sitting in it, and furthermore say the people pointing at other chairs are liars. There's also a small but significant percentage of people standing at the bar who are bewildered by all the claims, and see exactly the same thing I do: empty chairs.


no, that would be different bars... we're sticking to one bar right now.
Vastet wrote:

Logic kicks in, the fallacy of popularity automatically renders all percentages of the clubs population null and void, reducing the question to one person for each chair and one person at the bar. Occams razor then deletes the chairs and the people pointing at them, leaving me with one hot girl at the bar who agrees the place is empty. WIN

Here's the problem with that logic... if you have a bunch of different people pointing to empty chairs and saying there's a hot girl in all these random chairs... logic would indicate that though they're obviously missing something, so are you be it that all of them are convinved that despite all the empty chairs at least one of them is occupied.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I don't have

Vastet wrote:
I don't have any anger on this issue. The only thing about religion that makes me angry is attempts to force, through law, people who disbelieve in a religion to practice and accept it as if it were true.
I don't have any apprehension either. Else I'd not so eagerly approach every theist who comes here. My post count alone shows a lack of apprehension.
Any denial is based on reason and logic, and therefore justified.

I would hope it is, but you haven't not shown a consistent attempt at reason or logic for your opposition and therefore makes me conclude as i did.
True Christians would never expect anyone who does not believe in our God to practice and accept it... We are commissioned to inform the world of the message of Jesus, but we are supposed to walk away when people don't want to hear it according to scripture.
Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
here you go with the dishonesty thing again... This is where you're running away again.

It amazes me to be told that I'm running away moments after delivering a brutal uppercut that knocked my opponent on his ass for a ten count.


it's not that way at all.. when you have nothing to say you call me dishonest... i have repeatedly told you that I am being very honest and i believe I've even challenged you to ask others I've conversed with extensively on this site. Though the others also oppose my understanding, i think they would conifrm my honesty. Despite all that, you still resort to calling me dishonest when you can't come up with a logical response... how is that a "brutal uppercut that knocked out your opponent"?
Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
You can try to piont out where I failed ot address a point and you can reference any point you want... every time you claim I falied to point something out, I attempted to address it... . again.

And failed... again.


So then logic would show that we're not on the same page and maybe rewording your response would help me understand what I'm missing.
Vastet wrote:

Have you been drinking? Or maybe you're on a phone? Or maybe you're excited? Your spelling has gone to shit. I don't care, don't get me wrong, but it's odd.
Anyway, I never said you ignored anything or didn't respond to anything. When I say 'failed to address a point', the terminology I use explicitly acknowledges that you TRIED to address a point, and that your attempt was unsuccessful.

it was getting late for me, I was rushing... I apologize..
I see, 'failed to address a point' has commonly meant that i ignored it somehow.. thank you for clarifying. In that case, maybe we need to revisit to address it better. I find too though, failure to address by your standards isn't necessarily failure is it.
Vastet wrote:

I don't have to fool anyone. This topic and others prove what I say is true. I'll tell you the most glaring example was when I pointed out the equation for the probability for life that you posted requires life to exist in order for life to form, and you had no answer. I believe you suggested that must mean there is no probability for life, continuing to support an equation that had just been completely discredited.

There is a liar here, but it's not me.


Shall I answer then if I failed to answer that? If what you say is true for that probability to be true, then the odds of life occuring without life already existing is even less likely. All things considered, it would be virtually impossible for life to occur. yet it happened.
Vastet wrote:

If it wasn't a lucid dream before the voice, it certainly would be after. I have never experienced a disembodied voice in my dreams. There's actually a slight chance it would wake me up completely, because it is so far outside the realm of my experience my mind might decide I have to be conscious for this event.

interesting.
Vastet wrote:

Yeah. You have to be sorry. For real. You have to confess to god and ask for forgiveness, often through a priest, though I know not all denominations of christianity use the confessional. And you have to try to change your evil ways. Though since you're inherently evil it is inevitable that you'll still sin, and the cycle continues until you die.

It's a lot easier than repenting to your victim(s) and the public at large, where all the same requirements exist plus you have to deal with being exposed.


The Bible says you must confess your sins to God and turn away from them. In other words, even if you do them again, you don't want to be doing it, you are truly sorry for it and want to stop. You don't need a priest, that is a catholic thing... though confession to one another is consdered an aid in the process which is probably why the Catholics have adopted such a practice.
...and sin is a cycle just as much as drinking is for a recovering alcoholic... some people never drink again, some do struggle until the day they die.
Vastet wrote:

Then I'll never be able to believe in him. If he was responsible for my not being expelled, he didn't do me any favours. And the fact I wasn't expelled has a very rational explanation already: expelling a child and sacrificing the tuition that childs parents are willing to pay over a set of keys that costs a few cents to replace is not a smart business decision.


yet I hear stories of schools doing it all the time. It's all about perspective. I'm not sure how you would know how not being expelled would have "done you any favors" or changed your life. What would your life be like if you were expelled? how would it be different? YOu might think significantly or not at all, but it's all just a guess.
Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Your ethics idea is spot on.  He is the one that determiens good and bad.  If this God is the almighty, the God doesn't have to be any particular God to interfere in any situation be it that this God would overrule all other gods.  Though technically speaking the Jewish, Christian and Muslim God are all the same God, just different followings and understandings of that God. 

So then you have no argument against the faith of a muslim or jew?


I do, but it's not about God, it's about the message, context and understanding. I'll be the first to agree with them about who God is.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:No the Bible

caposkia wrote:
No the Bible is not.. many of its books are... many of the stories are considered a bit older. The Bible is not proof of God it is details as to who God is. The proof is in the history and how it's stood not only the test of time, but also the test of thousands of years of skeptics... just like you.

The bible is so historically inaccurate that it spawned a thousand denominations of a single faith, as well as the rise of atheism. It has been destroyed by critics with increasing frequency over the last 1500 odd years. It is proof your religion is a lie, nothing more.

caposkia wrote:
yea, read that again... it wasn't talking about the origin of the story, but rather the writing itself.

Yeah so was I. So a 5 second google search made me more knowledgeable about your religion than you. lol.

caposkia wrote:

haven't heard that before... Considering the evidence of literally thousands of 'copies' through many thousands of years that we do have in our posession from many different translaters and sources... most of those copies are said to be identical... there is no reason to consider the originals were drastically different.

You're lying. You don't have 'literally thousands' of ANY copy of a work, and even if you did it wouldn't prove anything other than the copies being descended from the first copy, which I've already demonstrated may actually be a forgery that was quite different from the actual original.

caposkia wrote:
Christianity is based on Jewish writings.... Jesus was a Jew.

So? Your religion and theirs are quite different.

caposkia wrote:
ight, history is always a cop-out.... did you ever consider the reason why the books were compiled in the order they are in?

Did you?

caposkia wrote:
you're reaching hard aren't you. just to grasp anything to hold on to. Why do you fight it so much?

You're projecting again.

caposkia wrote:
Trying to make everything I say look irrelevant doesn't bode well for your credibility

I have yet to have to try. You do it well enough on your own. I just point it out. When you deny it, it is your credibility that suffers. You don't actually have any left. You've been proved a liar by multiple posters.

caposkia wrote:
alright, fine... any author of any Old Testiment book that has been confirmed as an author according to your sources. None could claim to be Christian because they were all written before Jesus' time. Funny you don't find Moses a cited source.

Where's your proof there was a moses?

caposkia wrote:
...and that was?

Go back and read it. I'm not doing your work for you.

caposkia wrote:
or is it that you can see all time from a point outside of time? There is a thought that if time is circular, the being in the center can observe time at any point. Maybe they need to step out to literally watch something in time, but then they can step back in and go to a different point.
not really relevant to our ultimate goal in this conversation, but interesting none-the-less.

How can you see anything if there's no time? Even in your bullshit crntre there must still be time in order to observe anything. You're so ignorant on this subject I start giggling every time you post, to see what hoops you'll jump through this time in order to avoid the truth.

caposkia wrote:
was covered already..

Fixed.

caposkia wrote:
Velocity was not specified as universal movement of the object... the odds of finding that are quite small.

Velocity is velocity is velocity. LOLOLOLOLOL

caposkia wrote:
I never said it couldn't,

Yes you did. Maybe we need a compulsive liar badge for people like you who make shit up every post and pretend they weren't busted when they get busted.

caposkia wrote:
Velocity is velocity is velocity, but there are different things happening that involve velocity, so velocity is rotation, velocity is orbit, velocity is vortex motion and velocity is galaxy movement through space.

Irrelevant. Velocity is velocity is velocity. The Earth doesn't get its gravity from the path Sol takes through the milky way you absolute moron. Mass and spin, that's fucking IT. And guess what? A different mass and spin could result in the exact same gravitational force! Everything you say is merely demonstrating how ignorant you are on some of the simplest concepts in science. It's embarrassing to think you're a member of my species.

caposkia wrote:
What is it then?

For the tenth time, it is a measurement.

caposkia wrote:
Time is something we move through as proven by atomic clocks. Whether it's an entity or a road is up for debate, I dont think that time has a thought process or makes choices, but I do think it is something that is moved through by other objects. It might be a force like gravity, but we still move through it.

Have you ever seen a negative mile or kilometre? No? How shocking.

*snort*

You are too ignorant to continue this discussion.

caposkia wrote:
so... belief in God's existence = closed mind... disbelief = open mind?? explain your logic here.

No, actually you said you have no doubt god exists, which means your mind is closed to the possibility he doesn't. It's very simple English. Did you skip your English classes in primary school?

caposkia wrote:
no, that would be different bars... we're sticking to one bar right now.

No that's just in ONE bar. You're right that there are others, but I didn't bring them up. I'm letting you be the one making absurd analogies.

caposkia wrote:
Here's the problem with that logic

The problem with your logic is that there is no problem with my logic.

caposkia wrote:
if you have a bunch of different people pointing to empty chairs and saying there's a hot girl in all these random chairs... logic would indicate that though they're obviously missing something, so are you be it that all of them are convinved that despite all the empty chairs at least one of them is occupied.

Says you and everyone else in the bar. Funny how I can sit in every single chair, but noone shouts in protest that I'm sitting on her lap without her permission. Also funny how every chair actually feels empty when I sit in it. Sorry, but a girl I can't see or touch is not the kind of girl I'm going to ask on a date.

caposkia wrote:
I would hope it is, but you haven't not shown a consistent attempt at reason or logic for your opposition and therefore makes me conclude as i did.

As your credibility is currently 0, your opinion (and blatant lies) matters not at all to myself.

caposkia wrote:
True Christians would never expect anyone who does not believe in our God to practice and accept it.

No true scotsman fallacy, welcome! Have a seat with all the other flaws in logic that Cap invited. I'll get the BBQ running in a few minutes.

caposkia wrote:
it's not that way at all.

Actually it is that way.

caposkia wrote:
when you have nothing to say you call me dishonest.

Nope. When you're dishonest I call you dishonest. When I have nothing to say, I say nothing.

caposkia wrote:
So then logic would show that we're not on the same page and maybe rewording your response would help me understand what I'm missing.

Actually, logic shows me you don't even have a measurable fraction of the knowledge you would need to have these conversations. In every realm of science that you've taken part in, you've demonstrated a disgusting amount of ignorance. From geology to meteorology to evolution to abiogenesis to astronomy to gravity to spacetime and even the basic laws of physics, you know absolutely NOTHING.

caposkia wrote:
Shall I answer then if I failed to answer that? If what you say is true for that probability to be true, then the odds of life occuring without life already existing is even less likely. All things considered, it would be virtually impossible for life to occur. yet it happened.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL NO. What it DOES is prove the entire equation is BULLSHIT. Anyone who makes an equation for the probability of life forming dependant on pre existing life is a fucking moron who doesn't know shit about math or science. Anyone who defends such an equation must also be a fucking moron who doesn't know shit about math or science.

caposkia wrote:
The Bible says you must confess your sins to God and turn away from them. In other words, even if you do them again, you don't want to be doing it, you are truly sorry for it and want to stop. You don't need a priest, that is a catholic thing... though confession to one another is consdered an aid in the process which is probably why the Catholics have adopted such a practice.
...and sin is a cycle just as much as drinking is for a recovering alcoholic... some people never drink again, some do struggle until the day they die.

That's pretty much what I said, or at least what I meant. Still easier than doing all that AND being publically exposed.

caposkia wrote:
yet I hear stories of schools doing it all the time.

Sources? I'd believe public schools would do it, but public schools don't get paid by parents, they get paid by the taxpayer, ie the government. Expelling one kid isn't going to impact a public schools funding. A private school that has less than 50 students between grade 1 and 12 is a significantly different story. They NEED every student they can get. Expelling a kid over keys is not conductive to that end. Hell, one of the places the school rented was right beside a car refurbishment business. I remember three of the students were busted stealing and vandalising cars and parts, and none of them were expelled. They caused hundreds of dollars in damages and yet all three of them stayed at the school for years.

caposkia wrote:
I'm not sure how you would know how not being expelled would have "done you any favors" or changed your life. What would your life be like if you were expelled? how would it be different? YOu might think significantly or not at all, but it's all just a guess.

I already told you a bit of how it would be different. That you ignored it tells me not to waste more time expanding. You'll just ignore that too.

caposkia wrote:
I do, but it's not about God, it's about the message, context and understanding. I'll be the first to agree with them about who God is.

No. You'll agree that there is a creator who has incoherent powers, but the message of that god is what defines that god. And as you don't believe in the same message, you don't have the same god.
Btw, what will you do if you die and meet god, and he tells you the jews or muslims were right all along? That christianity is a lie?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

What sort of lab manipulations? Nothing was said of manipulations, was it? To my knowledge, they simply allow animals to reproduce (or in other examples I've read of, bacteria) and examine the results. Nothing more. Even if there was some sort of artificial population separation, what is it that tells you that observations made in the lab wouldn't necessarily equate to what happens in nature?
nothing equates nature like nature.  To modify that by any means is to suggest certain conditions needed to be met and may not have happened in nature even if the conditions are possible
Well first, of all, we observe animals migrating to new habitats, and animals' habitats changing (in nature) all the time. This causes selection pressures to change, so just because we're causing the changes ourselves in the lab doesn't corrupt anything whatsoever. However, that doesn't matter anyway, because we can observe speciation occuring in nature too. I also thought you had no problem with speciation anyway, unless I'm remembering things wrong. I once again ask the same question: Do you believe that speciation occurs? Of course this provides that such speciation causes two animals who have a known common ancestor to have diverged genetically to the point of no longer being reproductively compatible. Do you agree that this happens?
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Why wouldn't I have used that example? Is it because it's a result of artificial selection (AKA human breeding)? Is that why you think I shouldn't have used that example?
yea, there was a lot of human influence in dog breeds.  
So what? Same answer as above. Humans manipulating selection vs. selection occuring on its own isn't a problem, as I outlined above. You've sort of conflated these two above points. This string of conversation was to demonstrate that the difference between breeds of the domestic dog (Canis Familiaris; all the same species) are vast in terms of bone proportion and shape. While a chihuahua and a great dane would have trouble mating, they are reproductively compatible if you were to artifically inseminate them. The point is, they are of the same species, but carry so many differences. This part of the discussion was to show that these bone sizes can and do vary over time depending on selection pressures. You had a problem with the evolution of the bipedal pelvis. Considering that even young earth creationists agree that all dogs had a common ancestor, why is it so hard for you to concede that such a change in the proportions of the primate pelvis occured? 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
  I provided you examples in that above post. Did you read them? Furthermore, do you have any idea how much research I do for posts when it calls for it? I mean, I have no problem doing it, because I enjoy learning. Do you do any research while you make these posts? I provided examples of primates that are alive today that have some walking ability, but not as good as ours. I mentioned a specific example in the differences between the pelves of Au. Afarensis, and Au. Africanus, showing a progression. I mentioned that the only thing that differs in the pelves of all primates is the proportion. There is no extra bone, nothing of the sort. There is no feature in any of them so distinct that it couldn't have evolved from a common ancestor.   Now, it's late, so I'm going to try to speed through this response a bit. I do not have a complete list of fossil specimens showing a gradual evolution of the pelvis so gradual that you would accept it. The reason isn't because there isn't one. I'm actually not sure how much there is on this, but I'm almost positive that you would not accept it, because you are irrational.  I will look at a later date for myself though, as I find it fascinating. I will give you this though:
Quote:
McHenry (1994) summarizes the pelvic adaptations supporting bipedalism that are shared between A. afarensis and H. sapiens as follows:
  • Fossil specimens attributed to A. afarensis clearly indicate the presence of a lumbar lordosis, which, when combined with the thoracic kyphosis, facilitates habitual erect posture;
  • the sacral ala are expanded laterally, broadening the pelvis (creating a larger space to support the viscera);
  • the iliac blades are mediolaterally expanded (also creating more room to support the viscera), superioinferiorly shortened (making room for the lumbar lordosis), and anteriorly rotated. The rotation placed the origin of the anterior gluteals such that they became hip abductors, where they are critical to mediolateral pelvic stabilization during striding (Lovejoy, 2005). This rotation also moved the origin of the gluteus maximus muscles to positions from which they can control trunk extension sagittally at the time of heel strike;
  • the appearance of robust anterior iliac spines to support some hip and knee flexors;
  • and the appearance of a distinct iliopsoas groove, which carries another hip flexor used during bipedal gait.
(source http://www.wannabe-anthropologist.com/wba_writing_pelvis.php)Au. Afarensis (which you said was not human) sharing traits with us that are important to bipedalism. Does this not contain useful clues as to the origin of bipedalism?
it does.  I see a drastic difference in the link between example a compared to all B, C, and D.  What you describe above sounds like a good progression.  It makes sense that it's how it could have evolved.. do we have fossils of that exact evolution?
Once again. "Of that exact evolution". What biologists say when they are missing some "links", they say "we have A, and we have Z. We expect to find something that looks like B through Y. I think most likely we should expect to find something in the J to M range". Then they find "N" and you say "A HA! THEY'RE WRONG!" That is ludicrous and evasive. You demand that biologists predict with 100% accuracy the fossils that they find, and that they find every single generation of primate that lead to us, and until then, the theory of evolution by natural selection is not true. You demand a level of proof that while it is theoretically providable, it is not realistically due to how much of the earth we would have to dig through, the time involved, the events that prevent fossilization from occuring, and many other reasons. But the fact that we know so much now that it's extraordinarily rare that a find is uncovered that makes biologists say "Wait...this doesn't fit in with ANYTHING!" is a testament to how accurate their predictions are. When fossils are found, it's typically a bone or a small number of bones per specimen. If fossils were most frequently entire skeletons, and occured in almost every case, then sure we should find that gradual pelvic change. However, they're not, and it doesn't. But what don't we find? Pelves exhibiting bipedal traits before a certain geological time period. We don't find heads designed for larger brains leading to us before a certain time period (and the changes in the pelvis to accomodate that!). The more we find, the more sense any subsequent find makes.  Like every single person who decries the most important foundational concept of biology (the theory of evolution by natural selection), you show every single time you type a single thing on the topic that you know very little on the subject. When evidence is provided to you, you attempt to say that it's not confirmed because we don't have all of the fossils. This is really your only argument, and it's an awful one. We don't need it. Darwin figured it out just observing living creatures in unique places (like the galapagos islands, where isolation can and does occur quickly, leading to a sudden change in selection pressures which speeds up changes in genes, and therefore appearance). It was years and years after Darwin until we began finding fossils that painted exactly the picture that Darwin proposed. Then many more years before the advent of the field of genetics. And guess what? Everything in that field fits together into this unifying theory of biology as well. This wasn't some deliberate attempt to do so because they liked how Darwin's theory would mean that the bible is false (which is what whackjob creationists like to claim). This is simply the conclusion reached by independant observation in all of these different subsets of biology. Why does it all fit together so well? Why does the evidence point to something? Of course, there are dissenting voices even in the scientific community. Answers in Genesis lists a whopping 194 scientists (45 of whom have "bio" somewhere next to their name on the site). Of course, there's also project Steve. Guys named Steve make up about 1% of scientists.  1344 Steves are part of project Steve, which is merely a list of scientists named Steve that accept evolution by natural selection and everything that goes with it (including universal common descent). Also, instead of only 23% of Steve's being in some way educated in biology, the wikipedia page states that 51% of them are biologists. The view that there are problems with the science is a fringe one, and until some ACTUAL problems with the theory are put forth, it should be viewed as true as all of the evidence we DO have points towards it. Find one fossil in the wrong place. Find one piece of DNA that just makes no sense. I challenge you. The entire legitimate scientific community challenges the whackjob creationists I'm sure. These sorts of theories are always "tentatively true" because they're falsifiable. There are things that were you to find them, would disprove them in an instant. Nobody has ever done this to the theory of evolution, and that is a testament to how correct it is. 
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Is it not? Ok. Then I insist that you explain to me how saying "like god" is anydifferent than saying "like magic" in any meaningful sense (where the phrases are used to explain something, as that was what this line of discussion was about) 
Ok.  God is not magic... our perception of God leads us to conclude magic but it is an irrational conclusion only because we can't comprehend God.  Magic is an excuse, not an explanation.  
That's complete gibberish and does nothing to differentiate "god" from "magic" in your post. I asked you (in the conversation leading to this) to explain why, if universal common descent isn't true, we all look like a family tree (both superficially, and by examining DNA). Your explanation was literally word for word "like God?". You didn't elaborate any further. You simply asserted what I asked you to prove. In two words no less. Also, as I said, if you replaced "god" with "magic" in your "explanation", it would be the exact same thing. A baseless assertion. I'm saying that those who study biology for a living (except for maybe approximately 45 morons) are probably correct about this. Also, their proposition is that this all occured by natural processes that we can examine right now as they happen! You, on the other hand, are proposing a process that has NEVER been observed, being performed by a being that nobody has been able to provide ANY evidence for (let alone conclusive evidence). 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
I asked you for a gap, not "something like it". I want you to take what scientists believe to be the progression of simpler primates (perhaps somewhat similar to modern chimpanzees or gorillas), and name me one gap between two of those that is problematic; in your opinion, and insurmountable gap. So I ask you a third time. Name the gap. 
well it's the progression gap in general with any species.  we seem to be able to explain how a creature could evolve from one species to another, but when it comes to tangeable examples, they seem to be missing... every time.  I'm not sure what you mean by "name the gap"  meaning name the species taht the gap exists between?  for humans, probably the transitional fossile from the bent to the upright.  I'm not an expert in this field, but I haven't seen that... it seems that we see a progression of some primates eventually sort of walking upright, but the hip transition to our design is not quite there yet... then poof, there's the widened hip which allows the upright walk... how did that just happen between those two species?  Are we assuming one random moment in history one was born with the modified hip and then they all eventually followed suit?
No we are not. We are assuming that it occured somewhat gradually (although the rate of change could vary within a reasonable range). I discussed fossilization above, and don't need to repeat myself. We won't ever find all of them that DO exist, and some (well, many I'm sure!) are simply lost forever and we never will. You keep on citing lack of evidence (and only fossil evidence, really). Yet you refuse to comment on how all of the evidence fits together, and there is 0....ZERO evidence to the contrary. You demand that we find every single fucking fossil, generation to generation before you accept this. On the other hand, when asked in other conversations with you repeatedly to point me to at least one (I don't care if it's 100, I'll read them!) reasons to believe that the bible is true (and therefore Christianity is), you haven't even given me one. You have an extraordinarily skewed idea of burden of proof, and as usual are engaging in the most extreme form of special pleading. The bible is true until every single verse is proven wrong. Universal common descent is false until we find every single fossil. It's absolutely absurd, and I can't believe that your own head hasn't exploded from the cognitive dissonance yet. You are basically OJ Simpson's defense lawyer here (not as unethical, I'm not accusing you of that, but just about as ridiculous), except at least O.J.'s lawyer had one piece of evidence that didn't fit with O.J. committing the crime (the glove not fitting). The theory of evolution by natural selection in its entirety has no such piece of contrary evidence. Why do you think that is if you also think that it isn't true?
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Is it? I've never checked this. Provide me with a good easy-to-read source for it if you can. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just honestly want to know. 
um.... lemme see what I can find online... I've only read this in books and learned it from experts.  {I'm friends with a few experts in that field}well, it may not be the easiest read, but Wiki  goes into it a bit, and there's a link on that page that talks about selective breeding... that should give you the jist of it.   
I didn't have a chance to read it, but I will later. On the other hand, it is no surprise that we see this smooth progression in dog breeds because they have a higher survival rate than wild animals most likely due to being domesticated. We don't have to look for fossils/examine DNA, or any of that. I'll repeat that I mentioned fossilization and how it doesn't always occur up there...
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
So you're saying that no matter how unlikely it seems, it must be plausible because god was involved? If that's the case, you have made your conclusion and actually have no interest in discussion. 
that's not what I'm saying, but God would have taken that concern into consideration.  It is very possible that more frequent evolutionary booms occured to quickly progress the Kinds.  It is seen in our observations today therefore it is possible in nature and considering God was involved is even more likely of a possibility.  Why wouldn't it be if God was involved?  HOnestly, though we've been trying to rationalize through strictly natural means all these occurances, why is it so far fetched if God actually exists?  
It's not. However, we don't see any evidence that a god has ever intervened in our world, nor any that he intervenes today. This lack of evidence suggests that either there is a god that never intervenes, or there is no such thing. It's not far fetched IF god actually exists, but your argument is circular if that's what it is. You're trying to prove the flood here, and you're essentially saying "As unlikely as these things seem, it becomes much more likely if god is real. Since it's much more likely now, then the flood happens, therefore the bible is true, therefore god exists". Find evidence for your god that doesn't require pre-supposing his existence and then you might be able to form an argument that's at least slightly compelling. What we've gotten instead is the most bizarre framework for creationism that is as flexible as a cirque du soleil performer. Most of the reason is that you refuse to actually outline your entire position, so that your position can be "whatever works in this particular post". You then say wacky shit like the flood occuring 2 million years ago (before humans, CERTAINLY before boats and complex language).  Just face it. There is 0 evidence for the flood. Whatever time you place the flood, it is either too early for humanity, or too late to allow enough time for evolution to populate the world from single male/female pairs (that would allow a reasonably small number so that they could fit on the boat). You demand the equivalent of video evidence of the flood NOT occurring (the flood with no evidence for it), but refuse to accept the mountains of evidence (literally and figuratively) for universal common descent. The level of denial, the special pleading, the circular arguments that you have presented are more frequent than I thought anyone would ever try. Either start providing evidence for the flood, or be honest with everyone (and yourself) and admit that there is NONE.
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
The scientific method isn't a "practice". It's a process. 
it is a process that is practiced just as coming to faith is a process... we can manipulate all the terminology we want, but when it comes down to it, the definition sticks.  Stop looking for excuses, are you really going to fight this?  It's not that difficult, really. 
Except it can be outlined and can be demonstrated to work. Coming to faith is a process that you can't outline, and if you can, it is flawed (trust with all your heart and he will show himself, for example, is absurd. If you emotionally invest yourself in the idea more than you do with anything else, of course you'll believe it, it's how our brains work). 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:

 

*sigh*. First, I didn't say throat, did I? No. Good. Don't pretend I did. 

you said one tube.. but anyway

It is one tube if a piece of food can obstruct your breathing is it not?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Second, you ignored everything I said, again! I proposed a better design that would completely separate the plumbing of these two functions to make choking not even a thing! YYou said "this works, because choking prevents the food from reaching the lungs". My solution would make this not even a remote possibility, unless you deliberately shoved food into your oxygen-hole (wherever god would have decided to put that). 

the flaw in your design is the olfactory sense.  Much of our ability to taste food is by smell... and we smell by inhaling air... if you move that, we likely would nto be able to taste very well.  

This suggests that god sucks at producing better tastebuds. Quit limiting your own gods omnipotence, he's starting to get self-conscious (because of course he exhibits petty human emotions being all-powerful up there...your book says it, not me....)

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You have decided for religious reasons that "the way it works" is "the way it should work". I agree that there are reasons that things work the way they do. However, it is clearly NOT due to design, unless you want to credit a shitty designer. If we had the ability to re-plumb humans, that is probably a place some would begin (those who don't begin at the genitals/garbage disposals). 

you should really sit down adn think about it.. change one thing and think of all aspects that its' going to affect.  I mean, i'd rather not pee through my toe... and I'd hate to find out how hard it is to pee after I stub my urethra.

 

So your answer to me was to come up with a bad solution. Birds have one function. Why not put ALL waste disposal back there, and all the fun stuff into designated fun parts? Nope. Let's run type 1 waste through the male sex organ. Then let's tell them being gay is wrong, but make their prostate accesible for stimulation anally (and let's make it more dangerous as more tearing/bleeding happens back there increasing the transfer of some of the most dangerous STIs). Now let's route the type 2 waste back there too. Perfect. Now women? Yeah, perfect design there. Don't get me wrong, it's great, but that is not intelligently designed. We are compelled by our (evolved) urges to enjoy it a lot, but to say that it was deliberately designed exactly that way is to, once again, be in a great level of denial. 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

That is absolutely fascinating stuff! I would love to learn more for sure. 

When it comes to comparing to a god though, omniscience is a word that theists like to redefine as "knowing all that can be known". The question is, for a god, is knowledge of this randomness beyond his ability, or not? If it is, the word omniscience comes into disrepute as some try to change its definition. 

I love this stuff too.  I think the question is knowing and determining.  Omniscience is not redefined by stating the quote above.  Omniscience is infinite knowledge... to suggest that it is restricted to knowing all that can be known is not limiting it to be anything less than still infinite knowledge... If it cannot be known than it is not known.  Bob spence explained it better using Quantum science, but infinite knowledge does suggest no limit to that knowledge but knowledge is still limited to what can be known universally.  

Yes, yes it is redefined by stating the quote above. The strongest man in the world does not have infinite strength (and the idea of the strongest man itself is absurd as there is no concrete criteria for "Strongest" anyway. One might have a stronger upper body, another a stronger core, etc.). Now let's take something that can absolutely not be lifted due to the concept being a logical fallacy. Lifting something is something that can only really be done on some sort of planet (or moon) that has gravity. By lifting it, you are acting against the gravitational force of what is pulling you "down". There is no up and down in space, so the concept lifting the Earth would be impossible. That is true. The Earth is unliftable because the mere phrase "lifting the earth" is absurd.

A human lifting a skyscraper is also an absurd proposition because we don't believe that a human could ever be anywhere near strong enough. However, if some human had infinite strength, then lifting a skyscraper would not be a problem. 

It's tough for me to say whether the idea of predicting the effects of quantum mechanics is more like lifting a planet (a logically absurd statement) or more like a human lifting a skyscraper (unreasonable, but the limits are obvious: strength and balance). I think that the effects outlined in quantum mechanics that currently seem random can fall into one of several categories:

1. They are truly random in every single definition of the word random. This is a very bizarre attribute of our universe indeed, considering how many things (nearly everything else) we have found to be predictable.

2. They are not truly random and there is a pattern to how they work, but it is something that will forever be beyond the human ability to predict because it is undetectable to our senses, and any instruments we can possibly build

3. They are not truly random and there is a pattern to how they work, but we simply have yet to devise a way to predict them accurately.

I have yet to be convinced that it is #1 (if anyone has a compelling reason to proclaim that it is, please inform me. I know very little about these things. If it's #1, then this god that knows all that can be known (everything minus the effects of quantum particles, and the future) could possibly work. I still believe that it is castrating god's ability, especially since the bible is full of prophecies. Hell, the story about Peter (is it Peter? I'm rusty on this stuff) denies Jesus 3 times before a crow makes a sound is pretttty damn specific. Knowing such a thing would require a lot of knowledge that you are asserting god doesn't have. 

If it's #2 or #3, then god would have to know these things, as they would be knowable, which is a big problem for an "all loving" god. 

caposkia wrote:

So for example, if there ever was something taht was knowable taht God didn't know, then He would not be omniscient, but if all knowable things are known to God, then God is omniscient by definition... the infinite aspect comes in when new things come possible to be known which then God would also know at that time... if that is even possible, which it likely is not, but then again, i wouldn't know.  that infinite knowledge would also imply that God knows all lines of future possibilities... to suggest that God knows the exact line of future events is reasonable if that is knowable based on present happenings, but understanding that there are many possible future timelines, any change in a future event can change the lineage which then would not have been known until the time of change.  God also is all powerful, therefore He is able to manipulate a present even to redirect a future into the timeline He wants it to go in.  Therefore, the idea of predestination is a possibility and I see reasoning as to why people believe taht is a reality, but I don't see reasoning in scripture to suggest taht God actually dictates the present to keep the future perfectly in line with Gods ideals... if that were so I believe there would never have been a fall in the beginning.  

If god can manipulate the present to alter the future to tailor it to his wishes, but doesn't know what quantum effects will occur, then how would he be able to properly do that? 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
[Vastet wrote: The bible is

[

Vastet wrote:
The bible is so historically inaccurate that it spawned a thousand denominations of a single faith, as well as the rise of atheism. It has been destroyed by critics with increasing frequency over the last 1500 odd years. It is proof your religion is a lie, nothing more.

if what you said is true, then the following would in fact be destroyed and not held by the majority of the world... but it's not destroyed and over eighty percent of the peopple in the world follow this God. 

unfortunately I'm not sure where you got that information from, but it's wrong... it has never been destroyed for if it had, we wouldn't be talking now, there'd be nothing to talk about. 

Atheism didn't start because of the bible, it started on the general basis that all religion is false... your suggestino that it has to do with Judeo-Christianity suggests its abundance in the world.

If it were so historically inaccurate then the historical facts in the Bible would not be facts.  The accuracy of the time and location names based on the writers recollection is based on current events as is with any other historical writing talking about distant past events when written in the present time of the writer. 

my initial statement your reply comes from still stands.

Vastet wrote:

Yeah so was I. So a 5 second google search made me more knowledgeable about your religion than you. lol.

wow, you do a 5 second google search and believe whatever you read, yet you have been talking to me for how long and still have trouble accepting?  Seems you're a bit bias and not very open minded...  I'd be interseted in what you're basing your knowledge on in your seconds search.

Vastet wrote:

You're lying. You don't have 'literally thousands' of ANY copy of a work, and even if you did it wouldn't prove anything other than the copies being descended from the first copy, which I've already demonstrated may actually be a forgery that was quite different from the actual original.

do you want me to be lying?  why do you keep resorting to that?

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/library.html

I've also specified how identical the copies that have indicated that the orignals are likely well preserved in the copies.  To have what we have then discover the dead sea scrolls, much older than anything we've had before and see they're right in line with what we already had only further confirmed this... there's more reason to believe the originals were not drastically different. 

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Christianity is based on Jewish writings.... Jesus was a Jew.
So? Your religion and theirs are quite different.

the only difference is Jesus.  We follow Jesus and believe He is the messiah... they're still waiting for the messiah.  yes, their practices are quite different.. I kind of wish we held onto some of those... I'd likely know Hebrew a little better than I do now. 

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
ight, history is always a cop-out.... did you ever consider the reason why the books were compiled in the order they are in?
Did you?

so you haven't... it IS a cop-out to try to turn the question around that automatically implies the answer you try to ask.  Just in case you try to claim I didn't answer, yes.

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
you're reaching hard aren't you. just to grasp anything to hold on to. Why do you fight it so much?
You're projecting again.

it was a simple question.  you're right though, but you are fighting it aren't you?  I apologize for teh first two statements, but this goes both ways.... no more "you're lying" statements

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Trying to make everything I say look irrelevant doesn't bode well for your credibility
I have yet to have to try. You do it well enough on your own. I just point it out. When you deny it, it is your credibility that suffers. You don't actually have any left. You've been proved a liar by multiple posters.

well now you actually have been trying by making as you would say; projective statements... you then try to imply the above.  IF I'm a liar then stop talking to me.  liars are a waste of time to talk to.

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
alright, fine... any author of any Old Testiment book that has been confirmed as an author according to your sources. None could claim to be Christian because they were all written before Jesus' time. Funny you don't find Moses a cited source.
Where's your proof there was a moses?

well, be it that we as followers have agreed that the author of the books is likely not Moses, then nothing more than the books and the history of a population in the locations suggested.  however, I go back to any author of any OT book that has bene confirmed as an author according to your sources...  

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...and that was?
Go back and read it. I'm not doing your work for you.

now that's progressive...

Vastet wrote:
How can you see anything if there's no time? Even in your bullshit crntre there must still be time in order to observe anything. You're so ignorant on this subject I start giggling every time you post, to see what hoops you'll jump through this time in order to avoid the truth.

you're talking as if you can actually define time the entity of time.  How can you see anything if there's no time?  How can you be aware of what is possible in the absense of time?  How are you aware of something we've never observed?  What reasoning do you have to even suggest I'm ignorant when you're adhereing to something that has never been even remotely been close to being observed let alone understanding? 

If God created time, it's easy.  if God is subject to time, He would also be aware of how to manipulate it be it that He has many many times and thus again, it's easy. 

 No, actually you said you have no doubt god exists, which means your mind is closed to the possibility he doesn't. It's very simple English. Did you skip your English classes in primary school?

so I guess not projecting is officially off the table huh.

I have no doubt my neighbor exists too, but if have some information about how my neighbor is actually a figment of my imagination, a hollogram, a robot, I'm all ears, but you should have logical reasoning just as with anything else.  I'm open to the idea that God might not be, but again, logical reasoning, not projective ignorance. 

Vastet wrote:

 No true scotsman fallacy, welcome! Have a seat with all the other flaws in logic that Cap invited. I'll get the BBQ running in a few minutes.

that was actually from the Bible... we're not suppose to have those expectations on others.. I should have worded it as "we're not supposed to"... nice projection again though.

Vastet wrote:

Sources? I'd believe public schools would do it, but public schools don't get paid by parents, they get paid by the taxpayer, ie the government. Expelling one kid isn't going to impact a public schools funding. A private school that has less than 50 students between grade 1 and 12 is a significantly different story. They NEED every student they can get. Expelling a kid over keys is not conductive to that end. Hell, one of the places the school rented was right beside a car refurbishment business. I remember three of the students were busted stealing and vandalising cars and parts, and none of them were expelled. They caused hundreds of dollars in damages and yet all three of them stayed at the school for years.

look up the archives of any news corp.  There are hundreds of illegitimate suspensions, expulsions, etc from schools.  many different reasons, many schools usually try to be hush hush.

Vastet wrote:

No. You'll agree that there is a creator who has incoherent powers, but the message of that god is what defines that god. And as you don't believe in the same message, you don't have the same god. Btw, what will you do if you die and meet god, and he tells you the jews or muslims were right all along? That christianity is a lie?

I'd probably say; 'oops, I'm sorry, obviously I missed something big..' then ask a lot of questions about what I was misunderstanding and what i can do to rectify that if necessary.

The message is based on a conduit for both Christianity and Muslim... The Christian conduit claims to be the exact representation of God and proves it by upholding the Jewish law and correcting the gray areas where Jews have lost the intent of the Law.  The Muslim conduit redefines the whole of God by claiming to be a decendent of the servants son and thus all that scripture says beyond that point does not apply.   Jews are the only of the three that claim to go directly by God's word without a conduit other than the writers of the scrolls they follow. 

In conclusion, all follow the same God, but only one defines God differently but only beyond an early point in the Bible... there is still congruency.  All are decendents of Abraham and follow the God of Abraham. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Well

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well first, of all, we observe animals migrating to new habitats, and animals' habitats changing (in nature) all the time. This causes selection pressures to change, so just because we're causing the changes ourselves in the lab doesn't corrupt anything whatsoever. However, that doesn't matter anyway, because we can observe speciation occuring in nature too. I also thought you had no problem with speciation anyway, unless I'm remembering things wrong. I once again ask the same question: Do you believe that speciation occurs? Of course this provides that such speciation causes two animals who have a known common ancestor to have diverged genetically to the point of no longer being reproductively compatible. Do you agree that this happens?
I agree it happens in nature, the question is to what degree and how far back... is there a start to the chain, or many starts rather than one common start. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 So what? Same answer as above. Humans manipulating selection vs. selection occuring on its own isn't a problem, as I outlined above. You've sort of conflated these two above points. This string of conversation was to demonstrate that the difference between breeds of the domestic dog (Canis Familiaris; all the same species) are vast in terms of bone proportion and shape. While a chihuahua and a great dane would have trouble mating, they are reproductively compatible if you were to artifically inseminate them. The point is, they are of the same species, but carry so many differences. This part of the discussion was to show that these bone sizes can and do vary over time depending on selection pressures. You had a problem with the evolution of the bipedal pelvis. Considering that even young earth creationists agree that all dogs had a common ancestor, why is it so hard for you to concede that such a change in the proportions of the primate pelvis occured? 
unlike with Dogs, there is no progressive turning point... all we have is the pelvis was one way, then suddenly in this new string it was the other.  With dog breeds, the manipulation took many cycles. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 

 

Once again. "Of that exact evolution". What biologists say when they are missing some "links", they say "we have A, and we have Z. We expect to find something that looks like B through Y. I think most likely we should expect to find something in the J to M range". Then they find "N" and you say "A HA! THEY'RE WRONG!" That is ludicrous and evasive. You demand that biologists predict with 100% accuracy the fossils that they find, and that they find every single generation of primate that lead to us, and until then, the theory of evolution by natural selection is not true. You demand a level of proof that while it is theoretically providable, it is not realistically due to how much of the earth we would have to dig through, the time involved, the events that prevent fossilization from occuring, and many other reasons. But the fact that we know so much now that it's extraordinarily rare that a find is uncovered that makes biologists say "Wait...this doesn't fit in with ANYTHING!" is a testament to how accurate their predictions are. When fossils are found, it's typically a bone or a small number of bones per specimen. If fossils were most frequently entire skeletons, and occured in almost every case, then sure we should find that gradual pelvic change. However, they're not, and it doesn't. But what don't we find? Pelves exhibiting bipedal traits before a certain geological time period. We don't find heads designed for larger brains leading to us before a certain time period (and the changes in the pelvis to accomodate that!). The more we find, the more sense any subsequent find makes.  
well no, that's not it... the problem I have is that when trying to evolve one to another the problem ALWAYS  occurs at the same spot, not just randomly.  There are numerous cases where there are claims of ancestry yet the gap of progression from one to the other is always there.  It would be different if it was just one or two species and the rest had the progression, but that's not the case... and honestly, it only happens to be the most pivotal peice of evidence that ironically is always missing.  moreso, if that pivotal peice was actually there, it wouldn't be necessary to show the progression up to that point because it would be quite obvious that they evolved that way, but again, it's always missing. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Like every single person who decries the most important foundational concept of biology (the theory of evolution by natural selection), you show every single time you type a single thing on the topic that you know very little on the subject. When evidence is provided to you, you attempt to say that it's not confirmed because we don't have all of the fossils. This is really your only argument, and it's an awful one. We don't need it. Darwin figured it out just observing living creatures in unique places (like the galapagos islands, where isolation can and does occur quickly, leading to a sudden change in selection pressures which speeds up changes in genes, and therefore appearance). It was years and years after Darwin until we began finding fossils that painted exactly the picture that Darwin proposed. Then many more years before the advent of the field of genetics. And guess what? Everything in that field fits together into this unifying theory of biology as well. This wasn't some deliberate attempt to do so because they liked how Darwin's theory would mean that the bible is false (which is what whackjob creationists like to claim). This is simply the conclusion reached by independant observation in all of these different subsets of biology. Why does it all fit together so well? Why does the evidence point to something? Of course, there are dissenting voices even in the scientific community. Answers in Genesis lists a whopping 194 scientists (45 of whom have "bio" somewhere next to their name on the site). Of course, there's also project Steve. Guys named Steve make up about 1% of scientists.  1344 Steves are part of project Steve, which is merely a list of scientists named Steve that accept evolution by natural selection and everything that goes with it (including universal common descent). Also, instead of only 23% of Steve's being in some way educated in biology, the wikipedia page states that 51% of them are biologists. The view that there are problems with the science is a fringe one, and until some ACTUAL problems with the theory are put forth, it should be viewed as true as all of the evidence we DO have points towards it. Find one fossil in the wrong place. Find one piece of DNA that just makes no sense. I challenge you. The entire legitimate scientific community challenges the whackjob creationists I'm sure. These sorts of theories are always "tentatively true" because they're falsifiable. There are things that were you to find them, would disprove them in an instant. Nobody has ever done this to the theory of evolution, and that is a testament to how correct it is. 
 everyone on one side or the other claims that no one has done X to their understanding and yet it happens all the time, to both sides.  It's just whether they're credible.. unfortunately in our case, both sides have a credible point, so the issue really goes beyond evolution.. Evolution is only a peice of the puzzle, but for this thread, thats' likely as far as it should go here. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 That's complete gibberish and does nothing to differentiate "god" from "magic" in your post. I asked you (in the conversation leading to this) to explain why, if universal common descent isn't true, we all look like a family tree (both superficially, and by examining DNA). Your explanation was literally word for word "like God?". You didn't elaborate any further. You simply asserted what I asked you to prove. In two words no less. Also, as I said, if you replaced "god" with "magic" in your "explanation", it would be the exact same thing. A baseless assertion. I'm saying that those who study biology for a living (except for maybe approximately 45 morons) are probably correct about this. Also, their proposition is that this all occured by natural processes that we can examine right now as they happen! You, on the other hand, are proposing a process that has NEVER been observed, being performed by a being that nobody has been able to provide ANY evidence for (let alone conclusive evidence). 
that reasoning is very subjective.  What was gibberish to you differentiated for many.  magic is a distraction... to you God is a disctraction... to us God is Truth.  To you both are the same, to those who know God, we know better than to assume magic 
Jabberwocky wrote:
No we are not. We are assuming that it occured somewhat gradually (although the rate of change could vary within a reasonable range). I discussed fossilization above, and don't need to repeat myself. We won't ever find all of them that DO exist, and some (well, many I'm sure!) are simply lost forever and we never will. You keep on citing lack of evidence (and only fossil evidence, really). Yet you refuse to comment on how all of the evidence fits together, and there is 0....ZERO evidence to the contrary. You demand that we find every single fucking fossil, generation to generation before you accept this. On the other hand, when asked in other conversations with you repeatedly to point me to at least one (I don't care if it's 100, I'll read them!) reasons to believe that the bible is true (and therefore Christianity is), you haven't even given me one. You have an extraordinarily skewed idea of burden of proof, and as usual are engaging in the most extreme form of special pleading. The bible is true until every single verse is proven wrong. Universal common descent is false until we find every single fossil. It's absolutely absurd, and I can't believe that your own head hasn't exploded from the cognitive dissonance yet. You are basically OJ Simpson's defense lawyer here (not as unethical, I'm not accusing you of that, but just about as ridiculous), except at least O.J.'s lawyer had one piece of evidence that didn't fit with O.J. committing the crime (the glove not fitting). The theory of evolution by natural selection in its entirety has no such piece of contrary evidence. Why do you think that is if you also think that it isn't true?
To the contrary, as I stated, if in this particular topic, if that assumed progression is shown in fossils of a transitioning pelvic bone, not up to and then past, but the actual transition, then teh rest are not necessary, but again those pivotal fossils are always missing in all species taht are claimed to have ancestrial relations to specific others.  IF it is actually gradual, then that part of the progression in my mind would not always be missing.  On the other hand you claim I haven't given you one reason to believe the Bible is true, well that's as true as you not giving me one reason to believe it's false.  We have both presented reasoning, neither have found it credible for their understanding to be in jeopardy. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
It's not. However, we don't see any evidence that a god has ever intervened in our world, nor any that he intervenes today. This lack of evidence suggests that either there is a god that never intervenes, or there is no such thing. It's not far fetched IF god actually exists, but your argument is circular if that's what it is. You're trying to prove the flood here, and you're essentially saying "As unlikely as these things seem, it becomes much more likely if god is real. Since it's much more likely now, then the flood happens, therefore the bible is true, therefore god exists". Find evidence for your god that doesn't require pre-supposing his existence and then you might be able to form an argument that's at least slightly compelling. What we've gotten instead is the most bizarre framework for creationism that is as flexible as a cirque du soleil performer. Most of the reason is that you refuse to actually outline your entire position, so that your position can be "whatever works in this particular post". You then say wacky shit like the flood occuring 2 million years ago (before humans, CERTAINLY before boats and complex language). 
...and at this point in the discussion I always ask the question, what 'evidence' would you expect to see if God had intervened, taking into conisderation that Gods intervention doesn't necessarily and likely usually does not violate the Laws God likely put in place in nature initially but rather redirects a progression of events to result in the way God intended. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Just face it. There is 0 evidence for the flood. 
be it that I've stated that myself, this should be easy.
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Whatever time you place the flood, it is either too early for humanity, or too late to allow enough time for evolution to populate the world from single male/female pairs (that would allow a reasonably small number so that they could fit on the boat). You demand the equivalent of video evidence of the flood NOT occurring (the flood with no evidence for it), but refuse to accept the mountains of evidence (literally and figuratively) for universal common descent. The level of denial, the special pleading, the circular arguments that you have presented are more frequent than I thought anyone would ever try. Either start providing evidence for the flood, or be honest with everyone (and yourself) and admit that there is NONE.
there are a lot of atheists who also agree that universal common decent is not likely.  A few have told me they accept that there were likely several "starts" and then all other species progressed from those several starting kinds.  Special pleading?  denial?  must be on both sides then.  I don't see these mountains of evidence that you claim exist against something you also claim has no evidence.   A lot of reasoning has been discussed, but no evidence has been presented regarding the flood on either side.   
jabberwocky wrote:
Except it can be outlined and can be demonstrated to work. Coming to faith is a process that you can't outline, and if you can, it is flawed (trust with all your heart and he will show himself, for example, is absurd. If you emotionally invest yourself in the idea more than you do with anything else, of course you'll believe it, it's how our brains work). 
a lot of assumptions on your part here... very close minded too.  I mean; "coming to faith is a process that you can't outline, and if you can it is flawed..."  really?  covering all bases huh.  making sure there's really no way it can be proven to you.  it's more than just "trust in your heart" it's trust, learn, walk in that path, stumble, trip, get back up, learn walk, question, debate, discuss, walk some more.  etc... it's only a process that literally millions, possibly billions over the years have done.... and it's a process you claim can't be outlined and/or is flawed.  sure invest emotinoally and we are wired to believe, however not all emotions regarding this following are positive...and usually psychologically that is a turnoff.  So whereto when that happens?  doesn't seem like it should psychologically work.   
Jabberwocky wrote:

 

It is one tube if a piece of food can obstruct your breathing is it not?

no, it's a separate tube that food should go down, if it obstructs your breathing, then it went into the wrong tube. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

This suggests that god sucks at producing better tastebuds. Quit limiting your own gods omnipotence, he's starting to get self-conscious (because of course he exhibits petty human emotions being all-powerful up there...your book says it, not me....)

or its ingeneous.  if we couldn't smell what we taste, a lot more people would likely have been dying from eating things that have gone bad.  Quit looking for excuses. 

We are made in Gods image, that includes the emotinos He has.. are they human emotions or are they a reflection of Gods emotions?  My book says it, not me. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

So your answer to me was to come up with a bad solution. Birds have one function. Why not put ALL waste disposal back there, and all the fun stuff into designated fun parts? Nope. Let's run type 1 waste through the male sex organ. Then let's tell them being gay is wrong, but make their prostate accesible for stimulation anally (and let's make it more dangerous as more tearing/bleeding happens back there increasing the transfer of some of the most dangerous STIs). Now let's route the type 2 waste back there too. Perfect. Now women? Yeah, perfect design there. Don't get me wrong, it's great, but that is not intelligently designed. We are compelled by our (evolved) urges to enjoy it a lot, but to say that it was deliberately designed exactly that way is to, once again, be in a great level of denial. 

 

wow, just wow.  Alright, you know more than God about design... then again, evolution is supposed to help correct or form progressions that help a species successfully continue... why hasn't evolution corrected these issues you have?  What caused evolution to form things the way they are if what you say is true and they're terribly flawed.  I mean as you've pointed out, there's a much better way right?

Honestly, you've basically answered part of your issues in your statement above.  You've covered several threads worth of discussions up there.  You should google the joke about the Harley Davidson inventor meeting God.   your statement above reminds me of it.  Better yet... here enjoy: http://famguardian.org/subjects/SexualImmorality/Humor/HarleyDavidsonGod.htm


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:if what you

caposkia wrote:
if what you said is true, then the following would in fact be destroyed and not held by the majority of the world.

Bullshit. There are millions of things people believe or disbelieve in despite mountains of evidence proving them wrong. The whole point of the popularity fallacy is that just because a lot of idiots say something is true, it doesn't mean it IS true. Tonnes of people think you'll get cramps if you swim after eating, or that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government, or that ghosts and magic and gods and specific alien species who visit us with anal probes exist, despite all the evidence pointing the other way. It takes centuries for people to accept reality, and you never get a 100% acceptance rate. Despite actual photographs and the most simple of math tests proving otherwise, there are even people who think the Earth is flat.

If that's your best argument, you might as well have saved some time and posted nothing. Because it isn't an argument. The bible is false, and has been proved false multiple times over. End of discussion.

caposkia wrote:
wow, you do a 5 second google search and believe whatever you read

Considering the information I read came from actual historians who've been peer reviewed, I have no reason to doubt them. Especially when contrasted against yourself, a proven liar with no accolades or peer reviewed research to mention.

caposkia wrote:
do you want me to be lying?  why do you keep resorting to that?

Not at all. It is the single most disappointing thing that has been revealed during these discussions. I'd like to talk to a theist who accepts reality and is brutally honest. I've actually met one or two of them, and we had some interesting conversations. They all ended the same way, with both parties admitting there was no conclusive evidence for or against the god that one party believed in.

The dead sea scrolls are neither 'literally thousands' of copies, nor even complete copies. Your own link proves you wrong.

caposkia wrote:
I've also specified how identical the copies that have indicated that the orignals are likely well preserved in the copies.  To have what we have then discover the dead sea scrolls, much older than anything we've had before and see they're right in line with what we already had only further confirmed this... there's more reason to believe the originals were not drastically different. 

I already refuted this. Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't change anything.

caposkia wrote:
he only difference is Jesus.  We follow Jesus and believe He is the messiah... they're still waiting for the messiah.  yes, their practices are quite different.. I kind of wish we held onto some of those... I'd likely know Hebrew a little better than I do now. 

We did have a jew here for awhile. She's been MIA for quite awhile now though.

But jesus is not the only thing. I'm not an expert on either religion, but you don't have to be an expert to see how different your gods are. The christians are polytheists, believing in a god with three faces. While the jews are true theists who believe in one god, and only one god. Certainly your religions both evolved from the same progenitor, and are very similar, but they are also very different.

Having never had much opportunity to chat with a muslim about their religion, I'm far more ignorant on that branch of the abrahamic faiths. I therefore can't contrast it with judaism and christianity. But I suspect they have a different god too.

caposkia wrote:
so you haven't... it IS a cop-out to try to turn the question around that automatically implies the answer you try to ask.  Just in case you try to claim I didn't answer, yes.

When ignorance starts to bore me I stop paying as much attention. The fact is that I have, and I said so in a much earlier post when I described how the way they were written is evidence your religion is made up. I have no interest in revisiting the point unless you have new information, which you as yet have not presented.

Hmm.. next is some stuff to skip over so I don't turn into a broken record... and then...

caposkia wrote:
well, be it that we as followers have agreed that the author of the books is likely not Moses, then nothing more than the books and the history of a population in the locations suggested.  however, I go back to any author of any OT book that has bene confirmed as an author according to your sources...

ANY author eh? Name every single one. First and last names, dates and countries of birth and death. And, I know it's a bit much to ask, but biographies would be nice too.

Can you even do that for one author? No you can't. You take it all on faith. Despite the very real possibility, even likelyhood, that it's all a lie.

caposkia wrote:
now that's progressive...

How do you expect to be taken seriously if you won't even look for a simple post in a topic? If this topic had 500 pages I could perhaps forgive your intellectual laziness, but it doesn't even have 15 pages, so I can't.

Some more stuff to skip as we've adequately proven you don't have sufficient education to discuss time...

caposkia wrote:
that was actually from the Bible.

So the bible contains blatant fallacies, no big surprise to me. After all, the bible was already around when we started figuring out logic. The writers had no idea what proper thinking actually entailed.

caposkia wrote:
look up the archives of any news corp.  There are hundreds of illegitimate suspensions, expulsions, etc from schools.  many different reasons, many schools usually try to be hush hush.

So you have no sources. I'm not going to read the headlines for millions of articles when you won't even look through 15 pages of responses.

caposkia wrote:
I'd probably say; 'oops, I'm sorry, obviously I missed something big..' then ask a lot of questions about what I was misunderstanding and what i can do to rectify that if necessary.

That sounds very similar to what I'll say if I die and find myself before a god. Who of us is more likely to be forgiven? The one who held up a false idol or the one who didn't believe in any god?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Yes, yes

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, yes it is redefined by stating the quote above. The strongest man in the world does not have infinite strength (and the idea of the strongest man itself is absurd as there is no concrete criteria for "Strongest" anyway. One might have a stronger upper body, another a stronger core, etc.). Now let's take something that can absolutely not be lifted due to the concept being a logical fallacy. Lifting something is something that can only really be done on some sort of planet (or moon) that has gravity. By lifting it, you are acting against the gravitational force of what is pulling you "down". There is no up and down in space, so the concept lifting the Earth would be impossible. That is true. The Earth is unliftable because the mere phrase "lifting the earth" is absurd.

A human lifting a skyscraper is also an absurd proposition because we don't believe that a human could ever be anywhere near strong enough. However, if some human had infinite strength, then lifting a skyscraper would not be a problem. 

It's tough for me to say whether the idea of predicting the effects of quantum mechanics is more like lifting a planet (a logically absurd statement) or more like a human lifting a skyscraper (unreasonable, but the limits are obvious: strength and balance). I think that the effects outlined in quantum mechanics that currently seem random can fall into one of several categories:

1. They are truly random in every single definition of the word random. This is a very bizarre attribute of our universe indeed, considering how many things (nearly everything else) we have found to be predictable.

2. They are not truly random and there is a pattern to how they work, but it is something that will forever be beyond the human ability to predict because it is undetectable to our senses, and any instruments we can possibly build

3. They are not truly random and there is a pattern to how they work, but we simply have yet to devise a way to predict them accurately.

I have yet to be convinced that it is #1 (if anyone has a compelling reason to proclaim that it is, please inform me. I know very little about these things. If it's #1, then this god that knows all that can be known (everything minus the effects of quantum particles, and the future) could possibly work. I still believe that it is castrating god's ability, especially since the bible is full of prophecies. Hell, the story about Peter (is it Peter? I'm rusty on this stuff) denies Jesus 3 times before a crow makes a sound is pretttty damn specific. Knowing such a thing would require a lot of knowledge that you are asserting god doesn't have. 

If it's #2 or #3, then god would have to know these things, as they would be knowable, which is a big problem for an "all loving" god. 

Being able to predict a future event [especially if you're capable of manipulating present events] is not so far fetched if you have infinite knowledge and know everything there is to be known.  it's like predicting what you're mother will do when she finds out you robbed a bank, or won the lottery... this assuming you have a good relationship with her and have lived with her throughout your childhood.  it's a deduction of what you know based on present circumstances and the people involved in the result.  think about how easy it is to predict the reaction of even a good friend to a particular situation.  say you threw a rock at their head... I'm willing to bet you know exactly what you should do next because you know what their reaction would be.  Does that mean you're omnipotent?  no, you just know your friend that well.  God on the toher hand knows everything there is to know, including you better than you know yourself.  With taht said, how much easier is it for God to make very specific prophesies about even distant future events?  Infinate knowledge woudl also imply that God knows all possible futures and can deduce the most likely one. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

If god can manipulate the present to alter the future to tailor it to his wishes, but doesn't know what quantum effects will occur, then how would he be able to properly do that? 

well if quantum effects are able to be known, then He would know the quantum effects.  I think they're knowable if they exist.  Again though God only manipulates what is necessary to progress to a prophesied future.  most of the progression that happens is left up to us for the very purpose of His return.

if that's not sufficient, the proper answer to how God can properly do any appropriate manipulatino for the future is beyond me.  I don't understand even remotely how God works.  I just know that God understands and knows more than the greatest mind on Earth could comprehend. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You can't have it both ways.

You can't have it both ways. Either god can predict the future with sufficient accuracy to be responsible for everything or he can't. Make up your mind.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, yes it is redefined by stating the quote above. The strongest man in the world does not have infinite strength (and the idea of the strongest man itself is absurd as there is no concrete criteria for "Strongest" anyway. One might have a stronger upper body, another a stronger core, etc.). Now let's take something that can absolutely not be lifted due to the concept being a logical fallacy. Lifting something is something that can only really be done on some sort of planet (or moon) that has gravity. By lifting it, you are acting against the gravitational force of what is pulling you "down". There is no up and down in space, so the concept lifting the Earth would be impossible. That is true. The Earth is unliftable because the mere phrase "lifting the earth" is absurd.

A human lifting a skyscraper is also an absurd proposition because we don't believe that a human could ever be anywhere near strong enough. However, if some human had infinite strength, then lifting a skyscraper would not be a problem. 

It's tough for me to say whether the idea of predicting the effects of quantum mechanics is more like lifting a planet (a logically absurd statement) or more like a human lifting a skyscraper (unreasonable, but the limits are obvious: strength and balance). I think that the effects outlined in quantum mechanics that currently seem random can fall into one of several categories:

1. They are truly random in every single definition of the word random. This is a very bizarre attribute of our universe indeed, considering how many things (nearly everything else) we have found to be predictable.

2. They are not truly random and there is a pattern to how they work, but it is something that will forever be beyond the human ability to predict because it is undetectable to our senses, and any instruments we can possibly build

3. They are not truly random and there is a pattern to how they work, but we simply have yet to devise a way to predict them accurately.

I have yet to be convinced that it is #1 (if anyone has a compelling reason to proclaim that it is, please inform me. I know very little about these things. If it's #1, then this god that knows all that can be known (everything minus the effects of quantum particles, and the future) could possibly work. I still believe that it is castrating god's ability, especially since the bible is full of prophecies. Hell, the story about Peter (is it Peter? I'm rusty on this stuff) denies Jesus 3 times before a crow makes a sound is pretttty damn specific. Knowing such a thing would require a lot of knowledge that you are asserting god doesn't have. 

If it's #2 or #3, then god would have to know these things, as they would be knowable, which is a big problem for an "all loving" god. 

Being able to predict a future event [especially if you're capable of manipulating present events] is not so far fetched if you have infinite knowledge and know everything there is to be known.  it's like predicting what you're mother will do when she finds out you robbed a bank, or won the lottery... this assuming you have a good relationship with her and have lived with her throughout your childhood.  it's a deduction of what you know based on present circumstances and the people involved in the result.  think about how easy it is to predict the reaction of even a good friend to a particular situation.  say you threw a rock at their head... I'm willing to bet you know exactly what you should do next because you know what their reaction would be.  Does that mean you're omnipotent?  no, you just know your friend that well.  God on the toher hand knows everything there is to know, including you better than you know yourself.  With taht said, how much easier is it for God to make very specific prophesies about even distant future events?  Infinate knowledge woudl also imply that God knows all possible futures and can deduce the most likely one. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

If god can manipulate the present to alter the future to tailor it to his wishes, but doesn't know what quantum effects will occur, then how would he be able to properly do that? 

well if quantum effects are able to be known, then He would know the quantum effects.  I think they're knowable if they exist.  Again though God only manipulates what is necessary to progress to a prophesied future.  most of the progression that happens is left up to us for the very purpose of His return.

if that's not sufficient, the proper answer to how God can properly do any appropriate manipulatino for the future is beyond me.  I don't understand even remotely how God works.  I just know that God understands and knows more than the greatest mind on Earth could comprehend. 

So you seem to state that he can predict with 100% accuracy quantum effects. Then why manipulate anything? In that situation it would mean that god created a universe where he knew exactly how everything was going to unfold anyway. If he wanted it to unfold differently, he would have created a different universe, even if only slightly. He could have created one where I was born in Brazil. Once again, programming can be used as an example. 

I can make a program that utilizes no random number generator. If I do that, then I can predict what the program would do at any given instance. If I wanted it to do something different, I would have to re-write the code. Of course, I'm not omniscient or omnipotent, so I might not get it right on the first try. Someone who is, would. 

Now, I can implement in my program a random number generator. However, computers don't do random. What happens is that a programmer writes up an algorithm to make something as random as possible. Usually, some random variable is used, like a computer may use a clock counting milliseconds so that two humans attempting to get the same random output likely wouldn't be able to. I remember in high school math when the math teacher explained how the random number generator in our calculators worked, almost everyone got the same result, as the calculator had no such random variable to pull (or perhaps it did but required storage elsewhere). I had by then used it, so my calculator yielded different results (as presumably one of the variables the algorithm pulled was a count of  how many times the generator has been used, or perhaps a certain subset of functions on top of that). Once again, though, your god is omniscient. He knows exactly the algorithm. He knows where every variable sits. Every awful thing that has ever happened to you is your god's fault if he did exist, because he could have, instead, created a universe where all else is the same, but your life goes a little bit better (presumably because of your loyalty to him). Buuuuut he didn't do that. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well first, of all, we observe animals migrating to new habitats, and animals' habitats changing (in nature) all the time. This causes selection pressures to change, so just because we're causing the changes ourselves in the lab doesn't corrupt anything whatsoever. However, that doesn't matter anyway, because we can observe speciation occuring in nature too. I also thought you had no problem with speciation anyway, unless I'm remembering things wrong. I once again ask the same question: Do you believe that speciation occurs? Of course this provides that such speciation causes two animals who have a known common ancestor to have diverged genetically to the point of no longer being reproductively compatible. Do you agree that this happens?
I agree it happens in nature, the question is to what degree and how far back... is there a start to the chain, or many starts rather than one common start. 
I've already said this once, but I'll try to simplify it.  You have animal group 0. Animal group 0 ends up splitting into two groups because small variances in habitat draw one half of group 0 to move in one direction, and another half to move in the other. After many many years and generations of breeding and moving away from one another, eventually these groups are fully isolated (because one migrated and the other didn't, or both groups migrated in opposite directions). After a number of generations, if you are to re-unite these groups, you find sometimes that they won't interbreed, and you find other times where their genes have varied so much, that they're not reproductively compatible at all anymore, even with IV fertilization. Everything mentioned in this paragraph has been observed to happen.  So if genes can diverge that much, what prevents them from changing further if selection pressures of a group of descendants changes again? If you can not answer this question, then the #1 assertion of creationists (change can occur, but not THAT much change) is without foundation. If enough change can occur to cause such a speciation event, and life was simpler several hundred million years ago, there is no reason that the divergence to create separate kingdoms, phylums, classes, etc. could not occur.  As far as one start or many, the only evidence we have for that is genetics. It suggests one start. You can throw that out if you will, but if you do, then you can throw out every paternity test out of a court of law as well. We are using exactly the same type and standard of evidence to deduce one as the other. What evidence do you have for multiple starts?
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 So what? Same answer as above. Humans manipulating selection vs. selection occuring on its own isn't a problem, as I outlined above. You've sort of conflated these two above points. This string of conversation was to demonstrate that the difference between breeds of the domestic dog (Canis Familiaris; all the same species) are vast in terms of bone proportion and shape. While a chihuahua and a great dane would have trouble mating, they are reproductively compatible if you were to artifically inseminate them. The point is, they are of the same species, but carry so many differences. This part of the discussion was to show that these bone sizes can and do vary over time depending on selection pressures. You had a problem with the evolution of the bipedal pelvis. Considering that even young earth creationists agree that all dogs had a common ancestor, why is it so hard for you to concede that such a change in the proportions of the primate pelvis occured? 
unlike with Dogs, there is no progressive turning point... all we have is the pelvis was one way, then suddenly in this new string it was the other.  With dog breeds, the manipulation took many cycles. 
We are also suggesting that it took "many cycles" in the evolution of the bipedal pelvis. We just don't have the fossils for reasons I mentioned above. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 

 

Once again. "Of that exact evolution". What biologists say when they are missing some "links", they say "we have A, and we have Z. We expect to find something that looks like B through Y. I think most likely we should expect to find something in the J to M range". Then they find "N" and you say "A HA! THEY'RE WRONG!" That is ludicrous and evasive. You demand that biologists predict with 100% accuracy the fossils that they find, and that they find every single generation of primate that lead to us, and until then, the theory of evolution by natural selection is not true. You demand a level of proof that while it is theoretically providable, it is not realistically due to how much of the earth we would have to dig through, the time involved, the events that prevent fossilization from occuring, and many other reasons. But the fact that we know so much now that it's extraordinarily rare that a find is uncovered that makes biologists say "Wait...this doesn't fit in with ANYTHING!" is a testament to how accurate their predictions are. When fossils are found, it's typically a bone or a small number of bones per specimen. If fossils were most frequently entire skeletons, and occured in almost every case, then sure we should find that gradual pelvic change. However, they're not, and it doesn't. But what don't we find? Pelves exhibiting bipedal traits before a certain geological time period. We don't find heads designed for larger brains leading to us before a certain time period (and the changes in the pelvis to accomodate that!). The more we find, the more sense any subsequent find makes.  
well no, that's not it... the problem I have is that when trying to evolve one to another the problem ALWAYS  occurs at the same spot, not just randomly.  There are numerous cases where there are claims of ancestry yet the gap of progression from one to the other is always there.  It would be different if it was just one or two species and the rest had the progression, but that's not the case... and honestly, it only happens to be the most pivotal peice of evidence that ironically (edit: the word you seek is "conveniently&quotEye-wink is always missing.  moreso, if that pivotal peice was actually there, it wouldn't be necessary to show the progression up to that point because it would be quite obvious that they evolved that way, but again, it's always missing. 
Always occurs at the same spot? What do you mean? Provide some examples. Be sure to mention what this pivotal piece that is conveniently missing is. You then say it all in your next sentence. If that piece was there, you wouldn't need any MORE evidence of how it got there. It's just that one piece we can't find, right? That's utter bullshit! Because you have yet to provide one single specific example when prompted for it in what seems like my last 8 posts on this topic. Why is that? Because you know if we find "that pivotal piece" you need to maintain the ability to change "what that pivotal piece" is. It took us until very recently to find an actual fossil of what was hypothesized for over a century; the aquatic animal that could sooort of walk. But we found it. Tiktaalik. In my country no less. This was THE pivotal piece to how our ancestors left the waters to live on land, being able to move about without requiring water around them. What was the creationist response? Well I really don't care. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it was something along the lines of "well if Tiktaalik is what you say it is, where is the fossil of the two animals that are slightly better, and slightly worse, at walking on land??". This worthless thing will never end for an obvious reason. Creationism is not science. Biologists will tell you what they think happened (as of today). If evidence is found that allows them to add to the picture, they will. If the evidence causes them to need to revise some details, they will. This is what intellectual honesty is. Creationists will never tell you what a "kind" (a word you hilariously capitalize) is. Creationists won't tell you what the first animal of each "kind" looked like.  Have you noticed yet that most of my arguments in this string of conversation are "reasons that evolution is true" and yours are "reasons evolution is false" rather than "reasons creationism is true"? It's because there are no compelling reasons that creationism is true. Also, the reasons given by creationists that evolution is false are always flawed. I don't share Richard Dawkins's view that you shouldn't debate creationists as giving them a microphone is a bad idea to begin with. I do agree that he never should, because it does not take a biologist to disprove them. Hell, it doesn't even take a scientist. A mildly educated layman is enough, as is evidenced in this thread by numerous people. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Like every single person who decries the most important foundational concept of biology (the theory of evolution by natural selection), you show every single time you type a single thing on the topic that you know very little on the subject. When evidence is provided to you, you attempt to say that it's not confirmed because we don't have all of the fossils. This is really your only argument, and it's an awful one. We don't need it. Darwin figured it out just observing living creatures in unique places (like the galapagos islands, where isolation can and does occur quickly, leading to a sudden change in selection pressures which speeds up changes in genes, and therefore appearance). It was years and years after Darwin until we began finding fossils that painted exactly the picture that Darwin proposed. Then many more years before the advent of the field of genetics. And guess what? Everything in that field fits together into this unifying theory of biology as well. This wasn't some deliberate attempt to do so because they liked how Darwin's theory would mean that the bible is false (which is what whackjob creationists like to claim). This is simply the conclusion reached by independant observation in all of these different subsets of biology. Why does it all fit together so well? Why does the evidence point to something? Of course, there are dissenting voices even in the scientific community. Answers in Genesis lists a whopping 194 scientists (45 of whom have "bio" somewhere next to their name on the site). Of course, there's also project Steve. Guys named Steve make up about 1% of scientists.  1344 Steves are part of project Steve, which is merely a list of scientists named Steve that accept evolution by natural selection and everything that goes with it (including universal common descent). Also, instead of only 23% of Steve's being in some way educated in biology, the wikipedia page states that 51% of them are biologists. The view that there are problems with the science is a fringe one, and until some ACTUAL problems with the theory are put forth, it should be viewed as true as all of the evidence we DO have points towards it. Find one fossil in the wrong place. Find one piece of DNA that just makes no sense. I challenge you. The entire legitimate scientific community challenges the whackjob creationists I'm sure. These sorts of theories are always "tentatively true" because they're falsifiable. There are things that were you to find them, would disprove them in an instant. Nobody has ever done this to the theory of evolution, and that is a testament to how correct it is. 
I'm going to have to break this up, because I simply can't handle this much bullshit at once. 
caposkia wrote:
 everyone on one side or the other claims that no one has done X to their understanding and yet it happens all the time, to both sides. 
Does it? Give me one piece of evidence that suggests that evolution is false. Not a "not enough evidence" argument. I have explained at least once why we shouldn't expect to find every single organism fossilized. I want you to find one piece of evidence that says "Hey, wait a second. This could actually disprove evolution!". The disproof for creationism as a broad concept isn't much I will admit. It would mean that a creator would have made the organisms seem uncannily related even though they're not, but there's not much more than that. It would necessitate a deceptive creator though.  The evidence against creationism that has any relation to the Christian (and consequently, the Hebrew) scriptures is vast. This very thread is about the flood. The number of species we know exist, the number of animals that would have had to have been on that ark, the amount of food, the carnivores not eating the herbivores, the ability for a wooden boat 1/3 the size of the titanic to fit so many more things (and not sink), etc. etc....it's all been said. It needs no more mention than the summary I just gave. Unless you can come up with some solid math that works regarding what you have been challenged to do (since you have a unique idea for a creationist in terms of how long ago this flood occurred), your assertion is false until proven true. We have attempted to argue the range of numbers that fits within the framework you have presented, but you continue to be vague. Be specific, and we can actually discuss how plausible your particular flavour of creationism is. Until then, you have presented nothing, whereas we have presented you with tankers of evidence. 
capoksia wrote:
 It's just whether they're credible.. unfortunately in our case, both sides have a credible point, so the issue really goes beyond evolution.. Evolution is only a peice of the puzzle, but for this thread, thats' likely as far as it should go here. 
Whether who's credible? It's not whether a person is credible. It's whether their statement is. You have to evaluate the evidence independant of the person giving it. As far as evolution being only a piece of the puzzle, I don't care. I have just tasked you above with outlining how you fit the necessary animals on the ark. I need solid numbers, and of what. Then, how it evolved from there. If you want to stop the conversation before giving such information that's fine by me, but by that you admit that you have presented nothing. If you disagree with my last sentence, please repeat specifically what evidence you have brought forth.  
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 That's complete gibberish and does nothing to differentiate "god" from "magic" in your post. I asked you (in the conversation leading to this) to explain why, if universal common descent isn't true, we all look like a family tree (both superficially, and by examining DNA). Your explanation was literally word for word "like God?". You didn't elaborate any further. You simply asserted what I asked you to prove. In two words no less. Also, as I said, if you replaced "god" with "magic" in your "explanation", it would be the exact same thing. A baseless assertion. I'm saying that those who study biology for a living (except for maybe approximately 45 morons) are probably correct about this. Also, their proposition is that this all occured by natural processes that we can examine right now as they happen! You, on the other hand, are proposing a process that has NEVER been observed, being performed by a being that nobody has been able to provide ANY evidence for (let alone conclusive evidence). 
that reasoning is very subjective.  What was gibberish to you differentiated for many.  magic is a distraction... to you God is a disctraction... to us God is Truth.  To you both are the same, to those who know God, we know better than to assume magic 
I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding here that we won't agree on. You are content saying "god did it" without wanting to know how. We have provided a mechanism for "how" without god. You have not provided a mechanism for "how" with god. This is why it's similar to saying "like witchcraft" "like wizardry" "like magic"...etc. Because it's not an explanation. It's the exact opposite. It is evading the need to explain. If you don't understand what I'm saying here, feel free to ignore this part of the post. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
No we are not. We are assuming that it occured somewhat gradually (although the rate of change could vary within a reasonable range). I discussed fossilization above, and don't need to repeat myself. We won't ever find all of them that DO exist, and some (well, many I'm sure!) are simply lost forever and we never will. You keep on citing lack of evidence (and only fossil evidence, really). Yet you refuse to comment on how all of the evidence fits together, and there is 0....ZERO evidence to the contrary. You demand that we find every single fucking fossil, generation to generation before you accept this. On the other hand, when asked in other conversations with you repeatedly to point me to at least one (I don't care if it's 100, I'll read them!) reasons to believe that the bible is true (and therefore Christianity is), you haven't even given me one. You have an extraordinarily skewed idea of burden of proof, and as usual are engaging in the most extreme form of special pleading. The bible is true until every single verse is proven wrong. Universal common descent is false until we find every single fossil. It's absolutely absurd, and I can't believe that your own head hasn't exploded from the cognitive dissonance yet. You are basically OJ Simpson's defense lawyer here (not as unethical, I'm not accusing you of that, but just about as ridiculous), except at least O.J.'s lawyer had one piece of evidence that didn't fit with O.J. committing the crime (the glove not fitting). The theory of evolution by natural selection in its entirety has no such piece of contrary evidence. Why do you think that is if you also think that it isn't true?
To the contrary, as I stated, if in this particular topic, if that assumed progression is shown in fossils of a transitioning pelvic bone, not up to and then past, but the actual transition, then teh rest are not necessary, but again those pivotal fossils are always missing in all species taht are claimed to have ancestrial relations to specific others.  IF it is actually gradual, then that part of the progression in my mind would not always be missing. On the other hand you claim I haven't given you one reason to believe the Bible is true, well that's as true as you not giving me one reason to believe it's false.  We have both presented reasoning, neither have found it credible for their understanding to be in jeopardy. 
The "actual transition" there is not one transition. Read my first two sentences quoted here. It occurs gradually, therefore there is not one "actual transition" (as I bolded you here). I also believe that if a fossil is found at similar proportions to halfway between two current fossils, you would then merely assert 2 gaps instead of one there.  Furthermore, your first three words "To the contrary" are...wow. I have told you to provide evidence (I think this is the third time in this post at least) that evolution is false. Your "evidence" is always "there isn't enough evidence that it's true". Even though there is lots. From multiple disciplines. And they all corroborate one another. If you fail to see this, I don't see what more I can do here.  Bonus, evidence that the bible is false that you have asked for. Your bible says (hey, it's the topic of this thread too!) that a giant flood occured. We see evidence for floods, and we know how it looks. No evidence of a flood of that magnitude has been found. There. Oh, some more. Genetics show that the human population was down to a few thousand (not as little as one couple....twice). Hmm. No historian wrote of graves opening up and the dead rising around 33CE. You think someone would notice and mention it. What more do you need? You have not provided me anything close standard-wise as evidence against the natural sciences as I have provided you against the bible. 
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
It's not. However, we don't see any evidence that a god has ever intervened in our world, nor any that he intervenes today. This lack of evidence suggests that either there is a god that never intervenes, or there is no such thing. It's not far fetched IF god actually exists, but your argument is circular if that's what it is. You're trying to prove the flood here, and you're essentially saying "As unlikely as these things seem, it becomes much more likely if god is real. Since it's much more likely now, then the flood happens, therefore the bible is true, therefore god exists". Find evidence for your god that doesn't require pre-supposing his existence and then you might be able to form an argument that's at least slightly compelling. What we've gotten instead is the most bizarre framework for creationism that is as flexible as a cirque du soleil performer. Most of the reason is that you refuse to actually outline your entire position, so that your position can be "whatever works in this particular post". You then say wacky shit like the flood occuring 2 million years ago (before humans, CERTAINLY before boats and complex language). 
...and at this point in the discussion I always ask the question, what 'evidence' would you expect to see if God had intervened, taking into conisderation that Gods intervention doesn't necessarily and likely usually does not violate the Laws God likely put in place in nature initially but rather redirects a progression of events to result in the way God intended. 
If that's the case, you are suggesting that it is undetectable. So then you agree that I shouldn't expect to find any evidence. Good that we agree on this point. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Just face it. There is 0 evidence for the flood. 
be it that I've stated that myself, this should be easy.
Then why believe it occured?
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Whatever time you place the flood, it is either too early for humanity, or too late to allow enough time for evolution to populate the world from single male/female pairs (that would allow a reasonably small number so that they could fit on the boat). You demand the equivalent of video evidence of the flood NOT occurring (the flood with no evidence for it), but refuse to accept the mountains of evidence (literally and figuratively) for universal common descent. The level of denial, the special pleading, the circular arguments that you have presented are more frequent than I thought anyone would ever try. Either start providing evidence for the flood, or be honest with everyone (and yourself) and admit that there is NONE.
there are a lot of atheists who also agree that universal common decent is not likely.  A few have told me they accept that there were likely several "starts" and then all other species progressed from those several starting kinds.  Special pleading?  denial?  must be on both sides then. I don't see these mountains of evidence that you claim exist against something you also claim has no evidence.   A lot of reasoning has been discussed, but no evidence has been presented regarding the flood on either side.  
A lot of atheists? Who are they? Cite them. Also, I wouldn't see this as an impossibility, but if they rule out the supernatural then they typically believe in some sort of pan-spermia theory, that aliens deposited life (in varying levels depending on who you ask who holds this fringe view) on Earth. Then you ask where they came from, and get into an infinite regress problem. The atheists you claim to have spoken to, what do they believe caused these "starts"? Is it what I just posited regarding aliens, or something different? Special pleading and denial? Nope. Quote one example of me engaging in special pleading or denial. Do it. If you would like me to do the same, let me know.  Mountains of evidence against? That's not what I said. I said mountains of evidence FOR universal common descent. Of course that would be evidence against your view, but it is first and foremost evidence FOR something, not against it. The latter is merely a consequence.  And what do you mean no evidence on either side?? 
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
Except it can be outlined and can be demonstrated to work. Coming to faith is a process that you can't outline, and if you can, it is flawed (trust with all your heart and he will show himself, for example, is absurd. If you emotionally invest yourself in the idea more than you do with anything else, of course you'll believe it, it's how our brains work). 
  a lot of assumptions on your part here... very close minded too.  I mean; "coming to faith is a process that you can't outline, and if you can it is flawed..."  really?  covering all bases huh.  making sure there's really no way it can be proven to you. it's more than just "trust in your heart" it's trust, learn, walk in that path, stumble, trip, get back up, learn walk, question, debate, discuss, walk some more.  etc... it's only a process that literally millions, possibly billions over the years have done.... and it's a process you claim can't be outlined and/or is flawed. sure invest emotinoally and we are wired to believe, however not all emotions regarding this following are positive...and usually psychologically that is a turnoff.  So whereto when that happens?  doesn't seem like it should psychologically work.  
But can it be "trust, stumble, stumble, trip, learn, debate, lose faith, come back, etc."? Of course! It's just as plausible. Whereas the scientific method is always the same, and the predictability of what we learn verifies the accuracy of it. Observe a phenomenon, posit a hypothesis, derive predictions from the hypothesis, and TEST your predictions by conducting experiments. Record your results, and re-test, and test, and test. Whereas the process you posited is wholly internal in your head, and does not involve anything external against which you can test whether or not you're correct, or at least on the right track.  Psychologically, it does work. I'm a sports fan. It's one of the most illogical things I do. I cheer for the same teams I always have in each sport, because I believe it to be no fun if you just switch, and you feel less rewarded when the team wins if you haven't been loyal through the down-times. There is a level of illogical thought to it, but I only do it because it's fun. I am very emotionally invested in it, even though I know it's unimportant in the grand scheme of things. You are the same way with god, but you believe it to be important. That is the only difference between your god to you, and Liverpool FC to me. You can try to tell me to support Manchester City instead but I won't. Trust me, it works. We are somewhat wired for this. I just use that wiring for recreation/entertainment, whereas you use it to bullshit yourself.  
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:

 

It is one tube if a piece of food can obstruct your breathing is it not?

no, it's a separate tube that food should go down, if it obstructs your breathing, then it went into the wrong tube. 

If there wasn't a fork in that road, and was just two separate roads from the start, that wouldn't be a problem. They should be completely separated were they designed, no?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

This suggests that god sucks at producing better tastebuds. Quit limiting your own gods omnipotence, he's starting to get self-conscious (because of course he exhibits petty human emotions being all-powerful up there...your book says it, not me....)

or its ingeneous.  if we couldn't smell what we taste, a lot more people would likely have been dying from eating things that have gone bad.  Quit looking for excuses. 

We are made in Gods image, that includes the emotinos He has.. are they human emotions or are they a reflection of Gods emotions?  My book says it, not me. 

The olfactory sense could have been designed separately. Is this beyond your god's ability as well?

So god has petty human emotions? Isn't jealousy a deadly sin? Does god get jealous or not?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

So your answer to me was to come up with a bad solution. Birds have one function. Why not put ALL waste disposal back there, and all the fun stuff into designated fun parts? Nope. Let's run type 1 waste through the male sex organ. Then let's tell them being gay is wrong, but make their prostate accesible for stimulation anally (and let's make it more dangerous as more tearing/bleeding happens back there increasing the transfer of some of the most dangerous STIs). Now let's route the type 2 waste back there too. Perfect. Now women? Yeah, perfect design there. Don't get me wrong, it's great, but that is not intelligently designed. We are compelled by our (evolved) urges to enjoy it a lot, but to say that it was deliberately designed exactly that way is to, once again, be in a great level of denial. 

 

wow, just wow.  Alright, you know more than God about design... then again, evolution is supposed to help correct or form progressions that help a species successfully continue... why hasn't evolution corrected these issues you have?  What caused evolution to form things the way they are if what you say is true and they're terribly flawed.  I mean as you've pointed out, there's a much better way right?

Honestly, you've basically answered part of your issues in your statement above.  You've covered several threads worth of discussions up there.  You should google the joke about the Harley Davidson inventor meeting God.   your statement above reminds me of it.  Better yet... here enjoy: http://famguardian.org/subjects/SexualImmorality/Humor/HarleyDavidsonGod.htm

I know enough about design to know that we are not designed (at least not intelligently). If that means that I know more than your god about design, then so be it.

Evolution is able to help adapt us to our environment, nothing more. Since before better, more human-like brains, we were unable to have much control of our environment, some weird shit has evolved. Also, evolution can't scrap the blueprint and start over. This is something your god would presumably be able to do (unless he's only slightly-potent instead of omnipotent). Seriously, read "The greatest show on Earth" by Dawkins. Very little cracks at religion in it, and mostly about biology and evolution, and the evidence for it. It will answer most to all of the questions you have. Do you want me to mail you my copy?

We like sex because we've evolved to. Also, more people are not Christians than are. Does that make Christianity inferior? You must know that an argument from popularity is a logical fallacy, right? Someone even posted a link with most of them in it. I'm sure it was there! 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote: As far

Jabberwocky wrote:

 As far as one start or many, the only evidence we have for that is genetics. It suggests one start. You can throw that out if you will, but if you do, then you can throw out every paternity test out of a court of law as well. We are using exactly the same type and standard of evidence to deduce one as the other. What evidence do you have for multiple starts?
 Yes and no. For most of what we consider life (plants, animals, bacteria, archaea etc) we are virtuallly certain it all had a common ancestor. The one thing we are not certain of at all is viruses. There are theories that viruses predated all other life, and may have played a crucial role in creating the initial selection pressures. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16223546 Given the uncertainty, it isn't out of the question that viruses may have had an independent start. The problem with tracing viruses, is that they are well known to take dna and/or rna from their host. This allows us to determine where they have been, but does little to prove origins. We can see viruses quickly adapt and coevolve with every lifeform that has ever existed, but if viruses were around before LUCA, and perhaps had an effect on the direction of evolution. Some microbiologists argue that viruses don't even qualify as life, they are so different from cellular life. But isn't that exactly what we would expect if they had a seperate origin? This has nothing to do with Caps argument, but I think it is interesting to consider the possibility. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 As far as one start or many, the only evidence we have for that is genetics. It suggests one start. You can throw that out if you will, but if you do, then you can throw out every paternity test out of a court of law as well. We are using exactly the same type and standard of evidence to deduce one as the other. What evidence do you have for multiple starts?
 Yes and no. For most of what we consider life (plants, animals, bacteria, archaea etc) we are virtuallly certain it all had a common ancestor. The one thing we are not certain of at all is viruses. There are theories that viruses predated all other life, and may have played a crucial role in creating the initial selection pressures. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16223546 Given the uncertainty, it isn't out of the question that viruses may have had an independent start. The problem with tracing viruses, is that they are well known to take dna and/or rna from their host. This allows us to determine where they have been, but does little to prove origins. We can see viruses quickly adapt and coevolve with every lifeform that has ever existed, but if viruses were around before LUCA, and perhaps had an effect on the direction of evolution. Some microbiologists argue that viruses don't even qualify as life, they are so different from cellular life. But isn't that exactly what we would expect if they had a seperate origin? This has nothing to do with Caps argument, but I think it is interesting to consider the possibility. 

 

Ahh. I never knew that viruses may have come about in a separate event. I do know that the question "are viruses life?" can yield both answers. The virus is just a set of DNA instructions with a few extra bits that allow it to inject its instructions into cells, but the cells themselves are what's considered life, not the virus. It's certainly interesting. That said, to my understaning (As you mentioned) everything from bacteria to plants and animals seem to have had a common ancestor in every way we are able to check it. 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You can't have

Vastet wrote:
You can't have it both ways. Either god can predict the future with sufficient accuracy to be responsible for everything or he can't. Make up your mind.

Ok, God is responsible for everything.  It does say that in scripture.  God allows things and prevents things... Unlike the take you're gonig to put on this, God does not "DO" all things, He will either allow it or not allow it.  God allows us to keep pushing Him away.  I"m guessing to show us that in the end, we can't live without Him.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:So you

Jabberwocky wrote:

So you seem to state that he can predict with 100% accuracy quantum effects. Then why manipulate anything? In that situation it would mean that god created a universe where he knew exactly how everything was going to unfold anyway. If he wanted it to unfold differently, he would have created a different universe, even if only slightly. He could have created one where I was born in Brazil. Once again, programming can be used as an example. 

I can make a program that utilizes no random number generator. If I do that, then I can predict what the program would do at any given instance. If I wanted it to do something different, I would have to re-write the code. Of course, I'm not omniscient or omnipotent, so I might not get it right on the first try. Someone who is, would. 

Now, I can implement in my program a random number generator. However, computers don't do random. What happens is that a programmer writes up an algorithm to make something as random as possible. Usually, some random variable is used, like a computer may use a clock counting milliseconds so that two humans attempting to get the same random output likely wouldn't be able to. I remember in high school math when the math teacher explained how the random number generator in our calculators worked, almost everyone got the same result, as the calculator had no such random variable to pull (or perhaps it did but required storage elsewhere). I had by then used it, so my calculator yielded different results (as presumably one of the variables the algorithm pulled was a count of  how many times the generator has been used, or perhaps a certain subset of functions on top of that). Once again, though, your god is omniscient. He knows exactly the algorithm. He knows where every variable sits. Every awful thing that has ever happened to you is your god's fault if he did exist, because he could have, instead, created a universe where all else is the same, but your life goes a little bit better (presumably because of your loyalty to him). Buuuuut he didn't do that. 

what you say makes a lot of sense... This goes into details that neither of us could empirically support be it that we really don't know how God created, only that He did.  Well, we believe that, I know you don't, but let's just put that aside for the moment.

I believe what God created was a smart system.  A system not unlike a human that could modify and manipulate itself depending on the input and it would do it with the intent to progress and continue.  Just like any computer system, throw a virus into it and things can go haywire.  However God built into the system a constantly updating virus scanner.  When a negative occurance happens within the system, bad things happen, but from those progressive bad things comes modification that allows for those bad things to eventually fade away.  In this system it could take thousands of years, but it does eventually overcome it. 

The thing is, God created this system, hired a CEO to manage the system and told them to expand the business.  God then left it completely up to them.  If they screwed up, God would punish them, if they did Good, things would stay constant.  Our original CEO screwed up.  Throughout the generations CEOs and employees constantly misused the system which of course put the whole thing into a constant battle against those negative inputs.  One time God attempted to reset the system and came to the real conclusion that as long as God puts others in charge, it's not going to go smoothly.  So He then installed a restore point.  Anyone who believes they have put negative input into the system can go to the default restore point and be saved from the uninstallation of the system where all other data will be lost.  From there, once the original system is uninstalled, a new system will be implemented and it is our understanding that those who were saved will be trusted to try and run the new system, but this time along side the creator, not alone. 

The reason God would have to manipulate anything is because He set a system in motion that is designed to work on its own without constant user input.  also He put in charge people who are incapable of maintaining the system. 

did that make sense?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:I've

Jabberwocky wrote:

I've already said this once, but I'll try to simplify it.  You have animal group 0. Animal group 0 ends up splitting into two groups because small variances in habitat draw one half of group 0 to move in one direction, and another half to move in the other. After many many years and generations of breeding and moving away from one another, eventually these groups are fully isolated (because one migrated and the other didn't, or both groups migrated in opposite directions). After a number of generations, if you are to re-unite these groups, you find sometimes that they won't interbreed, and you find other times where their genes have varied so much, that they're not reproductively compatible at all anymore, even with IV fertilization. Everything mentioned in this paragraph has been observed to happen.  So if genes can diverge that much, what prevents them from changing further if selection pressures of a group of descendants changes again? If you can not answer this question, then the #1 assertion of creationists (change can occur, but not THAT much change) is without foundation. If enough change can occur to cause such a speciation event, and life was simpler several hundred million years ago, there is no reason that the divergence to create separate kingdoms, phylums, classes, etc. could not occur.  As far as one start or many, the only evidence we have for that is genetics. It suggests one start. You can throw that out if you will, but if you do, then you can throw out every paternity test out of a court of law as well. We are using exactly the same type and standard of evidence to deduce one as the other. What evidence do you have for multiple starts?
well, I understood what you had said before.  doesn't really answer to what degree and how far back.  What evidence for multiple starts?  There are tons of articles out there.. maybe start with oxford journals and go on from there.  I feel like someone on this thread also has that understanding... If you're here, do you have any specific sources that might be a good start?  This is not my expertise.   
Jabberwocky wrote:
 We are also suggesting that it took "many cycles" in the evolution of the bipedal pelvis. We just don't have the fossils for reasons I mentioned above. 
right, and consistently with all other progressions with the same claims.  the fact that those specific fossils are missing are big red flags for me.  As i said, if those were in our possession, the progressive fossils up to that point would not be needed to prove the point.  The key fossils necessary for driving the point home just happen to not exist.  
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Always occurs at the same spot? What do you mean? Provide some examples. Be sure to mention what this pivotal piece that is conveniently missing is. You then say it all in your next sentence. If that piece was there, you wouldn't need any MORE evidence of how it got there. It's just that one piece we can't find, right? That's utter bullshit! Because you have yet to provide one single specific example when prompted for it in what seems like my last 8 posts on this topic. Why is that? Because you know if we find "that pivotal piece" you need to maintain the ability to change "what that pivotal piece" is. It took us until very recently to find an actual fossil of what was hypothesized for over a century; the aquatic animal that could sooort of walk. But we found it. Tiktaalik. In my country no less. This was THE pivotal piece to how our ancestors left the waters to live on land, being able to move about without requiring water around them. What was the creationist response? Well I really don't care. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it was something along the lines of "well if Tiktaalik is what you say it is, where is the fossil of the two animals that are slightly better, and slightly worse, at walking on land??". This worthless thing will never end for an obvious reason. Creationism is not science. Biologists will tell you what they think happened (as of today). If evidence is found that allows them to add to the picture, they will. If the evidence causes them to need to revise some details, they will. This is what intellectual honesty is. Creationists will never tell you what a "kind" (a word you hilariously capitalize) is. Creationists won't tell you what the first animal of each "kind" looked like.  Have you noticed yet that most of my arguments in this string of conversation are "reasons that evolution is true" and yours are "reasons evolution is false" rather than "reasons creationism is true"? It's because there are no compelling reasons that creationism is true. Also, the reasons given by creationists that evolution is false are always flawed. I don't share Richard Dawkins's view that you shouldn't debate creationists as giving them a microphone is a bad idea to begin with. I do agree that he never should, because it does not take a biologist to disprove them. Hell, it doesn't even take a scientist. A mildly educated layman is enough, as is evidenced in this thread by numerous people. 
Frustrating when you're missing that one peice of evidence that would prove to the other side your understanding isn't it.  Except in this case, it actually doesn't exist.  You can cry bullshit all you want, but the point is clear.  The proof is missing.  The reasoning is there. Also i have noticed that most of your arguments in this string are "reasons taht evolution is true" despite my agreement that it is, rather I'm trying to tell you that darwinistic evolution is not and we haven't the actual proof to support it, only a broken line.  You want another example of missing evolution?  pick one.  we can talk about it.  We can try to trace any creature back and I'm willing to bet there's a gap in a pivotal point in the progression claim. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Does it? Give me one piece of evidence that suggests that evolution is false. Not a "not enough evidence" argument. I have explained at least once why we shouldn't expect to find every single organism fossilized. I want you to find one piece of evidence that says "Hey, wait a second. This could actually disprove evolution!". The disproof for creationism as a broad concept isn't much I will admit. It would mean that a creator would have made the organisms seem uncannily related even though they're not, but there's not much more than that. It would necessitate a deceptive creator though.
why would I do that?  I agree that evolution happens, just not to the degree that you claim it does, from one single cell to every living thing we know.  
Jabberwocky wrote:
 The evidence against creationism that has any relation to the Christian (and consequently, the Hebrew) scriptures is vast. This very thread is about the flood. The number of species we know exist, the number of animals that would have had to have been on that ark, the amount of food, the carnivores not eating the herbivores, the ability for a wooden boat 1/3 the size of the titanic to fit so many more things (and not sink), etc. etc....it's all been said. It needs no more mention than the summary I just gave. Unless you can come up with some solid math that works regarding what you have been challenged to do (since you have a unique idea for a creationist in terms of how long ago this flood occurred), your assertion is false until proven true. We have attempted to argue the range of numbers that fits within the framework you have presented, but you continue to be vague. Be specific, and we can actually discuss how plausible your particular flavour of creationism is. Until then, you have presented nothing, whereas we have presented you with tankers of evidence. 
you want specifics?  Then we need to stop talking about a story that neither side has anything on other than the story itself.  I continue to be vague.  Why?  Because the details are vague.  We know nothing more than what is actually said in the story.    You want to discuss how plausible my particular flavour of creationism is?  we can do that, but this thread isn't the place.  We would need to move on from Noah's Flood. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
Whether who's credible? It's not whether a person is credible. It's whether their statement is. You have to evaluate the evidence independant of the person giving it. As far as evolution being only a piece of the puzzle, I don't care. I have just tasked you above with outlining how you fit the necessary animals on the ark. I need solid numbers, and of what. Then, how it evolved from there. If you want to stop the conversation before giving such information that's fine by me, but by that you admit that you have presented nothing. If you disagree with my last sentence, please repeat specifically what evidence you have brought forth. 
Alright, let's do this... You want solid numbers and what, then how it evolved... I just need from you the specific date of the flood.  Once you can provide that for me, we can go from there.  Unfortunately, this is a loop.  We've already been there on this thread. It is impossible to give you what you're looking for without a specific date.  We've come up with an educated guess, but I'm not sure about it beyond this thread and what has been presented here.   
Jabberwocky wrote:
 I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding here that we won't agree on. You are content saying "god did it" without wanting to know how. We have provided a mechanism for "how" without god. You have not provided a mechanism for "how" with god. This is why it's similar to saying "like witchcraft" "like wizardry" "like magic"...etc. Because it's not an explanation. It's the exact opposite. It is evading the need to explain. If you don't understand what I'm saying here, feel free to ignore this part of the post. 
I am not content on saying God did it wihtout wanting to know how.. however when God does it, it's hard to argue otherwise.  Considering that God is a being that is understood to have created everything we know to exist including us, logically the mechanism then would be God.  To understand more than that would be to likely be a metaphysical being yourself.to put it in perspective, yes it is just like saying "like witchcraft" be it that there is some truth in that as well. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
The "actual transition" there is not one transition. Read my first two sentences quoted here. It occurs gradually, therefore there is not one "actual transition" (as I bolded you here). I also believe that if a fossil is found at similar proportions to halfway between two current fossils, you would then merely assert 2 gaps instead of one there. 
that's exactly my point.  It would make a lot more sense to me if there was only one transition because then yea, it would make sense as to why we might not have found that particular fossil yet, but instead as you said, it occurs gradually, which means we have a large gap of missing fossils that would show the actual transition.  That's a problem.
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Furthermore, your first three words "To the contrary" are...wow. I have told you to provide evidence (I think this is the third time in this post at least) that evolution is false. Your "evidence" is always "there isn't enough evidence that it's true". Even though there is lots. From multiple disciplines. And they all corroborate one another. If you fail to see this, I don't see what more I can do here. 
To clarify, I was politely stating your assertion was false about what i was claiming.
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Bonus, evidence that the bible is false that you have asked for. Your bible says (hey, it's the topic of this thread too!) that a giant flood occured. We see evidence for floods, and we know how it looks. No evidence of a flood of that magnitude has been found. There. Oh, some more. Genetics show that the human population was down to a few thousand (not as little as one couple....twice). Hmm. No historian wrote of graves opening up and the dead rising around 33CE. You think someone would notice and mention it. What more do you need? You have not provided me anything close standard-wise as evidence against the natural sciences as I have provided you against the bible. 
you have honestly provided me nothing against the Bible... I know you don't see it that way, but it has fallen short.  We have talked about the rationality of such a drastic flood and history shows that weather can be extreme enough that if the right conditions presented themselves, such a flood could occur... it would just need a feeder source to continue, which happens in weather patterns today, just not to that extreme.  Consider a tropical source with a high pressure system manipulating the jetstream to channel all that tropical air into colder climates.   it woudl then condense and fall in drastic amounts... further it would be worse if it were normally dry arid land, which it likely was.  no historian wrote of graves opening up.  yo think someone would have noticed... well they did becasue they wrote about it.  A historian?  no, an observer yes. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:
If that's the case, you are suggesting that it is undetectable. So then you agree that I shouldn't expect to find any evidence. Good that we agree on this point. 
that makes sense doesn't it?   
Jabberwocky wrote:
Then why believe it occured?
the support for scripture as a whole and my relationship with God.  To me it's like looking at an encyclopedia and pulling a random story out and saying, yea, this definitely didn't happen, but the rest of it did.  Not logicalbut I understand your perspective too.  The bible to you is like looking at any work of fiction and then having someone tell that this one chapter actually happened though you believe the rest is pure fiction.  also not logical. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 A lot of atheists? Who are they? Cite them. Also, I wouldn't see this as an impossibility, but if they rule out the supernatural then they typically believe in some sort of pan-spermia theory, that aliens deposited life (in varying levels depending on who you ask who holds this fringe view) on Earth. Then you ask where they came from, and get into an infinite regress problem. The atheists you claim to have spoken to, what do they believe caused these "starts"? Is it what I just posited regarding aliens, or something different? Special pleading and denial? Nope. Quote one example of me engaging in special pleading or denial. Do it. If you would like me to do the same, let me know.  Mountains of evidence against? That's not what I said. I said mountains of evidence FOR universal common descent. Of course that would be evidence against your view, but it is first and foremost evidence FOR something, not against it. The latter is merely a consequence.  And what do you mean no evidence on either side??
well, one I have disccussed with on this site... I had asked them to speak up about a source... I don't remember if they were on this thread or not, but if they don't, remind me and I"ll try to look for them.  It's not so far fetched to consider multiple starts really... there are many sources if you google the idea.   example of special pleading?  just one?  ok how about the fossil gap and how you're trying to argue the point that despite the large gap in a very pivotal point in the progression, it still had to have taken place.   no evidence on either side... we have to admit that neither of us have any evidence for or against the story of Noah's Flood mainly because we haven't even the slightest clue as to when it was even claimed to have happened.   Obviously the only witnesses to the flood would be noah and his family and I'm not aware of any book of Noah.   
jabberwocky wrote:

 

But can it be "trust, stumble, stumble, trip, learn, debate, lose faith, come back, etc."? Of course! It's just as plausible. Whereas the scientific method is always the same, and the predictability of what we learn verifies the accuracy of it. Observe a phenomenon, posit a hypothesis, derive predictions from the hypothesis, and TEST your predictions by conducting experiments. Record your results, and re-test, and test, and test. Whereas the process you posited is wholly internal in your head, and does not involve anything external against which you can test whether or not you're correct, or at least on the right track.  Psychologically, it does work. I'm a sports fan. It's one of the most illogical things I do. I cheer for the same teams I always have in each sport, because I believe it to be no fun if you just switch, and you feel less rewarded when the team wins if you haven't been loyal through the down-times. There is a level of illogical thought to it, but I only do it because it's fun. I am very emotionally invested in it, even though I know it's unimportant in the grand scheme of things. You are the same way with god, but you believe it to be important. That is the only difference between your god to you, and Liverpool FC to me. You can try to tell me to support Manchester City instead but I won't. Trust me, it works. We are somewhat wired for this. I just use that wiring for recreation/entertainment, whereas you use it to bullshit yourself. 
To your first part in reference to the scientific method... The scientific method consistency does not work when talking about educating children.. Each child learns differently and at their own pace, though we still push them through in many instances... We have tried to put every child on one line, but it just doesn't work that way, some children fall short of the line and fail constantly, others rise above it and graduate with honors.  There are many ways to the end result, but as public education has shown, you can outline the progression of education.  more than ninety percent of the students will waver within a confined area of the line.  there are outliers, but that is expected in any situation with so many variables.  This applies to coming to faith as well.  it is a learning process, not a scientific discovery.  it's like using the scientific method, but trying to discover something new without knowing exactly what's going to work.  You have that constant, the method, but your understanding of how to go about it is the variable.  that variable is unknown until you make the discovery and therefore the scientific method doesn't decide how smooth the progress to the discovery will be.  some discoveries are made in a few years, some take a lifetime or several.  There's really no difference here.  Coming to faith and finding God is not like learning the Laws that have already been discovered, it's like discovering something new that you yourself will document and present.   
Jabberwocky wrote:

If there wasn't a fork in that road, and was just two separate roads from the start, that wouldn't be a problem. They should be completely separated were they designed, no?

not for the system to work the way it does.  basically there'd have to be a complete design overhaul if you want to make that one small change.

Jabberwocky wrote:

The olfactory sense could have been designed separately. Is this beyond your god's ability as well?

So god has petty human emotions? Isn't jealousy a deadly sin? Does god get jealous or not?

Many things could have been designed differently I'm sure, but there's a reason why thye weren't.  I'm not going to even begin to claim I understand the reasonings behind Creation, only that it works for whta it needs to do.  YOu claim it doesn't but htat doesn't bode well for evolution either then be it that evolution by now would have corrected such an issue if it in fact was an issue for the survival of the species.    If evolution designed us this way per your perspective, then it must have been better than the alternatives. 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Vastet

caposkia wrote:

Vastet wrote:
You can't have it both ways. Either god can predict the future with sufficient accuracy to be responsible for everything or he can't. Make up your mind.

Ok, God is responsible for everything.  It does say that in scripture.  God allows things and prevents things... Unlike the take you're gonig to put on this, God does not "DO" all things, He will either allow it or not allow it.  God allows us to keep pushing Him away.  I"m guessing to show us that in the end, we can't live without Him.

The way you say this makes me think you thought I was suggesting more than I was when I first talked about gods responsibility. I don't believe god, if he exists, does much of anything to be honest. Not these days anyway. If the bible is to be believed he was VERY active for awhile. Creating everything and speaking to people and destroying evils etc. But ever since jesus he hasn't done so much. Nothing grandiose that's for certain.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

So you seem to state that he can predict with 100% accuracy quantum effects. Then why manipulate anything? In that situation it would mean that god created a universe where he knew exactly how everything was going to unfold anyway. If he wanted it to unfold differently, he would have created a different universe, even if only slightly. He could have created one where I was born in Brazil. Once again, programming can be used as an example. 

I can make a program that utilizes no random number generator. If I do that, then I can predict what the program would do at any given instance. If I wanted it to do something different, I would have to re-write the code. Of course, I'm not omniscient or omnipotent, so I might not get it right on the first try. Someone who is, would. 

Now, I can implement in my program a random number generator. However, computers don't do random. What happens is that a programmer writes up an algorithm to make something as random as possible. Usually, some random variable is used, like a computer may use a clock counting milliseconds so that two humans attempting to get the same random output likely wouldn't be able to. I remember in high school math when the math teacher explained how the random number generator in our calculators worked, almost everyone got the same result, as the calculator had no such random variable to pull (or perhaps it did but required storage elsewhere). I had by then used it, so my calculator yielded different results (as presumably one of the variables the algorithm pulled was a count of  how many times the generator has been used, or perhaps a certain subset of functions on top of that). Once again, though, your god is omniscient. He knows exactly the algorithm. He knows where every variable sits. Every awful thing that has ever happened to you is your god's fault if he did exist, because he could have, instead, created a universe where all else is the same, but your life goes a little bit better (presumably because of your loyalty to him). Buuuuut he didn't do that. 

what you say makes a lot of sense... This goes into details that neither of us could empirically support be it that we really don't know how God created, only that He did.  Well, we believe that, I know you don't, but let's just put that aside for the moment.

I believe what God created was a smart system.  A system not unlike a human that could modify and manipulate itself depending on the input and it would do it with the intent to progress and continue.  Just like any computer system, throw a virus into it and things can go haywire.  However God built into the system a constantly updating virus scanner.  When a negative occurance happens within the system, bad things happen, but from those progressive bad things comes modification that allows for those bad things to eventually fade away.  In this system it could take thousands of years, but it does eventually overcome it. 

The thing is, God created this system, hired a CEO to manage the system and told them to expand the business.  God then left it completely up to them.  If they screwed up, God would punish them, if they did Good, things would stay constant.  Our original CEO screwed up.  Throughout the generations CEOs and employees constantly misused the system which of course put the whole thing into a constant battle against those negative inputs.  One time God attempted to reset the system and came to the real conclusion that as long as God puts others in charge, it's not going to go smoothly.  So He then installed a restore point.  Anyone who believes they have put negative input into the system can go to the default restore point and be saved from the uninstallation of the system where all other data will be lost.  From there, once the original system is uninstalled, a new system will be implemented and it is our understanding that those who were saved will be trusted to try and run the new system, but this time along side the creator, not alone. 

The reason God would have to manipulate anything is because He set a system in motion that is designed to work on its own without constant user input.  also He put in charge people who are incapable of maintaining the system. 

did that make sense?

You're missing one key point. God also created the caretakers. He created their brains, hence even if they have free-will, an omnipotent and omniscient god can't create a being that he isn't able to predict the behaviour of. It's exactly like the funny question "Can god microwave a burrito so hot that he himself can't eat it?". Except the question has real world implications. "Can god create a human with a brain so unpredictable that he, himself, can't predict what it's going to do?" If he's omniscient, the answer to that question necessarily has to be no.

If he can eat a burrito of any temperature due to his omnipotence, then he can predict with 100% accuracy what any human will do because of his omniscience. If you believe that a first betrayal brought sin into this world, then you have to believe that god deliberately created the humans who WOULD sin, rather than the ones who wouldn't. Your analogy in the second long paragraph fails at the outset because of this. If people who typically hire CEOs also created them and their brains, then you might have a point. They didn't. If someone was omnipotent and omniscient, and created a CEO to run their company, they would be able to create a CEO that makes exactly the decision that they want them to. Why would you do it any other way?

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I've already said this once, but I'll try to simplify it.  You have animal group 0. Animal group 0 ends up splitting into two groups because small variances in habitat draw one half of group 0 to move in one direction, and another half to move in the other. After many many years and generations of breeding and moving away from one another, eventually these groups are fully isolated (because one migrated and the other didn't, or both groups migrated in opposite directions). After a number of generations, if you are to re-unite these groups, you find sometimes that they won't interbreed, and you find other times where their genes have varied so much, that they're not reproductively compatible at all anymore, even with IV fertilization. Everything mentioned in this paragraph has been observed to happen.  So if genes can diverge that much, what prevents them from changing further if selection pressures of a group of descendants changes again? If you can not answer this question, then the #1 assertion of creationists (change can occur, but not THAT much change) is without foundation. If enough change can occur to cause such a speciation event, and life was simpler several hundred million years ago, there is no reason that the divergence to create separate kingdoms, phylums, classes, etc. could not occur.  As far as one start or many, the only evidence we have for that is genetics. It suggests one start. You can throw that out if you will, but if you do, then you can throw out every paternity test out of a court of law as well. We are using exactly the same type and standard of evidence to deduce one as the other. What evidence do you have for multiple starts?
well, I understood what you had said before.  doesn't really answer to what degree and how far back. What evidence for multiple starts?  There are tons of articles out there.. maybe start with oxford journals and go on from there.  I feel like someone on this thread also has that understanding... If you're here, do you have any specific sources that might be a good start?  This is not my expertise.  
Someone mentioned viruses, yes. However, the things that are conventionally called life (usually from as simple as bacteria, to animals plants and fungi) are considered to share a common ancestor.  Where are these tons of articles?Regardless, when you ask to what degree and how far back, the logical conclusion is that it occured indefinitely into the past until it hit the point of the last universal common ancestor. This is a natural process that is observed to work like that. If there is a stop somewhere, you have to propose another method by which it could have happened and provide evidence. You haven't. I feel like I'm repeating myself here. 
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 We are also suggesting that it took "many cycles" in the evolution of the bipedal pelvis. We just don't have the fossils for reasons I mentioned above. 
right, and consistently with all other progressions with the same claims.  the fact that those specific fossils are missing are big red flags for me.  As i said, if those were in our possession, the progressive fossils up to that point would not be needed to prove the point.  The key fossils necessary for driving the point home just happen to not exist. 
Which specific fossils exactly? Find ancestors WITH NAMES, and show me where you believe problematic gaps are. This must be at least the 5th time I've asked this of you, and you continue not to do it. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Always occurs at the same spot? What do you mean? Provide some examples. Be sure to mention what this pivotal piece that is conveniently missing is. You then say it all in your next sentence. If that piece was there, you wouldn't need any MORE evidence of how it got there. It's just that one piece we can't find, right? That's utter bullshit! Because you have yet to provide one single specific example when prompted for it in what seems like my last 8 posts on this topic. Why is that? Because you know if we find "that pivotal piece" you need to maintain the ability to change "what that pivotal piece" is. It took us until very recently to find an actual fossil of what was hypothesized for over a century; the aquatic animal that could sooort of walk. But we found it. Tiktaalik. In my country no less. This was THE pivotal piece to how our ancestors left the waters to live on land, being able to move about without requiring water around them. What was the creationist response? Well I really don't care. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it was something along the lines of "well if Tiktaalik is what you say it is, where is the fossil of the two animals that are slightly better, and slightly worse, at walking on land??". This worthless thing will never end for an obvious reason. Creationism is not science. Biologists will tell you what they think happened (as of today). If evidence is found that allows them to add to the picture, they will. If the evidence causes them to need to revise some details, they will. This is what intellectual honesty is. Creationists will never tell you what a "kind" (a word you hilariously capitalize) is. Creationists won't tell you what the first animal of each "kind" looked like.  Have you noticed yet that most of my arguments in this string of conversation are "reasons that evolution is true" and yours are "reasons evolution is false" rather than "reasons creationism is true"? It's because there are no compelling reasons that creationism is true. Also, the reasons given by creationists that evolution is false are always flawed. I don't share Richard Dawkins's view that you shouldn't debate creationists as giving them a microphone is a bad idea to begin with. I do agree that he never should, because it does not take a biologist to disprove them. Hell, it doesn't even take a scientist. A mildly educated layman is enough, as is evidenced in this thread by numerous people. 
Frustrating when you're missing that one peice of evidence that would prove to the other side your understanding isn't it.  Except in this case, it actually doesn't exist.  You can cry bullshit all you want, but the point is clear.  The proof is missing.  The reasoning is there.Also i have noticed that most of your arguments in this string are "reasons taht evolution is true" despite my agreement that it is, rather I'm trying to tell you that darwinistic evolution is not and we haven't the actual proof to support it, only a broken line.  You want another example of missing evolution?  pick one.  we can talk about it.  We can try to trace any creature back and I'm willing to bet there's a gap in a pivotal point in the progression claim. 
I don't buy it. I believe if we had that "one piece" that you think is missing, you would simply gravitate to another gap and claim that that was the big hole in the evidence. Because you refuse to be specific, I will continue to think this way, until you get specific about which missing links are actually problematic for the foundational concept in all biology. Also, for the last time...I'm going to use all caps here, because I feel I must. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "EVOLUTION" AND "DARWINISTIC EVOLUTION"!! Can you get that through your head? What you call "Darwinistic evolution" simply says that evolution occurs indefinitely, as I've said. Now, with gaps, I won't do that. I simply won't, because you're the one who has a problem with it. Also, I don't care about fossil gaps, as DNA sequencing conclusively fills in every single one of those blanks. It's unnecessary.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Does it? Give me one piece of evidence that suggests that evolution is false. Not a "not enough evidence" argument. I have explained at least once why we shouldn't expect to find every single organism fossilized. I want you to find one piece of evidence that says "Hey, wait a second. This could actually disprove evolution!". The disproof for creationism as a broad concept isn't much I will admit. It would mean that a creator would have made the organisms seem uncannily related even though they're not, but there's not much more than that. It would necessitate a deceptive creator though.
why would I do that?  I agree that evolution happens, just not to the degree that you claim it does, from one single cell to every living thing we know.  
Well, that's what the evidence suggests. Also, the only alternative provided, is that at some point when you back up time, there is a cutoff where a supernatural being created everything in a certain state. This alternative is one that lacks ANY evidence. Therefore, it can be dismissed as twaddle. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 The evidence against creationism that has any relation to the Christian (and consequently, the Hebrew) scriptures is vast. This very thread is about the flood. The number of species we know exist, the number of animals that would have had to have been on that ark, the amount of food, the carnivores not eating the herbivores, the ability for a wooden boat 1/3 the size of the titanic to fit so many more things (and not sink), etc. etc....it's all been said. It needs no more mention than the summary I just gave. Unless you can come up with some solid math that works regarding what you have been challenged to do (since you have a unique idea for a creationist in terms of how long ago this flood occurred), your assertion is false until proven true. We have attempted to argue the range of numbers that fits within the framework you have presented, but you continue to be vague. Be specific, and we can actually discuss how plausible your particular flavour of creationism is. Until then, you have presented nothing, whereas we have presented you with tankers of evidence. 
you want specifics?  Then we need to stop talking about a story that neither side has anything on other than the story itself.  I continue to be vague.  Why?  Because the details are vague.  We know nothing more than what is actually said in the story.    You want to discuss how plausible my particular flavour of creationism is?  we can do that, but this thread isn't the place.  We would need to move on from Noah's Flood. 
It has everything to do with it. Your particular kind of creationism does involve most of the animals (other than one pair of each alive at the time) to have been killed. This has effects on biology, and therefore is related to the flood. What I need from you is to say how many years ago this was, how many of what types of animals were on this boat that resulted in all we see today. You would also need to explain why the life in Madagascar is so unique, or Antarctica. Also, Australia is home to marsupials almost exclusively. If you can't answer these questions, you're simply wrong.  So either do the math that DOES work, or accept and admit that the flood could not have happened. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Whether who's credible? It's not whether a person is credible. It's whether their statement is. You have to evaluate the evidence independant of the person giving it. As far as evolution being only a piece of the puzzle, I don't care. I have just tasked you above with outlining how you fit the necessary animals on the ark. I need solid numbers, and of what. Then, how it evolved from there. If you want to stop the conversation before giving such information that's fine by me, but by that you admit that you have presented nothing. If you disagree with my last sentence, please repeat specifically what evidence you have brought forth. 
Alright, let's do this... You want solid numbers and what, then how it evolved... I just need from you the specific date of the flood.  Once you can provide that for me, we can go from there. Unfortunately, this is a loop.  We've already been there on this thread. It is impossible to give you what you're looking for without a specific date.  We've come up with an educated guess, but I'm not sure about it beyond this thread and what has been presented here.  
I don't need to give you a date. I don't believe that it happened at all. You are the one who should propose a date, and show math that works for the animals to have all evolved and populated the world as we see it today. I'm not going to give you a date for something I believe didn't happen at all. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding here that we won't agree on. You are content saying "god did it" without wanting to know how. We have provided a mechanism for "how" without god. You have not provided a mechanism for "how" with god. This is why it's similar to saying "like witchcraft" "like wizardry" "like magic"...etc. Because it's not an explanation. It's the exact opposite. It is evading the need to explain. If you don't understand what I'm saying here, feel free to ignore this part of the post. 
I am not content on saying God did it wihtout wanting to know how.. however when God does it, it's hard to argue otherwise.  Considering that God is a being that is understood to have created everything we know to exist including us, logically the mechanism then would be God.  To understand more than that would be to likely be a metaphysical being yourself.to put it in perspective, yes it is just like saying "like witchcraft" be it that there is some truth in that as well.
There is truth in witchcraft?
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
The "actual transition" there is not one transition. Read my first two sentences quoted here. It occurs gradually, therefore there is not one "actual transition" (as I bolded you here). I also believe that if a fossil is found at similar proportions to halfway between two current fossils, you would then merely assert 2 gaps instead of one there. 
that's exactly my point.  It would make a lot more sense to me if there was only one transition because then yea, it would make sense as to why we might not have found that particular fossil yet, but instead as you said, it occurs gradually, which means we have a large gap of missing fossils that would show the actual transition.  That's a problem.
No it's not. If you consider how rarely fossilization occurs in the grand scheme of things, it is no surprise. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Furthermore, your first three words "To the contrary" are...wow. I have told you to provide evidence (I think this is the third time in this post at least) that evolution is false. Your "evidence" is always "there isn't enough evidence that it's true". Even though there is lots. From multiple disciplines. And they all corroborate one another. If you fail to see this, I don't see what more I can do here. 
To clarify, I was politely stating your assertion was false about what i was claiming.
Ok. I disagree, but I'm too lazy to read the context of this right now
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Bonus, evidence that the bible is false that you have asked for. Your bible says (hey, it's the topic of this thread too!) that a giant flood occured. We see evidence for floods, and we know how it looks. No evidence of a flood of that magnitude has been found. There. Oh, some more. Genetics show that the human population was down to a few thousand (not as little as one couple....twice). Hmm. No historian wrote of graves opening up and the dead rising around 33CE. You think someone would notice and mention it. What more do you need? You have not provided me anything close standard-wise as evidence against the natural sciences as I have provided you against the bible. 
you have honestly provided me nothing against the Bible... I know you don't see it that way, but it has fallen short.  We have talked about the rationality of such a drastic flood and history shows that weather can be extreme enough that if the right conditions presented themselves, such a flood could occur... it would just need a feeder source to continue, which happens in weather patterns today, just not to that extreme.  Consider a tropical source with a high pressure system manipulating the jetstream to channel all that tropical air into colder climates.   it woudl then condense and fall in drastic amounts... further it would be worse if it were normally dry arid land, which it likely was. no historian wrote of graves opening up.  yo think someone would have noticed... well they did becasue they wrote about it.  A historian?  no, an observer yes. 

 

Well if it doesn't happen to that extreme, doesn't that tell you everything? As the very original post in this thread says, the moisture in the air required for such a flood would drown us. 

And graves...so nobody else was in Jerusalem? When ALL of the graves of Jerusalem opened up, only one guy decided to write that down (and decades later I might add)?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

If that's the case, you are suggesting that it is undetectable. So then you agree that I shouldn't expect to find any evidence. Good that we agree on this point. 
that makes sense doesn't it?  
Then belief is superfluous to requirements. A god who is undetectable is indistinguishable (to us) to no god existing. You have said more than once that people reject god rather than disbelieve (and it's common Christian doctrine). If it's the case that god is undetectable, then what's actually happening is you are believing based on bad evidence or no evidence, and I am disbelieving due to not finding the evidence because it isn't actually there. If god is undetectable, then disbelief is the correct way to go.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Then why believe it occured?
the support for scripture as a whole and my relationship with God.  To me it's like looking at an encyclopedia and pulling a random story out and saying, yea, this definitely didn't happen, but the rest of it did.  Not logicalbut I understand your perspective too.  The bible to you is like looking at any work of fiction and then having someone tell that this one chapter actually happened though you believe the rest is pure fiction.  also not logical. 
But an encyclopaedia doesn't have entries that are ridiculous and inconsistent with how we see the world working. To go to Genesis 3, do you believe that there actually was a talking snake? Encyclopaedias don't contain things that throw up immediate red flags.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 A lot of atheists? Who are they? Cite them. Also, I wouldn't see this as an impossibility, but if they rule out the supernatural then they typically believe in some sort of pan-spermia theory, that aliens deposited life (in varying levels depending on who you ask who holds this fringe view) on Earth. Then you ask where they came from, and get into an infinite regress problem. The atheists you claim to have spoken to, what do they believe caused these "starts"? Is it what I just posited regarding aliens, or something different? Special pleading and denial? Nope. Quote one example of me engaging in special pleading or denial. Do it. If you would like me to do the same, let me know.  Mountains of evidence against? That's not what I said. I said mountains of evidence FOR universal common descent. Of course that would be evidence against your view, but it is first and foremost evidence FOR something, not against it. The latter is merely a consequence.  And what do you mean no evidence on either side??
well, one I have disccussed with on this site... I had asked them to speak up about a source... I don't remember if they were on this thread or not, but if they don't, remind me and I"ll try to look for them.  It's not so far fetched to consider multiple starts really... there are many sources if you google the idea.  example of special pleading?  just one?  ok how about the fossil gap and how you're trying to argue the point that despite the large gap in a very pivotal point in the progression, it still had to have taken place.  no evidence on either side... we have to admit that neither of us have any evidence for or against the story of Noah's Flood mainly because we haven't even the slightest clue as to when it was even claimed to have happened.   Obviously the only witnesses to the flood would be noah and his family and I'm not aware of any book of Noah.  
You keep asking me to google or wikipedia search things. I typically provide links instead, because I like to be specific. Can you provide me a link to a legitimate scientific hypothesis of multiple starts to the degree that you're talking about? You have said in this thread that you don't believe that the human pelvis could have evolved from a quadruped one. Where is the evidence for multiple starts at the genus level which that would require? Show me one source that shows evidence for that! That's not special pleading. The DNA evidence and the evidence from homology fills in all of these gaps. To engage in special pleading is to make exceptions to an agreed upon standard of evidence to make your case. If there was no DNA evidence it might be harder. However I'm still saying that the natural biological processes simply work. If these processes had to work very differently all of a sudden to make that change without supernatural intervention, and I said "well, it happened anyway", then that would be special pleading. However my assertion is that they simply work as they do, and can be observed to work.  We do have evidence against the flood. We know what flood damage looks like. We don't find evidence of one of that magnitude, and we expect we would have found that evidence if such a flood occured. Also, if it wiped out life in the way the story claims (all but a couple of each animal, maybe 7 of some) the DNA suggests that the populations were never that small, and WOULD require the laws of biology to change. Evolution would have had to occur at a much faster rate than what we observe if the flood occured anywhere in the last several million years.  
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:

 

But can it be "trust, stumble, stumble, trip, learn, debate, lose faith, come back, etc."? Of course! It's just as plausible. Whereas the scientific method is always the same, and the predictability of what we learn verifies the accuracy of it. Observe a phenomenon, posit a hypothesis, derive predictions from the hypothesis, and TEST your predictions by conducting experiments. Record your results, and re-test, and test, and test. Whereas the process you posited is wholly internal in your head, and does not involve anything external against which you can test whether or not you're correct, or at least on the right track.  Psychologically, it does work. I'm a sports fan. It's one of the most illogical things I do. I cheer for the same teams I always have in each sport, because I believe it to be no fun if you just switch, and you feel less rewarded when the team wins if you haven't been loyal through the down-times. There is a level of illogical thought to it, but I only do it because it's fun. I am very emotionally invested in it, even though I know it's unimportant in the grand scheme of things. You are the same way with god, but you believe it to be important. That is the only difference between your god to you, and Liverpool FC to me. You can try to tell me to support Manchester City instead but I won't. Trust me, it works. We are somewhat wired for this. I just use that wiring for recreation/entertainment, whereas you use it to bullshit yourself. 
To your first part in reference to the scientific method... The scientific method consistency does not work when talking about educating children.. Each child learns differently and at their own pace, though we still push them through in many instances... We have tried to put every child on one line, but it just doesn't work that way, some children fall short of the line and fail constantly, others rise above it and graduate with honors.  There are many ways to the end result, but as public education has shown, you can outline the progression of education.  more than ninety percent of the students will waver within a confined area of the line.  there are outliers, but that is expected in any situation with so many variables.  This applies to coming to faith as well.  it is a learning process, not a scientific discovery.  it's like using the scientific method, but trying to discover something new without knowing exactly what's going to work.  You have that constant, the method, but your understanding of how to go about it is the variable.  that variable is unknown until you make the discovery and therefore the scientific method doesn't decide how smooth the progress to the discovery will be.  some discoveries are made in a few years, some take a lifetime or several.  There's really no difference here.  Coming to faith and finding God is not like learning the Laws that have already been discovered, it's like discovering something new that you yourself will document and present.  
Yes, but education can be improved, and by increasing the percentage of children succesfully educated, you have improved your method of education. We know that they're all different and it's what we expect. I don't know why you're doing this to yourself. We know that everyone learns differently to a point. Guess how we figured that out? Because the same lesson plan will have different success rates. How did we determine that? We fed the children the same lesson plan, and found that the results varied. We then wrote down to what extent they varied, and perhaps we made a graph. We then have a curve. If we feel it's under a certain threshhold, perhaps we revise the lesson plan. Then we educate some more children. Was this new method more successful? Is it consistently more successful over a large number of groups? If so, you have found a better lesson plan. That is how the method works. Let me help you. The traditionally most successful methods of making people Christians include: Inquisitions. Force. Control of information. Low income. Low education. There is an inverse correlation between religiosity and societal health.  
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:

If there wasn't a fork in that road, and was just two separate roads from the start, that wouldn't be a problem. They should be completely separated were they designed, no?

not for the system to work the way it does.  basically there'd have to be a complete design overhaul if you want to make that one small change.

Well yes, there would. Is that a problem for god? Is it too much work? 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

The olfactory sense could have been designed separately. Is this beyond your god's ability as well?

So god has petty human emotions? Isn't jealousy a deadly sin? Does god get jealous or not?

Many things could have been designed differently I'm sure, but there's a reason why thye weren't. I'm not going to even begin to claim I understand the reasonings behind Creation, only that it works for whta it needs to do.  YOu claim it doesn't but htat doesn't bode well for evolution either then be it that evolution by now would have corrected such an issue if it in fact was an issue for the survival of the species.    If evolution designed us this way per your perspective, then it must have been better than the alternatives. 

 

 The bolded part says everything I need to know that I'm probably wasting my time. You say that there's a reason, but you refuse to examine it. You simply accept that this is the best way, and refuse to question it. You're a good serf. 

 

And no, for the last time, no evolution wouldn't! Evolution doesn't produce the best solution. The first one that succeeds is what we're stuck with. Of course choking isn't going to eliminate species of animals that can choke, but it does kill a few. Because it doesn't threaten any species, really, we're stuck with it. That's why it doesn't get "corrected". Evolution doesn't produce the best alternative. It just produces one that works. Did you know that the laryngeal nerve in a giraffe goes all the way down its neck from the brain and back up to the larynx? The actual distance between the beginning and end of the nerve is a few inches at most. Why? It is homologous to a nerve in fish, which does take a more logical path (to some gills). Once our fish ancestors became less "fish-like", evolution couldn't see (obviously) that the nerve was on the wrong side. Therefore, over the years the nerve got longer, to the point where it takes a few inches detour in humans, but a 15' one in giraffes. This is not the best solution. It's simply one that happened. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Vastet wrote:
You can't have it both ways. Either god can predict the future with sufficient accuracy to be responsible for everything or he can't. Make up your mind.

Ok, God is responsible for everything.  It does say that in scripture.  God allows things and prevents things... Unlike the take you're gonig to put on this, God does not "DO" all things, He will either allow it or not allow it.  God allows us to keep pushing Him away.  I"m guessing to show us that in the end, we can't live without Him.

The way you say this makes me think you thought I was suggesting more than I was when I first talked about gods responsibility. I don't believe god, if he exists, does much of anything to be honest. Not these days anyway. If the bible is to be believed he was VERY active for awhile. Creating everything and speaking to people and destroying evils etc. But ever since jesus he hasn't done so much. Nothing grandiose that's for certain.

alright, it seems we would basically agree here... though He probably does more than miniscule things.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:You're

Jabberwocky wrote:

You're missing one key point. God also created the caretakers. He created their brains, hence even if they have free-will, an omnipotent and omniscient god can't create a being that he isn't able to predict the behaviour of. It's exactly like the funny question "Can god microwave a burrito so hot that he himself can't eat it?". Except the question has real world implications. "Can god create a human with a brain so unpredictable that he, himself, can't predict what it's going to do?" If he's omniscient, the answer to that question necessarily has to be no.

If he can eat a burrito of any temperature due to his omnipotence, then he can predict with 100% accuracy what any human will do because of his omniscience. If you believe that a first betrayal brought sin into this world, then you have to believe that god deliberately created the humans who WOULD sin, rather than the ones who wouldn't. Your analogy in the second long paragraph fails at the outset because of this. If people who typically hire CEOs also created them and their brains, then you might have a point. They didn't. If someone was omnipotent and omniscient, and created a CEO to run their company, they would be able to create a CEO that makes exactly the decision that they want them to. Why would you do it any other way?

...and you know it, there are Christians out there who completely agree with what you said.  now i"m on the fence with the idea that God created people to intentionally sin... My take is God is capable of creating beings that have the ability to sin and He did so.  God also created these beings with the notion that He was going to "allow' them to do whatever they choose whether good or bad. 

Considering omnipotence for a second, I"m not sure if God saw the fall coming or not. 

If He did, then despite the creation He likely figured they could learn from their mistakes... then again, we also must assume then He could see literally the whole future up through now and to the end of all existence if that is to come to be.  He then would have had this whole thing planned... why I don't know.

If He didn't, then an omnipotent God could also choose to not know something couldnt' He?  and to not know something does not make Him not omnipotent if He chose to not know something... this would also assume that at any moment He could choose to see it all.

The Third option is that there are many futures with likely outcomes... I kind of hold to this one.  God can see all possible outcomes of any choice made by any being including the choices He made himself in His creation.  Understanding the likely outcomes, God can manipulate the present to make a future come to the conclusion He intended... however God can also hope that Humans make the right decision on their own and wait to see what happens.  Considerings Gods deep dissappointment and sadness mentioned in Genesis when He was going to make the flood, it seems logical to conclude that God had "hopes" for mankind that ultimately did not come to be.  It also seems logical to conclude that God knew mankind was capable and could make choices that ultimately would not have lead to that outcome but did not. 

Again, this goes back to omnipotence knowing all that is knowable and whether the future really is knowable or not.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Someone

Jabberwocky wrote:

Someone mentioned viruses, yes. However, the things that are conventionally called life (usually from as simple as bacteria, to animals plants and fungi) are considered to share a common ancestor.  Where are these tons of articles?Regardless, when you ask to what degree and how far back, the logical conclusion is that it occured indefinitely into the past until it hit the point of the last universal common ancestor. This is a natural process that is observed to work like that. If there is a stop somewhere, you have to propose another method by which it could have happened and provide evidence. You haven't. I feel like I'm repeating myself here. 
it was at least worded differentlyanyway, what is mentioned is assumed based on what we know so far and we really have no concrete evidence to support it.  it's like a Christian from your perspective using the Bible to prove Gods existence.
Jabberwocky wrote:
 We are also suggesting that it took "many cycles" in the evolution of the bipedal pelvis. We just don't have the fossils for reasons I mentioned above. 
right, and consistently with all other progressions with the same claims.  the fact that those specific fossils are missing are big red flags for me.  As i said, if those were in our possession, the progressive fossils up to that point would not be needed to prove the point.  The key fossils necessary for driving the point home just happen to not exist.
Jabberwocky wrote:
Which specific fossils exactly? Find ancestors WITH NAMES, and show me where you believe problematic gaps are. This must be at least the 5th time I've asked this of you, and you continue not to do it. 
the transition from one pelvis to the other... as you said, it took many cycles, so why do no fossils exist from any of those cycles? I feel like we're getting redundant now. I don't know names... it seems though that the fossile that has the pelvis that is in mid transition, that could go both ways effectively does nto exist.  Remember, this si not my expertise, I'm waiting for someone to show me them. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
Caposkia wrote:
 Frustrating when you're missing that one peice of evidence that would prove to the other side your understanding isn't it.  Except in this case, it actually doesn't exist.  You can cry bullshit all you want, but the point is clear.  The proof is missing.  The reasoning is there.Also i have noticed that most of your arguments in this string are "reasons taht evolution is true" despite my agreement that it is, rather I'm trying to tell you that darwinistic evolution is not and we haven't the actual proof to support it, only a broken line.  You want another example of missing evolution?  pick one.  we can talk about it.  We can try to trace any creature back and I'm willing to bet there's a gap in a pivotal point in the progression claim. 
I don't buy it. I believe if we had that "one piece" that you think is missing, you would simply gravitate to another gap and claim that that was the big hole in the evidence. Because you refuse to be specific, I will continue to think this way, until you get specific about which missing links are actually problematic for the foundational concept in all biology. Also, for the last time...I'm going to use all caps here, because I feel I must. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "EVOLUTION" AND "DARWINISTIC EVOLUTION"!! Can you get that through your head? What you call "Darwinistic evolution" simply says that evolution occurs indefinitely, as I've said. Now, with gaps, I won't do that. I simply won't, because you're the one who has a problem with it. Also, I don't care about fossil gaps, as DNA sequencing conclusively fills in every single one of those blanks. It's unnecessary.
I thought back a few posts we did get very specific... Vastet I think was going through each fossile progression until I agreed they might have been human.Basically above, I just challenged you to show me what I think is missing...  I'm not sure why you think I'd be jumping around or gravitating to other parts when you bring them up.  I have stuck to this one spot in the human evolution and have not changed since we started talking about it... still no one has shown me the "chain of fossils" that would actually progress to human upright walking... it's just one, then the next one in line all of a sudden is upright and human.  You admitted that it went through several cycles, so where are the fossils in that cycle of transfer to upright?Basically I'm looking for that fossil that mechanically works both ways because there likely must have been one especially if there was a cycle... likely there would be some that were more all fours [which exist] but can stand up right... then there must be a progression to fossils that can efficiently and easily walk on all fours and stand upright depending on what they choose, then there must be a few that would show it was easier to stand upright, but can still for small bouts walk on all fours...... those last two seem to not exist, especially teh middle
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Well, that's what the evidence suggests. Also, the only alternative provided, is that at some point when you back up time, there is a cutoff where a supernatural being created everything in a certain state. This alternative is one that lacks ANY evidence. Therefore, it can be dismissed as twaddle. 
the fossil progression right?  See just like you can't find the cutoff, I can't find the progression... so help me out here. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 It has everything to do with it. Your particular kind of creationism does involve most of the animals (other than one pair of each alive at the time) to have been killed. This has effects on biology, and therefore is related to the flood. What I need from you is to say how many years ago this was, how many of what types of animals were on this boat that resulted in all we see today. You would also need to explain why the life in Madagascar is so unique, or Antarctica. Also, Australia is home to marsupials almost exclusively. If you can't answer these questions, you're simply wrong.  So either do the math that DOES work, or accept and admit that the flood could not have happened. 
lets' go through this againWe don't know how many years ago it was... I asked you all how many years ago it was.  If you're so sure it didn't happen, then you must have found the time period that it was claimed to have happened and found nothing.We also don't know how many animals were actually on the boat.  That would also be hard to define until we understand what "kinds" are and how many existed at that time... the time we can't determine.and Geology has already explained why life is so unique on Madagascar, to make a long story short there, as far as creatures are concerned, the enemies of particular creatures when the land split off from the mainland was in such low numbers left on Madagascar that the species were able to flourish whereas on the mainland the predator species wiped out the remaining.  Also it is seen taht on Madagascar, that was the food supply for many of those species...and thsoe plants happen to exist on the boardering edge of Africa... though some have since beocme exitinct also on the mainland for one reason or another.. Same would apply to Antarctica and Austrailia I would assume... I had only learned about Madagascar's unique life Interesting that if I don't know something, I'm automatically wrong instead of just... well... not knowing something... sometimes I wonder if you're expecting ME to be omnipotent.  
Jabberwocky wrote:
I don't need to give you a date. I don't believe that it happened at all. You are the one who should propose a date, and show math that works for the animals to have all evolved and populated the world as we see it today. I'm not going to give you a date for something I believe didn't happen at all. 
I have specifically told you we don't know the date many times over... yet you expect me to give you a date.  You're the one claiming it doesn't exist based on "evidence"  in order to have evidence to prove it didn't happen, you must have a date to reference to, otherwise you have no proof. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
There is truth in witchcraft?
yea 
Jabberwocky wrote:

Well if it doesn't happen to that extreme, doesn't that tell you everything? As the very original post in this thread says, the moisture in the air required for such a flood would drown us. 

And graves...so nobody else was in Jerusalem? When ALL of the graves of Jerusalem opened up, only one guy decided to write that down (and decades later I might add)?

no, Consider that God commanded this flood to happen, so of coures it was going to be something very unique.  Again, it would not be enough moisture to drown us if it was localized as we also discussed much earlier in this thread. 

And graves... you assume no one else was in Jerusalem?  One guy decided to write it down... I dno't know, maybe because the majority at that time was illiterate.... just maybe?  and decades later... it was officialized at least... who knows if He had notes.  

you seem surprised that without typewriters, word processors, and mass media that it took decades to write a book.  I'm surprised by that.  Just to add to that, they also lacked pencils and paper and note pads were a few years shy of being invented.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Then belief is superfluous to requirements. A god who is undetectable is indistinguishable (to us) to no god existing. You have said more than once that people reject god rather than disbelieve (and it's common Christian doctrine). If it's the case that god is undetectable, then what's actually happening is you are believing based on bad evidence or no evidence, and I am disbelieving due to not finding the evidence because it isn't actually there. If god is undetectable, then disbelief is the correct way to go.
I thought we were talking about the actions of God... You've taken that to say that God himself is completely undetectable.  In other words, we could not possibly know Him... If that was the case, there wouldn't be anything to discuss woudl there. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
Then why believe it occured?But an encyclopaedia doesn't have entries that are ridiculous and inconsistent with how we see the world working. To go to Genesis 3, do you believe that there actually was a talking snake? Encyclopaedias don't contain things that throw up immediate red flags.
they are when you're a child... and those who are not of the believe are said to be like children needing guidance.  New believers are youngsters in the faith.  The red flags are based on perspective... your perspective of reality says this can't happen.  Perspectives are never proof of truth.
Jabberwocky wrote:
You keep asking me to google or wikipedia search things. I typically provide links instead, because I like to be specific. Can you provide me a link to a legitimate scientific hypothesis of multiple starts to the degree that you're talking about? You have said in this thread that you don't believe that the human pelvis could have evolved from a quadruped one. Where is the evidence for multiple starts at the genus level which that would require? Show me one source that shows evidence for that!
alright, i did your homework for you.  I googled it.  This came up:http://www.pnas.org/content/80/10/2981.full.pdf
Jabberwocky wrote:
 That's not special pleading. The DNA evidence and the evidence from homology fills in all of these gaps. To engage in special pleading is to make exceptions to an agreed upon standard of evidence to make your case. If there was no DNA evidence it might be harder. However I'm still saying that the natural biological processes simply work. If these processes had to work very differently all of a sudden to make that change without supernatural intervention, and I said "well, it happened anyway", then that would be special pleading. However my assertion is that they simply work as they do, and can be observed to work. 
The standard of evidence suggests life should not have flourished as you will see in the link above.  You realize there are two opposing "standards of evidence" here be it that millions around the world accept the Bible.
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Yes, but education can be improved, and by increasing the percentage of children succesfully educated, you have improved your method of education. We know that they're all different and it's what we expect. I don't know why you're doing this to yourself. We know that everyone learns differently to a point. Guess how we figured that out? Because the same lesson plan will have different success rates. How did we determine that? We fed the children the same lesson plan, and found that the results varied. We then wrote down to what extent they varied, and perhaps we made a graph. We then have a curve. If we feel it's under a certain threshhold, perhaps we revise the lesson plan. Then we educate some more children. Was this new method more successful? Is it consistently more successful over a large number of groups? If so, you have found a better lesson plan. That is how the method works. Let me help you. The traditionally most successful methods of making people Christians include: Inquisitions. Force. Control of information. Low income. Low education. There is an inverse correlation between religiosity and societal health. 
but that has nothing to do with true followers.  none of that explains the outliers.  IT also doesn't explain the faith in other religions of very rich communities.  e.g. Jews are stereotyped to be rich and snobby, Buhiddists tend to be higher on the pay scale, etc...  What source did you get that from btw? 
Jabberwocky wrote:

Well yes, there would. Is that a problem for god? Is it too much work? 

it's non-sensical if the product works.  There's also a reason for the design the way it is. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 The bolded part says everything I need to know that I'm probably wasting my time. You say that there's a reason, but you refuse to examine it. You simply accept that this is the best way, and refuse to question it. You're a good serf. 

as are you to society, yet you seem to think you're ok not examining all the details either.

I don't know why God disigned us the way He did, do you?  Do you know why evolution designed us the way it did if it's so flawed as you say?  By your reasoning, we should have gone extinct long ago due to the poor design, yet here we are, seven billion people and growing.

Jabberwocky wrote:

And no, for the last time, no evolution wouldn't! Evolution doesn't produce the best solution. The first one that succeeds is what we're stuck with. Of course choking isn't going to eliminate species of animals that can choke, but it does kill a few. Because it doesn't threaten any species, really, we're stuck with it. That's why it doesn't get "corrected". Evolution doesn't produce the best alternative. It just produces one that works. Did you know that the laryngeal nerve in a giraffe goes all the way down its neck from the brain and back up to the larynx? The actual distance between the beginning and end of the nerve is a few inches at most. Why? It is homologous to a nerve in fish, which does take a more logical path (to some gills). Once our fish ancestors became less "fish-like", evolution couldn't see (obviously) that the nerve was on the wrong side. Therefore, over the years the nerve got longer, to the point where it takes a few inches detour in humans, but a 15' one in giraffes. This is not the best solution. It's simply one that happened. 

...and it works.  if you really want to get that picky about design then I can find a problem with everything too.  Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong?  or could it mean that I'm just looking for excuses?

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:...and you

caposkia wrote:

...and you know it, there are Christians out there who completely agree with what you said.  now i"m on the fence with the idea that God created people to intentionally sin... My take is God is capable of creating beings that have the ability to sin and He did so.  God also created these beings with the notion that He was going to "allow' them to do whatever they choose whether good or bad. 

Considering omnipotence for a second, I"m not sure if God saw the fall coming or not. 

If He did, then despite the creation He likely figured they could learn from their mistakes... then again, we also must assume then He could see literally the whole future up through now and to the end of all existence if that is to come to be.  He then would have had this whole thing planned... why I don't know.

If He didn't, then an omnipotent God could also choose to not know something couldnt' He?  and to not know something does not make Him not omnipotent if He chose to not know something... this would also assume that at any moment He could choose to see it all.

The Third option is that there are many futures with likely outcomes... I kind of hold to this one.  God can see all possible outcomes of any choice made by any being including the choices He made himself in His creation.  Understanding the likely outcomes, God can manipulate the present to make a future come to the conclusion He intended... however God can also hope that Humans make the right decision on their own and wait to see what happens.  Considerings Gods deep dissappointment and sadness mentioned in Genesis when He was going to make the flood, it seems logical to conclude that God had "hopes" for mankind that ultimately did not come to be.  It also seems logical to conclude that God knew mankind was capable and could make choices that ultimately would not have lead to that outcome but did not. 

Again, this goes back to omnipotence knowing all that is knowable and whether the future really is knowable or not.

You state 3 options. 

1. God knows all (past present and future)

2. God knows all past present, but not all future due to suppressing it from himself, or

3. God knows all past and present, but exact knowledge of the future is beyond his ability, only a range of possibilities is known to him, and the result could be one of many.

 

Option 1: God is an asshole. My life has been good. However, other people have been raped, murdered, tortured, traded as property, etc., but he created a universe knowing that result anyhow. 

Option 2: God is reckless. Imagine an engineer responsible for a bridge design not actually checking if the design he's supposed to approve is actually safe for MORE than the maximum weight the bridge could possibly physically fit on it, and just approves it, insisting he doesn't see it. 

Option 3: God is reckless. Imagine a person who didn't actually get the proper education for an engineering degree approving this bridge. Despite looking at the plans, he has no way of telling whether or not it could support the necessary weight. He approves it anyway. 

If god knew that the result of this universe COULD have been what it is, then in the name of all of those who have suffered pain unimaginable by myself, I would deem that being as evil (if there was evidence that such a being existed at all)

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Lol, I love the 80's

 Lol, I love the 80's throwback that completely fails to support the argument. 

Quote:

Although our analysis is less than rigorous, owing to the paucityof data on evolutionary turnover among primitive organisms,we conclude that multiple origins of life in the early Precambrianis a reasonable possibility. The fact that all present-daylife appears to have descended from a single ancestor does notvoid the possibility of multiple origins because most such originswould have aborted as a consequence of the birth-death processat the level of lineages. With a time-homogeneous model,at least 10 extinct bioclades could be "hidden" in the Precam-.brian if mean lineage duration was less than about 50 Myr. Thepossible number of extinct bioclades would be increased by mostdepartures from the homogeneous model or by competition betweenbioclades, or by both.
 Doesn't support that modern life came from multiple starts at all. It merely suggests that it is mathematically possible for other bioclades to have existed and gone extinct before evolving into life substantial enough to have left physical evidence. Nowhere do the authors suggest that these possible bioclades had any influence whatsoever with any modern life. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:right, and

caposkia wrote:
right, and consistently with all other progressions with the same claims.  the fact that those specific fossils are missing are big red flags for me.  As i said, if those were in our possession, the progressive fossils up to that point would not be needed to prove the point.  The key fossils necessary for driving the point home just happen to not exist.

If we had those fossils you'd just pick another piece of anatomy instead. And your expectations are out of sync with what evolution says. Every life form is a transitional life form. The evolution of the pelvic bone would have happened over hundreds of generations, as all evolutionary processes do. No single fossil could have formed that would satisfy you because no life forms that singlehandedly demonstrated vast changes in form ever existed.

If someone could provide the fossils you ask for it would prove that we understand evolution poorly. Ironically, the evidence that would convince you evolution exists, would convince science that it doesn't. At least, not even close to the way we understand it today.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Someone mentioned viruses, yes. However, the things that are conventionally called life (usually from as simple as bacteria, to animals plants and fungi) are considered to share a common ancestor.  Where are these tons of articles?Regardless, when you ask to what degree and how far back, the logical conclusion is that it occured indefinitely into the past until it hit the point of the last universal common ancestor. This is a natural process that is observed to work like that. If there is a stop somewhere, you have to propose another method by which it could have happened and provide evidence. You haven't. I feel like I'm repeating myself here. 
it was at least worded differentlyanyway, what is mentioned is assumed based on what we know so far and we really have no concrete evidence to support it.  it's like a Christian from your perspective using the Bible to prove Gods existence.
No, that's not correct at all. We DO have concrete evidence to support it. DNA. You should learn something about it. As far as I know, there is nothing that forces DNA to have the exact sequences that all organisms alive do, unless we ALL come from a common ancestor. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 We are also suggesting that it took "many cycles" in the evolution of the bipedal pelvis. We just don't have the fossils for reasons I mentioned above. 
right, and consistently with all other progressions with the same claims.  the fact that those specific fossils are missing are big red flags for me.  As i said, if those were in our possession, the progressive fossils up to that point would not be needed to prove the point.  The key fossils necessary for driving the point home just happen to not exist.
From here forth, I am going to give you the same response every time you bring up this point. Name me two species between which you see a problematic gap in the fossil record.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Which specific fossils exactly? Find ancestors WITH NAMES, and show me where you believe problematic gaps are. This must be at least the 5th time I've asked this of you, and you continue not to do it. 
the transition from one pelvis to the other... as you said, it took many cycles, so why do no fossils exist from any of those cycles? I feel like we're getting redundant now. I don't know names... it seems though that the fossile that has the pelvis that is in mid transition, that could go both ways effectively does nto exist.  Remember, this si not my expertise, I'm waiting for someone to show me them. 
Name me two species between which you see a problematic gap in the fossil record. If you don't know names, research it. I have done a lot of research for these posts in order to ensure I'm correct.
caposkia wrote:
 I thought back a few posts we did get very specific... Vastet I think was going through each fossile progression until I agreed they might have been human.Basically above, I just challenged you to show me what I think is missing...  I'm not sure why you think I'd be jumping around or gravitating to other parts when you bring them up.  I have stuck to this one spot in the human evolution and have not changed since we started talking about it... still no one has shown me the "chain of fossils" that would actually progress to human upright walking... it's just one, then the next one in line all of a sudden is upright and human.  You admitted that it went through several cycles, so where are the fossils in that cycle of transfer to upright?Basically I'm looking for that fossil that mechanically works both ways because there likely must have been one especially if there was a cycle... likely there would be some that were more all fours [which exist] but can stand up right... then there must be a progression to fossils that can efficiently and easily walk on all fours and stand upright depending on what they choose, then there must be a few that would show it was easier to stand upright, but can still for small bouts walk on all fours...... those last two seem to not exist, especially teh middle
No, we went through that. However here we are not talking about human vs. non-human. We are talking about quadrupedal vs. bipedal. The reason I am asking you to name the two species is because creationists lie a lot, and you like to move the goalposts. I want you to be specific (to, yourself, establish where the goalposts are) so that I can address your actual problem. You have stated that the pelves suddenly go from quadrupedal to bipedal. I don't think that's exactly the case. If you don't know the names as you said above, look them up! It's not hard to find what biologists propose as a progression of species towards homo-sapiens. Find where your gap is, then tell me it's between "species X" and "species Y" in a response in this thread (in any place of the many places I request it) and I will gladly address it. Since creationism uses the strategy of being vague and unspecific to its advantage all the time (such as use of the word "kind&quotEye-wink I will refuse to address anything unless you get into specifics. Name me the problem and I will address it the best that I can. Until then, I refuse to address your argument. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Well, that's what the evidence suggests. Also, the only alternative provided, is that at some point when you back up time, there is a cutoff where a supernatural being created everything in a certain state. This alternative is one that lacks ANY evidence. Therefore, it can be dismissed as twaddle. 
the fossil progression right?  See just like you can't find the cutoff, I can't find the progression... so help me out here. 
No, not the fossil progression. The DNA alone is enough actually. If we lived in a world where fossilization didn't occur, the DNA evidence would be enough. The fossils do help us find in which parts of the world certain changes occurred, and allow us to find evidence for organisms which we may have never otherwise known existed (like dinosaurs). If there were multiple starts to all life on earth today, the DNA would be more distinct. There is conclusive evidence that all life on earth is related in our DNA. As Maury would say "LUCA, in the case of every living thing on earth....you ARE the great great great great great great great great great great great great great.....etc....grand-fathermother." The same technology used to determine paternity shows us this. With 100% certainty. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
It has everything to do with it. Your particular kind of creationism does involve most of the animals (other than one pair of each alive at the time) to have been killed. This has effects on biology, and therefore is related to the flood. What I need from you is to say how many years ago this was, how many of what types of animals were on this boat that resulted in all we see today. You would also need to explain why the life in Madagascar is so unique, or Antarctica. Also, Australia is home to marsupials almost exclusively. If you can't answer these questions, you're simply wrong.  So either do the math that DOES work, or accept and admit that the flood could not have happened. 
lets' go through this againWe don't know how many years ago it was... I asked you all how many years ago it was.  If you're so sure it didn't happen, then you must have found the time period that it was claimed to have happened and found nothing.We also don't know how many animals were actually on the boat.  That would also be hard to define until we understand what "kinds" are and how many existed at that time... the time we can't determine.and Geology has already explained why life is so unique on Madagascar, to make a long story short there, as far as creatures are concerned, the enemies of particular creatures when the land split off from the mainland was in such low numbers left on Madagascar that the species were able to flourish whereas on the mainland the predator species wiped out the remaining.  Also it is seen taht on Madagascar, that was the food supply for many of those species...and thsoe plants happen to exist on the boardering edge of Africa... though some have since beocme exitinct also on the mainland for one reason or another.. Same would apply to Antarctica and Austrailia I would assume... I had only learned about Madagascar's unique life Interesting that if I don't know something, I'm automatically wrong instead of just... well... not knowing something... sometimes I wonder if you're expecting ME to be omnipotent.  
Hahaha, what? You want me to determine the time that the flood was claimed to have happened? You are making the claim, but you won't tell me or even give me any hints (or at least you will, but then say we can't pinpoint it exactly, as if that somehow makes it impossible to disprove). YECs claim about 4500 years ago. We know they're wrong, and you don't agree with them either. That is NOT the method of determining that no such flood happened (propose a date, then check that date). We don't find evidence of a flood of that magnitude anywhere on Earth that happened at any time. No physical evidence of such a flood.We don't know how many animals were on the boat, as it would be hard to determine until "we understand what 'kinds' are". I do understand what it is though. What is a "species"? A species is a word describing a category in biological classification. What separates one species from another can be at times ambiguous when two similar but distinct organisms are presented. One commonly accepted definition is that animals that are able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring are considered to be of the same species.  What is a "kind"? A kind is a word describing a category in biological classification. What separates one kind from another is always ambiguous, because it is a word used only by creationists who work very hard to keep it that way. Like your missing pelvis progression, the word kind is vague. There is a reason that they keep it that way.  So what you're saying is that due to different conditions, life was able to become quite different over a long period of time? With help from natural selection and random mutation? 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
I don't need to give you a date. I don't believe that it happened at all. You are the one who should propose a date, and show math that works for the animals to have all evolved and populated the world as we see it today. I'm not going to give you a date for something I believe didn't happen at all. 
I have specifically told you we don't know the date many times over... yet you expect me to give you a date.  You're the one claiming it doesn't exist based on "evidence"  in order to have evidence to prove it didn't happen[b/], you must have a date to reference to, otherwise you have no proof. 
No. That's fucking absurd! If I were to do that, you would then propose a different date, until we die, because you could propose different dates for that long. Floods leave evidence behind. There is no evidence of a flood of that magnitude. Religious people often scoff at the phrase "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence". I actually agree that in some cases it does not apply. Since floods leave physical evidence behind, and you are proposing the biggest flood EVER, a world-wide one bigger in every spot than any local flood, we should expect to find the biggest flood footprint ever world-wide. We don't. In this case absence of evidence is evidence of no flood. You are the one proposing this happened, and you have provided 0 evidence, and tried, instead, to shift the burden of proof in the most absurd example I've seen in a long time. I won't provide you evidence that the flood happened, until you provide me a piece that it does. I will address nothing but your evidence for the flood from here forth. If you provide none, then you concede that there is none. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
There is truth in witchcraft?
yea 
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:

Well if it doesn't happen to that extreme, doesn't that tell you everything? As the very original post in this thread says, the moisture in the air required for such a flood would drown us. 

And graves...so nobody else was in Jerusalem? When ALL of the graves of Jerusalem opened up, only one guy decided to write that down (and decades later I might add)?

no, Consider that God commanded this flood to happen, so of coures it was going to be something very unique.  Again, it would not be enough moisture to drown us if it was localized as we also discussed much earlier in this thread. 

And graves... you assume no one else was in Jerusalem?  One guy decided to write it down... I dno't know, maybe because the majority at that time was illiterate.... just maybe?  and decades later... it was officialized at least... who knows if He had notes.  

you seem surprised that without typewriters, word processors, and mass media that it took decades to write a book.  I'm surprised by that.  Just to add to that, they also lacked pencils and paper and note pads were a few years shy of being invented.

Yes, but before writing was commonplace, oral tradition was sufficient. People made sure to accurately pass on these stories...or at least that's what you yourself have said on multiple occasions. You're really shooting yourself in the foot, HARD here. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Then belief is superfluous to requirements. A god who is undetectable is indistinguishable (to us) to no god existing. You have said more than once that people reject god rather than disbelieve (and it's common Christian doctrine). If it's the case that god is undetectable, then what's actually happening is you are believing based on bad evidence or no evidence, and I am disbelieving due to not finding the evidence because it isn't actually there. If god is undetectable, then disbelief is the correct way to go.
I thought we were talking about the actions of God... You've taken that to say that God himself is completely undetectable.  In other words, we could not possibly know Him... If that was the case, there wouldn't be anything to discuss woudl there. 
You said I shouldn't expect to find any evidence, and that it would "make sense". Do you agree with that? You seem to now suggest that there is a way to know god here. Of course, you outlined a method elsewhere which was vague, as all religious propositions are typically.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Then why believe it occured?But an encyclopaedia doesn't have entries that are ridiculous and inconsistent with how we see the world working. To go to Genesis 3, do you believe that there actually was a talking snake? Encyclopaedias don't contain things that throw up immediate red flags.
they are when you're a child... and those who are not of the believe are said to be like children needing guidance.  New believers are youngsters in the faith.  The red flags are based on perspective... your perspective of reality says this can't happen.  Perspectives are never proof of truth.
So you believe that a snake talked to someone? 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
You keep asking me to google or wikipedia search things. I typically provide links instead, because I like to be specific. Can you provide me a link to a legitimate scientific hypothesis of multiple starts [b]to the degree that you're talking about? You have said in this thread that you don't believe that the human pelvis could have evolved from a quadruped one. Where is the evidence for multiple starts at the genus level which that would require? Show me one source that shows evidence for that!
alright, i did your homework for you.  I googled it.  This came up:http://www.pnas.org/content/80/10/2981.full.pdf
Haha. I don't know why it's my homework to help you validate your own claims. Now, remember where I said that you were shooting yourself in the foot with this post? This is the best part! It's been addressed by someone else, but you don't even have to read as far. Just the intro is enough! 
link wrote:
given survival of life andgiven as many as 10 independent origins of life, the odds are thatall but one would have gone extinct, yielding the monophyletic biotawe have now.
You posted a link that says in the intro...in the mere throat clearing, that all life today is descended from a common ancestor. That's what "monophyletic biota" means. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 That's not special pleading. The DNA evidence and the evidence from homology fills in all of these gaps. To engage in special pleading is to make exceptions to an agreed upon standard of evidence to make your case. If there was no DNA evidence it might be harder. However I'm still saying that the natural biological processes simply work. If these processes had to work very differently all of a sudden to make that change without supernatural intervention, and I said "well, it happened anyway", then that would be special pleading. However my assertion is that they simply work as they do, and can be observed to work. 
The standard of evidence suggests life should not have flourished as you will see in the link above.  You realize there are two opposing "standards of evidence" here be it that millions around the world accept the Bible.
You really didn't understand that link at all. It is proposing that there were multiple starts very early on, and that the descendants of only one of those starts remains today. Did you even read much of that link, other than find that it proposed multiple starts?So now that you see that the link doesn't say what you think it did, do you agree that all life we see today came from one common ancestor as the link that you posted says? Standards of evidence? You have shown that your standard of evidence is not rigid, multiple times. You posit that every bible verse is true, until proven false. You also propose an impossible standard of disproof to biblical claims. You say that we must deduce with 100% certainty when and where the bible is describing an event (a point you would probably never agree we have reached) and then find 100% certain historical evidence that said event did not happen. Then, when it comes to biology, you insist that we find every single fossil, even though it's been explained to you that fossilization is relatively rare. Also, I'm not sure if this has been brought up, but punctuated evolution is a thing. It doesn't occur instantly, but it occurs quicker. The rate is still disputed among biologists as far as I know. However, biologists agree that any sudden change in selection pressures would speed up evolution. Also, a reduction in population speeds it up as well. These two things often go hand in hand. Hence think about that for a moment. Fossilization occurs rarely, and the instances when change occurs the quickest, we have the least specimens that could possibly fossilize. But when we have countless intermediary fossils of all sorts, vestigial organs and appendages, homology between species, and DNA that shows we all came from a common ancestor, you say "nope. There is no way we have a common ancestor. There is no good evidence"  There are actually three standards of evidence in this thread. There is one held by rational posters who hold to the same standard for all things. Then you, yourself, hold to two opposing standards of evidence. One is the bible is 100% true unless you get a time machine and disprove it all 100%. Your other standard is that the mountains of evidence (both figuratively and literally) for evolution by natural selection, and common ancestry among all living things on Earth (except the aforementioned viruses), is NOT sufficient. The only one who holds to two different standards is you Cap. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Yes, but education can be improved, and by increasing the percentage of children succesfully educated, you have improved your method of education. We know that they're all different and it's what we expect. I don't know why you're doing this to yourself. We know that everyone learns differently to a point. Guess how we figured that out? Because the same lesson plan will have different success rates. How did we determine that? We fed the children the same lesson plan, and found that the results varied. We then wrote down to what extent they varied, and perhaps we made a graph. We then have a curve. If we feel it's under a certain threshhold, perhaps we revise the lesson plan. Then we educate some more children. Was this new method more successful? Is it consistently more successful over a large number of groups? If so, you have found a better lesson plan. That is how the method works. Let me help you. The traditionally most successful methods of making people Christians include: Inquisitions. Force. Control of information. Low income. Low education. There is an inverse correlation between religiosity and societal health. 
but that has nothing to do with true followers.  none of that explains the outliers.  IT also doesn't explain the faith in other religions of very rich communities.  e.g. Jews are stereotyped to be rich and snobby, Buhiddists tend to be higher on the pay scale, etc...  What source did you get that from btw? 
Hahahaha, true followers. How do you determine that?  Source? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_IndexWhile some of the higher nations on this list do have a high percentage of affiliated members, the level of religiosity is also something to consider. I don't know about you, but the Church of Iceland and the Church of Denmark don't strike me as major fundamentalist denominations. Attendance is probably a result of nationality more-so than of religiosity. The nations you would typically hold as devout religious followers are the ones you will find on that list. The USA just BARELY missed being in the top...100. The top 100. If Christianity were a positive thing, wouldn't such a "Christian Nation" rank better on this list?
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:

Well yes, there would. Is that a problem for god? Is it too much work? 

it's non-sensical if the product works.  There's also a reason for the design the way it is. 

Assertion of a reason. No explanation given. Again. The only reason to design it that way is so that we CAN choke if the design was done from the ground up. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 The bolded part says everything I need to know that I'm probably wasting my time. You say that there's a reason, but you refuse to examine it. You simply accept that this is the best way, and refuse to question it. You're a good serf. 

as are you to society, yet you seem to think you're ok not examining all the details either.

I don't know why God disigned us the way He did, do you?  Do you know why evolution designed us the way it did if it's so flawed as you say?  By your reasoning, we should have gone extinct long ago due to the poor design, yet here we are, seven billion people and growing.

I'm a serf to society? No. I'm a part of society. 

There is no reason a good designer would have designed it this way. 

Now where does anything say that every flaw results in extinction? I don't personally know enough about the biology of our aquatic ancestors to tell you why it evolved that way. Your very language is telling "why evolution designed us the way it did"...evolution didn't design anything. Evolution happened. It's blind. A mutation can result in a benefit. It doesn't have to be perfect. However, if it's advantageous it can, and often does, stick. I'll look up the evolution of this flawed system at a later date, as this post is already taking me some time. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

And no, for the last time, no evolution wouldn't! Evolution doesn't produce the best solution. The first one that succeeds is what we're stuck with. Of course choking isn't going to eliminate species of animals that can choke, but it does kill a few. Because it doesn't threaten any species, really, we're stuck with it. That's why it doesn't get "corrected". Evolution doesn't produce the best alternative. It just produces one that works. Did you know that the laryngeal nerve in a giraffe goes all the way down its neck from the brain and back up to the larynx? The actual distance between the beginning and end of the nerve is a few inches at most. Why? It is homologous to a nerve in fish, which does take a more logical path (to some gills). Once our fish ancestors became less "fish-like", evolution couldn't see (obviously) that the nerve was on the wrong side. Therefore, over the years the nerve got longer, to the point where it takes a few inches detour in humans, but a 15' one in giraffes. This is not the best solution. It's simply one that happened. 

...and it works.  if you really want to get that picky about design then I can find a problem with everything too.  Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong?  or could it mean that I'm just looking for excuses?

 

*sigh*. You are proposing not only a designer, but a perfect one. When I look at the design of cars (something I'm somewhat knowledgable in), I can see design flaws and compromises. However, I can understand why they happen. A desire to be economical is almost always the reason of course. Other times it's because they wanted to use the same part in many cars (also a financial question in the end, but we can delve deeper into these things). Then, sometimes it's just a bad design because the engineers were not very good at their jobs. To say that bad design exists in life on earth is to say that god had limitations as a designer, either resource or ability. Is either of those what you are proposing, or are you proposing another possibility as to why this is badly designed? If so, outline what it is. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:You state

Jabberwocky wrote:

You state 3 options. 

1. God knows all (past present and future)

2. God knows all past present, but not all future due to suppressing it from himself, or

3. God knows all past and present, but exact knowledge of the future is beyond his ability, only a range of possibilities is known to him, and the result could be one of many.

i "stated" all those?  might want to reread my "state'ment. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Option 1: God is an asshole. My life has been good. However, other people have been raped, murdered, tortured, traded as property, etc., but he created a universe knowing that result anyhow. 

all those examples you use here are done by other people... what of the rapists, murderers, torturers, and traders?  You ass labeled on one side.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Option 2: God is reckless. Imagine an engineer responsible for a bridge design not actually checking if the design he's supposed to approve is actually safe for MORE than the maximum weight the bridge could possibly physically fit on it, and just approves it, insisting he doesn't see it. 

well no, bad example.  it's more like an engineer responsible for the bridge design and sinage telling people how to use it, then a trucker coming with a 5 ton truck when the bridge is rated at 4 tons and going over it anyway. 

basically, it's not ignoring design flaws, the design is fine, its' the users that are careless with the creation causing it to fail.... maybe the designer knew the users would have done that anyway, but He still put the sinage up cleaning his hands from the responsibility of the users ignorance. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Option 3: God is reckless. Imagine a person who didn't actually get the proper education for an engineering degree approving this bridge. Despite looking at the plans, he has no way of telling whether or not it could support the necessary weight. He approves it anyway. 

ah, no again, bad example.  Again it's like a bridge being designed perfectly by the engineer, then the townspeople complaining about the bridge falling apart 100 years later despite their neglect to maintain it. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

If god knew that the result of this universe COULD have been what it is, then in the name of all of those who have suffered pain unimaginable by myself, I would deem that being as evil (if there was evidence that such a being existed at all)

nice try.  based on your examples, it would be an ignorant conclusion because if God knew the result of the universe COULD have been what it is, He would have also known the universe COULD have been what it isn't as well.  Something a lot better and more humane. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 Doesn't support that modern life came from multiple starts at all. It merely suggests that it is mathematically possible for other bioclades to have existed and gone extinct before evolving into life substantial enough to have left physical evidence. Nowhere do the authors suggest that these possible bioclades had any influence whatsoever with any modern life. 

 

only that it was mathematically more likely than one start... They also stated that it is likely that life would not have succeeded if there was just one start. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:No, that's

Jabberwocky wrote:

No, that's not correct at all. We DO have concrete evidence to support it. DNA. You should learn something about it. As far as I know, there is nothing that forces DNA to have the exact sequences that all organisms alive do, unless we ALL come from a common ancestor. 
or common creator.  DNA is not concrete for your perspective.  It is perspective based evidence be it that both sides use it to support their understanding.  I find it helarious that you're arguing with me about a non-religious perspective of creation at this point... mulitple starts does not come from the Bible. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 From here forth, I am going to give you the same response every time you bring up this point.
alright, from here forth, I'll pull out random species and see where you go with it.  I'll start with Elephants and dogs.  something tells me we're not going to get anywhere with this blind based approach.
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Name me two species between which you see a problematic gap in the fossil record. 
Bats and aardvarks
Jabberwocky wrote:
 No, we went through that. However here we are not talking about human vs. non-human. We are talking about quadrupedal vs. bipedal. The reason I am asking you to name the two species is because creationists lie a lot, and you like to move the goalposts. I want you to be specific (to, yourself, establish where the goalposts are) so that I can address your actual problem. You have stated that the pelves suddenly go from quadrupedal to bipedal. I don't think that's exactly the case. If you don't know the names as you said above, look them up! It's not hard to find what biologists propose as a progression of species towards homo-sapiens. Find where your gap is, then tell me it's between "species X" and "species Y" in a response in this thread (in any place of the many places I request it) and I will gladly address it. Since creationism uses the strategy of being vague and unspecific to its advantage all the time (such as use of the word "kind&quotEye-wink I will refuse to address anything unless you get into specifics. Name me the problem and I will address it the best that I can. Until then, I refuse to address your argument. 
we had gotten very specific.  I dont' know how much more specific we can get.  the quadrupedal vs. bipedal is human vs. non-human by standards of evolution based on what we've been discussing.  Let's put it this way becasue again, I'm asking you to teach me and you're response is "I refuse to address your arguement".  What fossil would you say is the first bipedal species and what would the previous fossil species be... there i can look them both up and see if there is a gap or not.  
Jabberwocky wrote:
No, not the fossil progression. The DNA alone is enough actually. If we lived in a world where fossilization didn't occur, the DNA evidence would be enough. The fossils do help us find in which parts of the world certain changes occurred, and allow us to find evidence for organisms which we may have never otherwise known existed (like dinosaurs). If there were multiple starts to all life on earth today, the DNA would be more distinct. There is conclusive evidence that all life on earth is related in our DNA. As Maury would say "LUCA, in the case of every living thing on earth....you ARE the great great great great great great great great great great great great great.....etc....grand-fathermother." The same technology used to determine paternity shows us this. With 100% certainty. 
The Bible says we're all related... DNA evidence again is used on both sides.  We all have the same "father"
Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Hahaha, what? You want me to determine the time that the flood was claimed to have happened?
welcome to the forum... glad you could join us.
Jabberwocky wrote:
You are making the claim, but you won't tell me or even give me any hints (or at least you will, but then say we can't pinpoint it exactly, as if that somehow makes it impossible to disprove). YECs claim about 4500 years ago. We know they're wrong, and you don't agree with them either. That is NOT the method of determining that no such flood happened (propose a date, then check that date). We don't find evidence of a flood of that magnitude anywhere on Earth that happened at any time. No physical evidence of such a flood.We don't know how many animals were on the boat, as it would be hard to determine until "we understand what 'kinds' are". I do understand what it is though. What is a "species"? A species is a word describing a category in biological classification. What separates one species from another can be at times ambiguous when two similar but distinct organisms are presented. One commonly accepted definition is that animals that are able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring are considered to be of the same species.  What is a "kind"? A kind is a word describing a category in biological classification. What separates one kind from another is always ambiguous, because it is a word used only by creationists who work very hard to keep it that way. Like your missing pelvis progression, the word kind is vague. There is a reason that they keep it that way.  So what you're saying is that due to different conditions, life was able to become quite different over a long period of time? With help from natural selection and random mutation?

you said, it it's ambiguous.  We can't determine what Kind was as determined in scripture.  why?  it was not defined by the author... creationists use the word because usually when talking about creation, the Bible uses "kind" and no other reference to creation of "kinds"   whatever that might be.  You say creationists work hard to keep it that way... either that or maybe they're not about to jump to conclusions based on nothing.  life was able to become quite different based on natural selection and random mutation according to the science of evolution as it is observed. 
Again, the only way you can argue your point is to define a time, you cannot do that, I ask you to tell me the timeframe becasue you're the one claiming to have evidence from that time period proving that the flood never happened.  I never claimed I had any idea when the flood took place, only that it did.  I base that on scripture, a scripture that has historocity proven through archaeology and geology as well as internal coherency despite it's diversity and span of writing.
Jabberwocky wrote:
 No. That's fucking absurd!
alright, let's have fun with this response then.
Jabberwocky wrote:
If I were to do that, you would then propose a different date, until we die, because you could propose different dates for that long.
how can I propose a date  I have repeatedly claim I don't know?
Jabberwocky wrote:
Floods leave evidence behind. There is no evidence of a flood of that magnitude.
from what time period are you looking?
Jabberwocky wrote:
Religious people often scoff at the phrase "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence". I actually agree that in some cases it does not apply.
it's not scientifically sound.  lack of evidence never implies anything because originally there was no evidence of anything until we started looking for it... and we're still finding new evidence today which has proven over and over again that that statement is false.  Me personally, I don't care either way, i dont' feel it applies to my belief.
Jabberwocky wrote:
Since floods leave physical evidence behind, and you are proposing the biggest flood EVER, a world-wide one bigger in every spot than any local flood, we should expect to find the biggest flood footprint ever world-wide.
which just proves you have NOT been following the thread.
Jabberwocky wrote:
We don't. In this case absence of evidence is evidence of no flood.
absense of evidence is evidence... interesting.  been proven wrong scientificaly over and over again, but I've met more radical religious belief systems.
Jabberwocky wrote:
You are the one proposing this happened, and you have provided 0 evidence, and tried, instead, to shift the burden of proof in the most absurd example I've seen in a long time.
only to the people claiming they do have evidence be it that in any other case where I would claim to have evidence the burden of proof would very quickly be put on me.
Jabberwocky wrote:
I won't provide you evidence that the flood happened,
I know... because you don't have any.I will address nothing but your evidence for the flood from here forth. If you provide none, then you concede that there is none. 
We have the Bible.  I never claimed anything more about this story... YOU have.. I have only claimed that I understand it happened based on the accuracy of what we know is true about scripture.. which is a lot... also my relationship with God.  Those who have told me they have evidence that it did not happen have nothing to show for it other than guesses.  So I guess i should address nothing but your evidence against the flood from here forth... but I've been doing that the whole time. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
There is truth in witchcraft?
yea 
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
pop quiz... why would I say that... based on scripture...  let's see if you really do know what you're talking about or not.
Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, but before writing was commonplace, oral tradition was sufficient. People made sure to accurately pass on these stories...or at least that's what you yourself have said on multiple occasions. You're really shooting yourself in the foot, HARD here. 

am i or did you just prove my point.  you just confirmed the very thing you argued against.  People did make sure to accurately pass on these stories and thus it was written down in a book.    Now explain to me how I shot myself in the foot... hard here?

Jabberwocky wrote:

You said I shouldn't expect to find any evidence, and that it would "make sense". Do you agree with that? You seem to now suggest that there is a way to know god here. Of course, you outlined a method elsewhere which was vague, as all religious propositions are typically.
I said you shouldn't expect to find evidence of God's actions or work.. taht was the topic being discussed when I mentioned that and I was specific.  but if God was completely undetectable adn unknowable there would be no Bible, there would be no following and nothing to adhere to.
Jabberwocky wrote:
So you believe that a snake talked to someone? 
I believe Satan talked to someone... I believe those people saw a snake. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
Haha. I don't know why it's my homework to help you validate your own claims. Now, remember where I said that you were shooting yourself in the foot with this post? This is the best part! It's been addressed by someone else, but you don't even have to read as far. Just the intro is enough! 
link wrote:
given survival of life andgiven as many as 10 independent origins of life, the odds are thatall but one would have gone extinct, yielding the monophyletic biotawe have now.
based on what?I need more than what you quoted to contradict that whole link.  might i add; odds are there were many more than 10 independent origins of life
Jabberwocky wrote:
You really didn't understand that link at all. It is proposing that there were multiple starts very early on, and that the descendants of only one of those starts remains today. Did you even read much of that link, other than find that it proposed multiple starts?
the question was based on multiple starts...  you denied the possibility, this article uses scientific reasoning to confirm it.  Beyond that, what would you say supports only one of thsoe starts being successful?
Jabberwocky wrote:
So now that you see that the link doesn't say what you think it did, do you agree that all life we see today came from one common ancestor as the link that you posted says?
once I can see why after so many starts only one would have survived.  What reasonings for that do we have?
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Standards of evidence? You have shown that your standard of evidence is not rigid, multiple times. You posit that every bible verse is true, until proven false. You also propose an impossible standard of disproof to biblical claims. You say that we must deduce with 100% certainty when and where the bible is describing an event (a point you would probably never agree we have reached) and then find 100% certain historical evidence that said event did not happen.
you expect me to know with complete certainty all the evidence that points to the Biblical truth, so likewise really
Jabberwocky wrote:
Then, when it comes to biology, you insist that we find every single fossil, even though it's been explained to you that fossilization is relatively rare. Also, I'm not sure if this has been brought up, but punctuated evolution is a thing. It doesn't occur instantly, but it occurs quicker. The rate is still disputed among biologists as far as I know. However, biologists agree that any sudden change in selection pressures would speed up evolution. Also, a reduction in population speeds it up as well. These two things often go hand in hand. Hence think about that for a moment. Fossilization occurs rarely, and the instances when change occurs the quickest, we have the least specimens that could possibly fossilize. But when we have countless intermediary fossils of all sorts, vestigial organs and appendages, homology between species, and DNA that shows we all came from a common ancestor, you say "nope. There is no way we have a common ancestor. There is no good evidence" 
so... biologists agree taht any sudden change in selection pressures would speed up evolution and a reduction speeds it up as well... interesting...
Jabberwocky wrote:
There are actually three standards of evidence in this thread. There is one held by rational posters who hold to the same standard for all things. Then you, yourself, hold to two opposing standards of evidence. One is the bible is 100% true unless you get a time machine and disprove it all 100%. Your other standard is that the mountains of evidence (both figuratively and literally) for evolution by natural selection, and common ancestry among all living things on Earth (except the aforementioned viruses), is NOT sufficient. The only one who holds to two different standards is you Cap. 
I'm not the one claiming I have "evidence" that the Bible is false and/or that the flood did not happen, so of course I'm expecting you to show me that evidence... when you do, you say there is none... what would you say to me if I made that same statement?  I also don't dispute evolution as the process that it is, only the origin idea which we don't seem to have concrete evidence for, rather only conclusions based on compiled subjective reasoning... which again, both sides use to their advantage.
Jabberwocky wrote:
Caposkia wrote:
but that has nothing to do with true followers.  none of that explains the outliers.  IT also doesn't explain the faith in other religions of very rich communities.  e.g. Jews are stereotyped to be rich and snobby, Buhiddists tend to be higher on the pay scale, etc...  What source did you get that from btw? 
Hahahaha, true followers. How do you determine that? 
I've never read that source... do you have a link?how do I determine "true followers"?  The Bible
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Source? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_IndexWhile some of the higher nations on this list do have a high percentage of affiliated members, the level of religiosity is also something to consider. I don't know about you, but the Church of Iceland and the Church of Denmark don't strike me as major fundamentalist denominations. Attendance is probably a result of nationality more-so than of religiosity. The nations you would typically hold as devout religious followers are the ones you will find on that list. The USA just BARELY missed being in the top...100. The top 100. If Christianity were a positive thing, wouldn't such a "Christian Nation" rank better on this list?
well:1, we've for the past several decades been pushing God away2, Consider where most disruptions of peace occur in scripture and in the world today.  Ironically in places that were supposed to be very "christian" or jewish.  Is it because of Christianity or other outside causes against the faith.  Also, how many claimed "Christians" do you think really are followers of Jesus Christ?
Jabberwocky wrote:

Well yes, there would. Is that a problem for god? Is it too much work? 

it's non-sensical if the product works.  There's also a reason for the design the way it is. 

Assertion of a reason. No explanation given. Again. The only reason to design it that way is so that we CAN choke if the design was done from the ground up. 

assertion for a change, no rational explanation given. 

consider we'd need an extra hold for breathing and eating then... more opportunity for disease to enter the body.  with a population today of over seven BILLION people, something tells me choking is not an issue with the design. 

Let's consider other issues then, more people die of infections from cuts, scrapes and other superficial injuries in the world than choking... should skin be more durable?  Maybe our immune systems should be preprogrammed.  why or why not?  and if it was, what would that mean for skins plyability, sensitivity and the need for vaccinations? 

I mean we can go on for thousands of pages on how we should all be these mighty morphed freaks that are completely indestructable, but it brings no progression to teh conversation.  I can come up with a problem for anything if you want, does that mean it's not the best the way it is?  of course not. 

When it comes down to it, everything is perfectly flawed.  to suggest otherwise is to suggest that you have already designed and tested a better way... have you designed and tested a new and improved human? 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

I'm a serf to society? No. I'm a part of society. 

There is no reason a good designer would have designed it this way. 

or wouldn't have for that matter

Jabberwocky wrote:

Now where does anything say that every flaw results in extinction?

the same place it says every flaw needs to be fixed to perfection leaving everything flawless

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't personally know enough about the biology of our aquatic ancestors to tell you why it evolved that way. Your very language is telling "why evolution designed us the way it did"...evolution didn't design anything. Evolution happened. It's blind. A mutation can result in a benefit. It doesn't have to be perfect. However, if it's advantageous it can, and often does, stick. I'll look up the evolution of this flawed system at a later date, as this post is already taking me some time. 

you said it.  YOu personally don't know enough about the biology of our aquatic ancestors... or probably modern day humans as well I'm assuming and yet you have these critiques of the design.  It seems you've just admitted you're not qualified to criticize. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

*sigh*. You are proposing not only a designer, but a perfect one. When I look at the design of cars (something I'm somewhat knowledgable in), I can see design flaws and compromises. However, I can understand why they happen. A desire to be economical is almost always the reason of course. Other times it's because they wanted to use the same part in many cars (also a financial question in the end, but we can delve deeper into these things). Then, sometimes it's just a bad design because the engineers were not very good at their jobs. To say that bad design exists in life on earth is to say that god had limitations as a designer, either resource or ability. Is either of those what you are proposing, or are you proposing another possibility as to why this is badly designed? If so, outline what it is. 

...and I understand why we are created as we are.  Without "problems" there'd be no need for... well... anything... life would be quite dull. 

for example, without the ability to "choke"  how many people of the world would be improperly chewing up their food and thus dying of malnurishment due to lack of proper processing? 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You state 3 options. 

1. God knows all (past present and future)

2. God knows all past present, but not all future due to suppressing it from himself, or

3. God knows all past and present, but exact knowledge of the future is beyond his ability, only a range of possibilities is known to him, and the result could be one of many.

i "stated" all those?  might want to reread my "state'ment. 

If I misrepresented your position, describe where. Point out where I am mistaken. What you've done instead is answer me anyhow, suggesting that maybe I wasn't far off what you meant anyhow. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Option 1: God is an asshole. My life has been good. However, other people have been raped, murdered, tortured, traded as property, etc., but he created a universe knowing that result anyhow. 

all those examples you use here are done by other people... what of the rapists, murderers, torturers, and traders?  You ass labeled on one side.

If god created their brains, then he bears that responsibility. An omnipotent and omniscient creator would know what people would do, and if he wanted them to not rape, murder, etc., then he would have created their brains in a way that they are not compelled to do so (and repulsed by the concept of doing so, as I myself am). 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Option 2: God is reckless. Imagine an engineer responsible for a bridge design not actually checking if the design he's supposed to approve is actually safe for MORE than the maximum weight the bridge could possibly physically fit on it, and just approves it, insisting he doesn't see it. 

well no, bad example.  it's more like an engineer responsible for the bridge design and sinage telling people how to use it, then a trucker coming with a 5 ton truck when the bridge is rated at 4 tons and going over it anyway. 

basically, it's not ignoring design flaws, the design is fine, its' the users that are careless with the creation causing it to fail.... maybe the designer knew the users would have done that anyway, but He still put the sinage up cleaning his hands from the responsibility of the users ignorance. 

If god created their brains, then he bears that responsibility. What if the bridge had 20 different signs with 20 different weight limits? Because if the bible is your moral guide in any way shape or form, that is the case here as well. The engineer didn't create the trucker's brain. In your world-view, god created ours. Therefore, he is responsible. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Option 3: God is reckless. Imagine a person who didn't actually get the proper education for an engineering degree approving this bridge. Despite looking at the plans, he has no way of telling whether or not it could support the necessary weight. He approves it anyway. 

ah, no again, bad example.  Again it's like a bridge being designed perfectly by the engineer, then the townspeople complaining about the bridge falling apart 100 years later despite their neglect to maintain it. 

Here, you didn't even address my point properly. This one also has the added implication that god is less than omniscient. However, he is knowledgable enough to know that it could end in a worst case scenario, and it's just as likely as any other outcome. Yet, he pretends to know more than he does, and allows the project to proceed anyway. You are getting worse at reading comprehension. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

If god knew that the result of this universe COULD have been what it is, then in the name of all of those who have suffered pain unimaginable by myself, I would deem that being as evil (if there was evidence that such a being existed at all)

nice try.  based on your examples, it would be an ignorant conclusion because if God knew the result of the universe COULD have been what it is, He would have also known the universe COULD have been what it isn't as well.  Something a lot better and more humane. 

So you're saying that god is neither evil or reckless in this sense because it COULD have been better? If god saw this as a possibility and just decided to NOT create the universe, then you wouldn't have even noticed as you would have never sensed anything, therefore you wouldn't have noticed this decision. Knowing what you do have today, that may seem like a bleak alternative compared to the life you probably enjoy. However, to those that died breathing in poisonous gas that was painful every single breath, that may be a favourable alternative. 

I am a being that can predict the future....somewhat. In a very basic sense, I can. I make decisions based on that very frequently. If your god is omniscient, however you want to limit it, it means that he knows more than me, and as a result also has better foreknowledge. Now pick any dictator who has committed genocide. Any single one. If I knew that my decision to create the universe could result in even a remote possibility of any single one of them existing, I believe it would be an evil thing to proceed anyway. According to your worldview, your god did it anyway. Even if he saw that better outcomes were possible as well. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.