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?

 

 

 


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

Vastet wrote:
Noone chooses their own lifestyle? lol you play right into my argument.

really?!   I must've gotten lucky then

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Choice is limitless really if you think about it.
No it isn't. Not even remotely.

 

good point... wow, I never thought of it that way.  

instead of responding with such dead end comments, why not defend yourself a bit?

Vastet wrote:

Riding a machine that flies isn't flying. And even if it were, what about the people 130 years ago? 200 years ago? 1000 years ago?

you wanted to look at it from an unrealistic standpoint, so I turned the tables.  You can choose to do anything humanly possible.   

vastet wrote:
Not true. There are hundreds of thousands of people with a very high level of education that are stuck in dead end jobs because there isn't enough demand for their expertise. Also, higher education costs money. How can I become a NASA engineer if I can't afford the required education? The suggestion that you can be rich if you work at it is bullshit. Say instead that you MIGHT become rich if you work at it, and then you'll be talking a lot more realistically.

that's logic of research... if they cared about being rich over achieving thier passion, they could focus on a carreer path that has higher opportunity... that's not an excuse for not bieng rich.. it is a choice they made.  You can become a NASA engineer because despite your belief that you can't afford the education, there are always ways including financial aid, grants and loans.  Just depends on how much debt you want to pay off later.

Vastet wrote:

Bullshit. People have ended wars they didn't start. WWII was ended by a conglomeration of nation's who didn't start it.

then why haven't you chosen world peace for us all yet?  I haven't because I didn't realize i could choose that for us all

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
You can put limits on anything... that is also a choice.  As the song goes, "if you decide not to choose, you have still made a choice".    Choice is limitless, your lifestyle is limited.
Choice is limited, lifestyle is irrelevant, and you are delusional.

good one... you've convinced me now!  

Vastet wrote:

Yes you do. You believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, immortal, creator god. You have no choice but to adhere to the systems that requires. Even if you don't like it.

oh, so you're choosing what I believe for me now... I guess you do have more power over choice.  predestination would still require an action by that omnipotent, omniscient, immortal creator god... and if that God is all of those attributes, that God can also choose not to predestine humanity despite what it knows.

Vastet wrote:

It isn't necessary. Every single fossil ever found and every life form ever examined fits with the theory of evolution. There is no competing theory. What we have is all we need. Unless someone someday finds something that doesn't fit, which is so unlikely as to be dismissed out of hand, evolution will remain a fact.

well, which is it, theory or fact?  because intially I was going to counter your claim that there is no competing theory by saying that fact trumps it.  yes theory is based on fact, but it is not fact itself until it has all the peices put together.

Vastet wrote:

The fact that you require such exhaustive evidence which is so far beyond the threshold for science shows only that you're a hypocrite. You accept other scientific theories which actually have evidence showing they are not completely accurate, like gravity. But you won't accept a theory that has been challenged repeatedly over more than a century, with absolutely nothing that contends with it.

you mean like you do with God?

Vastet wrote:

No it's a fact. Maybe you'd entrust the building of a bridge to someone who doesn't know the first thing about engineering, but I won't.

they may have been ignorant, but they were good scribes... taht's all they really had to do. only minimal understanding required.

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Would you really want to see evidence for my God?
Yes.

ok great, When you see it, how would you know that evidence was of God?

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
you however have already decided there isn't any
I have not. I've decided YOUR god doesn't exist, because your god is literally impossible. All the 'evidence' for the christian god logically proves there isn't one. I'm willing to accept the probability that the teachings of your god have been corrupted by man, however, so there is a slight possibility that your god does exist, on the condition that the bible and scripture cannot lead me to him. But god in general? I have no basis to dismiss the idea. I simply have no reason to embrace it.

ok, well just to say, the beginning part of your statement is basically proof that you've already decided... but the second part shows me why.  So let's just take Christianity out of the equation.  Just like I tell others opposing my religion but whom have their own, let's figure out what "God" is first and agree on that.  

For us, we'd have to figure out what would show you there is an existence outside the physical.  

Vastet wrote:

If I'm not looking in the right spot then maybe god should be the good guy he claims to be and put some evidence where I'm looking. It shouldn't be hard, he's omnipotent. And it's not like it would just be for me. Doing so could potentially reach billions of people. Of course maybe he doesn't want to reach billions. It should be simple for an omnipotent being to reach me alone if so.

well, he has reached billions actually... but that's beside the point.  I mean look at it without a shield over your eyes.  You know how it goes, if you look at something, but don't know what you're looking for, then you're likely not going to see what is being pointed out.  
 

If you're truly interested in seeing evidence of my God, then you need to work with me to figure out how I can show you.  It's like taking an amateur into a science lab and telling them to look into a microscope and describe what they see... other than circular blobs they might not describe much or even get close to what you expect them to see, but give them a little guidance and it's amazing what they'll find.

Vastet wrote:

 I don't know what would do it. I've thought about it quite a bit. All I know is what won't do it. An inconsistent book which completely ignores or challenges simple facts with simple mindedness won't do it. A person who even the believer says is corrupted by sin won't do it. I have no idea what would do it. But if god is omniscient, then god knows. Since you apparently have his ear, perhaps you could ask him.

To give you the faith to see what is real, first we must help you see what isn't.  As I said, we need to step way back from the religions of the world and look at what God is and isn't.  When and if you can accept that God is real, then we can discuss religions.  The Bible will not speak to you unless you know of God first.  This is my understanding.  As for what to show you... that's always the biggest challenge.  Are you expecting evidence to be physical or visual?  Are you going to dismiss all evidence that would be others experiences and eye-witness accounts?  


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

You see though, you have seemingly accepted the evidence that it's at least remotely possible that we evolved this way. If you actually don't agree that this is possible, please say why you think it's not even possible. You, on the other hand, have not provided any evidence that it could have happened your way. You have not shown that an omnipotent being exists. You have not shown any evidence for creationism. You have not shown any evidence of any supernatural occurence ever. Not only does evolution (in its entirety) explain how we came about wonderfully, there is not one competing explanation that has ANY compelling evidence that support it, and dispute evolution. This is why it is considered a scientific fact. You seem to be unable to understand this. These sorts of theories are accepted to be true unless a better explanation is provided. Your explanation involves a god (no evidence), who performs supernatural deeds (no evidence), who created humans independantly, rather than as beings evolved from other primates (no evidence, AND contrary evidence exists), flooded the entire world (no evidence), created unique languages to confuse people (no evidence, and I can understand a considerable percentage of most of Eastern Europe's languages being fluent in only 1)...I can go on like this. However, it would be unnecessary as I think you must get the point by now. The fact that all of the evidence supports the conclusion made by biologists (evolution by natural selection, and universal common descent from one abiogenesis event) makes it so likely to be true, you have a better chance of personally winning every single lottery in the world in one week. And even that isn't astronomical enough odds to explain what would have to happen in order for evolution to be incorrect. It would require so many errors over 150 years+, that we can at this point call it effectively impossible. 
of course I can accept the remote possibility, but a remote possibilty doesn't hold a candle to the evidences I have accepted for God.  It would have to be more than remote.  On the other hand, you claim I haven't provided any evidence... but we've been talking about the flood on this thread, so what evidences would you have expected me to provide?  If you are looking for evidence, I'll ask you the same question I asked Vastet and i woudl expect just as honest of an answer from you, what would you expect to see as evidence for God?Also if you followed these conversations, you'd see the flood flooding the entire world is not an issue.  Also the confused languages and origins of humanity coenside with recent discoveries that trace human origins ironically to a location very close to the assumed Garden of Eden.  the other fact I think you're missing here is pretty much all aspects of evolution with exception of the interspecial morphing does not contradict the Bible.  The origins aspect is different and there's no reason in scripture to believe that things evolved from other things, but other than that, evolution is a part of life as put into motion by God.  
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Stop here. What would qualify (to you) as actual evidence? I have presented a lot of it. The conclusion was made on less evidence than we have now, and all evidence we have found since supports the conclusion. What would it take for you to accept it? Furthermore, if it isn't true, why haven't we found a single piece of contradictory evidence? The evidence can be insufficient for a dogmatic mind such as yours, but all of it fits together. 100% of it. By now with how thoroughly these things have been examined, we would have found one fossil out of place, or that one inconsistency in DNA in life, if it weren't true. This would be another astronomically unlikely thing if universal common descent wasn't true; that we haven't found one single piece of evidence to the contrary. 
how about actual progressive evolution from one type to another?   All we have right now is common looking DNA that jumped to suddenly make this new species/kind, but nothing inbetween.   
caposkia wrote:
  Yes it does show a margin of error. Why bring it up if it's not a problem for your case though?
to point out how poor of a support that was for your case
Jab wrote:
 To your last point here, I haven't forgotten that you're not a YEC. However, the biggest problem here is you have failed to outline what exactly it is you believe regarding what was created, and what evolved, and on what evidence you have based YOUR conclusion. As it goes with any such discussion, if the views of one side aren't even concise to begin with, then it is impossible to actually argue it. I will state the following: My views on the history of life on earth are informed by the evidence. I have no pre-conceived conclusion which compells me to ignore any evidence. I may seem to dismiss creationist "evidence" quickly, but that is because any time I have inspected it more closely, it has shown to be erroneous. Indeed, most creationist literature comes from the YEC crowd, and most of their conclusions regarding biology require that framework. Since I know that the earth is levels of magnitude older than 6000 years old, I can dismiss much of what they say. The reason I ask you many questions and ask you to answer "why" questions where you actually agree with me on certain points, is because your position has never been outlined. Can you give me a short outline of what you believe regarding the history of life on earth, and where it majorly differs from Young Earth beliefs, and where it majorly differs from the conclusions of biologists? Until you do that, you're not even shifting goalposts; you haven't even put them into the ground yet. I'm just running around here kicking a ball.
 We've been focused on a very specific topic up until now.  I'll make my perspective very simple.  I believe in the Genesis story.  With that said, the Hebrew word for "day" is actually any "period of time" and not necessarily 24 hours.  The same word has been used in scripture to discuss era's, generations, etc.  So there is no reason to believe that biologists are wrong in that sense.  Where I differ is the common ancestor theory, which actually goes beyond what Evolution is and into a darwinistic cult... yes there are evidences people use to support the theory but again, though there are commonalities, there are no actual progressive species found or progressive fossils from one kind to the next.  So i have trouble accepting the assumption that they actually evolved from each other.  Honestly, that's really the only difference.  Everything else.. I think... I accept about evolution.    
Jab wrote:
 Prove what negative? Science is largely deductive. Take the phlogiston theory (the theory that a fire-like element called phlogiston existed in anything that burns). The theory was disproven, because magnesium gained mass when it was burned. Science had proven that phlogiston wasn't real. Where I have issue is when you ask someone to prove to you that an event from the bible didn't take place. You don't understand how the burden of proof works in this situation. Our inability to disprove a certain verse commenting on history in the bible does not make it any more likely that it happened. The point is, we see that DNA changes. Nobody has ever seen it abruptly stop changing. If your position is that humans actually could have evolved naturally from a common ancestor with chimps, but didn't because you believe god created us, well then there isn't much to argue unless you provide evidence as to why you think that way. If that's the case, you're just asserting. If you argue that humans could NOT have evolved from a common ancestor with chimps, you must show why you think that. I am presenting to you what might change my mind on the topic. If you were to locate a biological mechanism that would have prevented that, well then we can say it didn't happen! No such mechanism has ever been shown. 
the inability to disprove a certain verse does not make it any more or any less likely.  
To discuss why I think the way I do, we'd need to go back to the question of what is God and whether there is something beyond the physical.  This thread has no intention of going there.  
Jabberwocky wrote:
  Where in the fuck did I say, or even imply that "common decent" (sic) is not evolution? 
I can't remember.  I tried looking back quickly, but I really don't have the time to hunt the quote down.
Jabberwocky wrote:
caposkia wrote:
 None of that would prove your perspective whether I could or could not find all you listed above... also again it's not logical to suggest that I should prove a negative with science, rather there should be contradictory evidence of a new discovery that would ultimately discredit the old idea.   
 This is utter gibberish. I mean it. I've read it about 5 times now, and it makes absolutely zero sense. "there should be contradictory evidence of a new discovery that would ultimately discredit the old idea"....what? I know English can be stupid at times, but it's a surprisingly precise language if you use it properly. Please do exactly that. 
well, basically what you were saying about science being deductive.  Why is that so hard to comprehend? 
Jabberwocky wrote:
  Using the incomplete rainbow analogy, we posited "Well, we have red here, and green here. We would expect to find something similar to orange, and something similar to yellow in between". We later find these links. We find them very similar to what we expected to find. You say we have red, and a slit of sky....what slit of sky? I'm confused by your interpretation of the analogy. 
we're not seeing the hints of orange or transitional colors in evolution  
Jabberwocky wrote:
  So earlier in this post, we discussed in biology methods by which we could have gotten to this point. The theory of evolution by natural selection (which includes the idea of universal common descent) is a functional model. Could you make a functional model that includes the global flood and the ark? You would have to provide a way that all of the animals could fit on a wooden boat, and have enough food for a year, and then a rate of speciation that is within an acceptable range to repopulate the earth (and provide the diversity we have). In my opinion, either it would be too crowded an ark, or an impossible rate of speciation. Am I wrong? If so, why? 
if Kind is far up enough on the chain of evolution, there wouldn't have to be that many animals on the arc andthe speication rate is unknown because we don't have a date of the flood and there's no reason to consider that it happened that recent in history.   is that enough? 
jabberwocky wrote:
 Ok. Australopithecus, not human. Next, is homo habilis human? And yes, I'm going to keep going here one by one. 
oksounds to me like it's still not human 
jabberwocky wrote:
 What's a religion?
A set of beliefs concering the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.  
jabberwocky wrote:
  So a completely evasive answer that doesn't address any part of my question. My question was why share parts if they're not ideal? You said "Im suggesting that He created using simpler terms than people assume He would use." To me, that would be like answering my question with "because". 
how was that answer in any way evasive?fine, how about it's easier, or more compatable?   

 


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

How is the existence of all of the species I mentioned anything less than definitive? Species can crossbreed with very different species under some conditions. Earlier you claimed that it never occurred, I provided proof that it does. Inter-genus breeding is rare, but it does occur. My point with the Xenoturbella is that our categorization system is one of convenience and isn't set in stone. It changes frequently.

I asked you for a link so I could do the research myself... the link you provided was not difinitive and presumed miscategorization.  Not very definitive.  The fact that none of it is set in stone is further reasoning for it not being definitive.  Definitive would mean no convenience or miscategorizations, they would be what is.  We cannot determine that, not definitive.

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, it is evidence that it can occur and there is an explanation for how that doesn't require a god. You wanted evidence of intergenus breeding, so I supplied that and went a step further with this example of interkingdom breeding. I thought it was particularly appropriate considering your flippant remarks earlier regarding plants.

you're still on the god requirement kick?  I thought we've passed that.

Again, just because you understand something doesn't mean there was no need for something else.  If God built a system that can evolve and be modified, then why wouldn't that be possible in a lab?  why does that suggest it happens in nature?

Beyond Saving wrote:

1. I showed clear evidence of a species that evolved by crossbreeding with a plant, a half dozen examples of interspecies crossbreeding, interfamilial crossbreeding, intergenus crossbreeding and a species that. What other evidence do you want?

something that happened in nature and was not controversial.  You gave me 2 links, one was done in a lab, the other claimed miscategorization and was not definitive.  As I told you, I need to do the research yourself and so far what you have provided me is not very convincing.

Beyond Saving wrote:

2. I am not attempting to prove that God didn't create any of it. I am merely attempting to prove that what you claimed earlier is impossible is in fact possible. You will always be able to say "Well yeah, but God created it" no matter what evidence I provide. The statement is not falsifiable. At most, I can point out that there is absolutely no evidence that a god created any of it so saying "God created it" is equal to claiming that a unicorn created it. 

3. Of course not. The evidence suggests that it is possible, but I believe it is more probable that life came from multiple sources. With the tools available to us right now, it is impossible to know for sure and quite possible that we will never know for sure.    

 

...and that's where faith comes in... I don't mean in my belief either. What you believe is probable and what is reality may or may not coenside... so how do we determine that once and for all?


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

and what are the odds of all that being planned?  Created that way if you will?  And based on what?  I only ask that based on the idea that the "odds" we are talking about are quite small.

The odds of it being planned are impossible to calculate since there is zero evidence of a being that would be capable of planning and creating it is even possible let alone all the variables that would be involved with such a being coming into existence. It is odd that you scoff at odds that we can calculate fairly accurately because we have observable examples, but then posit a being capable of controlling everything without ever considering how such a being could even come into existence.

This is all going way beyond this thread, but that's just it.. you have nothing to prove or refute God... it's kind of a dead end if you have nothing on either end.  

To even talk about God coming into existence would automatically assume we could calculate time before the Big Bang if in fact it existed.  Einstein proved that it is us moving through time, not the other way around... if God isn't moving through time, would He have always existed?  how does something come to be outside of time?  kind of a similar question when you ask a scientist where all the matter in the universe came from... most say it was always there.. but how is that possible, it must have been created at some point right?


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

Which ones? 

which sources didn't they cite?  there's a list, look at it... if you took the time to determine which ones they did reference to refute scientists, then you must have seen how many they didn't.

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is more than a stretch, it is a ridiculously long leap, but it is what you are suggesting. You suggest that a culture existed 2 million+ years ago that had technology on par with civilizations 3 thousand years ago but somehow managed to avoid leaving any evidence of their technological advancement. We aren't talking about a single invention, we are talking about the disappearence of thousands of inventions and discoveries that wouldn't be remade for millions of years. That is a ridiculously long leap.

if literally all of humanity was wiped out except one family, its' not so long fo a leap

Beyond Saving wrote:

Heat doesn't help wine, it destroys it. Extended exposure to temperatures above 80 degrees will damage the wine and prevent fermentation, temperatures below 70 degrees will cause the fermentation to be too slow and prevent the process. In both cases, you end up with spoiled grape juice. That is another reason why wine wasn't discovered until after people started storing their food in controlled temperatures. (And another reason why clay was particularly conducive to making wine because it maintains a more stable temperature.)  

so how then did cultures living in desert regions create wine before the invention of temperature regulaters?  

Beyond SAving wrote:

I've never heard a meteorologist suggest that geological studies, ice cores and tree rings as less than legitimate. Is there any such evidence that points to the kind of massive storms you suggest? 

the problem with geological studies, ice cores, etc. is they're focused more on climate changes and not necessarily weather patterns that would have happened during a blip in history.  There is reason to believe due to the dramatic changes in climate throughotu the ages that severe weather patterns would logically have preceeded and/or followed such changes.  And this would be severe to a degree beyond what we've experienced in the last 150 years.  

This link shows how random weather can be and why it would be harder to prove something like the Noah flood couldn't have happened rather than it's possibility:

here

Beyond Saving wrote:

Because you have made a number of assertions about various topics that were incorrect and I don't have the personal knowledge to be able to separate what is supported and what is just a naked assertion. Since you claim knowledge in the field, it should be easy to point me towards academic sources that support what you are claiming. 

anything I had been incorrect about I had expressed so.  I have not tried to hide any of my mistakes and I also have been following the lead of those discussing with me.  I've made it very clear what I know and don't know.  That is not an excuse for you anymore.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So what evidence do you have that the sustained rain you are claiming is possible?

uh... El'nino, look at the coast of Africa during hurricane season, look at rainforrest rainfall totals even daily which is just an average, not an extreme, etc.  What more do you need??

Beyond Saving wrote:

From what I've noticed, that kind of chain of storms has never occurred during any season anywhere in the world. 

look at the tropics, most of it today happens over the ocean though.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, "severe" floods have occured many times in history and we have evidence of them. The story of Noah isn't about a severe flood, it is about a flood that is hundreds of times larger than the most severe floods we have evidence of that somehow didn't leave any evidence even if we accept your interpretation that the flood was much more local than the bible says.  

if you say so.

you assume there's no evidence, but we haven't a clue as to a date... are you sure we have found the layer the evidence would be in?


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

I have provided evidence. The evidence of how genes change over time is examinable by us, in quite a lot of detail. Mutations during both asexual and sexual reproduction happen. Some forms of life can even engage in what's called "horizontal gene transfer". With just these natural processes working as they do, things can and will change over time. The diversity of life today is not so great that it falls outside of the scope of possibility, or even the scope of probability. While this particular result on its own is improbable, it's equally as improbable as any other result (much like I mentioned earlier "someone won the lottery" isn't so crazy, because 10s of millions of people play the thing. "I won the lottery" is a comparitively rare event, because you are speaking of a specific person winning it" However, there is nothing impossible about it). Because of this, for you to say that it couldn't have happened this way requires that you provide evidence of what would have prevented things from happening this way. 

You, on the other hand, are positing a supernatural explanation. You have been unable to show evidence for any supernatural phenomenae. This is why I am not just being dismissive when I say that I have provided evidence, and you have not. This is why evolution, abiogenesis, formation of stars/planets, the big bang, etc. are theories. Your explanation isn't even a hypothesis, as it doesn't contais only untestable claims. 

Based on the post you're replying from, i was strictly replying to the link.  

we've been talking about the flood as to which has no evidence we are aware of.  

why do people conclude I am unable to show evidence of the supernatural when it's not the topic at hand?  It's a great excuse and I'm sure it looks good to others who don't want to believe, but c'mon, let's be logical.  You want evidence, pick your poison... what is it that would convince you?  It's a tough question to answer.


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 724
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
 The flood is a fairy tale

 The flood is a fairy tale and Noah is simply part of the Judeo Christian MYTH!

 All questions answered!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


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

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You see though, you have seemingly accepted the evidence that it's at least remotely possible that we evolved this way. If you actually don't agree that this is possible, please say why you think it's not even possible. You, on the other hand, have not provided any evidence that it could have happened your way. You have not shown that an omnipotent being exists. You have not shown any evidence for creationism. You have not shown any evidence of any supernatural occurence ever. Not only does evolution (in its entirety) explain how we came about wonderfully, there is not one competing explanation that has ANY compelling evidence that support it, and dispute evolution. This is why it is considered a scientific fact. You seem to be unable to understand this. These sorts of theories are accepted to be true unless a better explanation is provided. Your explanation involves a god (no evidence), who performs supernatural deeds (no evidence), who created humans independantly, rather than as beings evolved from other primates (no evidence, AND contrary evidence exists), flooded the entire world (no evidence), created unique languages to confuse people (no evidence, and I can understand a considerable percentage of most of Eastern Europe's languages being fluent in only 1)...I can go on like this. However, it would be unnecessary as I think you must get the point by now. The fact that all of the evidence supports the conclusion made by biologists (evolution by natural selection, and universal common descent from one abiogenesis event) makes it so likely to be true, you have a better chance of personally winning every single lottery in the world in one week. And even that isn't astronomical enough odds to explain what would have to happen in order for evolution to be incorrect. It would require so many errors over 150 years+, that we can at this point call it effectively impossible. 
of course I can accept the remote possibility, but a remote possibilty doesn't hold a candle to the evidences I have accepted for God.  It would have to be more than remote.  On the other hand, you claim I haven't provided any evidence... but we've been talking about the flood on this thread, so what evidences would you have expected me to provide?  If you are looking for evidence, I'll ask you the same question I asked Vastet and i woudl expect just as honest of an answer from you, what would you expect to see as evidence for God?Also if you followed these conversations, you'd see the flood flooding the entire world is not an issue.  Also the confused languages and origins of humanity coenside with recent discoveries that trace human origins ironically to a location very close to the assumed Garden of Eden.  the other fact I think you're missing here is pretty much all aspects of evolution with exception of the interspecial morphing does not contradict the Bible.  The origins aspect is different and there's no reason in scripture to believe that things evolved from other things, but other than that, evolution is a part of life as put into motion by God. 
Doesn't hold a candle? What's this evidence? You haven't provided anything compelling. I agree that this thread is about the flood, but we do have to discuss biology, because a wiping of all but one specimen of some level of animals (kinds...which we haven't nailed down yet) is something that we could use to see if the flood story is plausible or even possible. We're looking at evidence for the flood here, not god. I am saying that regardless of whether or not god is real, or even regardless of whether or not Christianity is true, I contend that no such event happened...assumed garden of eden..wow. If your location is "Assumed" to begin with, then you can make it anywhere. Also, what location is that in real-world places? Our species has its origin in Africa.  The reason we're discussing evolution is because it has implications on the flood story. I will discuss those in closer detail below.  
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Stop here. What would qualify (to you) as actual evidence? I have presented a lot of it. The conclusion was made on less evidence than we have now, and all evidence we have found since supports the conclusion. What would it take for you to accept it? Furthermore, if it isn't true, why haven't we found a single piece of contradictory evidence? The evidence can be insufficient for a dogmatic mind such as yours, but all of it fits together. 100% of it. By now with how thoroughly these things have been examined, we would have found one fossil out of place, or that one inconsistency in DNA in life, if it weren't true. This would be another astronomically unlikely thing if universal common descent wasn't true; that we haven't found one single piece of evidence to the contrary. 
how about actual progressive evolution from one type to another?   All we have right now is common looking DNA that jumped to suddenly make this new species/kind, but nothing inbetween.  
Seriously, are you deliberately this dense? "one type to another". It happens gradually. We can demonstrate it in organisms with short life spans. Change of DNA in organisms with longer lifespans doesn't work any differently, hence we have no reason to believe that this amount of change wouldn't occur given the same number of generations (or some magnitude more or less, as I personally do not know if the rate of change is identical across all life, or if it varies).  
jabberwocky wrote:
caposkia wrote:
  To your last point here, I haven't forgotten that you're not a YEC. However, the biggest problem here is you have failed to outline what exactly it is you believe regarding what was created, and what evolved, and on what evidence you have based YOUR conclusion. As it goes with any such discussion, if the views of one side aren't even concise to begin with, then it is impossible to actually argue it. I will state the following: My views on the history of life on earth are informed by the evidence. I have no pre-conceived conclusion which compells me to ignore any evidence. I may seem to dismiss creationist "evidence" quickly, but that is because any time I have inspected it more closely, it has shown to be erroneous. Indeed, most creationist literature comes from the YEC crowd, and most of their conclusions regarding biology require that framework. Since I know that the earth is levels of magnitude older than 6000 years old, I can dismiss much of what they say. The reason I ask you many questions and ask you to answer "why" questions where you actually agree with me on certain points, is because your position has never been outlined. Can you give me a short outline of what you believe regarding the history of life on earth, and where it majorly differs from Young Earth beliefs, and where it majorly differs from the conclusions of biologists? Until you do that, you're not even shifting goalposts; you haven't even put them into the ground yet. I'm just running around here kicking a ball.
 We've been focused on a very specific topic up until now.  I'll make my perspective very simple.  I believe in the Genesis story.  With that said, the Hebrew word for "day" is actually any "period of time" and not necessarily 24 hours.  The same word has been used in scripture to discuss era's, generations, etc.  So there is no reason to believe that biologists are wrong in that sense.  Where I differ is the common ancestor theory, which actually goes beyond what Evolution is and into a darwinistic cult...
No it doesn't. If abiogenesis occurred multiple times, we would expect to find a genetic code that differs on a very fundamental level. This is the conclusion reached by science alone. Science can not comment on the supernatural unless it affects the natural world in a way we can measure. The common ancestor theory wasn't something where we said "in the beginning, there must have been a single life form from which we all came". Common ancestry is a conclusion based on evidence alone. You seem to believe in some parts of the theory of evolution but not all. You also refuse to be concise on where that line is. So, where is it? 
caposkia wrote:
yes there are evidences people use to support the theory but again, though there are commonalities, there are no actual progressive species found or progressive fossils from one kind to the next.  So i have trouble accepting the assumption that they actually evolved from each other.  Honestly, that's really the only difference.  Everything else.. I think... I accept about evolution.  
Progressive species or progessive fossils? I'm confused as to what you mean. Could you provide me an example of a hypothetical progressive species/fossil? 
caposkia wrote:
Jab wrote:
 Prove what negative? Science is largely deductive. Take the phlogiston theory (the theory that a fire-like element called phlogiston existed in anything that burns). The theory was disproven, because magnesium gained mass when it was burned. Science had proven that phlogiston wasn't real. Where I have issue is when you ask someone to prove to you that an event from the bible didn't take place. You don't understand how the burden of proof works in this situation. Our inability to disprove a certain verse commenting on history in the bible does not make it any more likely that it happened. The point is, we see that DNA changes. Nobody has ever seen it abruptly stop changing. If your position is that humans actually could have evolved naturally from a common ancestor with chimps, but didn't because you believe god created us, well then there isn't much to argue unless you provide evidence as to why you think that way. If that's the case, you're just asserting. If you argue that humans could NOT have evolved from a common ancestor with chimps, you must show why you think that. I am presenting to you what might change my mind on the topic. If you were to locate a biological mechanism that would have prevented that, well then we can say it didn't happen! No such mechanism has ever been shown. 
the inability to disprove a certain verse does not make it any more or any less likely.  
To discuss why I think the way I do, we'd need to go back to the question of what is God and whether there is something beyond the physical.  This thread has no intention of going there. 
Agreed, it doesn't. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
  Where in the fuck did I say, or even imply that "common decent" (sic) is not evolution? 
I can't remember.  I tried looking back quickly, but I really don't have the time to hunt the quote down.
Good. Universal common descent is part of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In order to attempt to separate one from the other, you would have to find another explanation for homology (both in appearance and DNA), and how we all appear to be one big gigantic family tree. 
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
caposkia wrote:
 None of that would prove your perspective whether I could or could not find all you listed above... also again it's not logical to suggest that I should prove a negative with science, rather there should be contradictory evidence of a new discovery that would ultimately discredit the old idea.   
 This is utter gibberish. I mean it. I've read it about 5 times now, and it makes absolutely zero sense. "there should be contradictory evidence of a new discovery that would ultimately discredit the old idea"....what? I know English can be stupid at times, but it's a surprisingly precise language if you use it properly. Please do exactly that. 
well, basically what you were saying about science being deductive.  Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Well maybe you meant "contradictory evidence in a new discovery. That's the only way that makes any sense. EIther way, it's moot.
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
  Using the incomplete rainbow analogy, we posited "Well, we have red here, and green here. We would expect to find something similar to orange, and something similar to yellow in between". We later find these links. We find them very similar to what we expected to find. You say we have red, and a slit of sky....what slit of sky? I'm confused by your interpretation of the analogy. 
we're not seeing the hints of orange or transitional colors in evolution  
Yes. Yes we are. We are predicting the inbetween colours, and finding them at later times. It is not exactly orange, but a shade that's maybe a bit more yellow than red, but orange nonetheless. You can refuse to accept that if you wish, but you would be wrong. As I outlined with Tiktaalik, we find things we expect to all the time! Since fossilization doesn't occur in every situation, we expect to have some small links missing fossil-wise. Luckily, DNA and homology tell us the rest of the story.  
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
  So earlier in this post, we discussed in biology methods by which we could have gotten to this point. The theory of evolution by natural selection (which includes the idea of universal common descent) is a functional model. Could you make a functional model that includes the global flood and the ark? You would have to provide a way that all of the animals could fit on a wooden boat, and have enough food for a year, and then a rate of speciation that is within an acceptable range to repopulate the earth (and provide the diversity we have). In my opinion, either it would be too crowded an ark, or an impossible rate of speciation. Am I wrong? If so, why? 
if Kind is far up enough on the chain of evolution, there wouldn't have to be that many animals on the arc andthe speication rate is unknown because we don't have a date of the flood and there's no reason to consider that it happened that recent in history.   is that enough?
You see, the reason I'm asking the questions below, is it will help us get a date on the earliest possible time the flood could have occurred. You would have to say that humans were on it, right? If we figure out how old humans can be, then from there we can deduce that the flood must have happened no more than (x) years ago. Once we figure that out, we can deduce whether or not it is plausible that the ancestors of all animals (and land plants, and possibly fish depending on water salinization levels during the flood) could have fit on an ark.
caposkia wrote:
 
jabberwocky wrote:
 Ok. Australopithecus, not human. Next, is homo habilis human? And yes, I'm going to keep going here one by one. 
oksounds to me like it's still not human 
Ok. How about homo erectus?
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
 What's a religion?
A set of beliefs concering the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. 
I like where you stopped copy and pasting that definition
dictionary.com wrote:
noun

 

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, natureand purpose of theuniverse, especially when considered as the creation of asuperhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotionaland ritual observances, and often containing a moral codegoverning the conduct of human affairs. 
Also, the theory of evolution is not a set of beliefs. It is a body of knowledge based on observed evidence and inferences made from that evidence. It's not a religion, no matter how badly you wish it was in order for your argument to be valid.
caposkia wrote:
 
jabberwocky wrote:
  So a completely evasive answer that doesn't address any part of my question. My question was why share parts if they're not ideal? You said "Im suggesting that He created using simpler terms than people assume He would use." To me, that would be like answering my question with "because". 
how was that answer in any way evasive?fine, how about it's easier, or more compatable?   

 

I'll just leave this alone. Your response to my post was both evasive and badly written. But as we've said, these are getting long. If you don't feel like replying in full, respond to whichever parts you like, but be sure to respond to my bolded posts, as I don't want those lines of discussion to dissipate. 

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.


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

caposkia wrote:
really?!   I must've gotten lucky then

lol lucky that you shoot down your own argument eh?

caposkia wrote:
instead of responding with such dead end comments, why not defend yourself a bit?

I already did. You ignored it and made a useless comment that failed to counter my arguement. And now you're being a hypocrite. Again.

caposkia wrote:
you wanted to look at it from an unrealistic standpoint, so I turned the tables.  You can choose to do anything humanly possible.

Nothing is unrealistic when talking about omnipotence. And I can't just do anything humanly possible, like becoming rich.
You're just incapable of responding to logic so you pretend my words are irrelevant. Instead you should tear away the lies your life has been built on. You can't respond because I make sense, and you don't.

caposkia wrote:
that's logic of research... if they cared about being rich over achieving thier passion, they could focus on a carreer path that has higher opportunity... that's not an excuse for not bieng rich.. it is a choice they made.

Bullshit. There are plenty of people living on the streets who's passion was to be rich. You live completely in a fantasy world. As if all you need to become rich is go to school and apply for a high paying job. Never mind the fact someone else already has it.

caposkia wrote:
then why haven't you chosen world peace for us all yet?  I haven't because I didn't realize i could choose that for us all

Only a god could choose world peace for everyone. You haven't done it because you can't. Because under your god there is no free will, only predestined fate.

caposkia wrote:
good one... you've convinced me now!

I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince you. Your mind is hopelessly broken. Fortunately, just pointing out how badly thought out and hypocritical your arguments are might just stop someone else falling down your rabbits hole of fiction. You're a tool for me to let others find logic.

caposkia wrote:
oh, so you're choosing what I believe for me now...

Not at all. You've said so yourself.

caposkia wrote:
predestination would still require an action by that omnipotent, omniscient, immortal creator god.

An action like creation. Rofl it's amazing to watch someone shoot down their own arguments over & over without ever realising it.

caposkia wrote:
well, which is it, theory or fact?

Both. Not a theory the way you use the word. Theory the way scientists use it.
All the of evolution ieces fit perfectly. Your pieces, however, are a jumble from multiple puzzles that don't fit together at all.

caposkia wrote:
you mean like you do with God?

Not at all. You don't have ANY evidence for a god. You're not even in the game. And by denying that which has been proven thousands of times ovee, you also ensure you'll never be in the game at all.

caposkia wrote:
they may have been ignorant, but they were good scribes... taht's all they really had to do. only minimal understanding required.

It is exceptionally amusing that you put so much faith in ancient men who made up a story.

caposkia wrote:
ok great, When you see it, how would you know that evidence was of God?

It would fit the definition of evidence. Unlike yourself, I actually know what the word means.

caposkia wrote:
ok, well just to say, the beginning part of your statement is basically proof that you've already decided

And yet if your god exists and can do anything, he can change my mind. So decision is irrelevant. All I need is proof of your god. Too bad you don't have any.

caposkia wrote:
 So let's just take Christianity out of the equation.  Just like I tell others opposing my religion but whom have their own, let's figure out what "God" is first and agree on that.  

For us, we'd have to figure out what would show you there is an existence outside the physical.

Many theists have attempted this and failed. There is nothing beyond the physical. Else I'd have seen evidence of it by now

caposkia wrote:
well, he has reached billions actually..

Actually he hasn't. If you bundle up everyone who identifies as a christian you can say that, but there are so many denominations of christianity that vehemently disagree with each other. Your god doesn't even speak to his faithful to keep his house in order. They even fight wars over the differences.

caposkia wrote:
 I mean look at it without a shield over your eyes.  You know how it goes, if you look at something, but don't know what you're looking for, then you're likely not going to see what is being pointed out.

I'm not the one looking at things with blinders on.

caposkia wrote:
 It's like taking an amateur into a science lab and telling them to look into a microscope and describe what they see.

That's so ridiculous. I don't decide what I see in a microscope, I see what is there. If your god exists, I need evidence to believe it.

caposkia wrote:
To give you the faith to see what is real,

Faith doesn't show you what is real, it blinds you to what is real.

caposkia wrote:
As I said, we need to step way back from the religions of the world and look at what God is and isn't.  When and if you can accept that God is real, then we can discuss religions.  The Bible will not speak to you unless you know of God first.  This is my understanding.  As for what to show you... that's always the biggest challenge.  Are you expecting evidence to be physical or visual?  Are you going to dismiss all evidence that would be others experiences and eye-witness accounts?

I have no expectations. If you expect to find something you are more liable to be biased.
Eye-witness testimony can't do it. Humans are prone to lies and hallucination both. And if that weren't bad enough, all their memories are as reconstructed as the bible is, and as tainted by blind faith. Eye-witness testimony should not be acceptable to anyone as evidence for anything. It is far too untrustworthy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

How is the existence of all of the species I mentioned anything less than definitive? Species can crossbreed with very different species under some conditions. Earlier you claimed that it never occurred, I provided proof that it does. Inter-genus breeding is rare, but it does occur. My point with the Xenoturbella is that our categorization system is one of convenience and isn't set in stone. It changes frequently.

I asked you for a link so I could do the research myself... the link you provided was not difinitive and presumed miscategorization.  Not very definitive.  The fact that none of it is set in stone is further reasoning for it not being definitive.  Definitive would mean no convenience or miscategorizations, they would be what is.  We cannot determine that, not definitive.

In post #424 on the previous page I made six links. All of which were natural observations, none of them forced in a lab. Although, if you want to go that route, laboratory testing has shown that interbreeding is possible on a scale generally not seen in nature. Animals prefer to mate with similar animals, but deprived of a mate, they will attempt to interbreed with almost anything. Regardless, we have a plethora of examples of naturally occuring hybrids, some of which are at the familial level. We have the sea slug that took genes from algae and is now able to photosynthesize like a plant (it should be noted that further research has shown that it doesn't actually use the energy created by the process) that occurred naturally, not forced in a lab. You can't get more genetically seperated than a plant and animal interbreeding. That is pretty damn definitive that it is possible. With the link about the skinks, I showed that such wide scale interbreeding probably wasn't neccessary as half of the skink population has developed live birth, one of the things that diffetentiates reptiles and mammals. That wasn't done in a lab, it occurred naturally, and those types of small mutations expanding over time is probably what caused our various diverse classes of animals today.

 

Caposkia wrote:

Again, just because you understand something doesn't mean there was no need for something else.  If God built a system that can evolve and be modified, then why wouldn't that be possible in a lab?  why does that suggest it happens in nature?

I am  not trying to  disprove god. You believe despite having zero evidence, so no amount of evidence will convince you. I can only prove that your falsifiable claims are false, such as the claim that intergenus breeding is impossible or your claim that a giant flood wiped out all life on the planet.

 

Caposkia wrote:

...and that's where faith comes in... I don't mean in my belief either. What you believe is probable and what is reality may or may not coenside... so how do we determine that once and for all?

By continuing to test our theories and changing them when they are wrong. The difference between me and you is that what I believe could be disproven, and if it was, I would abandon it faster than a stripper when John runs out of money. For example, if we found strong evidence that genes actually don't matter and there is some other material that actual determines our make up and someone can create a model that has more accurate predictive power with a better explanation for how changes occur, I will change my beliefs. If someone shows that gravity is actually caused by something like dark matter and all our observations regarding the relation of mass and gravity are coincidence,  I will abandon my belief in the theory of gravity. If someone could provide evidence that a massive global flood occurred and wiped out all life on the planet, I would change my belief that such a flood never occurred. I consider all of these unlikely, but I can imagine what kind of evidence  would be needed. 

Is there any kind of evidence you could imagine that would convince you your belief in God is wrong? Considering how strongly you cling to the Ark story despite strong evidence against it, I doubt anything would ever be enough.

 

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


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

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

and what are the odds of all that being planned?  Created that way if you will?  And based on what?  I only ask that based on the idea that the "odds" we are talking about are quite small.

The odds of it being planned are impossible to calculate since there is zero evidence of a being that would be capable of planning and creating it is even possible let alone all the variables that would be involved with such a being coming into existence. It is odd that you scoff at odds that we can calculate fairly accurately because we have observable examples, but then posit a being capable of controlling everything without ever considering how such a being could even come into existence.

This is all going way beyond this thread, but that's just it.. you have nothing to prove or refute God... it's kind of a dead end if you have nothing on either end.  

To even talk about God coming into existence would automatically assume we could calculate time before the Big Bang if in fact it existed.  Einstein proved that it is us moving through time, not the other way around... if God isn't moving through time, would He have always existed?  how does something come to be outside of time?  kind of a similar question when you ask a scientist where all the matter in the universe came from... most say it was always there.. but how is that possible, it must have been created at some point right?

Why must it have been created? We don't have evidence that creation has ever been anything more than the transformation of materials from one form to another. Maybe someday we will have the tools to know, but as of now it seems foolish to make any assumptions one way or the other. It is okay to be unable to explain everything, and learning is much quicker when you know you don't know.

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


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

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Which ones? 

which sources didn't they cite?  there's a list, look at it... if you took the time to determine which ones they did reference to refute scientists, then you must have seen how many they didn't.

I don't know, that is why I asked. As near as I can tell, the article directly addresses every source used.

Caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Heat doesn't help wine, it destroys it. Extended exposure to temperatures above 80 degrees will damage the wine and prevent fermentation, temperatures below 70 degrees will cause the fermentation to be too slow and prevent the process. In both cases, you end up with spoiled grape juice. That is another reason why wine wasn't discovered until after people started storing their food in controlled temperatures. (And another reason why clay was particularly conducive to making wine because it maintains a more stable temperature.)  

so how then did cultures living in desert regions create wine before the invention of temperature regulaters?  

They didn't and even today they mostly don't. Wine was centered around the mediterranean and still is. Wine was a major trading commodity.

 

Caposkia wrote:

Beyond SAving wrote:

I've never heard a meteorologist suggest that geological studies, ice cores and tree rings as less than legitimate. Is there any such evidence that points to the kind of massive storms you suggest? 

the problem with geological studies, ice cores, etc. is they're focused more on climate changes and not necessarily weather patterns that would have happened during a blip in history.  There is reason to believe due to the dramatic changes in climate throughotu the ages that severe weather patterns would logically have preceeded and/or followed such changes.  And this would be severe to a degree beyond what we've experienced in the last 150 years.  

This link shows how random weather can be and why it would be harder to prove something like the Noah flood couldn't have happened rather than it's possibility:

here

All that link does is list severe weather, none of which was even in the ballpark of Noah's flood. If we know all those floods happened, how does that suggest we wouldn't know if Noah's flood happened? Seems to me that since we know about all these small floods is evidence we should know about a much larger flood.

Caposkia wrote:

anything I had been incorrect about I had expressed so.  I have not tried to hide any of my mistakes and I also have been following the lead of those discussing with me.  I've made it very clear what I know and don't know.  That is not an excuse for you anymore.

Only after I called you out on it and linked to evidence that you were wrong. Since I don't have knowledge in this area or a list of handy bookmarks, I am asking you to provide references to support your assertions.

 

Caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So what evidence do you have that the sustained rain you are claiming is possible?

uh... El'nino, look at the coast of Africa during hurricane season, look at rainforrest rainfall totals even daily which is just an average, not an extreme, etc.  What more do you need??

None of which is even in the ballpark of the 72inches a day you said would be needed for 40 days. The rainiest place on Earth is in India, and you are talking about sustained rains that are exponentially more than even their extreme. You are talking about 2.8 times more rain in 40 days than they had in their most extreme year ever observed.

 

Caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

From what I've noticed, that kind of chain of storms has never occurred during any season anywhere in the world. 

look at the tropics, most of it today happens over the ocean though.

 

The tropics are closer to the Sahara Desert than to the amount of rainfall that would be required. Are you seriously incapable of undersyanding that a lot of rain, isn't proof that infinite rain is possible? Indeed, I strongly suspect that if I were speaking to a meteorologist they could explain why such a storm would be physically impossible under all of our current models.

 

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
Jabberwocky wrote: The

Jabberwocky wrote:

 The reason we're discussing evolution is because it has implications on the flood story. I will discuss those in closer detail below. 
implications yes, but do we know enough about the flood story for there to be any impact negative or positive? 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Seriously, are you deliberately this dense? "one type to another". It happens gradually. We can demonstrate it in organisms with short life spans. Change of DNA in organisms with longer lifespans doesn't work any differently, hence we have no reason to believe that this amount of change wouldn't occur given the same number of generations (or some magnitude more or less, as I personally do not know if the rate of change is identical across all life, or if it varies). 
Why do you think I said "progressive".. that word implies gradual.  Are you deliberately this dense?Lemme show you how this sounds to me though;Demonstrations of God's power and presence have happened in isolated situations, therefore, there's no reason to doubt when it happens on a larger scale...Do you buy it? 
jabberwocky wrote:
 No it doesn't. If abiogenesis occurred multiple times, we would expect to find a genetic code that differs on a very fundamental level. This is the conclusion reached by science alone. Science can not comment on the supernatural unless it affects the natural world in a way we can measure. The common ancestor theory wasn't something where we said "in the beginning, there must have been a single life form from which we all came". Common ancestry is a conclusion based on evidence alone. You seem to believe in some parts of the theory of evolution but not all. You also refuse to be concise on where that line is. So, where is it? 
really???  the part wher you said "no it doesn't"... which btw, it does.
jabberwocky wrote:
Progressive species or progessive fossils? I'm confused as to what you mean. Could you provide me an example of a hypothetical progressive species/fossil?
I can't because I don't believe they existed.  but it would need to be something that showed how the evolution took place over probably hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years.. e.g. many species that show a progression from one species to the next without gaps... no *poof* and an elephant was born.   
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Good. Universal common descent is part of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In order to attempt to separate one from the other, you would have to find another explanation for homology (both in appearance and DNA), and how we all appear to be one big gigantic family tree. 
like God? 
Jabberwocky wrote:
Yes. Yes we are. We are predicting the inbetween colours, and finding them at later times. It is not exactly orange, but a shade that's maybe a bit more yellow than red, but orange nonetheless. You can refuse to accept that if you wish, but you would be wrong. As I outlined with Tiktaalik, we find things we expect to all the time! Since fossilization doesn't occur in every situation, we expect to have some small links missing fossil-wise. Luckily, DNA and homology tell us the rest of the story. 
You said it right there; "it's not exactly orange"   i.e. the transitional color is missing.  I mean c'mon, let's be honest for a moment...  It has happened where I claimed "God did it" and the response was well it could have been possible this way... I can respond with, sure God can use natural means to make things happen, but none-the-less due to the timing and magnitude it was obviously the work of God.  If you don't buy that, I can't buy your "it's not exactly orange" as a means to prove the overlap. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
You see, the reason I'm asking the questions below, is it will help us get a date on the earliest possible time the flood could have occurred. You would have to say that humans were on it, right? If we figure out how old humans can be, then from there we can deduce that the flood must have happened no more than (x) years ago. Once we figure that out, we can deduce whether or not it is plausible that the ancestors of all animals (and land plants, and possibly fish depending on water salinization levels during the flood) could have fit on an ark.
makes sense, but if the experts can't date it, how do you think we're going to be able to do any better? 
jabberwocky wrote:
Ok. How about homo erectus?
So this one was a little bit tougher... mainly becasue it seems there were a few different categories within this particular kind.   A few aspects lead me to believe these (or at least one of the categories) could have been early humans though.1. they were upright2.  though some of the skulls found look ape like from one category, another category look much more human-like; the "georgian" I believe (this could be 2 completely separate categories and not the same... I'd lean toward the Gregorian being human)3.  They are theorized to have migrated from Africa where human ancestery has been traced back to. 
jabberwocky wrote:
dictionary.com wrote:
noun

 

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, natureand purpose of theuniverse, especially when considered as the creation of asuperhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotionaland ritual observances, and often containing a moral codegoverning the conduct of human affairs. Also, the theory of evolution is not a set of beliefs. It is a body of knowledge based on observed evidence and inferences made from that evidence. It's not a religion, no matter how badly you wish it was in order for your argument to be valid.
so you like how I kept it relevent by copying and pasting the part of the definition that strictly and concisely explained it rather than going onto the "especially" part that implies it usually is associated, but not always with the following huh... why didn't you post the rest of the definitions too?2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons orsects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.5. So, using all the definitions now, I don't think you can deny that due to the "body of knowledge based on observed evidence" that a "body of persons adhereing to a particular set of beliefs and practices" doesn't apply to science and evolution be it that the practices are observational studies and the belief is the conclusion based on the observation.  In order for it to be fact, one would have to "believe" it.  I really don't want any of it to be religion, but the definitions speak for themselves.  You can try to make it look like I want it to be one way or another, but again remember that I"m here to allow people to challenge what i know.  If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, just ask anyone who has  conversed with me from the beginning of my time on this website.  It is what it is.    
jabberwocky wrote:

I'll just leave this alone. Your response to my post was both evasive and badly written. But as we've said, these are getting long. If you don't feel like replying in full, respond to whichever parts you like, but be sure to respond to my bolded posts, as I don't want those lines of discussion to dissipate. 

When the answer is not to your liking, you call it evasive.  When I don't sway on my answer, you call it badly written.  Maybe you don't understand, maybe it's not an answer you like, but I've told you before I"m not evading... and I'm pretty sure if I was... you wouldn't be talking to me still.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I already did.

Vastet wrote:
I already did. You ignored it and made a useless comment that failed to counter my arguement. And now you're being a hypocrite. Again.

see what I mean?  I mean we can point fingers all we want, but the response says it all.

Vastet wrote:
You can't respond because I make sense, and you don't.

...and yet I've responded to pretty much every line you've posted... so I can't respond how?  

Vastet wrote:

Bullshit. There are plenty of people living on the streets who's passion was to be rich. You live completely in a fantasy world. As if all you need to become rich is go to school and apply for a high paying job. Never mind the fact someone else already has it.

well you kind of need to be smart about it too... many people try and fail because they're too focused on the money and not enough on the avenue.  If you try to get rich in a failing avenue though some might be rich in it, it's not going to happen for you.  

Vastet wrote:

Only a god could choose world peace for everyone. You haven't done it because you can't. Because under your god there is no free will, only predestined fate.

I don't buy that perspective... but that explains a lot of why you have the perspective you do now on the faith.

Vastet wrote:
I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince you. Your mind is hopelessly broken. Fortunately, just pointing out how badly thought out and hypocritical your arguments are might just stop someone else falling down your rabbits hole of fiction. You're a tool for me to let others find logic.

If my logic was so badly thought out as you say... then they don't really need you to stop them.. they'd figure it out for themselves... unless this was an adverse way of saying my logic is actually convincing... so thanks I guess.

Vastet wrote:

An action like creation. Rofl it's amazing to watch someone shoot down their own arguments over & over without ever realising it.

Oh I have to hear this one.  Please PLEASE explain how the act of creation results in predestination throughout all time for all creation.  I would love to understand how I here shot down my own argument.  There may be hope for you yet.

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
well, which is it, theory or fact?
Both. Not a theory the way you use the word. Theory the way scientists use it. All the of evolution ieces fit perfectly. Your pieces, however, are a jumble from multiple puzzles that don't fit together at all.

well, that explains it... 

Vastet wrote:

You don't have ANY evidence for a god. You're not even in the game. And by denying that which has been proven thousands of times ovee, you also ensure you'll never be in the game at all.

or you'll never be.  You do realize how that claim works both ways right?

Vastet wrote:
It would fit the definition of evidence. Unlike yourself, I actually know what the word means.

which definition?  definitely not the first one on dictionary.com.  I don't think you do know what the word means.. by itself.

Vastet wrote:

And yet if your god exists and can do anything, he can change my mind. So decision is irrelevant. All I need is proof of your god. Too bad you don't have any.

God could change your mind, if you open your heart to Him... but you have to make a choice first.  All you need is proof... that I allegedly don't have... but you have yet to clearly determine what that proof would be. 

Vastet wrote:

Many theists have attempted this and failed. There is nothing beyond the physical. Else I'd have seen evidence of it by now

really.  and what would you have seen as evidence by now?  What could you possibly "see" that would prove to you that there's something beyond the physical? 

Vastet wrote:

Actually he hasn't. If you bundle up everyone who identifies as a christian you can say that, but there are so many denominations of christianity that vehemently disagree with each other. Your god doesn't even speak to his faithful to keep his house in order. They even fight wars over the differences.

..and all that prophesy is outlined in the NT.  It's why Christ will return... and few will be on His path.

Vastet wrote:

I'm not the one looking at things with blinders on.

of course your not...

Vastet wrote:

If your god exists, I need evidence to believe it.

yup... visual evidence right?

Vastet wrote:
I have no expectations. If you expect to find something you are more liable to be biased. Eye-witness testimony can't do it. Humans are prone to lies and hallucination both. And if that weren't bad enough, all their memories are as reconstructed as the bible is, and as tainted by blind faith. Eye-witness testimony should not be acceptable to anyone as evidence for anything. It is far too untrustworthy.

I believe you when you say you have no expectations.. in fact, you expect nothing.  Memories are reconstructed.. so everything you think you know from your past is false unless you have video or picture proof of it and memories are dreams and of course dreams aren't real.  

It's true people are capable of many things... basically what you're saying though... be it that the only means of recording in ancient history was writing things down at a later time... that all ancient history is biased and likely false.  Artifacts may lead to an idea, but then again, they were constructed by a person who had an idea of what they thought was real at the time due to their account that is likely false... and we take by faith all the scientists have documented as proof unless we've done the experiment ourselves and witnessed it first hand be it that they themselves had to reconstruct a memory of the results to document the findings.  Unless of course the scientist was smart and video taped the experiemental proceedure.  

Do you see the rabbit hole you're falling in?


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

In post #424 on the previous page I made six links. All of which were natural observations, none of them forced in a lab. Although, if you want to go that route, laboratory testing has shown that interbreeding is possible on a scale generally not seen in nature. Animals prefer to mate with similar animals, but deprived of a mate, they will attempt to interbreed with almost anything. Regardless, we have a plethora of examples of naturally occuring hybrids, some of which are at the familial level. We have the sea slug that took genes from algae and is now able to photosynthesize like a plant (it should be noted that further research has shown that it doesn't actually use the energy created by the process) that occurred naturally, not forced in a lab. You can't get more genetically seperated than a plant and animal interbreeding. That is pretty damn definitive that it is possible. With the link about the skinks, I showed that such wide scale interbreeding probably wasn't neccessary as half of the skink population has developed live birth, one of the things that diffetentiates reptiles and mammals. That wasn't done in a lab, it occurred naturally, and those types of small mutations expanding over time is probably what caused our various diverse classes of animals today.

I saw the links... the forced in a lab stuff doesn't prove anything to me, only that we have the capability of manipulating DNA.  Hybrids have happened all the time, look at the donkey... but the question is, does that mean everything came from a common ancestor?  if so how?  because it's possible for things to interbreed?  A sea slug took genes from algae and can no photosynthesize... ok, but it doesn't use the energy created... so what was the purpose of that adaptation?  How do they determine the genes were taken and what exactly takes place in the slug?  

We get energy (a hormone really) from the sun's energy as well... though it does get converted in our body to a useful product by means of cholestorol.  How is the slug different?  How is it the same?

I'm honestly asking these questions... on the surface, just like your links, it looks good, but when all these questions start getting asnwered suddenly a new light is shed.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

I am  not trying to  disprove god. You believe despite having zero evidence, so no amount of evidence will convince you. I can only prove that your falsifiable claims are false, such as the claim that intergenus breeding is impossible or your claim that a giant flood wiped out all life on the planet.

you cannot prove that a giant flood did not wipe out life on the planet at one point in history... if the experts can't do it, I don't expect you to.  I have not seen evidence for intergenus breeding even still.  You have shown me reasoning to why you believe it is possible, but just like your claim about zero evidence, we still have no evidence that such an occurance happens intergenusly.  

just to be clear... actual evidence would convince me.  A connection is not evidence to me, rather it's a reasoning to believe in an angle.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

By continuing to test our theories and changing them when they are wrong. The difference between me and you is that what I believe could be disproven, and if it was, I would abandon it faster than a stripper when John runs out of money. For example, if we found strong evidence that genes actually don't matter and there is some other material that actual determines our make up and someone can create a model that has more accurate predictive power with a better explanation for how changes occur, I will change my beliefs. If someone shows that gravity is actually caused by something like dark matter and all our observations regarding the relation of mass and gravity are coincidence,  I will abandon my belief in the theory of gravity. If someone could provide evidence that a massive global flood occurred and wiped out all life on the planet, I would change my belief that such a flood never occurred. I consider all of these unlikely, but I can imagine what kind of evidence  would be needed. 

Is there any kind of evidence you could imagine that would convince you your belief in God is wrong? Considering how strongly you cling to the Ark story despite strong evidence against it, I doubt anything would ever be enough.

 

well first of all, there is no evidence against it because there is no evidence for it other than the story itself... how can one have evidence against something that has no evidence? 

Second, what could convince me my belief in God is wrong?  I'm assuming you mean the general belief that God exists at all right?  that would simply be an explantion as to how prophesy came to be even hundreds, possibly thousands of years after it was stated.  or maybe that the prophesy stated never happened (an alternative timeline if you will) or that the very prophesy stated was stated after the occurance which then would nullify it as a prophesy.  

Reveil the origin of the judeo-Christian following.

and occurances that affected my life directly were actually intentionally implemented by some one or a group of people that just happened to be so aware of my circumstances that they put into play an event that made a positive turn on that circumstance.  

The first 2 parts maybe you could do... the 3rd part would have to be people around me fessing up.  

I'd also be curious as to what is happening phsiologically and psychologically when the claimed "Spirit" moves through or within someone and why that is instantaniously transfered to the lot within the same room without warning.  Such a known phenomenon must have a rational explanation if not God.  

That much would at least get me questioning God as a whole.   It's hard to determine outright because there is such a vast array of events that leads me to the belief I hold on God that it would take a dismissal of the majority of the aspects... which is a much much longer list.  it's not like asking someone what would convince them that there's actually a pen sitting on your table.   It's not one simple peice of evidence that brought me to God, ti wouldn't be one that would pull me away.  

 


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why must it have been created? We don't have evidence that creation has ever been anything more than the transformation of materials from one form to another. Maybe someday we will have the tools to know, but as of now it seems foolish to make any assumptions one way or the other. It is okay to be unable to explain everything, and learning is much quicker when you know you don't know.

I'm glad you said that.  It's the one thing we've been trying to tell non-believers for the longest time... that it's ok to be unable to explain everything. 

Why mustn't it have been created?  the problem is you state what you did, but you adhere to a side... you have dismissed the possibility of creation altogether... or so it seems.


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

All that link does is list severe weather, none of which was even in the ballpark of Noah's flood. If we know all those floods happened, how does that suggest we wouldn't know if Noah's flood happened? Seems to me that since we know about all these small floods is evidence we should know about a much larger flood.

why would we? the flood was unlike any other?  The link shows weather that was unlike what we've seen in today's age... there's even a flood that killed 10,000 people... how many people do you think existed during the time of Noah?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Only after I called you out on it and linked to evidence that you were wrong. Since I don't have knowledge in this area or a list of handy bookmarks, I am asking you to provide references to support your assertions.

called me out?  I was referring to other conversations and other times, but you never "called me out" rather you showed me a reasoning I didn't consider.. how is that calling me out unless I was lying to you?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

None of which is even in the ballpark of the 72inches a day you said would be needed for 40 days. The rainiest place on Earth is in India, and you are talking about sustained rains that are exponentially more than even their extreme. You are talking about 2.8 times more rain in 40 days than they had in their most extreme year ever observed.

um... not none... but let's go to Inda for a moment.. how far back do their weather records go?

Beyond Saving wrote:

The tropics are closer to the Sahara Desert than to the amount of rainfall that would be required. Are you seriously incapable of undersyanding that a lot of rain, isn't proof that infinite rain is possible? Indeed, I strongly suspect that if I were speaking to a meteorologist they could explain why such a storm would be physically impossible under all of our current models.

actually meteorologists would tell you that we really don't know the limits of nature and have yet to see her full wrath.  which is why Ted Fugita has put a level 6 on his scale even though we've never seen a tornado above an EF5.  That may have been his older model of just F5.  His new model might not have the 6, but the point remains that He knows that there really is no limit to weather.  e.g. the ice age is said to have started rapidly... how could a wooly Mammoth freeze while eating grass?  but it happened according to the evidence found.  

are you seriously incapable of understanding this?


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

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 The reason we're discussing evolution is because it has implications on the flood story. I will discuss those in closer detail below. 
implications yes, but do we know enough about the flood story for there to be any impact negative or positive? 
Do you agree that the following must be true about the flood?  1. Humans were on it2. Pairs of all animals necessary to repopulate the Earth in a way that it has ended up as it is today in its present state had to exist on the boat3. All other life on Earth was wiped out.  If you agree with those 3 things, then that's all I need for my line of questioning. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Seriously, are you deliberately this dense? "one type to another". It happens gradually. We can demonstrate it in organisms with short life spans. Change of DNA in organisms with longer lifespans doesn't work any differently, hence we have no reason to believe that this amount of change wouldn't occur given the same number of generations (or some magnitude more or less, as I personally do not know if the rate of change is identical across all life, or if it varies). 
Why do you think I said "progressive".. that word implies gradual.  Are you deliberately this dense?Lemme show you how this sounds to me though;Demonstrations of God's power and presence have happened in isolated situations, therefore, there's no reason to doubt when it happens on a larger scale...Do you buy it? 
I don't believe that demonstrations of god's power and presence have ever happened on any scale.Speciation can be (and has been) demonstrated in a lab. Also, the information we have of closely related animals of different species suggests that it happens in nature regularily as well. 
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
 No it doesn't. If abiogenesis occurred multiple times, we would expect to find a genetic code that differs on a very fundamental level. This is the conclusion reached by science alone. Science can not comment on the supernatural unless it affects the natural world in a way we can measure. The common ancestor theory wasn't something where we said "in the beginning, there must have been a single life form from which we all came". Common ancestry is a conclusion based on evidence alone. You seem to believe in some parts of the theory of evolution but not all. You also refuse to be concise on where that line is. So, where is it? 
really???  the part wher you said "no it doesn't"... which btw, it does.
[/quote=caposkia]the common ancestor theory, which actually goes beyond what Evolution is and into a darwinistic cult...
This is what I was referring to specifically. There is no "common ancestor theory". Common ancestry of all life on earth is part of the theory of evolution, whether you like it or not. Also, you are then using the word cult, which is also ridiculous. Cults don't deal in evidence. Biologists do. 
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
Progressive species or progessive fossils? I'm confused as to what you mean. Could you provide me an example of a hypothetical progressive species/fossil?
I can't because I don't believe they existed.  but it would need to be something that showed how the evolution took place over probably hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years.. e.g. many species that show a progression from one species to the next without gaps... no *poof* and an elephant was born.   
What is inaccurate about that Futurama clip I posted a while back? We see a very gradual from something more primitively ape to human. Do you want me to find you links between homo habilis and homo erectus? Between Homo Habilis and the Australopithecines? Because when you examine all of the fossils leading to homo sapiens you indeed find this gradual progression. What do you think qualifies as a "missing link" in what biologists contend was the route evolution took to produce us? 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Good. Universal common descent is part of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In order to attempt to separate one from the other, you would have to find another explanation for homology (both in appearance and DNA), and how we all appear to be one big gigantic family tree. 
like God? 
Explanation, not baseless assertion. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Yes. Yes we are. We are predicting the inbetween colours, and finding them at later times. It is not exactly orange, but a shade that's maybe a bit more yellow than red, but orange nonetheless. You can refuse to accept that if you wish, but you would be wrong. As I outlined with Tiktaalik, we find things we expect to all the time! Since fossilization doesn't occur in every situation, we expect to have some small links missing fossil-wise. Luckily, DNA and homology tell us the rest of the story. 
You said it right there; "it's not exactly orange"   i.e. the transitional color is missing.  I mean c'mon, let's be honest for a moment...  It has happened where I claimed "God did it" and the response was well it could have been possible this way... I can respond with, sure God can use natural means to make things happen, but none-the-less due to the timing and magnitude it was obviously the work of God.  If you don't buy that, I can't buy your "it's not exactly orange" as a means to prove the overlap. 
Urgh....you seriously fail to understand this? Or are you pretending to be immensely stupid on purpose? http://romanoffelements.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/color-theory-red-yellow1.pngExamine the picture in the above link. You will find it to be a colour spectrum between red, and yellow. Imagine that we humans are yellow. We then find the "red fossil". So we would expect to find transitional fossils in between. By exactly orange in my example above, I was referring to the spot in the EXACT centre of this spectrum. Instead, we find one that's ~1mm to the right or left. Hence our prediction is very, VERY close. We also find fossils in dozens of other spots along this spectrum. You are saying because we don't have every single pixel, we're making assumptions. Further, once we find the pixel, you will then provide a spectrum at a better resolution, with more inbetween pixels. I have a feeling you might repeat that until the pixels represent every single generation, then deny it when we're missing one single pixel. I ask again (don't have to answer a second time) what do you actually consider a missing link between us, and what biologists say are our ancestors?
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
You see, the reason I'm asking the questions below, is it will help us get a date on the earliest possible time the flood could have occurred. You would have to say that humans were on it, right? If we figure out how old humans can be, then from there we can deduce that the flood must have happened no more than (x) years ago. Once we figure that out, we can deduce whether or not it is plausible that the ancestors of all animals (and land plants, and possibly fish depending on water salinization levels during the flood) could have fit on an ark.
makes sense, but if the experts can't date it, how do you think we're going to be able to do any better?
The flood? The experts can't date it because they haven't found evidence that it happened to begin with. Fossils? Yes, the experts CAN date it. Can, and have. We know1. How long it takes for such layers of sediment to form2. How to measure using radiometric dating3. How much genes can change over one generation, over 2 generations, etc. When these 3 are compared, they fall within the same range. What more evidence do you demand?
caposkia wrote:
 
jabberwocky wrote:
Ok. How about homo erectus?
So this one was a little bit tougher... mainly becasue it seems there were a few different categories within this particular kind.   A few aspects lead me to believe these (or at least one of the categories) could have been early humans though.1. they were upright2.  though some of the skulls found look ape like from one category, another category look much more human-like; the "georgian" I believe (this could be 2 completely separate categories and not the same... I'd lean toward the Gregorian being human)3.  They are theorized to have migrated from Africa where human ancestery has been traced back to. 
Ok. so if you believe that Homo Erectus is human (at least some form of it. Examples range from 1.9 million years ago to 143 000 years ago). 1.9 million years gives you more time than the YEC's have. So does 143 000 I suppose, but not nearly as much. We have catalogued about 1.5 million species. The hypothesis is that there are many more, and estimates range from 2 million and up, to 50 million and up. That said, even the 1.5 million, if you take 2000 animals (1000 species) onto the Ark (unlikely for a boat 2/5 the size of the Titanic), it means that in the intervening 1.9 million years, there would have to be almost one new species emerging every single day. Of course, the ones catalogued are typically bigger, as it's hard to catalogue insects and such (and they speciate much faster as well). The bigger animals also have longer lifespans, and therefore evolve slower. This has huge implications on your position. For example, there are 5 extant species of rhinoceros. That would require 10 rhinos on this thing. 2 species of elephants. 4 elephants on it. 2 lions, 2 tigers, a number of panthers (including cougars, leopards, white panthers, black panthers....) would have to have been on this boat, as there would have not been enough time for them to evolve. You say that that's a reasonable belief?
caposkia wrote:
 
jabberwocky wrote:
dictionary.com wrote:
noun

 

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, natureand purpose of theuniverse, especially when considered as the creation of asuperhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotionaland ritual observances, and often containing a moral codegoverning the conduct of human affairs. 
Also, the theory of evolution is not a set of beliefs. It is a body of knowledge based on observed evidence and inferences made from that evidence. It's not a religion, no matter how badly you wish it was in order for your argument to be valid.
so you like how I kept it relevent by copying and pasting the part of the definition that strictly and concisely explained it rather than going onto the "especially" part that implies it usually is associated, but not always with the following huh... why didn't you post the rest of the definitions too?2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons orsects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.5. So, using all the definitions now, I don't think you can deny that due to the "body of knowledge based on observed evidence" that a "body of persons adhereing to a particular set of beliefs and practices" doesn't apply to science and evolution be it that the practices are observational studies and the belief is the conclusion based on the observation.  In order for it to be fact, one would have to "believe" it.  I really don't want any of it to be religion, but the definitions speak for themselves.  You can try to make it look like I want it to be one way or another, but again remember that I"m here to allow people to challenge what i know.  If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, just ask anyone who has  conversed with me from the beginning of my time on this website.  It is what it is.   
You want to be that exact? Fine, I'll play that game. "a particular set of beliefs AND practices". Not OR practices, but AND. There is no set of practices that follow when one accepts overwhelming scientific consensus concerning the cause for the diversity of life on earth. 
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:

I'll just leave this alone. Your response to my post was both evasive and badly written. But as we've said, these are getting long. If you don't feel like replying in full, respond to whichever parts you like, but be sure to respond to my bolded posts, as I don't want those lines of discussion to dissipate. 

When the answer is not to your liking, you call it evasive.  When I don't sway on my answer, you call it badly written.  Maybe you don't understand, maybe it's not an answer you like, but I've told you before I"m not evading... and I'm pretty sure if I was... you wouldn't be talking to me still.

The line of questioning went like so. You said that car manufacturers often re-use parts over multiple models. I mentioned that

1. There is an earthly reason to do so. Namely, it costs less money to build a car if you only have to engineer one or 2 types of door handles, and 4 engines for the 20 models you sell.

2. Car manufacturers only do so when it makes sense. You don't have a clutch pedal in your car if it's an automatic transmission.

I then asserted that a god would not have such a problem were he omnipotent, as you claim your god is. Your answer was 

caposkia wrote:

I'm suggesting that He created using simpler terms than people assume He would use.  His original intention was to create humans... He created animals as humans companion, but likely used the same blueprint so as to apply commonality somehow.  It is not out of the question to see that pattern in science.

That addressed neither of my points. That is why I called your answer evasive. Because it fucking was. 

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
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

In post #424 on the previous page I made six links. All of which were natural observations, none of them forced in a lab. Although, if you want to go that route, laboratory testing has shown that interbreeding is possible on a scale generally not seen in nature. Animals prefer to mate with similar animals, but deprived of a mate, they will attempt to interbreed with almost anything. Regardless, we have a plethora of examples of naturally occuring hybrids, some of which are at the familial level. We have the sea slug that took genes from algae and is now able to photosynthesize like a plant (it should be noted that further research has shown that it doesn't actually use the energy created by the process) that occurred naturally, not forced in a lab. You can't get more genetically seperated than a plant and animal interbreeding. That is pretty damn definitive that it is possible. With the link about the skinks, I showed that such wide scale interbreeding probably wasn't neccessary as half of the skink population has developed live birth, one of the things that diffetentiates reptiles and mammals. That wasn't done in a lab, it occurred naturally, and those types of small mutations expanding over time is probably what caused our various diverse classes of animals today.

I saw the links... the forced in a lab stuff doesn't prove anything to me, only that we have the capability of manipulating DNA.  

Not a single one of my links involved any genetic manipulation at all. THEY WERE ALL NATURALLY OCCURRING HYBRIDS. Not forced in some lab somewhere. The ones I listed aren't even forced by putting the two animals in a cage. If you include those, you have other intergeneric hybrids like Ligers and Zonkeys which would never occur in the wild because the animals don't live in the same part of the world. If that isn't enough, here is another recently discovered intergeneric hybrid http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1670/10-260 intergeneric hybrids are quite plentiful. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Hybrids have happened all the time, look at the donkey... but the question is, does that mean everything came from a common ancestor?  if so how?

No, the question I was addressing was SOLELY your question of whether intergeneric hybrids occur. I provided examples of intergeneric, interfamilial and even an interkingdom hybrid. So whatever level you want to use for "kinds" there is at least two species which have interbred, so yes it is possible, and yes it happens naturally. What conclusion you draw from those facts are a completely different question, but before we can explore that question, we have to agree on the facts. If you insist on ignoring the fact that intergeneric hybrids are possible and are known to occur naturally there is no way we can have a rational conversation on the greater implications or limitations of that fact. As I've said before, I am skeptical of the single common ancestor theory. It is a widely held theory by a lot of people smarter than me, but I think it fails to adequately address the existence of some species, specifically, viruses. I think we don't have enough information to say with confidence that abiogenesis didn't occur in multiple locations. 

 

caposkia wrote:

 because it's possible for things to interbreed?  A sea slug took genes from algae and can no photosynthesize... ok, but it doesn't use the energy created... so what was the purpose of that adaptation?  

Adaptations don't have a purpose, they are random mutations. If the mutation is beneficial for procreating, it will be more likely to become dominant in the species. If it is detrimental, it will be more likely to disappear. If it is neither, then it may or may not become dominant. The real question would be if a being created the sea slug, why would he make something as useless as having a sea slug photosynthesize but waste the energy created by the process? It makes sense as random chance, somewhat less sense if it was purposfully made. 

 

caposkia wrote:

How do they determine the genes were taken and what exactly takes place in the slug?

Genetic testing of slugs that haven't had the mutation compared to slugs that have as well as their babies.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

We get energy (a hormone really) from the sun's energy as well... though it does get converted in our body to a useful product by means of cholestorol.  How is the slug different?  How is it the same?

It is different because we can identify specific gene sequences that are identical to the genetics of the plants the sea slugs eat. Humans, as far as we know, don't have any genetics that are directly taken from plants. 

 

caposkia wrote:

you cannot prove that a giant flood did not wipe out life on the planet at one point in history... if the experts can't do it, I don't expect you to.  I have not seen evidence for intergenus breeding even still.  You have shown me reasoning to why you believe it is possible, but just like your claim about zero evidence, we still have no evidence that such an occurance happens intergenusly.  

just to be clear... actual evidence would convince me.  A connection is not evidence to me, rather it's a reasoning to believe in an angle.

Look above, I provided yet another link to another intergenus hybrid that occurred naturally. There are literally hundreds of them. You can google the animals and watch youtube videos, or you can go to a zoo and see one. How much more evidence do you want? Want me to mail an intergenus hybrid to your door? Because, in theory I could if I was so inclined. 

 

caposkia wrote:

well first of all, there is no evidence against it because there is no evidence for it other than the story itself... how can one have evidence against something that has no evidence?

Easily. The lack of evidence where evidence would be expected IS evidence. 99.9% of science is discovering what doesn't work. You come up with a hypothesis and then predict the results of an experiment, then you conduct the experiment to see if you are right. If the results match your prediction it is positive evidence for your hypothesis, if the results do not match the prediction, then you have evidence that your hypothesis is wrong and needs to be modified or thrown out. When you are unable to find evidence where evidence would be expected to be found is evidence against something. 

 

caposkia wrote:
  

Second, what could convince me my belief in God is wrong?  I'm assuming you mean the general belief that God exists at all right?  that would simply be an explantion as to how prophesy came to be even hundreds, possibly thousands of years after it was stated.  or maybe that the prophesy stated never happened (an alternative timeline if you will) or that the very prophesy stated was stated after the occurance which then would nullify it as a prophesy.

Pick your prophecy.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Reveil the origin of the judeo-Christian following.

There are literally thousands of books on the subject and it bores me to tears because I don't give a flying fuck about the Jews or early Christians. It is one of the most boring eras in history. Plenty of people on here can point you directly to the various stories that Christian mythology was lifted from and the only reason Christianity became a major religion was because of its ties to the Roman Empire. Before Emperor Constantine, Christianity was a small and mostly irrelevant cult that was more likely to be killed as heretics then taken seriously. The endorsement of a Roman Emperor who just won a massive civil war was very influential. Then when Emperor Theodosis declared that all Roman Citizens had to become Christian, well, most people will become any religion you want if you threaten to kill them. The religions that become huge, do so through violence, while pacifistic religions tend to remain relatively small.

 

Caposkia wrote:
 

and occurances that affected my life directly were actually intentionally implemented by some one or a group of people that just happened to be so aware of my circumstances that they put into play an event that made a positive turn on that circumstance.

Why would it have to be intentional? 99.99% of how other people influence you and how you influence other people is completely unintentional.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

The first 2 parts maybe you could do... the 3rd part would have to be people around me fessing up.  

I'd also be curious as to what is happening phsiologically and psychologically when the claimed "Spirit" moves through or within someone and why that is instantaniously transfered to the lot within the same room without warning.  Such a known phenomenon must have a rational explanation if not God.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/20/seances-and-science There is a significant amount of research on the subject ranging from seances to group hypnotizing. It is certainly an interesting aspect of psychology, but is well understood. Psychology isn't a strong suit of mine, but you could do a search at jstor.com and find dozens of articles explaining the science behind the effects. 

 

 

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


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

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why must it have been created? We don't have evidence that creation has ever been anything more than the transformation of materials from one form to another. Maybe someday we will have the tools to know, but as of now it seems foolish to make any assumptions one way or the other. It is okay to be unable to explain everything, and learning is much quicker when you know you don't know.

I'm glad you said that.  It's the one thing we've been trying to tell non-believers for the longest time... that it's ok to be unable to explain everything. 

Why mustn't it have been created?  the problem is you state what you did, but you adhere to a side... you have dismissed the possibility of creation altogether... or so it seems.

It isn't anything that hasn't been said by every single atheist I know. It is the theists who keep insisting that everything has to have an explanation and if one isn't known then it must have been god. The thing is, that most theists are about 100 years behind in science, so the vast majority of the time they so "oh yeah, well how do you explain ______" it is something that already has been explained, so us atheists rarely have to say we don't know because most of the stuff theists rail about, we actually do have a really good idea and usually theists go to the same sites to get their (mis)information. The bible is perfectly consistent with science as it was understood 2000 years ago. It isn't consistent at all with what we have discovered since. 

And no, I haven't dismissed creation all together. I have dismissed the idea of a mega intelligent being single handedly creating everything. Whether matter was created or always existed is a completely different question. The idea of creation doesn't require an intelligent all powerful being.  

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


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

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

All that link does is list severe weather, none of which was even in the ballpark of Noah's flood. If we know all those floods happened, how does that suggest we wouldn't know if Noah's flood happened? Seems to me that since we know about all these small floods is evidence we should know about a much larger flood.

why would we? the flood was unlike any other?  The link shows weather that was unlike what we've seen in today's age... there's even a flood that killed 10,000 people... how many people do you think existed during the time of Noah?

I don't know since we don't even know if Noah existed and you have no idea what time the story supposedly occurred. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

None of which is even in the ballpark of the 72inches a day you said would be needed for 40 days. The rainiest place on Earth is in India, and you are talking about sustained rains that are exponentially more than even their extreme. You are talking about 2.8 times more rain in 40 days than they had in their most extreme year ever observed.

um... not none... but let's go to Inda for a moment.. how far back do their weather records go?

I don't know, you are the one who claimed to have knowledge on the subject. Why don't you tell me? I'm still waiting for a link to a single meteorologist that supports your claims. I don't really care enough about meteorology to read a bunch of technical journals to discover that what I already suspect is probably true. 

 

caposkia wrote:

actually meteorologists would tell you that we really don't know the limits of nature and have yet to see her full wrath.  which is why Ted Fugita has put a level 6 on his scale even though we've never seen a tornado above an EF5.  That may have been his older model of just F5.  His new model might not have the 6, but the point remains that He knows that there really is no limit to weather.  e.g. the ice age is said to have started rapidly... how could a wooly Mammoth freeze while eating grass?  but it happened according to the evidence found.

Saying it could be slightly worse is not the same as "no limit". He only added one level to the scale, not 1,000 levels and the storm would have to be a level 1,000 to do what you claim happened.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

are you seriously incapable of understanding this?

I am quite capable of understanding. I am also capable of understanding that you have yet to refer to a single relevant source to support your speculation. All you have done is proven that in history there have been large floods and lots of rain. With Noah, we aren't talking about large floods or lots of rain, we are talking about an exponentially larger flood and exponentially more rain than we have evidence of ever occurring. I don't know a lot about weather, but I have a very good grasp on exponents, I work with exponential models on a regular basis. One of the things about exponential models is that they tend to only be accurate in the average range, when you are dealing with extremes they tend to be far less accurate because in the real world, what is exponential at low numbers runs into a limit because so far, everything we have been able to observe adequately in the universe seems to have a limit. So yeah, I find your claims to be very unbelievable which is why I have asked for a reputable source that supports your claims. I'm not interested in evidence of severe storms or floods, I have never doubted that they have occurred. I am interested in a meteorologist explaining how a storm hundreds of times larger than anything we have evidence of occurring could occur. 

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:see what I

caposkia wrote:
see what I mean?  I mean we can point fingers all we want, but the response says it all.

See what I mean? You're still dodging instead of responding. You can claim we're both doing it until your fingers fall off, but the topic itself shows that only you are failing to address points.

caposkia wrote:
...and yet I've responded to pretty much every line you've posted... so I can't respond how?  

If by respond you mean you say something, sure. But if by respond you mean counter, or rebut, or argue, or debate, or say anything of any value at all, then no you haven't responded to more than 90% of my arguments. As things currently stand, you'd have to write a book just to catch up.

caposkia wrote:
well you kind of need to be smart about it too...

So stupid people don't have free will? Mentally handicapped people don't have free will? "Smart" is hardly a qualifier that can be applied to the entire species. People don't get to choose how intelligent they are. I guess that means there's no free will.

caposkia wrote:
many people try and fail because they're too focused on the money and not enough on the avenue.  If you try to get rich in a failing avenue though some might be rich in it, it's not going to happen for you.

So in other words free will has nothing to do with it. You either have what it takes, or you don't. Since you don't get to choose what your characteristics are, there is no free will.

caposkia wrote:
I don't buy that perspective... but that explains a lot of why you have the perspective you do now on the faith.

Yes you do. You believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god. You have no choice but to subscribe to predestination. The only way out for you is to remove omniscience from your gods definition.
I'm certainly understanding you better now. No wonder you are so bereft of logic. The very foundation of your faith is self contradictory. It's like you're trying to say that green is red, even though even you see green. Remarkable.

caposkia wrote:
If my logic was so badly thought out as you say... then they don't really need you to stop them.. they'd figure it out for themselves... unless this was an adverse way of saying my logic is actually convincing... so thanks I guess.

That might be true if everyone got to choose faith. Sadly, most have no choice. They are brainwashed from birth.
Oops, no free will again.

caposkia wrote:
Oh I have to hear this one.  Please PLEASE explain how the act of creation results in predestination throughout all time for all creation.  I would love to understand how I here shot down my own argument.  There may be hope for you yet.

See what I mean? You keep switching subjects instead of answering arguments. You might be responding, but this is clearly a one-sided discussion.

caposkia wrote:
well, that explains it... 

Yep.

caposkia wrote:
or you'll never be.  You do realize how that claim works both ways right?

False dichotomy. See, I'm actually willing to believe in a god if presented with evidence. You've been presented with evidence that refutes your god, yet you keep believing. I can change. I'll always be in the game, even if I'm occasionally or even always on the wrong side. You just aren't.

caposkia wrote:
which definition?  definitely not the first one on dictionary.com.  I don't think you do know what the word means.. by itself.

No, dictionary.com has it right enough. The world english dictionary does it better, but dictionary.com is sufficient. Apparently your faith blinds you to what evidence really is.

caposkia wrote:
God could change your mind, if you open your heart to Him... but you have to make a choice first.  All you need is proof... that I allegedly don't have... but you have yet to clearly determine what that proof would be. 

My heart has been open for about 26 years now, and I'm still waiting.
Since you are incapable of furnishing evidence, telling you what would qualify would be pointless. If you could provide evidence you'd have done so.

caposkia wrote:
really.  and what would you have seen as evidence by now?  What could you possibly "see" that would prove to you that there's something beyond the physical? 

An effect. If there is anything that is not physical, yet can in any way interact with the physical, there would be evidence.
If it cannot interact with the physical, then it is irrelevant whether or not it exists, because it has nothing to do with us and we nothing to do with it.

caposkia wrote:
..and all that prophesy is outlined in the NT.  It's why Christ will return... and few will be on His path.

Lots of people think Nostradamus was a successful prophet too. But in reality, prophecy is ridiculous. The christian church has been saying christ will return for a good 1800+ years. Funny how he hasn't shown up. Even more funny is how the christians are not the first to make the claim their hero will return in a time of need. It makes for a good fairy tale, but it's never happened and I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.

caposkia wrote:
of course your not...

I'm glad we agree.

caposkia wrote:
yup... visual evidence right?

Not necessarily. I have other senses, you know.

caposkia wrote:
so everything you think you know from your past is false unless you have video or picture proof of it and memories are dreams and of course dreams aren't real.

Lol. It's like talking to a child. No, everything I know about my past is not automatically false if I don't have pics. It is merely not necessarily true. The brain, when not operating consciously under delusions of faith, is a remarkably logical organ. When some memory is being reconstructed, so is a timeline that can actually work. Many reconstructed memories are not particularly different from the original. At least, not when comparing them to subsequent recollections.
But it's also like the game kids play, where one whispers something into the ear of another, and on it goes around the circle. Sometimes the first kid hears exactly what they said when it makes it around. But more often it is slightly different. On occasion it is extremely different.

caposkia wrote:
that all ancient history is biased and likely false.

It largely is, though it would be far more accurate to first acknowledge that there is more history missing than has ever been written.
History is written by the powerful and the victorious. Most people are not powerful. The opportunity to rewrite history is not afforded to many individuals. When someone writes something, it says nothing. When two people a world apart write the same thing, it means more. When 20 people write the same thing, and artifacts/locations match up with the writing, it becomes fairly credible.
But I've watched history be re-written in my lifetime. Most people don't care, so it goes off without a hitch. We have telephones and a internet today, to make it harder than burning a library and building a new one. And yet it still happens. Only a complete fool would believe it hasn't happened many times before, especially when it used to be one of the simplest things a ruler could do.
Where you fall into the rabbit hole is when you assume artifacts are as maleable as you suggest. If a coin with Ceasars face on it is dug up and dated to the time he ruled Rome, and that coin has writings from dozens of author's that correlate with the timing, and a dozen more coins are dug up that also correspond, it becomes perfectly logical to assume Rome existed and Ceasar ruled it for a time. It is far more likely a proposition than the most obvious alternative: that hundreds or thousands of people conspired and invested considerable resources into perpetuating a fiction.
Your religion only needed one guy named Joseph telling a few stories. There are no coins, no other writers. There is no evidence at all. No incredibly costly conspiracy involving hundreds or thousands of people is necessary. It is far more likely that Joseph made shit up then it is the son of god wandered around for a couple decades performing miracles, and not one person thought it interesting enough to write about. In this particular historical example, the conspiracy would have to be to cover it up. But if so, then it would have succeeded or failed. It couldn't have done both. Which is exactly what it would have to do in order to be true.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Do you agree that the following must be true about the flood?  1. Humans were on it2. Pairs of all animals necessary to repopulate the Earth in a way that it has ended up as it is today in its present state had to exist on the boat3. All other life on Earth was wiped out.  If you agree with those 3 things, then that's all I need for my line of questioning. 
1.  humans were on it... I'm assuming you mean the boat... yes...2.  and 3  yesconsidering this, evolution could have taken the necessary steps to populate the earth as is flood or no flood... we still only have a "guestimate" as to when it likely took place and thus can only reference based on that. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 I don't believe that demonstrations of god's power and presence have ever happened on any scale.Speciation can be (and has been) demonstrated in a lab. Also, the information we have of closely related animals of different species suggests that it happens in nature regularily as well. 
pecticides have been demonstrated in a lab too... does that mean they happen naturally?  I didn't think you'd buy it as written... neither would I.
jabberwocky wrote:
 This is what I was referring to specifically. There is no "common ancestor theory". Common ancestry of all life on earth is part of the theory of evolution, whether you like it or not. Also, you are then using the word cult, which is also ridiculous. Cults don't deal in evidence. Biologists do. 
precisely why I mentioned cult.  Me like it or not, they are separate.  Evolution is about the progression, not origins.  
jabberwocky wrote:
 What is inaccurate about that Futurama clip I posted a while back? We see a very gradual from something more primitively ape to human. Do you want me to find you links between homo habilis and homo erectus? Between Homo Habilis and the Australopithecines? Because when you examine all of the fossils leading to homo sapiens you indeed find this gradual progression. What do you think qualifies as a "missing link" in what biologists contend was the route evolution took to produce us? 
where certain key features fazed out like the protruding brow or upright walk... e.g. there would have to be fossils that showed the protruding brow slowly diminish and also fossils of beings that would sometimes walk upright, but not always, starting with a minimal progression to the majority of the time.   
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Explanation, not baseless assertion. 
like God?
Jabberwocky wrote:
Urgh....you seriously fail to understand this? Or are you pretending to be immensely stupid on purpose? http://romanoffelements.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/color-theory-red-yellow1.pngExamine the picture in the above link. You will find it to be a colour spectrum between red, and yellow. Imagine that we humans are yellow. We then find the "red fossil". So we would expect to find transitional fossils in between. By exactly orange in my example above, I was referring to the spot in the EXACT centre of this spectrum. Instead, we find one that's ~1mm to the right or left. Hence our prediction is very, VERY close. We also find fossils in dozens of other spots along this spectrum. You are saying because we don't have every single pixel, we're making assumptions. Further, once we find the pixel, you will then provide a spectrum at a better resolution, with more inbetween pixels. I have a feeling you might repeat that until the pixels represent every single generation, then deny it when we're missing one single pixel. I ask again (don't have to answer a second time) what do you actually consider a missing link between us, and what biologists say are our ancestors?
What I'm saying is it's ironic that the center "milimeter" as you put it always seems to be missing in transitional species.  Biologists claim because one side is so close to the other that they must have evolved from the first, but that middle part is always missing... one time?  ok... 2 times?  alright, 3, 4, 5... always a gap then I wonder if there's another explanation.  You can call it a millimeter, a nanometer, but when it comes down to it, as you said, it's not exactly orange... either it orange or it's not.  no maybes.  
Jabberwocky wrote:
The flood? The experts can't date it because they haven't found evidence that it happened to begin with. Fossils? Yes, the experts CAN date it. Can, and have. We know1. How long it takes for such layers of sediment to form2. How to measure using radiometric dating3. How much genes can change over one generation, over 2 generations, etc. When these 3 are compared, they fall within the same range. What more evidence do you demand?
same the experts do to date the flood really... evidence of a timeframe for the flood.  not round about, but specific flood evidence.   
jabberwocky wrote:
 Ok. so if you believe that Homo Erectus is human (at least some form of it. Examples range from 1.9 million years ago to 143 000 years ago). 1.9 million years gives you more time than the YEC's have. So does 143 000 I suppose, but not nearly as much. We have catalogued about 1.5 million species. The hypothesis is that there are many more, and estimates range from 2 million and up, to 50 million and up. That said, even the 1.5 million, if you take 2000 animals (1000 species) onto the Ark (unlikely for a boat 2/5 the size of the Titanic), it means that in the intervening 1.9 million years, there would have to be almost one new species emerging every single day. Of course, the ones catalogued are typically bigger, as it's hard to catalogue insects and such (and they speciate much faster as well). The bigger animals also have longer lifespans, and therefore evolve slower. This has huge implications on your position. For example, there are 5 extant species of rhinoceros. That would require 10 rhinos on this thing. 2 species of elephants. 4 elephants on it. 2 lions, 2 tigers, a number of panthers (including cougars, leopards, white panthers, black panthers....) would have to have been on this boat, as there would have not been enough time for them to evolve. You say that that's a reasonable belief?
that would be if this species was definitely human and the fossils we found were in fact the earliest of that species.  Even so, it has been theorized that just in the rainforests alone, new species (plural) are formed everyday.  so it's really not that far fetched to assume that there were booms of speciation at periods within the last 2 million years.    
jabberwocky wrote:
You want to be that exact? Fine, I'll play that game. "a particular set of beliefs AND practices". Not OR practices, but AND. There is no set of practices that follow when one accepts overwhelming scientific consensus concerning the cause for the diversity of life on earth. 
ok, game on Eye-wink  If you claim there are no set of practices, what would you call the scientific method?  
jabberwocky wrote:

The line of questioning went like so. You said that car manufacturers often re-use parts over multiple models. I mentioned that

1. There is an earthly reason to do so. Namely, it costs less money to build a car if you only have to engineer one or 2 types of door handles, and 4 engines for the 20 models you sell.

2. Car manufacturers only do so when it makes sense. You don't have a clutch pedal in your car if it's an automatic transmission.

I then asserted that a god would not have such a problem were he omnipotent, as you claim your god is. Your answer was 

caposkia wrote:

I'm suggesting that He created using simpler terms than people assume He would use.  His original intention was to create humans... He created animals as humans companion, but likely used the same blueprint so as to apply commonality somehow.  It is not out of the question to see that pattern in science.

That addressed neither of my points. That is why I called your answer evasive. Because it fucking was. 

of course God wouldn't have a "problem"  but why would God being the omnipotent being that He is also not try the most reasonable and simple way of doing things if it worked the way it should?  

I've evaded nothing that you can point out... unless you'd like to point it out so as to make me forced to reanswer....  which then it makes it harder for me to evade because it becomes more obvious... hint hint.


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

Not a single one of my links involved any genetic manipulation at all. THEY WERE ALL NATURALLY OCCURRING HYBRIDS. Not forced in some lab somewhere. The ones I listed aren't even forced by putting the two animals in a cage. If you include those, you have other intergeneric hybrids like Ligers and Zonkeys which would never occur in the wild because the animals don't live in the same part of the world. If that isn't enough, here is another recently discovered intergeneric hybrid http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1670/10-260 intergeneric hybrids are quite plentiful. 

I've never claimed donkeys didn't exist... we know hybrids happen... but to the extent as to a chain reaction... meaning a hybrid creates a hybrid with another hybrid... in order for the darwinistic progression of evolution to happen, such occurances would have to be common place.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, the question I was addressing was SOLELY your question of whether intergeneric hybrids occur. I provided examples of intergeneric, interfamilial and even an interkingdom hybrid. So whatever level you want to use for "kinds" there is at least two species which have interbred, so yes it is possible, and yes it happens naturally. What conclusion you draw from those facts are a completely different question, but before we can explore that question, we have to agree on the facts. If you insist on ignoring the fact that intergeneric hybrids are possible and are known to occur naturally there is no way we can have a rational conversation on the greater implications or limitations of that fact. As I've said before, I am skeptical of the single common ancestor theory. It is a widely held theory by a lot of people smarter than me, but I think it fails to adequately address the existence of some species, specifically, viruses. I think we don't have enough information to say with confidence that abiogenesis didn't occur in multiple locations. 

ok... uh... ok well..

it seems you and I are so much more on the same page than I thought... 

Other than the idea that it all started by means of abiogenesis, I agree with what you said above... i think we just were talking on 2 different levels about the same thing.  

I think where we're going to differ is not only the source of life, but where hybrids formed and into what... e.g. apes to humans.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is different because we can identify specific gene sequences that are identical to the genetics of the plants the sea slugs eat. Humans, as far as we know, don't have any genetics that are directly taken from plants. 

it'd be interesting to see a comparison of our ability to turn cholestorol into Vitamine D by means of the sun and photosynthesis in plants.    I see what you're saying though with both quotes though I didn't leave both above.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Easily. The lack of evidence where evidence would be expected IS evidence. 99.9% of science is discovering what doesn't work. You come up with a hypothesis and then predict the results of an experiment, then you conduct the experiment to see if you are right. If the results match your prediction it is positive evidence for your hypothesis, if the results do not match the prediction, then you have evidence that your hypothesis is wrong and needs to be modified or thrown out. When you are unable to find evidence where evidence would be expected to be found is evidence against something. 

I'm not sure if i agree with you about the percentage of science being discovering what doesn't work.. rather it's discovering what is by means of a process.  the experimentation is discovering that process.  

The lack of evidence where evidence would be... where woudl this flood evidence be exactly?  How do you know for sure?  The reason why even experts can't discredit or confirm the story is because not even they can find where the evidence should be... they're not exactly sure where to begin.  There's not even enough information as to location to start looking.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:
  

Second, what could convince me my belief in God is wrong?  I'm assuming you mean the general belief that God exists at all right?  that would simply be an explantion as to how prophesy came to be even hundreds, possibly thousands of years after it was stated.  or maybe that the prophesy stated never happened (an alternative timeline if you will) or that the very prophesy stated was stated after the occurance which then would nullify it as a prophesy.

Pick your prophecy.

really... it's that easy for you huh?   You do realize I'm not going to buy a disbelieving perspective on the prophesy, but rather I'm going to be looking for what occured instead of the prophetic fulfillment.  If you've got that information, then great, let's start off the biggest aspect of OT prophesy, Jesus Christ.  Keep in mind there are a vast number of prophetic verses in the OT... this might take another thread if you've really got somethign on it.    

Beyond Saving wrote:

There are literally thousands of books on the subject and it bores me to tears because I don't give a flying fuck about the Jews or early Christians. It is one of the most boring eras in history. Plenty of people on here can point you directly to the various stories that Christian mythology was lifted from and the only reason Christianity became a major religion was because of its ties to the Roman Empire. Before Emperor Constantine, Christianity was a small and mostly irrelevant cult that was more likely to be killed as heretics then taken seriously. The endorsement of a Roman Emperor who just won a massive civil war was very influential. Then when Emperor Theodosis declared that all Roman Citizens had to become Christian, well, most people will become any religion you want if you threaten to kill them. The religions that become huge, do so through violence, while pacifistic religions tend to remain relatively small.

That's Christianity... Judeo-Christian... basically where the idea of this God started... not just Jesus Christ which of course started off small... according to scripture, ti was just 13 to start.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why would it have to be intentional? 99.99% of how other people influence you and how you influence other people is completely unintentional.

because if it all was unintentional, then too much happened to not have an intentional influence from a higher power.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/20/seances-and-science There is a significant amount of research on the subject ranging from seances to group hypnotizing. It is certainly an interesting aspect of psychology, but is well understood. Psychology isn't a strong suit of mine, but you could do a search at jstor.com and find dozens of articles explaining the science behind the effects. 

That has to do with something completely different than "the Spirit" moving in someone or a group of people... picture heads bowed, maybe music playing in the background, but many times just completely silent.. no one is looking at anything, touching anything or anyone, but it still moves through the sanctuary and connects to everyone there.  The link explains phenomena when people are either making an effort to do something or have physical or visual cues to give a result... e.g hands on a table for 40 minutes triggers involuntary muscle movement and subconscious thought causing multiple hands on a ougia board to move the glass over proper letters.  Even when I was young and did that I could see who was moving it.  

I think the question comes down to how can someone who is not connected to anyone, not looking at anything or anyone, not necessarily hearing anything have the spirit move in them... ironically to find out that it happened in most people within the same room.  It happened to me... and when hypnotists do the audience thing to see who could be a good volunteer, it never works for me, even when i want it to.  

I don't believe your link answers the question.

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:It isn't

Beyond Saving wrote:

It isn't anything that hasn't been said by every single atheist I know. It is the theists who keep insisting that everything has to have an explanation and if one isn't known then it must have been god. The thing is, that most theists are about 100 years behind in science, so the vast majority of the time they so "oh yeah, well how do you explain ______" it is something that already has been explained, so us atheists rarely have to say we don't know because most of the stuff theists rail about, we actually do have a really good idea and usually theists go to the same sites to get their (mis)information. The bible is perfectly consistent with science as it was understood 2000 years ago. It isn't consistent at all with what we have discovered since. 

And no, I haven't dismissed creation all together. I have dismissed the idea of a mega intelligent being single handedly creating everything. Whether matter was created or always existed is a completely different question. The idea of creation doesn't require an intelligent all powerful being.  

the idea of "creation" is that something created by means of conscious effort.  

and I'm coming from the perspective (referring to the first part) where most atheists ask me to explain the unexplainable and don't believe me when I tell them I don't know everything and can't explain it all... They all seem to think i have to have all the answers if I believe in God... rather the believers i know have come to the realization taht to believe in God one has to admit there's more to the universe than we could possibly ever understand in our lifetime as a human race.  There are more unknowns rather than questions answered because it opens up a whole new realm of existence.  


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't know since we don't even know if Noah existed and you have no idea what time the story supposedly occurred. 

exactly, and yet we keep making assumptions that the flood necessary to wipe out life at that time had to be beyond nature's capability.  Honestly... I don't know exactly how far back it goes, but I'd be surprised to hear that humanity had expanded beyond the 10's of thousands or maybe 100's of thousands..  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't know, you are the one who claimed to have knowledge on the subject. Why don't you tell me? I'm still waiting for a link to a single meteorologist that supports your claims. I don't really care enough about meteorology to read a bunch of technical journals to discover that what I already suspect is probably true. 

alright... most weather records don't go back further than the late 1800's.  I don't know india's, but I would assume based on consistency in the Americas, Europe, Canada, etc that India isn't much different.  

A link that supports what i say from a meteorologist?  Meterologists are not historians.  Geologists are historical meteorologists.  Meteorologists will only tell you what is possible... which they will then say the sky is the limit.. From the last 150 years or so none will tell you that a certain meteorological event could not happen, rather that it would be more unlikely.   I haven't found a historical meteorologist yet let alone a Christian one.  

But to give you a link at least to something from the Weather Channel about how hard it can rain, this puts it into perspective that 40 days of extreme weather could even if it wasn't steady still cause catastrophic flooding that could wipe out life in a geological area;

http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_10054.html

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Saying it could be slightly worse is not the same as "no limit". He only added one level to the scale, not 1,000 levels and the storm would have to be a level 1,000 to do what you claim happened.

no, i don't think so.  flash flooding can wipe out all life in a geological location... and really that's all that's needed... flowing water can also appear to be higher in volume than it is if it were still.  

He only added one level because that level has yet to be reached in our 150 year history of weather.   Be it that Dr. Ted F is still alive, if it were to exceed, he could easily add another level.  

Looking into his new scale, he has kind of opened the door to anything more severe be it that it is more based on the damage the storm caused... the highest level on his new scale is complete and utter destruction in the path of the storm... in other words, if the storm got worse, it would not be able to be worse than complete destruction.  I think his old scale was based on wind speed... which has proven to not be as much of a factor in damage as proximity of that windspeed.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am quite capable of understanding. I am also capable of understanding that you have yet to refer to a single relevant source to support your speculation. All you have done is proven that in history there have been large floods and lots of rain. With Noah, we aren't talking about large floods or lots of rain, we are talking about an exponentially larger flood and exponentially more rain than we have evidence of ever occurring. I don't know a lot about weather, but I have a very good grasp on exponents, I work with exponential models on a regular basis. One of the things about exponential models is that they tend to only be accurate in the average range, when you are dealing with extremes they tend to be far less accurate because in the real world, what is exponential at low numbers runs into a limit because so far, everything we have been able to observe adequately in the universe seems to have a limit. So yeah, I find your claims to be very unbelievable which is why I have asked for a reputable source that supports your claims. I'm not interested in evidence of severe storms or floods, I have never doubted that they have occurred. I am interested in a meteorologist explaining how a storm hundreds of times larger than anything we have evidence of occurring could occur. 

with the link I provided, there is evidence that something like that could occur... with 1.5 inches of rain falling in 1 minute.  The idea is, there's nothing I can find as far as a meteorolgist talking about the Noah flood's liklihood... why?  probably for the same reason why we don't see scientists talking about the liklihood of God.. because it's not observable.  Meteorologists are scientists.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Yes you do.

Vastet wrote:
Yes you do. You believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god. You have no choice but to subscribe to predestination. The only way out for you is to remove omniscience from your gods definition. I'm certainly understanding you better now. No wonder you are so bereft of logic. The very foundation of your faith is self contradictory. It's like you're trying to say that green is red, even though even you see green. Remarkable.

are you sure?  So you have determined that because God is omnipotent and omniscient that the future is written.. how does omnipotence and omniscience have anything to do with the future? 

I know how adimant predestinatonalists are, but none of them have given me a truly sound reasoning to accept that understanding.. can you?  

and omniscience is infinite knowledge... it's knowledge, not a written future or a dictated future... infinite knowledge is knowing all that is knowable... are you suggesting the future is knowable?  Would you suggest that to not know an unknowable thing would negate the possibility of being omniscient? 

Vastet wrote:

that might be true if everyone got to choose faith. Sadly, most have no choice. They are brainwashed from birth. Oops, no free will again.

there's a limit to brainwashing... you still can choose what to do about what you think you believe.

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Oh I have to hear this one.  Please PLEASE explain how the act of creation results in predestination throughout all time for all creation.  I would love to understand how I here shot down my own argument.  There may be hope for you yet.
See what I mean? You keep switching subjects instead of answering arguments. You might be responding, but this is clearly a one-sided discussion.

so....  I don't know.. maybe I missed it... how does the act of creation result in predestination throughout all time for all creation?  I'm really trying to understand your logic.

Vastet wrote:

You've been presented with evidence that refutes your god, yet you keep believing. I can change. I'll always be in the game, even if I'm occasionally or even always on the wrong side. You just aren't.

psha!  no I haven't.. The "evidence" that has been provided has not been evidence against my God if you've been following the conversations.  You have presented even less.

Vastet wrote:

y heart has been open for about 26 years now, and I'm still waiting. Since you are incapable of furnishing evidence, telling you what would qualify would be pointless. If you could provide evidence you'd have done so.

that's like me asking you what flowers you'd like at your wedding and you responding with, just give me flowers.  I then could go out into a field and pick dandilions and say I got you flowers... odds are that's not what you were looking for though.  There are so many different types of flowers and different tastes in flowers.  There granted are a specific type of flowers that typically go with a wedding, but that variety depends on the colors in the wedding and the personalities of the couple.  

You tell me your heart is open, but you can't do a simple task of teling me what would qualify because to you it'd be pointless.  Basically I refuse to do what I have done with most atheists since i started talking about them and that's running around in circles trying to find the one thing that catches your attention.  I'd rather not waste my time with those who can't be bothered to think and ask them to provide me with what they would feel is sufficient.  Most of the time I find that the honest ones don't know the answer.  That gives me a lot of information and proof that they have some searching to do before i can provide anything that would be deemed evidence.  

You are apparently incapable of being honest wtih yourself.  It is obvious you don't know what you're looking for yet you refuse to admit that.  You say you've had an open heart for 26 years now... I hope that's true... I have a friend who is in a similar situation, but she's very honest with herself... she's willing to admit that it's her mind that keeps getting in the way of her faith.  i wonder if you're in teh same boat.

Vastet wrote:

An effect. If there is anything that is not physical, yet can in any way interact with the physical, there would be evidence. If it cannot interact with the physical, then it is irrelevant whether or not it exists, because it has nothing to do with us and we nothing to do with it.  \

ok, now we're getting somewhere... so I must ask now.. what effect?  does it have to be something that has no other explanation or possibility or could it be an effect that happen to have impecable timing and yet has a natural explanation?  With God, consider that He created everything, and so when God 'affects' things, it is logical that He would do so within the means of that creation rather than disrupting a continuum.  

Vastet wrote:

Lots of people think Nostradamus was a successful prophet too. But in reality, prophecy is ridiculous. The christian church has been saying christ will return for a good 1800+ years. Funny how he hasn't shown up. Even more funny is how the christians are not the first to make the claim their hero will return in a time of need. It makes for a good fairy tale, but it's never happened and I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.

well the Bible never said anything about a timeframe for return except that it is close... to put it in perspective, 2000 years in the timeline of humanity is a pretty close number still.  the prophesy of Revelation so far has come true and it continues to do so... are we in the end times?  Since Christ was born we have been.. there's nothing to base his return on because the Bible specifically states that no man knows the time.  

Vastet wrote:

Lol. It's like talking to a child. No, everything I know about my past is not automatically false if I don't have pics. It is merely not necessarily true. The brain, when not operating consciously under delusions of faith, is a remarkably logical organ. When some memory is being reconstructed, so is a timeline that can actually work. Many reconstructed memories are not particularly different from the original. At least, not when comparing them to subsequent recollections. But it's also like the game kids play, where one whispers something into the ear of another, and on it goes around the circle. Sometimes the first kid hears exactly what they said when it makes it around. But more often it is slightly different. On occasion it is extremely different.

yea, i only took what you said literally... you're claiming those eye-witness accounts were flawed by means of memory reconstruction... not by word being passed down by word of mouth to many different people.   They were documented by eye-witnesses a bit of them..

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
that all ancient history is biased and likely false.
It largely is, though it would be far more accurate to first acknowledge that there is more history missing than has ever been written. History is written by the powerful and the victorious. Most people are not powerful. The opportunity to rewrite history is not afforded to many individuals. When someone writes something, it says nothing. When two people a world apart write the same thing, it means more. When 20 people write the same thing, and artifacts/locations match up with the writing, it becomes fairly credible. But I've watched history be re-written in my lifetime. Most people don't care, so it goes off without a hitch. We have telephones and a internet today, to make it harder than burning a library and building a new one. And yet it still happens. Only a complete fool would believe it hasn't happened many times before, especially when it used to be one of the simplest things a ruler could do. Where you fall into the rabbit hole is when you assume artifacts are as maleable as you suggest. If a coin with Ceasars face on it is dug up and dated to the time he ruled Rome, and that coin has writings from dozens of author's that correlate with the timing, and a dozen more coins are dug up that also correspond, it becomes perfectly logical to assume Rome existed and Ceasar ruled it for a time. It is far more likely a proposition than the most obvious alternative: that hundreds or thousands of people conspired and invested considerable resources into perpetuating a fiction. Your religion only needed one guy named Joseph telling a few stories. There are no coins, no other writers. There is no evidence at all. No incredibly costly conspiracy involving hundreds or thousands of people is necessary. It is far more likely that Joseph made shit up then it is the son of god wandered around for a couple decades performing miracles, and not one person thought it interesting enough to write about. In this particular historical example, the conspiracy would have to be to cover it up. But if so, then it would have succeeded or failed. It couldn't have done both. Which is exactly what it would have to do in order to be true.

it's interesting what you say about how when someone writes somethign ti means nothing, when 2 people a world apart write the same thing it means more, when 20 people...

The bible is not only 66 separate books written over thousands of years, but each book is compiled usually of hundreds of fragments by many different authors from different cultures (with exception of some NT books which are obviously by one author), but even those are seen to have referenced to many other books written in the OT and some other sources that show commonality in writings from different authors.  In other words, what you claim above would suggest the Bibles' validity... yet you I'm sure would be imediate to disagree in the response... let's see.


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

caposkia wrote:
are you sure?  So you have determined that because God is omnipotent and omniscient that the future is written.. how does omnipotence and omniscience have anything to do with the future?

How does omniscience NOT have anything to do with knowing the future? Do you know what omniscience is? I have to assume you don't, else you must either be incredibly stupid or a liar, and a troll. Omniscience, by definition, is the knowledge of everything. Everything, by definition, includes the future. Thus one who is omniscient must know every possible future as an outcome of any possible action. That's what omniscience IS.
Is your god omniscient? And did your god create the universe? If so, it is fully responsible for everything in the universe. If not, then not.

caposkia wrote:
I know how adimant predestinatonalists are, but none of them have given me a truly sound reasoning to accept that understanding.. can you?

If even the slightest bit of logic remains within your capacity to utilise, I just did. If I didn't, then you'll have convinced me you aren't a theist at all, as noone could possibly survive to an age where they could speak and write in any language with any proficiency at all. And even if by some miracle they did survive that long, they would be completely incapable of even the simplest communication with another person. As such, I will make a recommendation to the administration that we change your badge accordingly.

caposkia wrote:
and omniscience is infinite knowledge... it's knowledge, not a written future or a dictated future... infinite knowledge is knowing all that is knowable... are you suggesting the future is knowable?  Would you suggest that to not know an unknowable thing would negate the possibility of being omniscient? 

Oh good, you just don't know what omniscience means. I'll help with a definition:

omniscient [om-nish-uhnt]
adjective
1.
having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
dictionary.com

om·ni·scient adjective \-shənt\
: knowing everything : having unlimited understanding or knowledge
Full Definition of OMNISCIENT
1
:  having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2
:  possessed of universal or complete knowledge
merriam-webster.com

Omniscience /ɒmˈnɪʃəns/,[1] mainly in religion, is the capacity to know everything that there is to know.
wikipedia.com

om·nis·cient  (m-nshnt)
adj.
Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.
n.
1. One having total knowledge.
2. Omniscient God. Used with the.
thefreedictionary.com

4 different mainstream definitions all concur: omniscience is not limited by possibility, omniscience is knowledge of ALL. That includes the future, the past, and, well.. ALL.
Note that only one definition of the term omniscience refers to infinity, but the fact you use it further erodes your argument. If god has infinite knowledge, why is the future not within the realm of his knowledge? Your gods knowledge CANNOT be infinite if it has limits.

You really shouldn't use words when you don't know what they mean.

caposkia wrote:
there's a limit to brainwashing... you still can choose what to do about what you think you believe.

Nope, because it isn't a belief anymore. It has been encoded in your brain for so long and so forcefully that it has become knowledge. False knowledge, that under very strictly controlled circumstances can be discredited and falsified. But those strictly controlled circumstances are not available to most victims of brainwashing. And for those for whom it is available, they don't think they've been brainwashed so why would they avail themselves? Have you undergone anti-brainwashing? Why not? Exactly.

caposkia wrote:
so....  I don't know.. maybe I missed it... how does the act of creation result in predestination throughout all time for all creation?  I'm really trying to understand your logic.

Probably because you're cherry picking a phrase and applying it out of context. Things tend to lose their meaning when you do that.
The act of creating all existence, in concorence with the possession of omniscience as per its definition, unavoidably results in predetermination.

caposkia wrote:
psha!  no I haven't..

Yes you have. From multiple subjects and from multiple people. Most especially by myself, when I thoroughly debunked the equation for the probability of life forming that you presented as a cornerstone of your argument. But of course you can't acknowledge it, that would prove you a liar who follows a false religion. You can't even acknowledge it to yourself, lest it erode the mental barriers you depend on to continue putting your faith in the impossible.

caposkia wrote:
that's like me asking you what flowers you'd like at your wedding and you responding with, just give me flowers.  I then could go out into a field and pick dandilions and say I got you flowers... odds are that's not what you were looking for though.  There are so many different types of flowers and different tastes in flowers.  There granted are a specific type of flowers that typically go with a wedding, but that variety depends on the colors in the wedding and the personalities of the couple.

That doesn't even make sense. If I asked for flowers and you brought dandelions, I'd have no cause for complaint. Dandelions are flowers, by definition.
I ask for evidence of your god, and the best you've done is disprove your own god by posting the most ridiculous and easily refuted hypothesis I've encountered in my entire life. The only evidence supporting your god that you can supply to support it is hearsay and emotional responses that we don't share, neither of which even remotely qualifies as evidence. Your analogy is absolutely ineffective.

caposkia wrote:
You tell me your heart is open, but you can't do a simple task of teling me what would qualify because to you it'd be pointless.

It WOULD be pointless. It'd be like telling someone to build a car without any training or even a manual. In order to be sure you even knew what evidence was, I'd have to teach you. Which would first require de-brainwashing you. Which would require your voluntary participation and access to personnel and resources that I don't readily have access to. Just giving you the ability to understand what evidence is would take monumental effort on both our parts, and with neither of us wanting to do it.
The icing on the cake would be that you'd come out of it an atheist, and have no interest in trying to come up with evidence that doesn't exist, so all that effort would be for naught.
Much easier for you to just pray to your god to show me evidence. He's omnipotent and omniscient, so he not only knows what it'd take but how to give it to me. I'll wait patiently, as I have been most of my life.

caposkia wrote:
You are apparently incapable of being honest wtih yourself.

It's obvious you are incapable of determining a person's qualiftes over the internet. I'm ruthlessly honest to myself. It's part of why I'm an atheist. But I wouldn't expect someone who constantly lies to themselves to be otherwise, so no harm done.

caposkia wrote:
ok, now we're getting somewhere... so I must ask now.. what effect?

ANY effect.

caposkia wrote:
does it have to be something that has no other explanation or possibility or could it be an effect that happen to have impecable timing and yet has a natural explanation?

The former. Coincidence isn't evidence for anything but coincidence. But no other explanation isn't sufficient. We once had no explanation for lightning beyond gods, and we both know how that turned out. So it would have to be something with no other possible explanation. As your god is omnipotent, there are plenty of ways it could convince me it existed. Changing a law of physics, even briefly, would be sufficient to convince millions of people. Just an example. It doesn't need to be that extreme. But it would sure spark some discussion!

caposkia wrote:
 With God, consider that He created everything, and so when God 'affects' things, it is logical that He would do so within the means of that creation rather than disrupting a continuum.

That's a pretty poor way to convince people you're a god and that you exist. Hey look, I made gravity pull the apple I let go of to the ground! It's consistent with gravity! I'm god, worship me sinner!

Is that the best you've got?

caposkia wrote:
well the Bible never said anything about a timeframe for return except that it is close... to put it in perspective, 2000 years in the timeline of humanity is a pretty close number still.

No it isn't. Not in the YEC view of humanity. That's almost half the time the universe has existed.
If you want to be more realistic and accept evolution, then you get an extra 195,000 years to work with. 2000 years is barely 1% of that. So it sounds good, except that we had to wait about 198,000 years for the first jesus. Which begs the question as to whether we have another 196,000 years to wait for his return.

caposkia wrote:
the prophesy of Revelation so far has come true and it continues to do so.

How so?

caposkia wrote:
yea, i only took what you said literally... you're claiming those eye-witness accounts were flawed by means of memory reconstruction... not by word being passed down by word of mouth to many different people.   They were documented by eye-witnesses a bit of them..

Not by enough of them. If the sun and earth both stopped in their orbits and ceased spinning, I'd expect to see every culture on earth make note of such a massive discrepancy in the way that everything has always been. Yet there is no such record.
False recollection is merely one explanation. There's also lying, or genuine mistakes.
Also, a tradition passed on by word of mouth has no evidence for or against its authenticity. How do you know that noone ever changed it? There's no record of the original event at all. I don't have enough faith in man to believe that an oral tradition turned into a written one turned into a printed one over the span of thousands of years through dozens of languages has been completely accurate every step of the way. Not when a much simpler message can't be accurately passed on consistently via a single media over the span of minutes and a single language. It defies all reason to believe that a hundred plus generations of people could be consistently perfect and accurate even if not accounting for the sin we all supposedly suffer from.

caposkia wrote:
The bible is not only 66 separate books written over thousands of years, but each book is compiled usually of hundreds of fragments by many different authors from different cultures (with exception of some NT books which are obviously by one author), but even those are seen to have referenced to many other books written in the OT and some other sources that show commonality in writings from different authors.  In other words, what you claim above would suggest the Bibles' validity... yet you I'm sure would be imediate to disagree in the response... let's see.

And that explains why the bible is inconsistent and self contradictory. Don't forget how the men of the church voted on the stories that should be included or discarded. The bible is 100% the work of man, who by your claim is inherently corrupted. The ultimate irony in the hardcore theist position is that they have enough faith in man to believe that the writings of men prove there is a god, yet they claim man chose to be evil. To you I submit it is just as likely that you've fallen prey to the same evil that all men are subject to. It is as likely that satan was the inspiration for the bible as it is god. Judging from how evil it portrays god to be, it seems much more likely that your religion was highjacked by its greatest enemy, and is best avoided if one doesn't wish to be cast in fire for all eternity.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Not a single one of my links involved any genetic manipulation at all. THEY WERE ALL NATURALLY OCCURRING HYBRIDS. Not forced in some lab somewhere. The ones I listed aren't even forced by putting the two animals in a cage. If you include those, you have other intergeneric hybrids like Ligers and Zonkeys which would never occur in the wild because the animals don't live in the same part of the world. If that isn't enough, here is another recently discovered intergeneric hybrid http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1670/10-260 intergeneric hybrids are quite plentiful. 

I've never claimed donkeys didn't exist... we know hybrids happen... but to the extent as to a chain reaction... meaning a hybrid creates a hybrid with another hybrid... in order for the darwinistic progression of evolution to happen, such occurances would have to be common place.  

The theory of evolution does not in any way require hybrids to breed with hybrids, although that does happen and is quite common among closely related hybrids such as dogs. Most genetic mutations occur intraspecies, and with humans, it is believed that the only hybridization that occured within the last few million years was through interbreeding with Neanderthals. Regardless, I have shown proof that both hybridization occurs- even among genetically distant species as well as intraspecies mutations (the skinks, mice and grasshoppers from my earlier links). Such mutations are common and occur at predictable rates. As I pointed out in the previous post, you are more genetically different from humans at the time of Jesus than early homo sapiens were from Neanderthals, because in modern times genetic mutations have been occurring at really fast rates due to more humans breeding outside of their immediate community. On average, a human has roughly 100 "errors" in their genes, that is 100 genes that didn't copy correctly from your parents and are uniquely yours. Many of these mutations are not particularly noticeable or don't make a significant difference. Others are. Some will become dominant in the population, others will disappear.    

Caposkia wrote:

I think where we're going to differ is not only the source of life, but where hybrids formed and into what... e.g. apes to humans.  

Absolutely no one believes that humans came from apes. Apes are our distant cousins, not our ancestors. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Easily. The lack of evidence where evidence would be expected IS evidence. 99.9% of science is discovering what doesn't work. You come up with a hypothesis and then predict the results of an experiment, then you conduct the experiment to see if you are right. If the results match your prediction it is positive evidence for your hypothesis, if the results do not match the prediction, then you have evidence that your hypothesis is wrong and needs to be modified or thrown out. When you are unable to find evidence where evidence would be expected to be found is evidence against something. 

I'm not sure if i agree with you about the percentage of science being discovering what doesn't work.. rather it's discovering what is by means of a process.  the experimentation is discovering that process.

Well I pulled the number out of my ass, but the point stands that most of science is discovering what you are wrong about. You make a hypothesis, you test it and more often than not you find out you were wrong. Or you have a successful test, publish the results and 20 other assholes out there shred your methodology to pieces and create better tests which show you were wrong, then publish their results. For every discovery that can be backed up with solid evidence, there were dozens of hypothesis which were proved wrong one at a time. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

The lack of evidence where evidence would be... where woudl this flood evidence be exactly?  How do you know for sure?  

The same place as all the evidence for the thousands of floods that we have found except presumably on a much larger scale since this flood was supposedly hundreds if not thousands of times larger than anything we have evidence of. We aren't talking about a minor event where the evidence would be difficult to find, you are proposing an event that makes nuclear bombs look like a fart in the wind. The evidence would literally be mountains, big mountains, and gigantic ravines. Bigger than the rockies and the grand canyon. I think we can safely say that if there was anything that big, we would have found it by now. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

The reason why even experts can't discredit or confirm the story is because not even they can find where the evidence should be... they're not exactly sure where to begin.  There's not even enough information as to location to start looking.  

Experts don't bother discrediting the story because it is so ridiculously stupid and they actually want to provide something that advances their field rather than waste their time discrediting childhood stories. If any serious archaeologist thought there was any truth to the story they would put a significant amount of effort into proving it, because finding the Ark would be huge. As it is, the only people you find searching for the Ark are the same kind of nutjobs you find looking for the Holy Grail and the Fountain of Youth. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

really... it's that easy for you huh?   You do realize I'm not going to buy a disbelieving perspective on the prophesy, but rather I'm going to be looking for what occured instead of the prophetic fulfillment.  If you've got that information, then great, let's start off the biggest aspect of OT prophesy, Jesus Christ.  Keep in mind there are a vast number of prophetic verses in the OT... this might take another thread if you've really got somethign on it.

Like taking candy from a baby. So your evidence of prophecy is one that was fulfilled by the very same book it was written in? That is a nice circle. You believe the book because the prophecy came true, and your evidence that the prophecy came true is that the book said it did. Surely you can see the problem with that since your evidence that the book is true lies within the book itself? How about a prophecy that we can actually corroborate with evidence external to the book that made the prophecy?  

Caposkia wrote:

That's Christianity... Judeo-Christian... basically where the idea of this God started... not just Jesus Christ which of course started off small... according to scripture, ti was just 13 to start.

The Jews have an equally traceable history, which has also been extremely well documented. They probably have the most studied history of any people in the world, which is unfortunate because there are so many cultures that were far more interesting.

 

Caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why would it have to be intentional? 99.99% of how other people influence you and how you influence other people is completely unintentional.

because if it all was unintentional, then too much happened to not have an intentional influence from a higher power.  

What else was going to happen? Something had to happen, people had to make some decision and no matter what decision they made, that decision would be beneficial for someone. It is rather egotistical to presume that you were at all relevant to anyone making those decisions. When decisions don't go your way, as they often do, do you believe that some higher power is out there intentionally making things difficult for you?

 

Caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/20/seances-and-science There is a significant amount of research on the subject ranging from seances to group hypnotizing. It is certainly an interesting aspect of psychology, but is well understood. Psychology isn't a strong suit of mine, but you could do a search at jstor.com and find dozens of articles explaining the science behind the effects. 

That has to do with something completely different than "the Spirit" moving in someone or a group of people... picture heads bowed, maybe music playing in the background, but many times just completely silent.. no one is looking at anything, touching anything or anyone, but it still moves through the sanctuary and connects to everyone there.  The link explains phenomena when people are either making an effort to do something or have physical or visual cues to give a result... e.g hands on a table for 40 minutes triggers involuntary muscle movement and subconscious thought causing multiple hands on a ougia board to move the glass over proper letters.  Even when I was young and did that I could see who was moving it.  

I think the question comes down to how can someone who is not connected to anyone, not looking at anything or anyone, not necessarily hearing anything have the spirit move in them... ironically to find out that it happened in most people within the same room.  It happened to me... and when hypnotists do the audience thing to see who could be a good volunteer, it never works for me, even when i want it to.  

I don't believe your link answers the question.

There is tons of research on the subject of mass psychology. I just pointed out one non-religious example. The circumstances differ, but the psychology behind it remains the same and there is a significant amount of research on the topic. I did some research on "cold reading" and similar mass psychology techniques when I was a teenager, but it isn't a topic that really interests me anymore so I don't have a plethora of links on it. A simple google search will turn up a significant amount of material explaining the phenomenon. 

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


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

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't know since we don't even know if Noah existed and you have no idea what time the story supposedly occurred. 

exactly, and yet we keep making assumptions that the flood necessary to wipe out life at that time had to be beyond nature's capability.  Honestly... I don't know exactly how far back it goes, but I'd be surprised to hear that humanity had expanded beyond the 10's of thousands or maybe 100's of thousands..  

Irrelevant. The flood didn't kill only all of humanity, it killed every creature on the planet. Otherwise, why would God have had Noah pack up evey animal on the planet? Pointless if our theoretical humans lived in one small village that could be wiped out in a single flood because he could have killed all humans without harming a significant number of animals. And if you want to go back to when a few thousand humans lived in close quarters, you are talking 2 mya+ which has staggeringly large problems for the story.

 

Caposkia wrote:

alright... most weather records don't go back further than the late 1800's.  I don't know india's, but I would assume based on consistency in the Americas, Europe, Canada, etc that India isn't much different.  

A link that supports what i say from a meteorologist?  Meterologists are not historians.  Geologists are historical meteorologists.  Meteorologists will only tell you what is possible... which they will then say the sky is the limit.. From the last 150 years or so none will tell you that a certain meteorological event could not happen, rather that it would be more unlikely.   I haven't found a historical meteorologist yet let alone a Christian one.  

http://weatherhistorian.blogspot.com/

Took me 0.45 seconds, damn this slow internet connection. Regardless, I'm not looking for a weather historian. I want to see a meteorologist with a model that suggests that the kind of storm you propose is possible. After we have determined if it is possible, we can go back to worrying about whether or not it has ever actually happened. It is possible that the worst physically possible storm has never occurred. I can't find any meteorologist who says "the sky is the limit". Every model I am familiar with has limits.

 

Caposkia wrote:
 

But to give you a link at least to something from the Weather Channel about how hard it can rain, this puts it into perspective that 40 days of extreme weather could even if it wasn't steady still cause catastrophic flooding that could wipe out life in a geological area;

http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_10054.html

 Your link also goes on to explain why the extremely heavy rains occur for a limited time period in a limited area. At a certain point, the cloud is too full and literally falls to the ground. Hence, there is a limit as these clouds take time to form. Which is why the world record for one hour is an exponentially slower rate than the world record for most rain in one minute and the rate for 24 hours is exponentially smaller than rain for one hour. Which is exactly what my internal logic told me, and why your claim that the most rain in one minute could continue for 40 days didn't pass my smell test. Your link confirms that it shouldn't pass my smell test as it is logical to assume that the record for rain in one week is exponentially smaller yet and the record for rain in 40 days even smaller. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

with the link I provided, there is evidence that something like that could occur... with 1.5 inches of rain falling in 1 minute.  The idea is, there's nothing I can find as far as a meteorolgist talking about the Noah flood's liklihood... why?  probably for the same reason why we don't see scientists talking about the liklihood of God.. because it's not observable.  Meteorologists are scientists.  

Probably because meteorologists focus on predicting things that can actually occur instead of worrying about stories that are absurd on their face. ALL of the evidence you have provided supports the idea that the rate of rain falling at 1.5 inches per minute cannot be expected to be sustained. I remain convinced that if anyone with actual meteorlogical expertise were available to answer the question, they would have a very good explanation for why it would be ridiculous to believe that such a rate of rainfall could be maintained for a long period. 

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
caposkia wrote: Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Do you agree that the following must be true about the flood?  1. Humans were on it2. Pairs of all animals necessary to repopulate the Earth in a way that it has ended up as it is today in its present state had to exist on the boat3. All other life on Earth was wiped out.  If you agree with those 3 things, then that's all I need for my line of questioning. 
1.  humans were on it... I'm assuming you mean the boat... yes...2.  and 3  yesconsidering this, evolution could have taken the necessary steps to populate the earth as is flood or no flood... we still only have a "guestimate" as to when it likely took place and thus can only reference based on that. 
 Ok. So yes to all. I needed answers to these questions if my line of questioning is to be relevant.  
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 I don't believe that demonstrations of god's power and presence have ever happened on any scale.Speciation can be (and has been) demonstrated in a lab. Also, the information we have of closely related animals of different species suggests that it happens in nature regularily as well. 
pecticides have been demonstrated in a lab too... does that mean they happen naturally?  I didn't think you'd buy it as written... neither would I. 
*sigh*. Seriously? Just because it's a lab doesn't mean that it's all about chemicals. Pesticides are chemicals synthesized in laboratories. Are you having trouble accepting speciation now? I thought you accepted that speciation occurs. Correct me if I'm wrong.  
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
 This is what I was referring to specifically. There is no "common ancestor theory". Common ancestry of all life on earth is part of the theory of evolution, whether you like it or not. Also, you are then using the word cult, which is also ridiculous. Cults don't deal in evidence. Biologists do. 
precisely why I mentioned cult.  Me like it or not, they are separate.  Evolution is about the progression, not origins.  Evolution is not about how the first life came about, that's true. However, evolution is the knowledge that traces all the way back to that first life, with no comment on how it came about. That is where the theory of abiogenesis comes in. 
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
 What is inaccurate about that Futurama clip I posted a while back? We see a very gradual from something more primitively ape to human. Do you want me to find you links between homo habilis and homo erectus? Between Homo Habilis and the Australopithecines? Because when you examine all of the fossils leading to homo sapiens you indeed find this gradual progression. What do you think qualifies as a "missing link" in what biologists contend was the route evolution took to produce us? 
where certain key features fazed out like the protruding brow or upright walk... e.g. there would have to be fossils that showed the protruding brow slowly diminish and also fossils of beings that would sometimes walk upright, but not always, starting with a minimal progression to the majority of the time.   
Ok. Seriously, the diminished protrusion of the brow needs no special explanation. To call that a problem for biologists is to call it a problem that some breeds of dog have a protruding snout, while others are quite flat-faced. EVEN young earth creationists accept that all dogs had a common ancestor. This is a very minor morphological difference all things considered. Unless you don't believe that dogs all have a common ancestor, which would be very bizarre indeed.As far as an upright walk, we do have such fossils. We also have other primates alive who do exactly that. They can walk upright, but their pelves cause them to not be able to stand on one leg. They lean towards the direction of their raised leg. This is why you see when a chimpanzee walks with a human holding their hand, they sway right and left as they walk. They have the ability to walk upright. It's simply more efficient for them not to. There are some pelvis fossils (such as Turkana boy, a specimen of Homo Ergaster) that show ancestors that had a pelvis even better geared than ours towards upright walking. You do see a progression though. The pelvis of Australopithecus Africanus is better suited to bipedalism than that of Au. Afarensis. When you look at the pelvis bones of humans, older hominids, australopithecines, and then modern apes such as chimpanzees, you will see that much like with the brow protrusion, all it really takes is a changing of proportions.  Can you name me two specimens between which you find an unbridgeable gap?
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Explanation, not baseless assertion. 
like God?
Like magic. It's saying the same thing unless you can provide some further explanation.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Urgh....you seriously fail to understand this? Or are you pretending to be immensely stupid on purpose? http://romanoffelements.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/color-theory-red-yellow1.pngExamine the picture in the above link. You will find it to be a colour spectrum between red, and yellow. Imagine that we humans are yellow. We then find the "red fossil". So we would expect to find transitional fossils in between. By exactly orange in my example above, I was referring to the spot in the EXACT centre of this spectrum. Instead, we find one that's ~1mm to the right or left. Hence our prediction is very, VERY close. We also find fossils in dozens of other spots along this spectrum. You are saying because we don't have every single pixel, we're making assumptions. Further, once we find the pixel, you will then provide a spectrum at a better resolution, with more inbetween pixels. I have a feeling you might repeat that until the pixels represent every single generation, then deny it when we're missing one single pixel. I ask again (don't have to answer a second time) what do you actually consider a missing link between us, and what biologists say are our ancestors?
What I'm saying is it's ironic that the center "milimeter" as you put it always seems to be missing in transitional species.  Biologists claim because one side is so close to the other that they must have evolved from the first, but that middle part is always missing... one time?  ok... 2 times?  alright, 3, 4, 5... always a gap then I wonder if there's another explanation.  You can call it a millimeter, a nanometer, but when it comes down to it, as you said, it's not exactly orange... either it orange or it's not.  no maybes.  
The problem is that they don't say that "we must find this exact shade of orange that is 255-165-0 in RGB terms. They see that, and say "we will find something like that!". Meanwhile they found 255-175-0 instead. http://www.colorcodehex.com/ffa500/http://www.colorcodehex.com/ffaf00/Now open those 2 links in separate tabs, and alternate back and forth. You will see that the former is slightly darker. If you were to ask to the minute detail what an unknown transitional form between our "red" and "yellow" is, they would probably give you the first one, although the answer would probably vary slightly depending on who you're asking, because they might have slightly different ideas of how certain traits evolved. So what you're saying is "we found 255-175-0, but not 255-165-0. Therefore, biologists are wrong!" At least that's what it seems to me. You're saying that that one spot on the spectrrum always seems to be missing in transitional species. As I asked above (you only have to answer me once though) provide me with an example of one of these actual problematic gaps the deriders of biology constantly talk about. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
The flood? The experts can't date it because they haven't found evidence that it happened to begin with. Fossils? Yes, the experts CAN date it. Can, and have. We know1. How long it takes for such layers of sediment to form2. How to measure using radiometric dating3. How much genes can change over one generation, over 2 generations, etc. When these 3 are compared, they fall within the same range. What more evidence do you demand?
same the experts do to date the flood really... evidence of a timeframe for the flood.  not round about, but specific flood evidence.  
Seeing as there is no specific evidence for a world-wide flood, I'm not sure what you're actually looking for in terms of evidence when you put it that way. 
caposkia wrote:
 
jabberwocky wrote:
 Ok. so if you believe that Homo Erectus is human (at least some form of it. Examples range from 1.9 million years ago to 143 000 years ago). 1.9 million years gives you more time than the YEC's have. So does 143 000 I suppose, but not nearly as much. We have catalogued about 1.5 million species. The hypothesis is that there are many more, and estimates range from 2 million and up, to 50 million and up. That said, even the 1.5 million, if you take 2000 animals (1000 species) onto the Ark (unlikely for a boat 2/5 the size of the Titanic), it means that in the intervening 1.9 million years, there would have to be almost one new species emerging every single day. Of course, the ones catalogued are typically bigger, as it's hard to catalogue insects and such (and they speciate much faster as well). The bigger animals also have longer lifespans, and therefore evolve slower. This has huge implications on your position. For example, there are 5 extant species of rhinoceros. That would require 10 rhinos on this thing. 2 species of elephants. 4 elephants on it. 2 lions, 2 tigers, a number of panthers (including cougars, leopards, white panthers, black panthers....) would have to have been on this boat, as there would have not been enough time for them to evolve. You say that that's a reasonable belief?
that would be if this species was definitely human and the fossils we found were in fact the earliest of that species.  Even so, it has been theorized that just in the rainforests alone, new species (plural) are formed everyday.  so it's really not that far fetched to assume that there were booms of speciation at periods within the last 2 million years.   
Species of what? Insects perhaps as they reproduce quickly and, therefore, they speciate quickly. That is why there are estimated to be 950 000 insect species, and only about 3119 mammalian species. I can see other animals having new species discovered daily, but not emerging daily, as they don't speciate fast enough. The rate of speciation that you are proposing for mammals with long lives would require genetic change far more rapid than we've ever seen, if we were to put a small enough number of animals on that Ark that they may at least fit. There are 1400 different species of rodent. How many would you need in your opinion to have all 1400 around today? Also, how do you keep a wooden boat in good shape with even 50 rodents on it? Can you put together some sort of tree (or a Ken Ham style "orchard&quotEye-wink of evolution that doesn't involve speciation occuring at a ridiculously higher rate than ever observed that still allows for all of the animals necessary to fit onto one boat 1/3 the size of the titanic?   (source for species http://www.iucnredlist.org/search). 
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
You want to be that exact? Fine, I'll play that game. "a particular set of beliefs AND practices". Not OR practices, but AND. There is no set of practices that follow when one accepts overwhelming scientific consensus concerning the cause for the diversity of life on earth. 
ok, game on Eye-wink  If you claim there are no set of practices, what would you call the scientific method?  
Are you seriously unable to make a distinction between the scientific method and typical religious practices, such as praying, attending church, speaking in tongues, etc.? 
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:

The line of questioning went like so. You said that car manufacturers often re-use parts over multiple models. I mentioned that

1. There is an earthly reason to do so. Namely, it costs less money to build a car if you only have to engineer one or 2 types of door handles, and 4 engines for the 20 models you sell.

2. Car manufacturers only do so when it makes sense. You don't have a clutch pedal in your car if it's an automatic transmission.

I then asserted that a god would not have such a problem were he omnipotent, as you claim your god is. Your answer was 

caposkia wrote:

I'm suggesting that He created using simpler terms than people assume He would use.  His original intention was to create humans... He created animals as humans companion, but likely used the same blueprint so as to apply commonality somehow.  It is not out of the question to see that pattern in science.

That addressed neither of my points. That is why I called your answer evasive. Because it fucking was. 

of course God wouldn't have a "problem"  but why would God being the omnipotent being that He is also not try the most reasonable and simple way of doing things if it worked the way it should?  

I've evaded nothing that you can point out... unless you'd like to point it out so as to make me forced to reanswer....  which then it makes it harder for me to evade because it becomes more obvious... hint hint.

Does it work the way it should? Imagine for a moment that you're eating dinner. Someone makes you laugh, and you accidentally swallow the food in your mouth before chewing it properly. You then say "Oh dear. I've got some food lodged in my food hole. I need to get that dislodged before I can continue eating" You then calmly go to the restroom with someone who performs the hiemlich maneouver, and you can then sit back down and eat. In real life, it doesn't happen that way. Our food chute is also our breathing tube. This is a major design flaw. It would be more complicated to have 2 tubes, but it would be more reasonable. Which takes precedent when simple isn't reasonable? 

You did evade my question, as I just said. I hope my clarification here is helpful in getting through to you what it is that I meant. 

 

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.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky, you had a

Jabberwocky, you had a broken quote that screwed up the formatting. Hope you don't mind, I fixed it for ya.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

Vastet wrote:
Jabberwocky, you had a broken quote that screwed up the formatting. Hope you don't mind, I fixed it for ya.

Thanks! They're hard to follow at times. It seems that sometimes when I hit "quote" on a post, there is an extra /quote tag at the bottom of the thing. Not in this post, but in many of the long ones. 

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: How does

Vastet wrote:
How does omniscience NOT have anything to do with knowing the future? Do you know what omniscience is? I have to assume you don't, else you must either be incredibly stupid or a liar, and a troll. Omniscience, by definition, is the knowledge of everything. Everything, by definition, includes the future. Thus one who is omniscient must know every possible future as an outcome of any possible action. That's what omniscience IS. Is your god omniscient? And did your god create the universe? If so, it is fully responsible for everything in the universe. If not, then not.

to suggest that omniscience includes knowing the future is to suggest that the future exists presently.. from what i understand it does not.  As you said omniscience is knowledge of everything... that is every THING.  In other words if it doesn't exist, there is no knowledge of it.. so the question is, do you believe the future exists or is it yet to be written?  I don't believe in predestination as I've mentioned before... I think you might need to explain to me how the future exists if it hasn't happened yet.  

Vastet wrote:

If even the slightest bit of logic remains within your capacity to utilise, I just did. If I didn't, then you'll have convinced me you aren't a theist at all, as noone could possibly survive to an age where they could speak and write in any language with any proficiency at all. And even if by some miracle they did survive that long, they would be completely incapable of even the simplest communication with another person. As such, I will make a recommendation to the administration that we change your badge accordingly.

So in other words, you can't explain predestinationalism.  

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
and omniscience is infinite knowledge... it's knowledge, not a written future or a dictated future... infinite knowledge is knowing all that is knowable... are you suggesting the future is knowable?  Would you suggest that to not know an unknowable thing would negate the possibility of being omniscient? 
Oh good, you just don't know what omniscience means. I'll help with a definition: omniscient [om-nish-uhnt] adjective 1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things. dictionary.com om·ni·scient adjective \-shənt\ : knowing everything : having unlimited understanding or knowledge Full Definition of OMNISCIENT 1 :  having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight 2 :  possessed of universal or complete knowledge merriam-webster.com Omniscience /ɒmˈnɪʃəns/,[1] mainly in religion, is the capacity to know everything that there is to know. wikipedia.com om·nis·cient  (m-nshnt) adj. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator. n. 1. One having total knowledge. 2. Omniscient God. Used with the. thefreedictionary.com 4 different mainstream definitions all concur: omniscience is not limited by possibility, omniscience is knowledge of ALL. That includes the future, the past, and, well.. ALL. Note that only one definition of the term omniscience refers to infinity, but the fact you use it further erodes your argument. If god has infinite knowledge, why is the future not within the realm of his knowledge? Your gods knowledge CANNOT be infinite if it has limits. You really shouldn't use words when you don't know what they mean.

nor should you, but that hasn't stopped you has it Smiling

So basically what I hear you suggesting is that in order to be omniscient, not only must you know the unknowable, but you must be able to violate the law of non-contradiction by knowing things beyond possibility... How are you not a theist extremist with this perspective?  Your understanding of God takes a lot more faith than most.  

See the problem with defintions... which by the way all pretty much paralleled mine, which is why I left it up with exception of the "not limited by possibility".  I agree with the definition that omniscience is the capacity to know all that there is to know... I'm under the belief that the future is not to know yet until it happens... I believe as one of your paralleled definitions state that God gets clear perceptions of the future, but that doesn't predestine the outcomes or determine the specific steps to that point.  God can manipulate situations to adhere to his ideal future which is logical within his own creation, but to know what doesn't exist yet is violating the law of non-contradiction and thus is not rational or logical.  Who's the theist here?  

Vastet wrote:

Nope, because it isn't a belief anymore. It has been encoded in your brain for so long and so forcefully that it has become knowledge. False knowledge, that under very strictly controlled circumstances can be discredited and falsified. But those strictly controlled circumstances are not available to most victims of brainwashing. And for those for whom it is available, they don't think they've been brainwashed so why would they avail themselves? Have you undergone anti-brainwashing? Why not? Exactly.

so how many convicted criminals were actually brainwashed into doing what they did and then likely are innocent?   I would assume if someone was brainwashed into killing someone else, they couldn't possibly be held accountable for the murder.  They didn't know any better.

Vastet wrote:

Probably because you're cherry picking a phrase and applying it out of context. Things tend to lose their meaning when you do that. The act of creating all existence, in concorence with the possession of omniscience as per its definition, unavoidably results in predetermination.

So what then is your take on time in creation?  

Vastet wrote:

That doesn't even make sense. If I asked for flowers and you brought dandelions, I'd have no cause for complaint. Dandelions are flowers, by definition. I ask for evidence of your god, and the best you've done is disprove your own god by posting the most ridiculous and easily refuted hypothesis I've encountered in my entire life. The only evidence supporting your god that you can supply to support it is hearsay and emotional responses that we don't share, neither of which even remotely qualifies as evidence. Your analogy is absolutely ineffective.

well, basically what you're saying is you can't be complaining right now.  becasue right now you're just asking me for flowers.. you don't know what you're looking for.

Vastet wrote:

It WOULD be pointless. It'd be like telling someone to build a car without any training or even a manual. In order to be sure you even knew what evidence was, I'd have to teach you. Which would first require de-brainwashing you. Which would require your voluntary participation and access to personnel and resources that I don't readily have access to. Just giving you the ability to understand what evidence is would take monumental effort on both our parts, and with neither of us wanting to do it. The icing on the cake would be that you'd come out of it an atheist, and have no interest in trying to come up with evidence that doesn't exist, so all that effort would be for naught. Much easier for you to just pray to your god to show me evidence. He's omnipotent and omniscient, so he not only knows what it'd take but how to give it to me. I'll wait patiently, as I have been most of my life.

yet that's the biggest mistake most people "seeking" God do, sit back and wait for something to happen... That's not how God works.  You think it'd be pointless, but what you've been doing using your analogy above is taking your car to a mechanic, but then telling them how they should fix it despite how backwards it might be. 

Vastet wrote:

It's obvious you are incapable of determining a person's qualiftes over the internet. I'm ruthlessly honest to myself. It's part of why I'm an atheist. But I wouldn't expect someone who constantly lies to themselves to be otherwise, so no harm done.

so then you're brainwashed

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
ok, now we're getting somewhere... so I must ask now.. what effect?
ANY effect.

how about an example.  Basically I'm trying to see if it's rational... the problem with "any effect" is I'm willing to be that effect has already happened and you've missed it.  

Vastet wrote:

The former. Coincidence isn't evidence for anything but coincidence. But no other explanation isn't sufficient. We once had no explanation for lightning beyond gods, and we both know how that turned out. So it would have to be something with no other possible explanation. As your god is omnipotent, there are plenty of ways it could convince me it existed. Changing a law of physics, even briefly, would be sufficient to convince millions of people. Just an example. It doesn't need to be that extreme. But it would sure spark some discussion!

So that basically narrows it down to those miracle claims that you believe are bogus and don't exist.... and unless it happens to you, one would be inclined to believe that.  

The other problem with that is, even when some happen, the knee jerk reaction of most non-believing peoples is to rationalize even if it's not rational to do so.  Something tells me not even that would work for you... you seem to be one of those rationalizers.  In other words, if you did experience something that has no explanation, you'd still ratinoalize an explanation in your head and conclude that there is an explanation.  Am I wrong?  Either that or it would be so insignificant to your existence you wouldn't give it a second thought. 

Vastet wrote:

That's a pretty poor way to convince people you're a god and that you exist. Hey look, I made gravity pull the apple I let go of to the ground! It's consistent with gravity! I'm god, worship me sinner! Is that the best you've got?

there's the second mistake most non-believers make when "seeking" God... they have the mindset that God "needs" to convince us of his existence... truth be told, God could exist just fine without humanity... Consider the story of Noah and his original intention to completely wipe out life.  Rather we should be looking at it as God has given us the opportunity to know Him if we choose.

Vastet wrote:

No it isn't. Not in the YEC view of humanity.

but we're not talking about the YEC view of humanity are we... let's try and stick to reality. 

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
the prophesy of Revelation so far has come true and it continues to do so.
How so?

well, start with the churches, continue on with defiant youth and lovers of self and go from there.  

Vastet wrote:

Not by enough of them. If the sun and earth both stopped in their orbits and ceased spinning, I'd expect to see every culture on earth make note of such a massive discrepancy in the way that everything has always been. Yet there is no such record. False recollection is merely one explanation. There's also lying, or genuine mistakes. Also, a tradition passed on by word of mouth has no evidence for or against its authenticity. How do you know that noone ever changed it? There's no record of the original event at all. I don't have enough faith in man to believe that an oral tradition turned into a written one turned into a printed one over the span of thousands of years through dozens of languages has been completely accurate every step of the way. Not when a much simpler message can't be accurately passed on consistently via a single media over the span of minutes and a single language. It defies all reason to believe that a hundred plus generations of people could be consistently perfect and accurate even if not accounting for the sin we all supposedly suffer from.

I have sound reason to believe that the scriptures have not been changed from their original sources because in the thousands of years worth of translations that we have in our possesssion of the scriptures, they are all roughly identical.  That type of accuracy has not been found in any other historical document.  To top it off, with the more recent discovery of older manuscripts, it only confirmed the accuracy of the translations we already had in hand.    There is evidence to believe they are authentic and literally nothing to suggest they've been changed.

Vastet wrote:

And that explains why the bible is inconsistent and self contradictory. Don't forget how the men of the church voted on the stories that should be included or discarded. The bible is 100% the work of man, who by your claim is inherently corrupted. The ultimate irony in the hardcore theist position is that they have enough faith in man to believe that the writings of men prove there is a god, yet they claim man chose to be evil. To you I submit it is just as likely that you've fallen prey to the same evil that all men are subject to. It is as likely that satan was the inspiration for the bible as it is god. Judging from how evil it portrays god to be, it seems much more likely that your religion was highjacked by its greatest enemy, and is best avoided if one doesn't wish to be cast in fire for all eternity.

a predictable response of course.  If anything, that should be reasoning to believe what is written within despite inconsistencies.... and I have yet to find the contradictions that people claim... every one pointed out has been refuted by me so far... unless you have something new.

IT has been written by man, but by what you say, we should believe nothing written historically regardless of the proofs that come with it unless the proofs can be replicated presently.   It leaves nothing in history really to believe in.  I guess we should doubt the very existence of the Constitution be it that it was all written up by man and also allegedly preserved by "corrupt man" thus they might have changed it to their ideals over time.

The problem with your statements is you have to realize they would have to apply to every lateral concept and not just scripture.  This leaves belief in nothing, no one and not even any occurance outside your experiential world.  "no one is real, but they're willing to let you down..." - Powerman 5000


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

The theory of evolution does not in any way require hybrids to breed with hybrids, although that does happen and is quite common among closely related hybrids such as dogs. Most genetic mutations occur intraspecies, and with humans, it is believed that the only hybridization that occured within the last few million years was through interbreeding with Neanderthals. Regardless, I have shown proof that both hybridization occurs- even among genetically distant species as well as intraspecies mutations (the skinks, mice and grasshoppers from my earlier links). Such mutations are common and occur at predictable rates. As I pointed out in the previous post, you are more genetically different from humans at the time of Jesus than early homo sapiens were from Neanderthals, because in modern times genetic mutations have been occurring at really fast rates due to more humans breeding outside of their immediate community. On average, a human has roughly 100 "errors" in their genes, that is 100 genes that didn't copy correctly from your parents and are uniquely yours. Many of these mutations are not particularly noticeable or don't make a significant difference. Others are. Some will become dominant in the population, others will disappear.    

I understand your reasoning, but it's literally just that, reasoning.. not evidence of the transitions in question, only that errors happen, hybrids happen and genes look similar in particular situations.   It's like you're showing me that Juneau is part of Alaska, but then leaving me to believe I can get there by driving.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Absolutely no one believes that humans came from apes. Apes are our distant cousins, not our ancestors. 

well, I wouldn't say absolutely no one... I didn't come up with that statement on my own.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well I pulled the number out of my ass, but the point stands that most of science is discovering what you are wrong about. You make a hypothesis, you test it and more often than not you find out you were wrong. Or you have a successful test, publish the results and 20 other assholes out there shred your methodology to pieces and create better tests which show you were wrong, then publish their results. For every discovery that can be backed up with solid evidence, there were dozens of hypothesis which were proved wrong one at a time. 

of course... just do some homework into the history of the churches.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

The same place as all the evidence for the thousands of floods that we have found except presumably on a much larger scale since this flood was supposedly hundreds if not thousands of times larger than anything we have evidence of. We aren't talking about a minor event where the evidence would be difficult to find, you are proposing an event that makes nuclear bombs look like a fart in the wind. The evidence would literally be mountains, big mountains, and gigantic ravines. Bigger than the rockies and the grand canyon. I think we can safely say that if there was anything that big, we would have found it by now. 

considering the distance in history and also the magnitude possibilities, are you sure it woudl have had to been found by now?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Like taking candy from a baby. So your evidence of prophecy is one that was fulfilled by the very same book it was written in? That is a nice circle. You believe the book because the prophecy came true, and your evidence that the prophecy came true is that the book said it did. Surely you can see the problem with that since your evidence that the book is true lies within the book itself? How about a prophecy that we can actually corroborate with evidence external to the book that made the prophecy?  

well no, the Bible is actually 66 Canoical books and those books are hudreds or thousands of manuscripts compiled and translated... so actually one book likely made a prophesy and another confirmed... that is usually the case... a great example is the exhaustive list of prophesy of Jesus in the OT.  

Beyond SAving wrote:

The Jews have an equally traceable history, which has also been extremely well documented. They probably have the most studied history of any people in the world, which is unfortunate because there are so many cultures that were far more interesting.

Great.  where'd they start and from whom or what?

Beyond Saving wrote:

What else was going to happen? Something had to happen, people had to make some decision and no matter what decision they made, that decision would be beneficial for someone. It is rather egotistical to presume that you were at all relevant to anyone making those decisions. When decisions don't go your way, as they often do, do you believe that some higher power is out there intentionally making things difficult for you?

There is an understanding that there's a spiritual battle constantly happening, but what you question is purely circumstantial.  it could be some higher power, or it could legiitmately be a bad choice by me or others that affected me.  

What else was giong to happen you ask?  typically nothing really... the fact that something happened is what is significant.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

There is tons of research on the subject of mass psychology. I just pointed out one non-religious example. The circumstances differ, but the psychology behind it remains the same and there is a significant amount of research on the topic. I did some research on "cold reading" and similar mass psychology techniques when I was a teenager, but it isn't a topic that really interests me anymore so I don't have a plethora of links on it. A simple google search will turn up a significant amount of material explaining the phenomenon. 

yea, I've looked into it myself... nothing really answers what I'm talking about that I've seen so far.  Like you, I've always looked for the rational realistic answer for why things happen... even after becoming a Christian, ti took me a very long time to accept the fact that people can have a filling of the Holy Spirit... I always thought it was just hokum.  


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

Irrelevant. The flood didn't kill only all of humanity, it killed every creature on the planet. Otherwise, why would God have had Noah pack up evey animal on the planet? Pointless if our theoretical humans lived in one small village that could be wiped out in a single flood because he could have killed all humans without harming a significant number of animals. And if you want to go back to when a few thousand humans lived in close quarters, you are talking 2 mya+ which has staggeringly large problems for the story.

Consider creation for a moment... if humanity has only expanded by a little bit, so would creatures as well.  All if you remember lived in the Garden until the humans were kicked out.  Also, Where do you think all the animals of the world came from?  Do you honestly think that animals migrated from the Americas back to Noah's Ark as well?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

http://weatherhistorian.blogspot.com/

Took me 0.45 seconds, damn this slow internet connection. Regardless, I'm not looking for a weather historian. I want to see a meteorologist with a model that suggests that the kind of storm you propose is possible. After we have determined if it is possible, we can go back to worrying about whether or not it has ever actually happened. It is possible that the worst physically possible storm has never occurred. I can't find any meteorologist who says "the sky is the limit". Every model I am familiar with has limits.

the models have limits because people created them.  Of course they have limits.  The problem with making a limitless model in meteorology is you'd have to measure out all the possibilities...why do that until the situation comes?  

in regards to your link... sure, I've foudn those links in .5 seconds too... slightly slower connection here...  AS you said though, that's not what you're looking for... I've already given you links from weather historians.  They are meteorologists that have discussed historical weather patterns, but they're not historical meteorologists, they still concern their work with what is currently happening.  

The other problem with what you're looking for is meteorolgoists don't typically "make" models, they research computer generated models of weather patterns, history and progression to give you a forecast of what is going to happen weatherwise.  Again, their job and main concrern is current and future weather.  I have still yet to find a meteorolgoist who concerns himself with trying to prove the Noah flood to atheists... As I've mentioned many times, it's not a means to anything really when it comes to non-beleivers.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Your link also goes on to explain why the extremely heavy rains occur for a limited time period in a limited area. At a certain point, the cloud is too full and literally falls to the ground. Hence, there is a limit as these clouds take time to form. Which is why the world record for one hour is an exponentially slower rate than the world record for most rain in one minute and the rate for 24 hours is exponentially smaller than rain for one hour. Which is exactly what my internal logic told me, and why your claim that the most rain in one minute could continue for 40 days didn't pass my smell test. Your link confirms that it shouldn't pass my smell test as it is logical to assume that the record for rain in one week is exponentially smaller yet and the record for rain in 40 days even smaller. 

Ok, we're also losing focus on the intent of all this too... I've mentioned God would typically work within the means of His creation.  His creation has the capability of dropping massive amounts of rain in a short period of time.... God had 40 days in this story to create a deadly storm or series of storms.  I think I have more than proven it is possible.  But beyond that, it's God making it happen.  Therefore God easily could manipulate weather patterns to torrent on a specific area. The story also said that God would not allow such a flood to happen again, so what would you expect to find then in meteorological history to prove that it did?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Probably because meteorologists focus on predicting things that can actually occur instead of worrying about stories that are absurd on their face. ALL of the evidence you have provided supports the idea that the rate of rain falling at 1.5 inches per minute cannot be expected to be sustained. I remain convinced that if anyone with actual meteorlogical expertise were available to answer the question, they would have a very good explanation for why it would be ridiculous to believe that such a rate of rainfall could be maintained for a long period. 

Consider first that if 1.5 inches of rain fell per minute for even four minutes.  then it did that once a day every day for 40 days.  That would be 240 inches, not including the drizzle or moderate rain that likely would continue in between.  Despite your belief, it doesn't have to be consistent to have the same effect.  Also remember we're not talking about a typical weather pattern that would have normal results and just dissipate, it was set up to continue for an extended period of time... again the question was is it possible.  I'm very effectly proving that it is not only by the measurement of rainfall per minute, but rainforrest measurements and single storm measurements that have been recorded.... in other words, there are many possibilites that could be compiled to make such a drastic flood.  You're running out of excuses. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:*sigh*.

Jabberwocky wrote:

*sigh*. Seriously? Just because it's a lab doesn't mean that it's all about chemicals. Pesticides are chemicals synthesized in laboratories. Are you having trouble accepting speciation now? I thought you accepted that speciation occurs. Correct me if I'm wrong. 
no, I'm having a problem accepting lab manipulations as a means to prove natural occurances.  
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Ok. Seriously, the diminished protrusion of the brow needs no special explanation. To call that a problem for biologists is to call it a problem that some breeds of dog have a protruding snout, while others are quite flat-faced. EVEN young earth creationists accept that all dogs had a common ancestor. This is a very minor morphological difference all things considered. Unless you don't believe that dogs all have a common ancestor, which would be very bizarre indeed.As far as an upright walk, we do have such fossils. We also have other primates alive who do exactly that. They can walk upright, but their pelves cause them to not be able to stand on one leg. They lean towards the direction of their raised leg. This is why you see when a chimpanzee walks with a human holding their hand, they sway right and left as they walk. They have the ability to walk upright. It's simply more efficient for them not to. There are some pelvis fossils (such as Turkana boy, a specimen of Homo Ergaster) that show ancestors that had a pelvis even better geared than ours towards upright walking. You do see a progression though. The pelvis of Australopithecus Africanus is better suited to bipedalism than that of Au. Afarensis. When you look at the pelvis bones of humans, older hominids, australopithecines, and then modern apes such as chimpanzees, you will see that much like with the brow protrusion, all it really takes is a changing of proportions.  Can you name me two specimens between which you find an unbridgeable gap?
If you understand why certain dogs have a protruding nose and others not, you would not use that as an example.  Let's just say it was human maniuplation that caused certain more significant differences in particular breeds and we can also say that much of it was not humane.  Beyond that, Can you show me the process of pelvic change to complete upright walking?  I mean is there a link or a source I can look at?   I haven't seen that research yet. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Like magic. It's saying the same thing unless you can provide some further explanation.
it's not though
Jabberwocky wrote:
The problem is that they don't say that "we must find this exact shade of orange that is 255-165-0 in RGB terms. They see that, and say "we will find something like that!". Meanwhile they found 255-175-0 instead. http://www.colorcodehex.com/ffa500/http://www.colorcodehex.com/ffaf00/Now open those 2 links in separate tabs, and alternate back and forth. You will see that the former is slightly darker. If you were to ask to the minute detail what an unknown transitional form between our "red" and "yellow" is, they would probably give you the first one, although the answer would probably vary slightly depending on who you're asking, because they might have slightly different ideas of how certain traits evolved. So what you're saying is "we found 255-175-0, but not 255-165-0. Therefore, biologists are wrong!" At least that's what it seems to me. You're saying that that one spot on the spectrrum always seems to be missing in transitional species. As I asked above (you only have to answer me once though) provide me with an example of one of these actual problematic gaps the deriders of biology constantly talk about. 
my point exactly... they find something like it, but it's still not "IT".  basically, we have gaps... not a steady progression.  with domesticated dog breeds, because people had pretty much all influence in creating the breeds from wolf breeds, it is easy to see the progression and it's not choppy, it's very very consistent.  It wasn't Wolf to husky, to sheepdog, to goldie, to hound to beagle to chihuaua... rather each breed originated from wolf and over long long processes of either manipulation and breeding or particular use the breed was formed and changed that eventually stopped looking like the wolf and more like what we see today.  Granted there is some discression be it that there are many breeds of wolves too and that helped shape the breeds originally.  the point is though, the progression is smooth, consistent and obvious.  Very easy to trace without even using genetic means.  
Jabberwocky wrote:
Species of what? Insects perhaps as they reproduce quickly and, therefore, they speciate quickly. That is why there are estimated to be 950 000 insect species, and only about 3119 mammalian species. I can see other animals having new species discovered daily, but not emerging daily, as they don't speciate fast enough. The rate of speciation that you are proposing for mammals with long lives would require genetic change far more rapid than we've ever seen, if we were to put a small enough number of animals on that Ark that they may at least fit. There are 1400 different species of rodent. How many would you need in your opinion to have all 1400 around today? Also, how do you keep a wooden boat in good shape with even 50 rodents on it? Can you put together some sort of tree (or a Ken Ham style "orchard&quotEye-wink of evolution that doesn't involve speciation occuring at a ridiculously higher rate than ever observed that still allows for all of the animals necessary to fit onto one boat 1/3 the size of the titanic? 
There are waves of speciation and mice actually reproduce very quickly and over several million years it would make sense.  Also we are always missing the bigger picture here, God.  If the flood happened, God would have had to have done it and also taken into consideration the necessary rate as to which animals woudl need to evolve to be necessary.   
jabberwocky wrote:
Are you seriously unable to make a distinction between the scientific method and typical religious practices, such as praying, attending church, speaking in tongues, etc.?
we're just talking about practices....  We are taking the super-literal definition here.  Remember, we're playing that game right?  Admit it works here.  no more excuses.    
Jabberwocky wrote:

Does it work the way it should? Imagine for a moment that you're eating dinner. Someone makes you laugh, and you accidentally swallow the food in your mouth before chewing it properly. You then say "Oh dear. I've got some food lodged in my food hole. I need to get that dislodged before I can continue eating" You then calmly go to the restroom with someone who performs the hiemlich maneouver, and you can then sit back down and eat. In real life, it doesn't happen that way. Our food chute is also our breathing tube. This is a major design flaw. It would be more complicated to have 2 tubes, but it would be more reasonable. Which takes precedent when simple isn't reasonable? 

You did evade my question, as I just said. I hope my clarification here is helpful in getting through to you what it is that I meant. 

 

sure it works the way it should... when food gets lodged it does so for a reason...and there are two different tubes in your throat though I'm assuming you mean our mouth.  If food didn't get lodged, it would go right into our lungs and you'd most certainly die.  Instead your vocal chords grab the food before they can pass the barrier of no return and allow for the possibility of someone to help you get it out.  There's also a reason why most of the time people don't choke when eating.  


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

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

*sigh*. Seriously? Just because it's a lab doesn't mean that it's all about chemicals. Pesticides are chemicals synthesized in laboratories. Are you having trouble accepting speciation now? I thought you accepted that speciation occurs. Correct me if I'm wrong. 
no, I'm having a problem accepting lab manipulations as a means to prove natural occurances.  
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?
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Ok. Seriously, the diminished protrusion of the brow needs no special explanation. To call that a problem for biologists is to call it a problem that some breeds of dog have a protruding snout, while others are quite flat-faced. EVEN young earth creationists accept that all dogs had a common ancestor. This is a very minor morphological difference all things considered. Unless you don't believe that dogs all have a common ancestor, which would be very bizarre indeed.As far as an upright walk, we do have such fossils. We also have other primates alive who do exactly that. They can walk upright, but their pelves cause them to not be able to stand on one leg. They lean towards the direction of their raised leg. This is why you see when a chimpanzee walks with a human holding their hand, they sway right and left as they walk. They have the ability to walk upright. It's simply more efficient for them not to. There are some pelvis fossils (such as Turkana boy, a specimen of Homo Ergaster) that show ancestors that had a pelvis even better geared than ours towards upright walking. You do see a progression though. The pelvis of Australopithecus Africanus is better suited to bipedalism than that of Au. Afarensis. When you look at the pelvis bones of humans, older hominids, australopithecines, and then modern apes such as chimpanzees, you will see that much like with the brow protrusion, all it really takes is a changing of proportions.  Can you name me two specimens between which you find an unbridgeable gap?
If you understand why certain dogs have a protruding nose and others not, you would not use that as an example.  Let's just say it was human maniuplation that caused certain more significant differences in particular breeds and we can also say that much of it was not humane.  Beyond that, Can you show me the process of pelvic change to complete upright walking?  I mean is there a link or a source I can look at?   I haven't seen that research yet. 
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?  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?
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Like magic. It's saying the same thing unless you can provide some further explanation.
it's not though
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) 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
The problem is that they don't say that "we must find this exact shade of orange that is 255-165-0 in RGB terms. They see that, and say "we will find something like that!". Meanwhile they found 255-175-0 instead. http://www.colorcodehex.com/ffa500/http://www.colorcodehex.com/ffaf00/Now open those 2 links in separate tabs, and alternate back and forth. You will see that the former is slightly darker. If you were to ask to the minute detail what an unknown transitional form between our "red" and "yellow" is, they would probably give you the first one, although the answer would probably vary slightly depending on who you're asking, because they might have slightly different ideas of how certain traits evolved. So what you're saying is "we found 255-175-0, but not 255-165-0. Therefore, biologists are wrong!" At least that's what it seems to me. You're saying that that one spot on the spectrrum always seems to be missing in transitional species. As I asked above (you only have to answer me once though) provide me with an example of one of these actual problematic gaps the deriders of biology constantly talk about. 
my point exactly... they find something like it, but it's still not "IT".  basically, we have gaps... not a steady progression.  
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. 
caposkia wrote:
with domesticated dog breeds, because people had pretty much all influence in creating the breeds from wolf breeds, it is easy to see the progression and it's not choppy, it's very very consistent.  It wasn't Wolf to husky, to sheepdog, to goldie, to hound to beagle to chihuaua... rather each breed originated from wolf and over long long processes of either manipulation and breeding or particular use the breed was formed and changed that eventually stopped looking like the wolf and more like what we see today.  Granted there is some discression be it that there are many breeds of wolves too and that helped shape the breeds originally.  the point is though, the progression is smooth, consistent and obvious.  Very easy to trace without even using genetic means.  
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. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Species of what? Insects perhaps as they reproduce quickly and, therefore, they speciate quickly. That is why there are estimated to be 950 000 insect species, and only about 3119 mammalian species. I can see other animals having new species discovered daily, but not emerging daily, as they don't speciate fast enough. The rate of speciation that you are proposing for mammals with long lives would require genetic change far more rapid than we've ever seen, if we were to put a small enough number of animals on that Ark that they may at least fit. There are 1400 different species of rodent. How many would you need in your opinion to have all 1400 around today? Also, how do you keep a wooden boat in good shape with even 50 rodents on it? Can you put together some sort of tree (or a Ken Ham style "orchard&quotEye-wink of evolution that doesn't involve speciation occuring at a ridiculously higher rate than ever observed that still allows for all of the animals necessary to fit onto one boat 1/3 the size of the titanic? 
There are waves of speciation and mice actually reproduce very quickly and over several million years it would make sense.  Also we are always missing the bigger picture here, God.  If the flood happened, God would have had to have done it and also taken into consideration the necessary rate as to which animals woudl need to evolve to be necessary.   
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. 
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
Are you seriously unable to make a distinction between the scientific method and typical religious practices, such as praying, attending church, speaking in tongues, etc.?
we're just talking about practices....  We are taking the super-literal definition here.  Remember, we're playing that game right?  Admit it works here.  no more excuses.   
The scientific method isn't a "practice". It's a process. 
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:

Does it work the way it should? Imagine for a moment that you're eating dinner. Someone makes you laugh, and you accidentally swallow the food in your mouth before chewing it properly. You then say "Oh dear. I've got some food lodged in my food hole. I need to get that dislodged before I can continue eating" You then calmly go to the restroom with someone who performs the hiemlich maneouver, and you can then sit back down and eat. In real life, it doesn't happen that way. Our food chute is also our breathing tube. This is a major design flaw. It would be more complicated to have 2 tubes, but it would be more reasonable. Which takes precedent when simple isn't reasonable? 

You did evade my question, as I just said. I hope my clarification here is helpful in getting through to you what it is that I meant. 

 

sure it works the way it should... when food gets lodged it does so for a reason...and there are two different tubes in your throat though I'm assuming you mean our mouth.  If food didn't get lodged, it would go right into our lungs and you'd most certainly die.  Instead your vocal chords grab the food before they can pass the barrier of no return and allow for the possibility of someone to help you get it out.  There's also a reason why most of the time people don't choke when eating.  

 

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

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). 

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). 

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
caposkia wrote:I understand

caposkia wrote:

I understand your reasoning, but it's literally just that, reasoning.. not evidence of the transitions in question, only that errors happen, hybrids happen and genes look similar in particular situations.   It's like you're showing me that Juneau is part of Alaska, but then leaving me to believe I can get there by driving.  

Compare my evidence to what you have presented in our other conversation about meteorology. You have shown nothing but that it can rain really hard for 1.5 minutes and then reason that it could rain close to that hard for 40 days, with no evidence that such a duration is even theoretically possible. You have declared that you 'proved' the flood was possible because of this reasoning.

On the other hand, I have shown that we have solid evidence and current examples on genes changing three different ways.

1. Hybridization-We know it has created a myriad of species because we have used it to create a myriad of species. (Mules, dogs, cats, etc.) We also know that it occurs naturally to some extent. The exact extent is admittedly unknown, but we know it has happened among species that are very distant, all the way to the kingdom level of our current scale.

2. We know that genes are transfered imperfectly close to 100% of the time. Every single instance where we can observe the genetic code of parents and child, we have observed mutations. Furthermore, we have observed among many species that some of these mutations become dominant-such as the skinks with part of their population having a large mutation causing them to give live birth. We have also observed that when populations of the same species are isolated, they mutate to the point where they are distinct enough for us to call them different species and also to the point that they can no longer interbreed (the relevant link here is the one about the mice).

Furthermore, we have observed these changes in humans. We are so genetically different from humans 2000 years ago that a genetisist a million years in the future would probably declare us different species. We are more genetically different from them than original homo-sapiens were from neanderthals. Why don't we call ourselves a different species? Some have suggested we should, but when written history makes it so easy to trace our roots it is difficult to see them as that different from us. Which is probably the largest thing you fail to grasp, the difference between species is not a bright line where you can easily say exactly when one species becomes another. Currently, the label species does not have a solid objective definition. The difference between a species and sub species is subjective.

This us exacerbated by our historical tendency to emphasize visual genetic variations when determining species. For example, in many areas, the species we label mule deer interbreed with the species we call whitetail all the time. Yet, within the whitetail species, there are 38 sub-species that are not all genetically compatable and are further related from each other than from mule deer. Yet we call them all 'whitetail' because they have the same color tail and same shape of antler growth.  

3. Genetic mutation as a result of parasites. This is another one we have no way of knowing how large or small effect it has had on speciation. Until recently, it was impossible for us to observe. As the link I have shown earlier, we have observed a radical change in insect populations, it is unknown if anything similar happened to humans, but is theoretically possible. 

 So we know that genes change at least three different ways. We know for an absolute fact that human genes have changed at least one of these ways over the last couple thousand years and we can also see a fairly significant genetic difference between children born today and people who are 100 today. I am not suggesting you believe something happened in the past that we have never observed, I am suggesting that hominids 2 mya fucked and procreated passing genes down in a manner very similar to how genes are passed today. To believe otherwise, you have to believe that what is happening right now that we are observing is the exception. 

 

Caposkua wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Absolutely no one believes that humans came from apes. Apes are our distant cousins, not our ancestors. 

well, I wouldn't say absolutely no one... I didn't come up with that statement on my own.

Yeah, you got it from creationist sites that spout it as a means of discrediting the theory of evolution. It has nothing to do with evolution, that is not what the theory is.

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

The same place as all the evidence for the thousands of floods that we have found except presumably on a much larger scale since this flood was supposedly hundreds if not thousands of times larger than anything we have evidence of. We aren't talking about a minor event where the evidence would be difficult to find, you are proposing an event that makes nuclear bombs look like a fart in the wind. The evidence would literally be mountains, big mountains, and gigantic ravines. Bigger than the rockies and the grand canyon. I think we can safely say that if there was anything that big, we would have found it by now. 

considering the distance in history and also the magnitude possibilities, are you sure it woudl have had to been found by now?  

Since we have compelling evidence of much smaller events that occurred long befire humans existed, why wouldn't we have evidence of this one? Like I said, the evidence wouldn't be something small. It would literally be something the size of Mount Everest or the Grand Canyon. I am as sure as can be that we have found everything that large on our planet.

 

Caposkia wrote:

well no, the Bible is actually 66 Canoical books and those books are hudreds or thousands of manuscripts compiled and translated... so actually one book likely made a prophesy and another confirmed... that is usually the case... a great example is the exhaustive list of prophesy of Jesus in the OT.  

Beyond SAving wrote:

The Jews have an equally traceable history, which has also been extremely well documented. They probably have the most studied history of any people in the world, which is unfortunate because there are so many cultures that were far more interesting.

Great.  where'd they start and from whom or what?

Like I said, that area of history bores me to tears. Study Canaan 4000 years ago. There are literally thousands of mind numbingly boring books on the subject. 

 

Quote:

There is an understanding that there's a spiritual battle constantly happening, but what you question is purely circumstantial.  it could be some higher power, or it could legiitmately be a bad choice by me or others that affected me.  

What else was giong to happen you ask?  typically nothing really... the fact that something happened is what is significant.  

Bullshit. There has never been an instabt in history that we know if where nothing happened. If nothing happened, that would be extraordinarily significant. What you are speaking of is the subjective significance YOU place on the events that occurred. Everyone else in the world puts a different significance on it and even among most of the individuals involved, it was probably completely insignificant. Just another day at the office where nothing noteworthy happened. We live in a society, as part of that our actions directly and indirectly affect others. Sometimes the effects are considered significant, sometimes they are not but they are always there and are exactly as significant as you choose to view them. There is absolutely no point in your life where others actions don't have an effect on you. So how do you determine whether a particular effect was caused by divine intervention? It seems to me that just because a series of effects benefitted you that you deem to be significantly beneficial you credit god. But what of all the effects which are significant and bad for you? Did god make those happen too?

Caposkia wrote:

yea, I've looked into it myself... nothing really answers what I'm talking about that I've seen so far.  Like you, I've always looked for the rational realistic answer for why things happen... even after becoming a Christian, ti took me a very long time to accept the fact that people can have a filling of the Holy Spirit... I always thought it was just hokum.  

Lol, yeah I can tell how hard you look for a rational explanation. I don't think it is just 'hokum', it just is not anything special or peculiar to religion and certainly not to a single religion. Every cult in the world has similar experiences. Drug users also have similar experiences. Mass psychology is apowerfull tool. It is only "The Spirit" if you choose to interpret it that way. Scan your brain while it is happening and we can see it isn't different from a number of human experiences and is one we can recreate.

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


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

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Irrelevant. The flood didn't kill only all of humanity, it killed every creature on the planet. Otherwise, why would God have had Noah pack up evey animal on the planet? Pointless if our theoretical humans lived in one small village that could be wiped out in a single flood because he could have killed all humans without harming a significant number of animals. And if you want to go back to when a few thousand humans lived in close quarters, you are talking 2 mya+ which has staggeringly large problems for the story.

Consider creation for a moment... if humanity has only expanded by a little bit, so would creatures as well.  All if you remember lived in the Garden until the humans were kicked out.

Except other animals existed and were spread around the world hundreds of millions of years before primates existed. Are you now suggesting that the flood occurred hundreds of millions of years ago and somehow humanoids existed back then? I pointed out the inconsistency of Genesis as far as the order of creation and you took a very loose interpretation of 'day' to explain it. Do you now doubt that other animals existed before humans?

 

Quote:

 Also, Where do you think all the animals of the world came from?  Do you honestly think that animals migrated from the Americas back to Noah's Ark as well?  

I don't believe the story. You are the one who needs to rationalize how animals isolated around the world traveled all the way to the Ark, passing through habitat they were ill equipped to survive, knowing which way to go and fitting on the Ark. My honest opinion is that a critically thinking four year old can look at the story and call bullshit for that reason. You are much older than a four year old, so if you think critically and still believe the story, there must be a good explanation. I look forward to hearing it, because I am incapable of imagining one.

Caposkia wrote:

the models have limits because people created them.  Of course they have limits.  The problem with making a limitless model in meteorology is you'd have to measure out all the possibilities...why do that until the situation comes?  

Do you know what models are? Models have limits when what they attempt to predict has limits. The limits in a model are almost always higher and lower than whatever it is trying to model. The reason for that is if it is not, it is a bad model because it is unable to predict. Infinite, only exists in models, and that is because infinite is a convenient shortcut when you don't know what the natural limits are. Infinite has never be shown to exist anywhere. We don't use limitless models in meteorology because they would be innaccurate. Someone with knowledge of meteorology should now that basic modeling fact as it applies to any form of model.

 

Quote:

in regards to your link... sure, I've foudn those links in .5 seconds too... slightly slower connection here...  AS you said though, that's not what you're looking for... I've already given you links from weather historians.  They are meteorologists that have discussed historical weather patterns, but they're not historical meteorologists, they still concern their work with what is currently happening.  

Yet you have failed to provide a single link supporting the assertions you have made.

 

Quote:

The other problem with what you're looking for is meteorolgoists don't typically "make" models, they research computer generated models of weather patterns, history and progression to give you a forecast of what is going to happen weatherwise.  

I am doubting your claims even more now. Computers only create what a program tells them to create. The program only does what a human tells it to do and only using the parameters that are input by humans. I am not talking about the 'meteorologist' you see on the six o'clock news who reads off a computer running a program the tv station paid tens of thousands of dollars for, who may or may not have taken a meteorology class or two in college. I am talking about the real meteorologists who devote their lives to analyzing weather, the models and attempt to figure out which variabkes are relevant, which are not and why our predictions are not yet 100% accurate. Computers help immesely because they can do math in a few seconds that would take a human days to do, but they don't create models without us telling them exactly which variables to use yet. Comments like this make me even more skeptical of your claims because I know a little about mathematical modeling.

Since you are unable or unwilling to share actual knowledge, I decided to give myself a quick dilettante education on weather models. What I have found seems to confirm my suspicions. Numerical weather models use numerical partial differential equations. Good news for me because such equations are also used in economic theory which is an area I take more than a pedestrian interest in. The thing about PDEs is that they can create highly accurate models, but are virtually impossible to solve exactly with real world variables. This is due to the inability to provide enough starting data that is sufficiently accurate-for example, we know that weather is affected by current temperatures, but it is impossible to have an exact accounting of the precise temperature of every square inch. It is also due to the complexity of the equations themselves. Even the largest supercomputers are forced to round numbers and even the smallest error caused by rounding becomes magnified by the time a result is rendered. Which as far as I can tell is why weather us currently only predictable for about six days out before the rounding errors and initial variable information produces largely inaccurate results. With better computers and more precise initial data, we could theoretically predict specific weather much further out. We have the tech available, but it is a question of cost.

Furthermore, I learned that weather models use the primitive equations, which if you don't know are basically the laws of physics. Conservation of momentum, thermodynamics and conservation of mass. It is these equations which puts limits on weather models and gives them a wave shape on a graph as opposed to a shape that goes to infinity. So when you say there is no limit to weather, you are literally saying that the laws of physics are completely wrong. If you could provide even a shred of evidence that such a claim was true, your name would be known alongside the likes of Newton and Einstein. Below are some of the links I learnec this from, I found the colorado state presentation very informative for a brief overview. Like I said, I started knowing little this morning, so maybe I have missed some major innovation and I certainly can't speak with authority on the subject. If I am wrong, please correct me and point me to accurate sources.

 

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1955.tb01138.x/pdf

http://www.scn.org/~bm733/infaq.html

http://rams.atmos.colostate.edu/at540/fall03/fall03Pt7.pdf

 

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Ok, we're also losing focus on the intent of all this too... I've mentioned God would typically work within the means of His creation.  His creation has the capability of dropping massive amounts of rain in a short period of time.... God had 40 days in this story to create a deadly storm or series of storms.  I think I have more than proven it is possible.  But beyond that, it's God making it happen.  Therefore God easily could manipulate weather patterns to torrent on a specific area. The story also said that God would not allow such a flood to happen again, so what would you expect to find then in meteorological history to prove that it did?  

You have not proven anything. You have failed to point me to a single relevant source. Exactly which weather model allows for this possibility? Based on what I have read, God couldn't manipulate such a series of storms unless he was willing to blatantly violate the laws of physics. But if he was going to intrude that much, why not just snap his fingers and kill everyone he wanted dead?

Caposkia wrote:

Consider first that if 1.5 inches of rain fell per minute for even four minutes.  then it did that once a day every day for 40 days.  That would be 240 inches, not including the drizzle or moderate rain that likely would continue in between.  Despite your belief, it doesn't have to be consistent to have the same effect.  Also remember we're not talking about a typical weather pattern that would have normal results and just dissipate, it was set up to continue for an extended period of time... again the question was is it possible.  I'm very effectly proving that it is not only by the measurement of rainfall per minute, but rainforrest measurements and single storm measurements that have been recorded.... in other words, there are many possibilites that could be compiled to make such a drastic flood.  You're running out of excuses. 

Did you even try to understand your own damn link? The 1.5 inch a minute only lasted for a minute because it was a cloudburst, which is by definition a short lived event because clouds are a finite size. You can't just arbitraily decide it might be possible to maintain for even two minutes let alone four just because it fits your myth. Also, the event isn't going to happen the next day because it is caused by two extreme temperature pressures meeting at the same time. Once they have mixed, the pressure is equalized and the ground temperature is cooler. Even if you habe another high pressure cold front, the rain will be substantially less because the temperature and pressure to create another cloud burst no longer exists and it will take a long time for it to develop again. That is based on the link you provided and the links I included today. If I am wrong, provide a link from a respectable source explaining why.

I tried to look up the maximum theoretical 24 hour rainfall. The only source I found was Dr. Lyons. I have no idea how credible he is or if any of these claims were peer reviewed. It appears credible to me. He claims the maximum physically possible amount of rain for a single location is 378 inches over 30 days. 31 feet. Even if you assumed it continued to average a foot a day, which it certainly wouldn't, you are only at 40 feet. A far cry from the 240 feet of rainfall you said was needed.

http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_12893.html

 

So is Dr. Lyon a fraud? Is he wrong? Is there another meteorologist woth a competing theory? Or am I supposed to take the word of you over him?

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:to suggest

caposkia wrote:
to suggest that omniscience includes knowing the future is to suggest that the future exists presently..

Ridiculous. In fact, if you knew everything presently, you could accurately predict the future. So even if god didn't technically know the future, he'd still know the future. There's no way out of this one. Either god is omniscient and the creator and completely responsible for everything that has or ever will happen, or he isn't omniscient and he becomes only slightly more benign in having created a extremely dangerous universe and subjected life to those dangers without any compassion or concern for said life.

caposkia wrote:
As you said omniscience is knowledge of everything... that is every THING.  In other words if it doesn't exist, there is no knowledge of it..

Yet everything already exists. Your god would have to create something in order for anything new to exist. And since he's the one creating it, he'd still know the future.

caposkia wrote:
so the question is, do you believe the future exists or is it yet to be written?

I don't know. But I know if any entity exists that can truly claim omniscience, then they know the future. Anything that could happen, they know it. They know what and how and why and where and when. And thus they must be incredibly bored. Probably suicidal. Perhaps simply insane.

caposkia wrote:
So in other words, you can't explain predestinationalism.

Funny how you come up with these ridiculously obvious and pathetic side topics that completely ignore what I've said. You never even asked me to explain "predestinationism". If you had I'd have told you that you are incapable of understanding why knowing everything necessitates knowing the future. You have no grasp of logic or mathematics or probability or evolution or any other discipline even remotely related to science, from what I've seen. You are simply incapable of understanding a concept that binds it all together.

caposkia wrote:
nor should you, but that hasn't stopped you has it

Considering you're the only one using words outside their accepted definitions, this comment is laughably childish and ignorant. I'm glad you put it to words. It helps demonstrate how broken your philosophy is, and how desperate you are to cling to it regardless.

caposkia wrote:
o basically what I hear you suggesting is that in order to be omniscient, not only must you know the unknowable, but you must be able to violate the law of non-contradiction by knowing things beyond possibility.

Ah now you must invent hurdles that don't exist to defend your flawed position. What is unknowable? And how does knowing everything allow you to know things that cannot be? This is a truly amazing response. Knowing everything doesn't mean you know things that aren't. Also, your god is omnipotent as well as omniscient, so there's nothing that can't be. No laws apply to your god. He made the laws. He can break them, or make new ones.

Funny how theists claim their god is all powerful but spend half the time in an argument taking power away.

caposkia wrote:
How are you not a theist extremist with this perspective?  Your understanding of God takes a lot more faith than most.

Only someone as devoid of logic as yourself could make such a claim. You think my logic is faith, but it's just logic. 1 + 1 = 2. It's that simple. Yet you will never understand as long as you poison yourself with faith.

caposkia wrote:
 I agree with the definition that omniscience is the capacity to know all that there is to know... I'm under the belief that the future is not to know yet until it happens.

Because you've not applied logic to the idea of omnipotence & omniscience. Nor do you have any appreciation for the universe or the science we've developed studying it. The more we learn in science, the more we can predict. If we knew everything there was to know, we could predict the future perfectly. Just like your god could, if it were real.

caposkia wrote:
but that doesn't predestine the outcomes or determine the specific steps to that point.

Even if you want to pretend he doesn't know every single minute detail about everything just to throw some random chance into the future, making it impossible for him to know the future absolutely (which, by the way, means he isn't omniscient), he'd still know the big picture well enough. And he'd be perfectly capable of predicting the actions of his own creation. Creating a life form that is naturally curious and setting it in a world where it can do things you think are wrong guarantees it will do something wrong. Out of simple curiosity if nothing else. Your god would have to be incredibly stupid to not see it coming. Yet it decided to let it happen. No, to make it happen. By creating that life, with that characteristic, in a place where it could do something wrong. It lliterally made it happen.

caposkia wrote:
God can manipulate situations to adhere to his ideal future which is logical within his own creation, but to know what doesn't exist yet is violating the law of non-contradiction and thus is not rational or logical.  Who's the theist here?

Lets see. You worship a god, you believe it omnipotent and omniscient, yet not omnipotent or omniscient (violating the very law of non-contradiction that you ignorantly blame me for violating, oh sweet irony). You don't know what science or logic are, and you have no problem lying when you've trapped yourself in a corner and lose an argument. You depend on faith (which, by definition, means you don't even know if you're wrong lol). You constantly make shit up and move the goalposts whenever someone scores on you. You will not accept any evidence that you're wrong, despite receiving much evidence.

Conclusion: You're a theist.

I have adhered strictly to science and logic, and have not needed to rely on faith at all. I've been consistent and my arguments have been impenetrable. Even if I'm wrong in anything I've said, neither you nor anyone else has been able to prove it. Should anyone do so, I'd change my views.

Conclusion: I'm not a theist.

caposkia wrote:
so how many convicted criminals were actually brainwashed into doing what they did and then likely are innocent?   I would assume if someone was brainwashed into killing someone else, they couldn't possibly be held accountable for the murder.  They didn't know any better.

Even more red herrings. We weren't discussing brainwashing someone to kill. I'm not even going to do more than laugh at how irrelevant this is. Are you trying to create so many side discussions that the responses end up being novels in their own right?

caposkia wrote:
So what then is your take on time in creation?

Can you be more specific? I don't understand the question.

caposkia wrote:
well, basically what you're saying is you can't be complaining right now.  becasue right now you're just asking me for flowers.. you don't know what you're looking for.

Obviously I do know what I'm looking for. I'm looking for flowers. I don't know what kind, so I ask you to choose one. I can then accept or reject your choice. I'd probably reject your choice, but that gives me no cause to be unhappy with you. Even though your choice was rejected, you helped me narrow my decision down. Maybe if I gave you a thousand bucks and asked you to get flowers and you brought dandelions I'd get upset with you, but I would have been explicit on what kinds of flowers you shouldn't get if I was paying for it. Thusly I'd have good reason to be upset.

caposkia wrote:
yet that's the biggest mistake most people "seeking" God do, sit back and wait for something to happen... That's not how God works.  You think it'd be pointless, but what you've been doing using your analogy above is taking your car to a mechanic, but then telling them how they should fix it despite how backwards it might be. 

Ah yes, one of the biggest mistakes a theist can make is assuming the atheist just hasn't looked hard enough. As if the theist has any idea what the atheist has or hasn't done. I've spent years looking for a god. That's how I know the theist argument so well, and why I'm so confident rejecting your religion. Even here on this site I'm looking for a theist who can actually go somewhere in an argument. I tried going to theist sites, but always get banned and have all my posts deleted for winning a debate. So I can't use them.
Also, if I go to a mechanic, I DO tell them how I want them to fix it. Letting them do whatever THEY think is right simply leads to a huge bill for a lot of shit I didn't need or want. I tell them what I'm willing to spend and the type/quality of part(s) I want. I don't give them a step by step guide on what to do, I don't have to. They learned it already. If they didn't, I wouldn't be taking my car to them. You're really bad at analogies.

caposkia wrote:
so then you're brainwashed

So you can't accept your inability to judge me, and must resort to more childish comments in your frustration.

caposkia wrote:
how about an example.  Basically I'm trying to see if it's rational... the problem with "any effect" is I'm willing to be that effect has already happened and you've missed it.

I'll give you an example when you positively define non-physical as something without referring to anything physical. Until then, I can't really give you an example, because I don't know what non-physical is. I'd be stuck in your world of anything goes, seeing jesus' face on my toast and completely abandoning the science and reasoning that allows me to understand anything, I can't go there, I've learned too much. I'm not ignorant enough to make shit up as I go like theists do.
Maybe such an effect did happen and I missed it. But if so, it wasn't much of an effect. Certainly nothing that would qualify as evidence for the non-physical. There aren't many things that I've experienced that I don't have a solid explanation for. And all of them that I'm not 100% certain of still have potential explanations, I just can't say with certainty which applies. NONE of them could be adequately explained by something non-physical, because they can be explained by the physical.

caposkia wrote:
In other words, if you did experience something that has no explanation, you'd still ratinoalize an explanation in your head and conclude that there is an explanation.

I wouldn't make something up to rationalise an event. But if an explanation is available I won't think on it much, even if that explanation isn't actually the explanation (not that I'd know that at the time).

It makes logical sense that if the non-physical could affect the physical, then it would. And it would do so repeatedly. And eventually someone would realise that something was happening that had no explanation. And they'd test it and write about it. Which would get others interested, and they'd write about it. And today it'd be in school texts everywhere, a challenge to all to find the explanation. Scientists everywhere would seek it out.
Since such is not the case, and since I've never experienced anything that was completely unexplainable, I can dismiss the idea as fanciful nonsense.

caposkia wrote:
there's the second mistake most non-believers make when "seeking" God... they have the mindset that God "needs" to convince us of his existence...

If god wants or needs us to do anything, then he certainly needs to prove he exists first. The only mistake here is your counterclaim. No god can expect anything of its creation when it hides itself. It doesn't have the right to expect anything. It has no business judging anyone, and it has no business taking any interest at all. If it does, then we are morally superior to god, since we can make exceptions for people who break laws they didn't know exist.
We do it all the time. Whenever a new law is made or a law is changed, the police take an educational role instead of a punitive one. As do the courts.
We also do it with children. When a child lies or steals for the first time, we don't throw them in prison. We teach them not to do it. Where is your god? It certainly isn't teaching anyone anything. Yet your religion would have me believe it wants to. Well I'm willing. Why is it hiding instead of teaching?

caposkia wrote:
but we're not talking about the YEC view of humanity are we... let's try and stick to reality. 

If you want to stick to reality then stop talking about made up superbeings.
While you're at it, I gave a second response based on the not-YEC-view, and it amuses me greatly that you just continue cherry picking little bits of what I say as if that was all I said. Can I then assume that since you have no response, your position is that we have 196,000 years to go before jesus returns?

caposkia wrote:
well, start with the churches, continue on with defiant youth and lovers of self and go from there.

That doesn't tell me anything. I can't stomach the bible enough to read the whole thing. It's the worst writing I've ever encountered, and it is filled with vile and horrible things. If these are supposed to refer to church attendance, youthful rebellion, and people who love themselves being new, then you're living in a fantasy world far beyond my comprehension.
Youth are rebellious. Always have been, always will be. Church attendance rises when catastrophe strikes, and falls when all is generally peaceful. Your church may be losing followers in some parts of the world, but gaining in others (honestly, your religion plateaued. It has reached as many people as it is going to. It can only go down from here. That is the unenviable future for anything that achieves dominance: there's nowhere left to go but second place). And people have always loved themselves, so again there's no prophecy to be found.
If you want to convince me that it contains prophecies that are coming true, you're going to have to point out the prophecy and how it came true. Generally speaking, copy/pasting is frowned on here, but there are exceptions and this qualifies. Also, it isn't likely that the original writers of the bible or their estates are going to send cease and desist letters.

caposkia wrote:
I have sound reason to believe that the scriptures have not been changed from their original sources because in the thousands of years worth of translations that we have in our possesssion of the scriptures, they are all roughly identical.

Uh uh. The oldest complete copy of the bible is from the 4th century. Hundreds of years after jesus, thousands of years after the birth of the religion that gave rise to christianity. The earliest writing of the new testament dates to the 2nd century. Absolutely NO writings or scriptures exist that could be considered the original work. So in fact you do not have sound reason to assume the writings used to make the bible are true to the original.

Most or all of the books of the new testament are assumed to have been written 50 years to 110 years after jesus' birth (so he was already long dead before any were written). The oldest surviving fragments date to 15 years afterwards. And most came hundreds of years later. You have no solid history at all. A 15 year period is 15 years longer than it would take to change something. Not to mention who knows how long the new testament was passed on orally. There's a massively huge window for altering anything or everything.There's no original work remaining from the old testament either, so it is equally suspect.

There's so much faith needed to believe your religion is true that it is astonishing anyone is gullible enough to fall for it.

caposkia wrote:
a predictable response of course.

So other atheists slapped you around before me. I'd have predicted as much if I cared enough to.

caposkia wrote:
 If anything, that should be reasoning to believe what is written within despite inconsistencies.... and I have yet to find the contradictions that people claim... every one pointed out has been refuted by me so far... unless you have something new.

There's a list of contradictions somewhere around here. Noone ever refuted them all. Maybe a couple of them, but a couple out of hundreds still leaves hundreds. I know for a fact you never refuted them all, and I know for a fact that the topic has been active since before you joined. Maybe you even responded to it, but you never refuted it. You can't, they are contradictions that exist within the bible. Anyone can pick up a bible and see them for themselves.

caposkia wrote:
IT has been written by man, but by what you say, we should believe nothing written historically regardless of the proofs that come with it unless the proofs can be replicated presently.

I love how you keep making shit up as if my words in previous posts magically disappeared and were no longer there to prove you a chronic liar. Unfortunately for you, those posts are still there and prove you a chronic liar. I won't bother responding further to this point, I'll just direct observers to go back to my previous posts and see what I actually said, since you can't quote me indirectly without lying.

caposkia wrote:
The problem with your statements is you have to realize they would have to apply to every lateral concept and not just scripture.  This leaves belief in nothing, no one and not even any occurance outside your experiential world.  "no one is real, but they're willing to let you down..." - Powerman 5000

There is nothing to justify this. Just a typical theist who's been reduced to begging for mercy via emotional strings that aren't actually attached to anything. Maybe without christianity your life would be pointless and you'd have nothing to believe in anymore, but you're already there anyway so I don't get the hesitation. You'll be much better off getting to find real meaning in life than you will be stuck to a god that doesn't exist who's telling you your meaning with the mouths of people. Kinda sad that you're so empty that you'd say something like this. You need to start living while you still can. The clock is ticking.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:

to suggest that omniscience includes knowing the future is to suggest that the future exists presently..

Ridiculous. In fact, if you knew everything presently, you could accurately predict the future. So even if god didn't technically know the future, he'd still know the future. There's no way out of this one. Either god is omniscient and the creator and completely responsible for everything that has or ever will happen, or he isn't omniscient and he becomes only slightly more benign in having created a extremely dangerous universe and subjected life to those dangers without any compassion or concern for said life.  

I do have to quote this because this is a point very worth highlighting. To be omniscient would mean

1. Knowing the exact state of everything right now. Everything in this universe, in any other universe, etc.

2. Knowing exactly how everything works

If you know those two things, you by definition would know what happens next, with no end to your knowledge. Knowing the future isn't some sort of wacky premonition. If you have absolute knowledge of today, you have absolute knowledge of forever. You would have to put limits on god's knowledge of the here and now if you were to say that he doesn't necessarily know what happens next. Logically, there are no exceptions to this. 

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.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 There are at least two

 There are at least two things which prevent perfect prediction of future events:

1. Quantum effects, which mean that the outcome of any interaction can only be known within a finite level of probability, within which pure randomness prevails.  For example, we can calculate with great preciison the probability that a given radio-active atom will decay in the next second, but the exact moment of decay is the most purely random event we know of.

2. Chaos effects, which arise in situations of non-linear feedback, where the effect of any interaction can be, in principle, amplified by an infinite amount, which means in practice that the outcome can be changed completely by an arbitrarily small change in the initial conditions. These effects are what puts definite limits on how far ahead we can predict the course of weather events, no matter how detailed our knowledge of the current state of the atmosphere.

So the reality is that, while things are not completely random, there is a degree of ultimate uncertainty in virtually any process. "Absolute knowledge of today" would NOT allow you "absolute knowledge" of the next second, let alone "forever".

Note that the quantum effects are part of empirical science, albeit a realm of Science which has been very thorougly confirmed. OTOH, chaotic interactions are mathematically derived, so we can be evem more confident that they exist.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Correct.

BobSpence wrote:

 There are at least two things which prevent perfect prediction of future events:

1. Quantum effects, which mean that the outcome of any interaction can only be known within a finite level of probability, within which pure randomness prevails.  For example, we can calculate with great preciison the probability that a given radio-active atom will decay in the next second, but the exact moment of decay is the most purely random event we know of.

2. Chaos effects, which arise in situations of non-linear feedback, where the effect of any interaction can be, in principle, amplified by an infinite amount, which means in practice that the outcome can be changed completely by an arbitrarily small change in the initial conditions. These effects are what puts definite limits on how far ahead we can predict the course of weather events, no matter how detailed our knowledge of the current state of the atmosphere.

So the reality is that, while things are not completely random, there is a degree of ultimate uncertainty in virtually any process. "Absolute knowledge of today" would NOT allow you "absolute knowledge" of the next second, let alone "forever".

Note that the quantum effects are part of empirical science, albeit a realm of Science which has been very thorougly confirmed. OTOH, chaotic interactions are mathematically derived, so we can be evem more confident that they exist.

\

The thing is--to somehow get polititians and clergy to understand this.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:1. Quantum

BobSpence wrote:
1. Quantum effects, which mean that the outcome of any interaction can only be known within a finite level of probability, within which pure randomness prevails.  For example, we can calculate with great preciison the probability that a given radio-active atom will decay in the next second, but the exact moment of decay is the most purely random event we know of.

That presupposes that quantum effects cannot be predicted at all. Just because we can't predict them doesn't mean they can't be predicted. There is no basis to make claims like this. There could very well be information that would allow one to predict quantum effects with perfection.
I'll admit I presuppose that they can be predicted with my argument regarding omniscience, but since knowing everything would give you absolute knowledge on quantum events, it is certainly plausible that said absolute knowledge would allow one to predict them.

BobSpence wrote:
2. Chaos effects, which arise in situations of non-linear feedback, where the effect of any interaction can be, in principle, amplified by an infinite amount, which means in practice that the outcome can be changed completely by an arbitrarily small change in the initial conditions. These effects are what puts definite limits on how far ahead we can predict the course of weather events, no matter how detailed our knowledge of the current state of the atmosphere.

Again you presuppose that sufficient knowledge would not allow one to predict accurately without evidence. If the entire Earth system were known absolutely, then the weather in that system would be predictable. Chaos effects are named so because we can't know everything, thus can't predict everything. Hell, even if we could factor in every single molecule on Earth, we'd still fail to predict the weather because of the suns effects.

There is no confirmed discovery in science that absolutely precludes any possibility of predicting the future accurately. Merely circumstantial evidence that may be overturned one day.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Regarding 'predicting the

 Regarding 'predicting the future', I don't want to give the impression that random effects dominate. There are domains, such as the movements of atronomical bodies, where we can often confidently predict their motions many years, in some cases hundreds, even thousands of years into the future. A prominent example would be Halley's comet, where we have been able to predict its re-appearance every 75 years within less than a year, for centuries now. Planetary orbits are much more predictable again.

Weather is at the other extreme, where even the most sophisticated models fail beyond a day or two.

In between we have the currently highly contested area of climate change.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:BobSpence

Vastet wrote:
BobSpence wrote:
1. Quantum effects, which mean that the outcome of any interaction can only be known within a finite level of probability, within which pure randomness prevails.  For example, we can calculate with great precison the probability that a given radio-active atom will decay in the next second, but the exact moment of decay is the most purely random event we know of.
That presupposes that quantum effects cannot be predicted at all. Just because we can't predict them doesn't mean they can't be predicted. There is no basis to make claims like this. There could very well be information that would allow one to predict quantum effects with perfection. I'll admit I presuppose that they can be predicted with my argument regarding omniscience, but since knowing everything would give you absolute knowledge on quantum events, it is certainly plausible that said absolute knowledge would allow one to predict them.
 No presupposition involved. There is no prior event to trigger the decay at a particular instant, just the quantum energy states of the particles involved which determine the probability of decay in a given time interval. This is why I selected this example, our current understanding of this does not require any further causal process to trigger the decay event. All observations confirm it as a purely random event with a very specific rate of decay which allows things like radio-carbon dating to work so well.

Vastet wrote:
BobSpence wrote:
2. Chaos effects, which arise in situations of non-linear feedback, where the effect of any interaction can be, in principle, amplified by an infinite amount, which means in practice that the outcome can be changed completely by an arbitrarily small change in the initial conditions. These effects are what puts definite limits on how far ahead we can predict the course of weather events, no matter how detailed our knowledge of the current state of the atmosphere.
Again you presuppose that sufficient knowledge would not allow one to predict accurately without evidence. If the entire Earth system were known absolutely, then the weather in that system would be predictable. Chaos effects are named so because we can't know everything, thus can't predict everything. Hell, even if we could factor in every single molecule on Earth, we'd still fail to predict the weather because of the suns effects. There is no confirmed discovery in science that absolutely precludes any possibility of predicting the future accurately. Merely circumstantial evidence that may be overturned one day.
This example involves "Chaos Theory", which, to quote from the Wikipedia article,

"studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a paradigm popularly referred to as the butterfly effect"

 I think you need to study both areas (particle decay and chaos theory) a bit more closely before being so dismissive.

You are presupposing that truly random/unpredictable behaviour cannot be displayed by 'deterministic' systems. You also seem to miss the fact that the chaotic behaviour is studied mathematically, not just by empirical observation, and the unpredictability is a fundamental aspect of such systems,  so studying it in more detail is not going to make it predictable

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


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

BobSpence wrote:

Vastet wrote:
BobSpence wrote:
1. Quantum effects, which mean that the outcome of any interaction can only be known within a finite level of probability, within which pure randomness prevails.  For example, we can calculate with great precison the probability that a given radio-active atom will decay in the next second, but the exact moment of decay is the most purely random event we know of.
That presupposes that quantum effects cannot be predicted at all. Just because we can't predict them doesn't mean they can't be predicted. There is no basis to make claims like this. There could very well be information that would allow one to predict quantum effects with perfection. I'll admit I presuppose that they can be predicted with my argument regarding omniscience, but since knowing everything would give you absolute knowledge on quantum events, it is certainly plausible that said absolute knowledge would allow one to predict them.
 No presupposition involved. There is no prior event to trigger the decay at a particular instant, just the quantum energy states of the particles involved which determine the probability of decay in a given time interval. This is why I selected this example, our current understanding of this does not require any further causal process to trigger the decay event. All observations confirm it as a purely random event with a very specific rate of decay which allows things like radio-carbon dating to work so well.

Vastet wrote:
BobSpence wrote:
2. Chaos effects, which arise in situations of non-linear feedback, where the effect of any interaction can be, in principle, amplified by an infinite amount, which means in practice that the outcome can be changed completely by an arbitrarily small change in the initial conditions. These effects are what puts definite limits on how far ahead we can predict the course of weather events, no matter how detailed our knowledge of the current state of the atmosphere.
Again you presuppose that sufficient knowledge would not allow one to predict accurately without evidence. If the entire Earth system were known absolutely, then the weather in that system would be predictable. Chaos effects are named so because we can't know everything, thus can't predict everything. Hell, even if we could factor in every single molecule on Earth, we'd still fail to predict the weather because of the suns effects. There is no confirmed discovery in science that absolutely precludes any possibility of predicting the future accurately. Merely circumstantial evidence that may be overturned one day.
This example involves "Chaos Theory", which, to quote from the Wikipedia article,

"studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a paradigm popularly referred to as the butterfly effect"

 I think you need to study both areas (particle decay and chaos theory) a bit more closely before being so dismissive.

You are presupposing that truly random/unpredictable behaviour cannot be displayed by 'deterministic' systems. You also seem to miss the fact that the chaotic behaviour is studied mathematically, not just by empirical observation, and the unpredictability is a fundamental aspect of such systems,  so studying it in more detail is not going to make it predictable

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. 

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.


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

BobSpence wrote:
No presupposition involved. There is no prior event to trigger the decay at a particular instant, just the quantum energy states of the particles involved which determine the probability of decay in a given time interval. This is why I selected this example, our current understanding of this does not require any further causal process to trigger the decay event. All observations confirm it as a purely random event with a very specific rate of decay which allows things like radio-carbon dating to work so well.

No prior event that we know of. You cannot say with any certainty that there is no prior event. Due to the nature of the subject and the potential of quantum pairing there could very easily be a measurable prior event that we are simply incapable of detecting. The fact that the rate of decay is so predictable despite the seeming randomness of the decay itself suggests as much may be possible.

BobSpence wrote:
This example involves "Chaos Theory", which, to quote from the Wikipedia article,
"studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a paradigm popularly referred to as the butterfly effect"
I think you need to study both areas (particle decay and chaos theory) a bit more closely before being so dismissive.

Take your own advice. Never have the entire initial conditions of a system been known absolutely, as they must be if we were omniscient. The whole field of this science exists on the presupposition that we cannot know the initial conditions absolutely. You're applying current human understanding to a concept beyond human understanding and assuming they must mesh perfectly. But you're just assuming.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:No

BobSpence wrote:

No presupposition involved. There is no prior event to trigger the decay at a particular instant, just the quantum energy states of the particles involved which determine the probability of decay in a given time interval. This is why I selected this example, our current understanding of this does not require any further causal process to trigger the decay event. All observations confirm it as a purely random event with a very specific rate of decay which allows things like radio-carbon dating to work so well.

Vastet wrote:

No prior event that we know of. You cannot say with any certainty that there is no prior event. Due to the nature of the subject and the potential of quantum pairing there could very easily be a measurable prior event that we are simply incapable of detecting. The fact that the rate of decay is so predictable despite the seeming randomness of the decay itself suggests as much may be possible.

There may well be some event within the nucleus, involving the spontaneous motion/re-arrangement of the particles making it up, which triggers the decay event. But events at this scale are not observable without disturbing the process, so it would still not be possible to predict what would be the moment of decay in an undisturbed system. Prediction would require the notional observer to be not itself subject to the well-established laws of quantum mechanics. The accuracy with which we can determine the probability of decay within any give time interval CONFIRMS the idea that it is a purely random event NOT affected by any other events. It is in no way inconsistent with the randomness of the event itself. There is much observation that confirms that the rate of radio-active decay is not affected by the physical conditions the decaying atoms are exposed to.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology