NationStates Jolt Archive

EVOLUTION WINS!!!!!

It is clear that of many,many people(well of 500) from different parts of the world, who have no bias and for the most part do not know each other favor the theory of evolution to die hard creationism. This thread has not denied God, it has however proved the majority of people(the deal was first to hit 500 wins) believe in and accept te theory of evolution.

DO NOT ZSTOP POSTING AND VOTING IN THIS THREAD!! Just because evolution won doesn;t mean its over. It really ends when the thread dies. If somehow by a miracle(no pun intended) creationism overcomes evolution it will be the new winner.


We are the retarded offspring of five monkeys having buttsex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations! :D

The Earth before the sun and other stars does not fit astrophysics.

By that, do you mean that God could not have created light before there was the sun? If so, isn't that based on the assumption that the sun and the stars are the only sources of light in the universe?

Or have I totally missed your point?

By that, do you mean that God could not have created light before there was the sun? If so, isn't that based on the assumption that the sun and the stars are the only sources of light in the universe?

Or have I totally missed your point?

God has night-vision goggles! :eek:

God has night-vision goggles! :eek:

Fucker must've got an unpleasant surprise when he turned the lights on :p

Fucker must've got an unpleasant surprise when he turned the lights on :p

Migraine. That's why He was such a prick in the Old Testament. :p

Migraine. That's why He was such a prick in the Old Testament. :p

It all makes sense now. It's kinda like that Benadryl commercial with the angry Poseidon.

By that, do you mean that God could not have created light before there was the sun?

No. Just that the accepted theory on the formation of star systems has the star being created first and the planets later. Accepted methods of determining the age of stars agree with that assessment.

Does not mean science is right, just that it is incompatible with the order of creation in Genesis.

No. Just that the accepted theory on the formation of star systems has the star being created first and the planets later. Accepted methods of determining the age of stars agree with that assessment.

Does not mean science is right, just that it is incompatible with the order of creation in Genesis.

Good to see at least one side of this debate has the intellectual honesty to admit that proving the opposing side wrong doesn't automatically prove your side right. *cookie*

Genesis is good,... until Peter left.

Phil changed it to something that everybody could understand,... I still don't like it.

Some good news: the UK government have finally clarified their position on Creationism and ID being taught as science. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/and_there_shall_be_wailing_and.php)

The government has announced that it will publish guidance for schools on how creationism and intelligent design relate to science teaching, and has reiterated that it sees no place for either on the science curriculum.

It has also defined "Intelligent Design", the idea that life is too complex to have arisen without the guiding hand of a greater intelligence, as a religion, along with "creationism".

A horse and a donkey can breed to produce a mule, but they are not of the same species.

You're right. I would have used the term 'origin of species,' but I know how much you guys hate being associated with that Darwin guy. :p

I corrected myself in this 2nd statement by using the term 'complex life.' The first prokaryotic organism that sprang to life, fully functional and able to reproduce, by accident was not a result of evolution (though of the same general doctrine of accidents). But all other life after that was supposedly a result of evolution.

Great, a bacteria evolving into another bacteria. Microevolution. Or are they different species because they can't breed with each other?

Hence why I used the term "evolved" rather than "gave birth to." I'm not as dumb as most people like to stereotype ID proponents as being.

I really like this statement. I'll get back to this later.

I hope you'll forgive me for using a simplified term. I'm not a scientist. But the current theory of evolution does suggest gradual change from species to species based on random genetic mutation that is propogated through natural selection, right? Again, a simplification, but please correct me if I'm way off track here.

Now back to this statement:

This really is the crux of the argument between evolution and intelligent design. Either the person typing this message came by accident through billions of years of random genetic mutation, or the person typing this message was in some way designed or created by a supernatural force of some kind. The question is which of the two is more likely. I choose the latter for a number of reasons.

As a person working in healthcare, I am reasonably well-acquainted with the workings of the human body; moreso than most, anyway. I look at how interdependent each tissue, each organ, and each organ system is with each other and I simply think the likelihood of that all being an accident is too staggeringly small for me to believe. The heart for instance could not function without a sinoatrial node. There'd be nowhere for the electrical impulse to originate from. It also could not function without such a specifically arranged set of blood vessels. The circulatory system in general could not function without the following organ systems:

Respiratory system -- there'd be no way to transfer O2 into the bloodstream and CO2 out of the bloodstream.
Renal system -- the pH of the bloodstream could not be properly controlled
Skeletal system -- there'd be nothing to produce red blood cells
Integumentary system (skin) -- there'd be no effective way of regulating body temperature
Endocrine system -- there'd be nothing to stimulate the production of red blood cells, nor would we be able to increase cardiac output to react to danger
Muscular system -- blood would circulate poorly causing clots to develop
Lymph system -- excess fluid would build up in the bloodstream

Each and every one of those problems would kill a person long before he was able to reproduce. If you'd like to know how, I'd be happy to go through the list one at a time. And this is only the few things I could think of off the top of my head for a single organ system. The interdependency of the body's organs goes much much deeper than this, and each organ is also dependent on each tissue that comprises it. So basically, removing what may seem to be minor components of people makes life impossible. The likelihood of all of this randomly evolving as it has is so terribly unlikely that I'm inclined to believe the evolution was guided in some way.

However, whoever brought up the multiverse hypothesis did bring up a very interesting point. If there really are an infinite number of universes, it is entirely possible that this just happens to be that one universe where everything evolved just perfectly enough to lead to intelligent life. It really makes you think. Well it makes me think, anyway. I realize that most people are completely set in their beliefs, but I'm willing to consider other peoples' viewpoints -- no really, I swear. ;)

But there are animals that exist without a respiratory system, renal system, skeletal system, integumentary system, endocrine system, muscular system or a lymph system. There are animals that exist that have different combinations of these systems and of course there are animals that possess all of these systems. Since there are animals that possess a few of none of these systems, it is not hard to imagine that an animal that possessed none of these systems could evolve additional systems as they were needed until all the systems were in place.

But there are animals that exist without a respiratory system, renal system, skeletal system, integumentary system, endocrine system, muscular system or a lymph system. There are animals that exist that have different combinations of these systems and of course there are animals that possess all of these systems. Since there are animals that possess a few of none of these systems, it is not hard to imagine that an animal that possessed none of these systems could evolve additional systems as they were needed until all the systems were in place.

Shush. If reality disagrees with the perfect notions one has thought up by sheer force of reason, reality is simply wrong.

That is why people who say bumblebees can fly are mistaken and the distances in our solar system correspond to perfect geometric shapes, no matter what NASA claims.

Here's my take:

The Bible says 7 days, right? How exactly long is "a day"? It could be said that over a "day" (hundreds of millions of years), humans evolved and such. Going on this theory, I will further explain:

"The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." This could be construed as space.

"God forms a man "of dust from the ground," Where does life come from? Debatable, but I do remember hearing that life formed out of sorts of amino acids in the ground, so this could be correct.

Your take?

Actually, in the original text, the word used(yom) can be used to mean any number of things, including the word day(Most common usage). However, with any language, it is important to understand the context of how a word is written and spoken to understand the meanings of dual-meaning words. Yom, as used in the original text, actually appears to refer to "indefinate period of time" over "day"(As the 24-hour celestial day).

So really, not even the original texts really agree with hard core creationists.

Shush. If reality disagrees with the perfect notions one has thought up by sheer force of reason, reality is simply wrong.

That is why people who say bumblebees can fly are mistaken and the distances in our solar system correspond to perfect geometric shapes, no matter what NASA claims.

Don't forget the Earth is flat.

And before you laugh, I have met one(And only one) person who actually believes this. So, there are all types out there.

We already covered this with a deck of cards analogy. If your pile of sand came out arranged as a perfect replica of Leonard Nemoy's face, you'd probably assume that some intelligence designed it, wouldn't you? It's possible that it came about randomly, sure; but if you tried to convince anyone of that fact they'd never believe you. And I won't argue that evolution is completely impossible, just that it's so unlikely that I'm inclined to believe that life was designed.

You are assigning value and a pattern to the sand if you see a face in it. This doesn't meant that the "pattern" you see was intended. Human beings have a habit of assigning a pattern to something whether it was meant (or is even there) or not.

The first problem with this is that the overwhelming majority of genetic mutations lead to death or at the very least, an inability to reproduce.

This is completely and absolutely incorrect. The vast majority of genetic mutations do no such thing. Most genetic mutations are neutral - neither harming the organism nor helping it. A small proportion are either helpful or harmful. Of those that are at least somewhat harmful, only a very small minority lead to infertility or death.

The second problem, and the point I was originally trying to make, is that the interdependency of the human body means that those features could not have evolved gradually. It's all or nothing. You can't say that a circulatory system evolved and then a respiratory system evolved and then a renal system evolved because they are useless without each other.

In the case of human biology, all are needed. But less complex and interdependent versions of each can be found in other organisms.

Don't forget the Earth is flat.

And before you laugh, I have met one(And only one) person who actually believes this. So, there are all types out there.Yes indeed (http://http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm), and they should be pushed over the rim...

We are the retarded offspring of five monkeys having buttsex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations! :D

M'kay, Mr. Garrison.

M'kay, Mr. Garrison.

It's Ms. Garrison now! ;)

It's Ms. Garrison now! ;)

Again?

Scissor me timbers!!

Great, a bacteria evolving into another bacteria. Microevolution. Or are they different species because they can't breed with each other?
You do realize that bacteria are more diverse than the entire Plant, Animal, and Fungi kingdoms combined, right? No, you don't, because you know nothing of which you speak. Dispel your ignorance. Study this stuff.

All the videos are one sided..so totally biased...

The religous people are desparate and are trying to disprove everything. Thats how I see it. They are losing people, now thats a conclusion.

I was under the impression that the old earth idea wasn't that popular until Charles Lyell. Sure, it was around, but most of the scientists before Lyell were creationists that were heavily influenced by a literal reading of Genesis.

It was Lyell who popularized it, James Hutton proposed it. In any case, those scientists changed their opinions once they realized- through testing it- that he was right. The scientific community didn't accept Lyell's theory simply because they "wanted to" and were "sick of the 6,000 year-old Earth"- he had to prove himself, and he did.

I suspect that Walt Brown doesn't do many scientific experiments, for one reason or another. (He is an old fellow, after all. Most old scientists spend all their time in the office, and it's the young people in the labs.)
But there are frequent mentions in his book of predictions based on his hypothesis that could be tested. The book is full of them.

Yet the book is missing a central part of the theory- the water level. Everything else is irrelevant.

Sure, I understand their main concern is to show that the earth isn't that old. It does seem very unscientific to take the approach that assumes the earth is young, and then go about trying to find a way to demonstrate it. On the other hand, that is exactly what the old earthers seem to be doing as well.

You don't seem to want to give up on this assumption thing do you? I'm sorry, but it's getting frustrating to have to repeat to you that the OEA wasn't cooked up one day and accepted- it was tested and proved by the scientific community. The scientific community is always sceptical of new ideas- they have to prove themselves, and uniformitarianism did. You might not accept the result, but at least there's a result. The YECers don't provide any results- just "explanations".

I actually disagree. Most people are VERY closed to a young earth. If the young earth idea is mentioned by the average old earth supporter, there is nothing but ridicule and contempt for it. I've yet to see an exception in any official article. The community is not open to a younger Earth.

There's a difference between someone scoffing at the idea in private and writing volumes of books insisting that one side is wrong. It's the YECers who have this idea of "oppression" when all the scientific community wants is a YEC paper providing a theory based on hard data- and that's not forthcoming. Until then, they're really just wasting everyone's time with their squawking.

None of my arguments hinge on the assumption that 'the Old Earth Assessment was(n't) invented one day and universally accepted as fact'. I agree that it came to be accepted gradually, though I do not agree with the basis by which it came to be accepted--which seems to be that it is the only 'scientific' assumption, and thus the only one left standing. That says nothing about whether it is true or not.

That *is* your argument. You repeatedly say that scientists purposely made all their tests to ensure that the OEA was right when that is not true- it had to be proven first. That is also something that's also been repeated to you.

I'm not under any obligation to disprove the OEA, or to prove it. Neither are the YEAs. Neither it is necessary to hold only one theory as plausible. Humans are intelligent enough to consider two or more concurrently.

And I would say that it is impossible for the OEA to be falsified. We could only find arguments and evidence for or against it. Falsifying it it altogether out of our reach.

Finding a reasonable alternative to either the OEA or the YEA will never be possible for some people.

It's arduous given how much proof there is- but it's not impossible. No theory that is perfect. However, the only reason why there isn't an alternate explanation is only because no alternate explanation has any hard data or evidence to back it up- the OEA does. You might question that evidence but it's there- the YECers just don't have any, just "explanations".

From what have read, I would say that the YEAs are just as convinced as the OEAs. Likewise, the OEAs do little to prove the old age of the earth.

Again, at least the OEA has evidence and hard data to question. The YEA does not- it's all just explanations.

Not to mention (again) that nothing that happened in the past can be proven.

You know, I could counter this by saying that you don't know everything that existed before you were born, and I don't know everything that existed before I was born. If you're going to tell me that I can't prove a 4.6 billion year old Earth because I didn't see it then I might as well say I can't prove a 6,000 year old Earth because I didn't see it. There's much more than just personal observation.

Both sides have their weak points.
I do not say that the radiometric dating measurements are faulty--just that the following calculations into years (based on those measurements) hold little value outside of an old earth scenario.

It's been said to you before that those values weren't made to "prove" the OEA- the values proved it. In any case, I'm still waiting for hard data that proves the YEA- critcizing Evolution and offering explanations don't count.

I have never heard of the age of the Earth coming from this verse. Sounds a bit suspect, if you ask me. I think the verse is in the context of when Jesus returns, not in the context of how long it took to create the earth. In fact, it has nothing to do with it, I would say.

I got it from E.H. Andrews, and it's the best explanation I could find. He's the one who used that verse to prove that the Genesis days were one thousand years old each- I'm very aware that it's quoted well out of context.

You are right. The Bible does not say how old the earth is.

I have never heard of any YEC crediting Ussher as a scientist. I have only read about him as a bishop and a theologian.

Well, YECers do use his chronology as the basis for their research and would like to pass off Ussher's chronology as science- and it's not scientific at all.

Or common design. Take your pick. If similarity in bones can be taken as evidence for common ancestry, then similarity between biological motors (e.g. flagella) and industrial motors can be taken as evidence of design.
Conclusion: similarity means similarity, not necessarily evolution. Of course, one can use an evolutionary explanation, or one can use design.

OK, if I *know*, say, ape fossils are older than the earliest human fossils, then I can safely say I evolved from those apes.

If assumptions could be tested, they would no longer be assumptions.

You're the one saying they're all assumptions, not me.

Fine.

I'm sorry, but I didn't like how it went the last time around and there's nothing left to discuss, really.

If that were true, then I could have just as easily pointed to the peer reviewed scientific journals referenced on the ID site as evidence that it was also discussing science. The way I understood it, I was being told to read the TalkOrigins site as an unbiased scientific site, and therefore an authority on the topic. The fact that he/she didn't pick this point up is probably evidence that he/she doesn't realize how science is never free from bias.

I can quote a scientific journal- that doesn't make me a scientist. The ID sites may quote scientific journals but they're still not the same as those journals considering none made those journals.

Then have you changed your position, or did you simply not say it right the first time, because I understood you as saying that science is atheistic?

.....

Aha, you are distinguishing between science and the method of science.

I think the method is neutral, however.

Most people understand the term 'atheism' as the belief that there is no God.

The method is neutral because it cannot tell us if there is a God or if there isn't.

....

This is actually myth.

Rather, the scientific method cannot test supernatural explanations, and therefore moves on to test only what can be tested. That doesn't make it atheistic. That makes it focussed on testing the natural world. If it was truly atheistic, then any scientific conclusion you could make could only reinforce the belief that there is no God.

No, the method does not want supernatural explanations and must reject them because it operates in the natural realm- that's the atheistic part. Science cannot be atheistic because the study is not designed to account for the supernatural- it cannot "know" it because it's only focused on the natural world (there's nothing stopping the supernatural from influencing the natural world, but that's beyond the scientific reach), but the method, which only seeks a natural explanation, is atheistic because of this aspect.

You do realize that bacteria are more diverse than the entire Plant, Animal, and Fungi kingdoms combined, right? No, you don't, because you know nothing of which you speak. Dispel your ignorance. Study this stuff.

That depends on how you measure diversity. In terms of actual numbers of species, it seems as though the insects rule.

It was Lyell who popularized it, James Hutton proposed it. In any case, those scientists changed their opinions once they realized- through testing it- that he was right. The scientific community didn't accept Lyell's theory simply because they "wanted to" and were "sick of the 6,000 year-old Earth"- he had to prove himself, and he did.

No, he didn't prove his theory, which is why it remains a theory. There are lots of reasons why humans accept things, and not all of them have to do with the desire for truth.



Yet the book is missing a central part of the theory- the water level. Everything else is irrelevant.

That's strange, because I remember reading a chapter of his about that actual topic.



You don't seem to want to give up on this assumption thing do you? I'm sorry, but it's getting frustrating to have to repeat to you that the OEA wasn't cooked up one day and accepted- it was tested and proved by the scientific community. The scientific community is always sceptical of new ideas- they have to prove themselves, and uniformitarianism did. You might not accept the result, but at least there's a result. The YECers don't provide any results- just "explanations".


I can't give it up if you don't grasp my points. The age of the earth cannot be tested. Assumptions cannot be tested. If you disagree, then provide a way in which an assumption can be tested.




There's a difference between someone scoffing at the idea in private and writing volumes of books insisting that one side is wrong. It's the YECers who have this idea of "oppression" when all the scientific community wants is a YEC paper providing a theory based on hard data- and that's not forthcoming. Until then, they're really just wasting everyone's time with their squawking.


The difference is superficial.

Have you ever thought how impossible it would be to submit a YEC paper to any current journal that is dominated by OAE thinking? Thus, the papers won't even get a look, which leads to a lack of YEC papers, which leads to the idea that the YEC isn't scientific, which leads to the complete rejection of anything that smells like YEC, which leads to the absolute rejection of of YEC papers........that's called a vicious cycle.


That *is* your argument. You repeatedly say that scientists purposely made all their tests to ensure that the OEA was right when that is not true- it had to be proven first. That is also something that's also been repeated to you.


We can repeat ourselves all we like, but that won't make our statements true.

You keep using the 'proven' word, as if science was only about logic. Science can't prove anything, actually. It can only demonstrate things to a certain level of confidence. That confidence hinges upon the world view of the individual.


It's arduous given how much proof there is- but it's not impossible. No theory that is perfect. However, the only reason why there isn't an alternate explanation is only because no alternate explanation has any hard data or evidence to back it up- the OEA does. You might question that evidence but it's there- the YECers just don't have any, just "explanations".


So you claim--over and over again.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v2i2f.htm
'One of the first things NASA did when the Apollo 11 astronauts reached the Moon was to set up a laser reflector that would allow scientists on Earth to measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon. Over the 12-year period from 1969 to 1981, scientists kept track of the distance to the Moon and found it to be increasing approximately 4 cm per year.1 This allows us to build a computer model that calculates how close the Moon would have been to the Earth in the past. '
"Moon Slipping Away from Earth", Geo, Vol.3 (July 1981) p. 137

It looks like the moon is slipping away. The idea is that the moon is losing its energy to the earth's oceans. Put together with uniformitarian (The present is the key to the past) assumptions, it would place the moon too close to the earth for the earth and moon system to be very old.

Is that not evidence for a young(er) earth? Or will you try to explain it by the presence of some unknown mechanism, like dark matter? There may well be some gravity-resistant dark matter working here. But since we currently cannot detect it, shouldn't we tentatively conclude that this evidence looks like a better fit with a younger earth?


You know, I could counter this by saying that you don't know everything that existed before you were born, and I don't know everything that existed before I was born. If you're going to tell me that I can't prove a 4.6 billion year old Earth because I didn't see it then I might as well say I can't prove a 6,000 year old Earth because I didn't see it.

Well done. That's what I've been trying to say to you for a while now. It cannot be observed. Therefore, ideas about the origins are not scientific (because they cannot be observed), if we are to go with the definition of 'scientific' that is getting used on this thread.


There's much more than just personal observation.


And yet science is impossible without it.


It's been said to you before that those values weren't made to "prove" the OEA- the values proved it. In any case, I'm still waiting for hard data that proves the YEA- critcizing Evolution and offering explanations don't count.


Criticism is certainly important. And the hard data is there. But if you are waiting for me to do all the hard work for you, sorry. Do it yourself, or remain ignorant.


I got it from E.H. Andrews, and it's the best explanation I could find. He's the one who used that verse to prove that the Genesis days were one thousand years old each- I'm very aware that it's quoted well out of context.


Sorry, E.H. who? Who's that?


Well, YECers do use his chronology as the basis for their research and would like to pass off Ussher's chronology as science- and it's not scientific at all.


You are exaggerating. They don't pass it off as science. Any dill can see that it isn't scientific. The estimation rests on the authority of the Bible, not science.


OK, if I *know*, say, ape fossils are older than the earliest human fossils, then I can safely say I evolved from those apes.


You have exactly the problem that you don't know that the ape fossils are older, because those ages only hold value within an old earth scenario.

Furthermore, there is not such thing as saying 'then I can safely say I evolved from those apes.' That might be your conclusion, but it is anything but safe if it is simply based on dates, no matter how accurate those dates are.

Most of the humanoid fossils found seem to be classified as NOT our ancestors, but only our cousins (several hundred thousand years removed).



I can quote a scientific journal- that doesn't make me a scientist. The ID sites may quote scientific journals but they're still not the same as those journals considering none made those journals.


The TalkOrigins was also quoting scientific journals, but that doesn't make the TalkOrigins site and more scientific, does it? Plus, don't forget that the current climate is that papers favouring an old earth estimation are the only ones allowed in all the major (and most of the minor) journals.


No, the method does not want supernatural explanations and must reject them because it operates in the natural realm- that's the atheistic part.

No, that's the neutral part. It simply reflects on the focus of science--a study of the natural world.


Science cannot be atheistic because the study is not designed to account for the supernatural- it cannot "know" it because it's only focused on the natural world (there's nothing stopping the supernatural from influencing the natural world, but that's beyond the scientific reach), but the method, which only seeks a natural explanation, is atheistic because of this aspect.

You don't seem to get it. All your reasoning points to a neutral position, not atheism, which is a biased position. You are using the right reasoning and then jumping to an illogical position, or at least I just can't see how you get there. True science does not take a biased position. It doesn't make sense to say, therefore, that the method is atheistic. In keeping with true science, the method is also neutral. It is simply limited to testible ideas. That doesn't make it atheistic, that makes it limited.

No. Just that the accepted theory on the formation of star systems has the star being created first and the planets later. Accepted methods of determining the age of stars agree with that assessment.

Does not mean science is right, just that it is incompatible with the order of creation in Genesis.

Oh, OK. In that case, I agree.

I believe in both, and I don't think that they're necessarily opposing ideas.

Natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. has all been proven scientifically and has even been observed in smaller scales in one lifetime. It makes sense. It is scientific. I believe it is true.

However, science has never proven the origin of life. Nor have they proven evolution on a large scale from one species to another. They have fossils, and theories, and they are zapping a big soup of chemicals in labs in hopes to simulate the conditions of earth when life is supposed to have started and prove that they can create life out of the inorganic. It hasn't happened yet. Sure, it might happen, but I think I do believe in intelligent design in addition to evolution. Who says what has been created cannot evolve?

The probability of life happening and all the intricacies and details of bodies... I've heard the analogy once, that looking at Mount Rushmore, how can you say that it could have been accidentally created by random events? By looking at it you know that SOMEONE had to have created it.

Now I'm not a religious person, but I do believe that evolution can explain some things but will never be sufficient to explain everything in an airtight way, and I do believe that intelligent design is a possibility.

Evolution is not something to believe in, it's something to be understood.

So you claim--over and over again.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v2i2f.htm
'One of the first things NASA did when the Apollo 11 astronauts reached the Moon was to set up a laser reflector that would allow scientists on Earth to measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon. Over the 12-year period from 1969 to 1981, scientists kept track of the distance to the Moon and found it to be increasing approximately 4 cm per year.1 This allows us to build a computer model that calculates how close the Moon would have been to the Earth in the past. '
"Moon Slipping Away from Earth", Geo, Vol.3 (July 1981) p. 137

It looks like the moon is slipping away. The idea is that the moon is losing its energy to the earth's oceans. Put together with uniformitarian (The present is the key to the past) assumptions, it would place the moon too close to the earth for the earth and moon system to be very old.

Is that not evidence for a young(er) earth? Or will you try to explain it by the presence of some unknown mechanism, like dark matter? There may well be some gravity-resistant dark matter working here. But since we currently cannot detect it, shouldn't we tentatively conclude that this evidence looks like a better fit with a younger earth?


More scientific dishonesty.

There are so many reasons that this is an unworthy argument.. but let me just sketch the first few that hit my head.

1) The Moon is neither a perfect sphere nor, necessarily, non-malleable. A small amount of plasticity in the surface of the Moon surface - say 4cm - would certainly be able to affect the results, wouldn't you say?

2) Why assume that the moon is moving away? Why not assume that there is some perturbation in the rotational position? If the two points don't stay EXACTLY aligned, the relative distance between centres of measurment will change, right?

3) How are we accounting for atmospheric variations? Ozone has different refractive properties to Nitrogen. A small depletion in ozone density (which seems to have been supported by the evidence) might make some difference to such measurements?

4) Drift might (if it even exists) be a new phenomenon. If we could have done these measurements a hundred years ago, there might have been no change. The sample is far too small, too recent, and we have too little data surrounding it.

5) Even if there IS apparent drift, it might actually be nothing more than a slow eliptical orbit. In another thousand years, the moon could be moving towards us at the same rate.


I have to say - while I can find sites claiming these results - I have been unable to find an official source that details the measurement process.

I wonder if this is another Creationist lie?

More scientific dishonesty.

More claims of dishonesty without any evidence or even an argument for it. You could just say that I'm wrong without needing to say that I'm dishonest. I really don't understand this dishonesty claim.

Is it really because you think that no honest scientist could be skeptical about the proposed age of the earth?


There are so many reasons that this is an unworthy argument.. but let me just sketch the first few that hit my head.

Fair enough.


1) The Moon is neither a perfect sphere nor, necessarily, non-malleable. A small amount of plasticity in the surface of the Moon surface - say 4cm - would certainly be able to affect the results, wouldn't you say?

It was calculated over a 12 year period, apparently. That would take into account the variations, I expect.


2) Why assume that the moon is moving away? Why not assume that there is some perturbation in the rotational position? If the two points don't stay EXACTLY aligned, the relative distance between centres of measurment will change, right?

That sort of thing can be calculated. They didn't just pull the 4 cm per year out of the air, don't you think?


3) How are we accounting for atmospheric variations? Ozone has different refractive properties to Nitrogen. A small depletion in ozone density (which seems to have been supported by the evidence) might make some difference to such measurements?

Are you suggesting that ozone and nitrogen have affected the laser readings? Do you know this, or are you guessing?

Such a possibility probably doesn't make the argument false.


4) Drift might (if it even exists) be a new phenomenon. If we could have done these measurements a hundred years ago, there might have been no change. The sample is far too small, too recent, and we have too little data surrounding it.


Once again, how does 'might be' count as one of the 'many reasons that this is an unworthy argument'?


5) Even if there IS apparent drift, it might actually be nothing more than a slow eliptical orbit. In another thousand years, the moon could be moving towards us at the same rate.


Yet another 'might be'.


I have to say - while I can find sites claiming these results - I have been unable to find an official source that details the measurement process.


Should there be any official source? If you mean papers.....Moon Slipping Away from Earth", Geo, Vol.3 (July 1981) p. 137 seems to be where it first came to light. A pity that article doesn't seem to be online.


I wonder if this is another Creationist lie?

Is that because you cannot find the 'official source?' Do you always do that? Accuse people of lying on the basis of your ignorance?

'Scientists agree that the orbiting moon dumps energy into the world’s oceans'
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/2000/158-03/15803-18.pdf
Not a peer reviewed article, but certainly not creationist.

In conclusion, Grave, you came out with guns firing, with 'so many reasons that this is an unworthy argument'. But it turned out to be a bunch of maybe's.

Maybe that was just the first wave, so you can have another go if you wish.

So you claim--over and over again.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v2i2f.htm
'One of the first things NASA did when the Apollo 11 astronauts reached the Moon was to set up a laser reflector that would allow scientists on Earth to measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon. Over the 12-year period from 1969 to 1981, scientists kept track of the distance to the Moon and found it to be increasing approximately 4 cm per year.1 This allows us to build a computer model that calculates how close the Moon would have been to the Earth in the past. '
"Moon Slipping Away from Earth", Geo, Vol.3 (July 1981) p. 137

It looks like the moon is slipping away. The idea is that the moon is losing its energy to the earth's oceans. Put together with uniformitarian (The present is the key to the past) assumptions, it would place the moon too close to the earth for the earth and moon system to be very old.


Take a look at this article (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html) and you'll see why that a current movement of 4 cm per year doesn't prove that the moon and Earth are young. The gist of it is that when the calculations that describe the moon slipping away from the Earth were first created in the 1960s, they didn't take into account the movement of the tetonic plates which change the way the tides behave. When tetonic activity was taken into account, it was shown that the rate that the moon slipped away from the Earth was variable in fact this is what the article said: "Williams (1990) reports that 650 million years ago, the lunar rate of retreat was 1.95±0.29 cm/year, and that over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago, the mean recession rate was 1.27 cm/year."

Take a look at this article (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html) and you'll see why that a current movement of 4 cm per year doesn't prove that the moon and Earth are young. The gist of it is that when the calculations that describe the moon slipping away from the Earth were first created in the 1960s, they didn't take into account the movement of the tetonic plates which change the way the tides behave. When tetonic activity was taken into account, it was shown that the rate that the moon slipped away from the Earth was variable in fact this is what the article said: "Williams (1990) reports that 650 million years ago, the lunar rate of retreat was 1.95±0.29 cm/year, and that over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago, the mean recession rate was 1.27 cm/year."

Ah-ha! Foolish, silly person. We couldn't POSSIBLY know what the moon was doing billions of years ago, because it didn't exist then. Ha ha. Silly, silly person with your silly, silly science.

Another thing to remember is that gravitational pull is directly affected by distance from an object. Thus, the moon would be moving away much slower when it was closer to the earth than now, when it is farther.

At least, that's how my rather basic knowledge of physics seems to see it.

this is a stupid thread, CLEARLY Zeus made the earth, he was around way longer than all the newer gods and could own them in a lightning bolt fight.

btw what's the creationist excuse for the existance of cosmic rays, stars more than 6000 light years away, the ability to synthesise simple amino acids with a process similar to nitrogen fixation from lightning and the radioactive decay of elements measured to have half lives of over 3000 years? i'm curious :)

btw what's the creationist excuse for the existance of cosmic rays, stars more than 6000 light years away, the ability to synthesise simple amino acids with a process similar to nitrogen fixation from lightning and the radioactive decay of elements measured to have half lives of over 3000 years? i'm curious :)

Silly Drosia. That half-life stuff is just bunk. (At least, that's what some of the people in this thread will tell you. In fact, they'll tell you that the only reason you think that the half-life is that long is that you assumed that the Earth has been around for a really, really, really long time. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with actual measurements, you know?).

Silly Drosia. That half-life stuff is just bunk. (At least, that's what some of the people in this thread will tell you. In fact, they'll tell you that the only reason you think that the half-life is that long is that you assumed that the Earth has been around for a really, really, really long time. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with actual measurements, you know?).

Or, you know, through experimentation again and again. It strikes me often enough that the people railing against science are the people who understand it least. (yes, I know you and Droisa were kidding)

Buarong, you claim to be a scientist. What field of science do you specialize in?

Or, you know, through experimentation again and again. It strikes me often enough that the people railing against science are the people who understand it least. (yes, I know you and Droisa were kidding)

Buarong, you claim to be a scientist. What field of science do you specialize in?

He's been asked that many times in this thread, and I'm not sure he's ever answered once.

this is a stupid thread, CLEARLY Zeus made the earth, he was around way longer than all the newer gods and could own them in a lightning bolt fight.

btw what's the creationist excuse for the existance of cosmic rays, stars more than 6000 light years away, the ability to synthesise simple amino acids with a process similar to nitrogen fixation from lightning and the radioactive decay of elements measured to have half lives of over 3000 years? i'm curious :)

The Devil put them there to test our faith.

He's been asked that many times in this thread, and I'm not sure he's ever answered once.

I think he once told me he was in molecular biology, or something along those lines.

The Devil put them there to test our faith.

why would the devil want to test faith? :P

this thread needs some more atheist quotes to shake things up a bit! i recomend this list: http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/viewQuotes.php

Buarong, you claim to be a scientist. What field of science do you specialize in?Flat earth research.

btw what's the creationist excuse for the existance of cosmic rays, stars more than 6000 light years away,

The speed of light was faster in the past/God created the light rays so they were already within 6000 light years of the Earth/that distance is based on Uniformitarian assumptions.

the ability to synthesise simple amino acids with a process similar to nitrogen fixation from lightning

Lies!!!/Now create a complete cell from sratch Mr Scientist!/Just because it's been demonstrated that inorganic matter can give rise to organic matter, doesn't mean that's how it happened.

and the radioactive decay of elements measured to have half lives of over 3000 years? i'm curious :)

The rocks were either created with daughter isotope already in them and please don't ask us about Last Thursdayism/the decay rate was much faster in the past and please don't ask us why you can line up seven independent dating methods on a graph and find an extremely tight correlation.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb222/agenda07/carbon1450000years2.jpg?t=1182894599

Basically they're sure that there's something wrong with Evolutionary theory but they're not quite sure what.

He's been asked that many times in this thread, and I'm not sure he's ever answered once.

I'm pretty sure he did. I think he said he worked in molecular biology but the thread's so long I can't find a reference.

I found some new videos on Youtube(!!!), this time FROM SCIENTISTS!! :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkcC8FkS6Nc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CCapulJalU&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNxXlq8_OTA&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ske9pw4B9dA&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVz6sevv3RQ&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XDn5SqE9jc&mode=related&search=
These are just a few there are many more.

I think he once told me he was in molecular biology, or something along those lines.

Yeah, that's what he claimed in older threads. I doubt it's the case, though.

<snip>

I've decided I'm going to stop- I feel the argument going in circles again. I'm just going to say I agree to disagree and move on.

I've decided I'm going to stop- I feel the argument going in circles again. I'm just going to say I agree to disagree and move on.

Ah, the story of these threads. That's part of why I'm just popping in every 10 pages or so. The other reason is that I simply don't have time to read all of it when it's jumped 10 pages.

Yeah, that's what he claimed in older threads. I doubt it's the case, though.

I have a hard time believing he is an actual scientist. You know, one who seems to think that theories need to be proven true, instead of in reality being proven accurate(There is a difference), as well as stating that something can become a theory by forgoing the scientific method, which is how theories are formed...

Or the fact that he is making the same, tired, debunked, terrible "arguments" that amature Creationists make. You'd think that a scientist would ask some original questions... but that's obviously not happening.

Ah, the story of these threads. That's part of why I'm just popping in every 10 pages or so. The other reason is that I simply don't have time to read all of it when it's jumped 10 pages.

I suppose I've learned my lesson- I just figured I have better things to do than waste my time repeating myself ad nauseum. It's not like I'm fighting for something major at this stage.

I'm pretty sure he did. I think he said he worked in molecular biology but the thread's so long I can't find a reference.

I've seen political science somewhere in the earlier pages. Not sure if they were being sarcastic, joking, or what have you.

With all he's been saying, I honestly wouldn't doubt it.

I have a hard time believing he is an actual scientist. You know, one who seems to think that theories need to be proven true, instead of in reality being proven accurate(There is a difference), as well as stating that something can become a theory by forgoing the scientific method, which is how theories are formed...

Or the fact that he is making the same, tired, debunked, terrible "arguments" that amature Creationists make. You'd think that a scientist would ask some original questions... but that's obviously not happening.

Personally, he sounds to me like one of those people who gets a degree and thinks that said degree makes them a scientist.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v2i2f.htm
'One of the first things NASA did when the Apollo 11 astronauts reached the Moon was to set up a laser reflector that would allow scientists on Earth to measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon. Over the 12-year period from 1969 to 1981, scientists kept track of the distance to the Moon and found it to be increasing approximately 4 cm per year.1 This allows us to build a computer model that calculates how close the Moon would have been to the Earth in the past. '
"Moon Slipping Away from Earth", Geo, Vol.3 (July 1981) p. 137

It looks like the moon is slipping away. The idea is that the moon is losing its energy to the earth's oceans. Put together with uniformitarian (The present is the key to the past) assumptions, it would place the moon too close to the earth for the earth and moon system to be very old.

small problem - the moon is 36,000,000,000 and 40,000,000,000 cm from the earth. anyone care to divide 40 billion by 4 to see how many years the moon could maximally have been receding from the earth?

small problem - the moon is 36,000,000,000 and 40,000,000,000 cm from the earth. anyone care to divide 40 billion by 4 to see how many years the moon could maximally have been receding from the earth?

Good eye, good eye. I'm impressed.

Personally, he sounds to me like one of those people who gets a degree and thinks that said degree makes them a scientist.

Or that quoting a scientific journal qualifies a site as "scientific". :rolleyes:

I have a hard time believing he is an actual scientist. You know, one who seems to think that theories need to be proven true, instead of in reality being proven accurate(There is a difference), as well as stating that something can become a theory by forgoing the scientific method, which is how theories are formed...

Or the fact that he is making the same, tired, debunked, terrible "arguments" that amature Creationists make. You'd think that a scientist would ask some original questions... but that's obviously not happening.

I'll admit, that's part of what stopped me- he said that "it's just a theory, it's not proven true", confusing the scientific idea of a theory- a tested, proven (in the sense that the tests have proven accurate and have done so repeatedly) idea- and the more common idea of a "theory" being simply "a hypothesis"- or "an explanation for a given set of facts". At that stage, we're not even arguing science anymore and it's just not worth it.

Also- and I want some feedback on this- is it just me or do the people who think that "alternate theories for origins must be taught" are the same people who don't understand a thing about science (I'm making a general statement here- I know you're referring to Bruarong but I see it in others as well)? Seems to me the only "neutrals" haven't got a clue about the scientific method and wish to debate Evolution solely on abstract ideas (which isn't science) like "everything fits perfectly, how could it all be random?" or "I didn't see it happen, so therefore it didn't". I know I'm not a scientist myself- I have a History degree, after all- but I know better than to challenge a scientific theory by invoking the irrelevant "abstract".

Personally, he sounds to me like one of those people who gets a degree and thinks that said degree makes them a scientist.

Even so, one of the first things you learn in any 100 level science class is Scientific Theory, which he seems to be woefully ignorant on.

small problem - the moon is 36,000,000,000 and 40,000,000,000 cm from the earth. anyone care to divide 40 billion by 4 to see how many years the moon could maximally have been receding from the earth?

10 billion, technically speaking, which is about 4 billion years older than what people consider to be the oldest our earth it. And that's considering that the moon has existed since the earth has existed(Some postulate that a massive object hit the earth early on, forcing material into orbit around the earth, others that the moon was created by "loose" material that clumped together, in a sense, and a few other ideas. Computer models do actually support both ideas). Not sure which one is considered more likely, though.

As well, that's also considering that the moon has been retreating at a constant rate, which anybody with knowledge of how gravity works could tell you is not exactly true. Like I said earlier, gravity is affected by distance, and when the moon was closer to the earth, the pull would have been stronger, thus making the moon's retreat slower(As well as have a much faster orbit, but that's another thing entirely). At least, that's how I see it(With my limited knowledge on gravity).

Good eye, good eye. I'm impressed.

yeah, it just struck me that his evidence for a young earth-moon system actually allows for an age of 10 billion years, even if we just run with the stupid creationist extrapolation of a limited trend to all time. not bad, considering that that is older than the earth itself by a considerable margin - like more than double.

yeah, it just struck me that his evidence for a young earth-moon system actually allows for an age of 10 billion years, even if we just run with the stupid creationist extrapolation of a limited trend to all time. not bad, considering that that is older than the earth itself by a considerable margin - like more than double.

It's actually a bit older than our solar system, no?

yeah, it just struck me that his evidence for a young earth-moon system actually allows for an age of 10 billion years, even if we just run with the stupid creationist extrapolation of a limited trend to all time. not bad, considering that that is older than the earth itself by a considerable margin - like more than double.

I know. You'd be surprised how many Creationist arguments fall flat because of that- Russell Humphreys wrote a tract (that I've seen reprinted many different times) that shows the "natural" processes that exist on Earth that supposedly show that the Earth is 6,000 years old only to see that none of those processes indicate an Earth that old- a lot go longer, actually, and none of the figures presented even fit with a 6,000 year old hypothesis. I had a field day with that one.

It's actually a bit older than our solar system, no?

I think so- the Sun's at five billion years if I'm not mistaken.

It's actually a bit older than our solar system, no?

yeah, it's actually closer to the time of the big bang than it is to the formation of the sun.

dear lord, i love creationists. they can't even get their own nonsensical and trivially wrong arguments to work in their favor.

yeah, it's actually closer to the time of the big bang than it is to the formation of the sun.

dear lord, i love creationists. they can't even get their own nonsensical and trivially wrong arguments to work in their favor.

Understand that the Creationist argument "works" because they're just explanations, because they think that logic is enough to prove their case. It might be if this were philosophy, but this is science- hard data is needed to back up the claims; and they provide none.

yeah, it's actually closer to the time of the big bang than it is to the formation of the sun.


Hell, even considering a very old earth of 5 billion years, that still puts the distance of the moon at only half the distance if rate is constant. And considering how gravity is not linear, but proportional(Right term, no? I haven't taken a math class in a while), the gravitational pull at such a distance is not twice as much, but actually four times as great as it is today, considering that the moon's mass has remained constant.

Yay for holes.

Take a look at this article (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html) and you'll see why that a current movement of 4 cm per year doesn't prove that the moon and Earth are young. The gist of it is that when the calculations that describe the moon slipping away from the Earth were first created in the 1960s, they didn't take into account the movement of the tetonic plates which change the way the tides behave. When tetonic activity was taken into account, it was shown that the rate that the moon slipped away from the Earth was variable in fact this is what the article said: "Williams (1990) reports that 650 million years ago, the lunar rate of retreat was 1.95±0.29 cm/year, and that over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago, the mean recession rate was 1.27 cm/year."

The talkorigins site suggests that the moon is speeding up in its orbit, due to the rotation of the earth. In other words, the earth's spin is slowing down, and part of the energy lost is contributing to the moon speeding up.

The scienceagainstevolution site suggests that the moon is slowing down, not speeding up. And they calculate that the rotation of the earth does not speed the moon up because the imbalance of the mass (e.g., tides, mountains, etc.) has the net affect of zero, or almost zero because a spinning earth balances the pulling effect over a 24 h period. Rather, they say

''we have computed the kinetic energy of the moon. It shows that decreasing the radius by a factor of 4 increases kinetic energy by a factor of 4. In other words, the kinetic energy of the Moon is inversely proportional to its distance from the Earth. The equations show that as the Moon gets farther away from the Earth, it loses kinetic energy.''
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i5d.htm#speed

Note: The factor of 4 is not to be confused with 4 cm per year.

Since they both seem to agree that the moon is moving father away in its orbit, I have to wonder how the talkorigins site can come up with the conclusion that the moon is speeding up.

Furthermore, the talkorigins site says this:
This paleontological evidence comes in the form of tidal rhythmites, also known as tidally laminated sediments. Rhythmites have been subjected to intense scrutiny over the last decade or so, and have returned strong results. Williams (1990) reports that 650 million years ago, the lunar rate of retreat was 1.95±0.29 cm/year, and that over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago, the mean recession rate was 1.27 cm/year. Williams reanalyzed the same data set later (Williams, 1997), showing a mean recession rate of 2.16 cm/year in the period between now and 650 million years ago. That these kinds of data are reliable is demonstrated by Archer (1996). There is also a very good review of the earlier paleontological evidence by Lambeck (1980, chapter 11, paleorotation)''

To which the scienceagainstevolution site replies with:

''We must point out that nobody actually “observed” the lunar retreat 602 million years ago. What they observed were laminations in rock. They believe the laminated rocks were formed 602 million years ago. Furthermore, they believe the laminations were caused by tides. If the rocks aren't that old, and the laminations aren't the result of monthly tides, then Tim's numbers have nothing to do with how fast the Moon was escaping.
Modern experiments in sedimentology, and observation of sedimentary rocks formed in the 1980 Mt. Saint Helens eruption, show that sedimentary rocks are naturally laminated, and that the laminations do not necessarily correspond to yearly (or tidal) cycles.''

They also make some comments about deformity and plasticity (e.g. tetonic plates) and mention the ''significant smaller torques in the distant past'' argument of the old earthers.
Their conclusion is that based on their calculations, the moon-earth system could not be older than 3 billion years, allowing for a high level of error. Of course, that's not 10,000 years, but neither is it 4.8 billion years.


Another thing to remember is that gravitational pull is directly affected by distance from an object. Thus, the moon would be moving away much slower when it was closer to the earth than now, when it is farther.

Possibly, although the forces that are causing it to move away now might have also been stronger back then too, meaning that the movement rate could have been higher.


Buarong, you claim to be a scientist. What field of science do you specialize in?

Molecular biology.


btw what's the creationist excuse for the existance of cosmic rays, stars more than 6000 light years away, the ability to synthesise simple amino acids with a process similar to nitrogen fixation from lightning and the radioactive decay of elements measured to have half lives of over 3000 years? i'm curious


The synthesis of simple amino acids is not that surprising. If you pump a large voltage through a mixture of basic compounds, all sorts of products will form, including amino acids, given that the right compounds are present to begin with.

What is surprising is that anyone thinks it is evidence for abiogenesis.

The cosmic rays is a good point. Currently, I know of no explanation to fit this in with a young earth, but then again, it is outside of my area of knowledge, so I'm not a good one to respond to that. Though I might add, the presence of cosmic rays that are thought to be hundreds of thousands or millions of years old is not a problem for creation, but might be for a young universe, assuming that the speed of light has remained constant.

I have posted a little about the radioactive decay process on this thread already. The basic point is that the measurement of decay is probably a reliable methodology. However, the part where the years are calculated from the measurements depends on several assumptions, including assumptions about how the rock formed. In a creationist scenario, some of those assumptions aren't valid, e.g. maybe God created rock as rock, rather than the rock forming from lava. Thus, such long ages estimates cannot be used to rule out a young earth. They hold no value outside of a long age theory for the earth.


I've decided I'm going to stop- I feel the argument going in circles again. I'm just going to say I agree to disagree and move on.

No problem. I'll do the same. But I did enjoy debating with you. You are one of the few that can debate without insulting, and I certainly respect that.



I have a hard time believing he is an actual scientist. You know, one who seems to think that theories need to be proven true, instead of in reality being proven accurate(There is a difference), as well as stating that something can become a theory by forgoing the scientific method, which is how theories are formed...

I agree that there is a difference between accuracy and truth. I also agree that real science is limited to the scientific method. I don't agree with your philosophy.
Nor do I care if you think I'm a scientist or not. (Athough to me that is further evidence of your prejudice, rather than your knowledge of me.)



Or the fact that he is making the same, tired, debunked, terrible "arguments" that amature Creationists make. You'd think that a scientist would ask some original questions... but that's obviously not happening.

It's not hard to think up insults and criticisms.



small problem - the moon is 36,000,000,000 and 40,000,000,000 cm from the earth. anyone care to divide 40 billion by 4 to see how many years the moon could maximally have been receding from the earth?

But we can't have the moon rolling around on the surface of the earth, now, can we? In fact, there appears to be a minimum distance between the earth and the moon. Below this, the forces holding the moon together would be weaker than the force between the earth and the moon.

What's more:
''about 2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times higher than those we see today.''
(Assuming that the 4cm per year rate has not changed.)
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v2i2f.htm


Quote:
Originally Posted by CthulhuFhtagn View Post
Personally, he sounds to me like one of those people who gets a degree and thinks that said degree makes them a scientist.

Even so, one of the first things you learn in any 100 level science class is Scientific Theory, which he seems to be woefully ignorant on.


My purpose in coming to this thread was to engage in debate with people who are believers in a naturalistic approach for explaining the origins. I found plenty of them.

What I find is that while critics in science are generally accepted, criticism of the the theory of evolution and of the methods used to calculate long ages is most definitely not. I have found my criticisms less than welcome, because they are directed towards naturalistic philosophy.

Very few people here are willing to consider the other side of the argument. Not only that, they are prepared to condemn my knowledge of the sciences--not because they are able to demonstrate my lack, but simply because I appear to have not sided with their prejudice.

I'm not complaining, but I am pointing out the inconsistency and the prejudice. It really does look like most people here are committed to one side of the debate. What does that say about the level of understanding of science, which is supposed to be as unbiased as possible?

No, it isn't my lack of understanding of the scientific theory that is the problem here. The problem is intolerance of any other philosophy other than naturalism on which to base the science. It looks like in their quest to free the minds from religious tyranny, the naturalists have installed themselves as an authority, and in so doing, have themselves become the tyranny.

I retreat from this debate. Not because I think you guys have won. But because I learned enough for now. There may well be no evidence in the world that could untangle some minds from their belief.

Very few people here are willing to consider the other side of the argument. Not only that, they are prepared to condemn my knowledge of the sciences--not because they are able to demonstrate my lack, but simply because I appear to have not sided with their prejudice.

I'm not complaining, but I am pointing out the inconsistency and the prejudice. It really does look like most people here are committed to one side of the debate. What does that say about the level of understanding of science, which is supposed to be as unbiased as possible?

You are confusing two distinct things.
One: your claim that evolution does not fit the observable facts. While your evidence for that claim sofar has been unconvincing, it is quite possible you are correct. Anyone unwilling to admit that is a silly poopiehead.

Two: your claim that intelligent design and/or creation fit the observable facts better, are superior to any other supernatural explanation and are valid science. This is nonsense.

Two is also the reason most creationists are scorned by science. Sofar ID and creationism are in inferior explanations, even though it is possible they are correct. People wishing to replace a working but not perfect system with something completely useless generally are not greeted with open arms.

You are confusing two distinct things.
One: your claim that evolution does not fit the observable facts. While your evidence for that claim sofar has been unconvincing, it is quite possible you are correct. Anyone unwilling to admit that is a silly poopiehead.

Two: your claim that intelligent design and/or creation fit the observable facts better, are superior to any other supernatural explanation and are valid science. This is nonsense.

Two is also the reason most creationists are scorned by science. Sofar ID and creationism are in inferior explanations, even though it is possible they are correct. People wishing to replace a working but not perfect system with something completely useless generally are not greeted with open arms.

An excellent summation that I fully agree with, though I am afraid you are wasting you time as far as Bruarong is concerned.

Two: your claim that intelligent design and/or creation fit the observable facts better.Of course they do, because with everything they observe they can simply say "God made it thusly". There is no "why?" or "how does it work?", no investigation into the genesis as things, these folks are content with how things are and just don't care how things came to be what they are. Goddidit, that's all.

Even scientists can believe in God. Having both perspectives is much better and allows more mental exercise then in believing in just one.

Even scientists can believe in God. Having both perspectives is much better and allows more mental exercise then in believing in just one.

Here's my problem with the issue : this isn't about "both perspectives". There isn't only 2 possibilities. The way I see it the number of options is completely indefinite and depends on your definition of what a "god" is.

Example of possible options :
1. There is no god.
2. There is a god. (not "the God". It can be any god. But probably not biblical)
3. There are multiple gods.
4. There is a weird kind of sentient energy that could possibly be defined as a god.
5. There is an unexplicable kind of unsentient energy that could just as well be defined as a god or as the natural order of things.

The point is, wether there is a god or not, has nothing at all to do with science. In any field that that calls itself "science", the existence or absence of gods is irrelevent.

More claims of dishonesty without any evidence or even an argument for it. You could just say that I'm wrong without needing to say that I'm dishonest. I really don't understand this dishonesty claim.


Amusing.

I didn't say you were dishonest.

My argument was with what you posted, which I believe is scientifically dishonest - you would be nothing more than the purveyor of that particular dishonesty.

However, since you raise that particular spectre, I think scientific honesty requires us to check our sources, The fact that you keep presenting 'evidence' that fails to stand up to even the most rudimentary investigation suggests you aren't too concerned by the validity of a source so long as it backs an agenda.

To me, this DOES make you scientifically dishonest. But, that's my opinion. Make of it what you will.


Is it really because you think that no honest scientist could be skeptical about the proposed age of the earth?


Not at all. Skepticism is good. I'm very skeptical over the age of the earth. On the other hand, presenting an alleged 'eye-witness account' of the creation as a source IS dishonest.


It was calculated over a 12 year period, apparently. That would take into account the variations, I expect.


How? You do a lot of 'expecting'... did you check?

How would you verify the plasticity of the surface? Can you, right now, account for the plasticity of the surface on which you sit or stand? I'm a sceintist by trade, and I KNOW that the media I handle have different properties depending on hundreds of factors I don't even measure for.

4cm of difference, on a spherical surface the size of the Moon, doesn't even come within calibration tolerances.


That sort of thing can be calculated. They didn't just pull the 4 cm per year out of the air, don't you think?


I don't know. I have seen no official source.

I think they did pull the 4cm figure totally out of the air. It's a nonsense number when you talk about the relative scales of the measurement points, and the relative distance between them.


Are you suggesting that ozone and nitrogen have affected the laser readings? Do you know this, or are you guessing?

Such a possibility probably doesn't make the argument false.


Of course it makes the argument false. We know that our ozone concentration in the atmosphere has a lensing effect. We also know that our ozone has been depleting. We don't know HOW MUCH over a prolonged period, and we don't know how specifically it varied during the (alleged) measurement period.

Again, we come back to the tiny alleged figure of 4cm, and the number of tolerances which make that number ridiculous.


Once again, how does 'might be' count as one of the 'many reasons that this is an unworthy argument'?


If the factors are not presented or even accounted for, if the tolerance is not IN the data, then the argument is unworthy.

The sampling period is ineffective, and the assumption is based on incolpete data. Thus the argument is nothing more than a guess. And that is assuming that the figures were reliable to begin with - for which I see no evidence.


Yet another 'might be'.


Yes. Well done. That's the WHOLE point.


Should there be any official source? If you mean papers.....Moon Slipping Away from Earth", Geo, Vol.3 (July 1981) p. 137 seems to be where it first came to light. A pity that article doesn't seem to be online.


I have no access to that material. Indeed - every source I've investigated that discusses the 4cm idea... refers back to one source - this 'featured article' in 1997: http://www.ridgenet.net/%7Edo_while/sage/v2i2f.htm... which gives that 'Geo' reference as it's inspiration point - but presents no data.

So - we have one article which openly claims to find flaw in 'evolutionist' arguments, citing another source we can't verify, and using data we can't check.

Where is the NASA data?

Are you really willing to accept ALL of this on the basis of NO evidence?


Is that because you cannot find the 'official source?' Do you always do that? Accuse people of lying on the basis of your ignorance?

'Scientists agree that the orbiting moon dumps energy into the world’s oceans'
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/2000/158-03/15803-18.pdf
Not a peer reviewed article, but certainly not creationist.


No - I accuse science of being dishonest when no data is presented, and no verification can be made.

Interestingly, the other article you present you ACKNOWLEDGE is not peer-reviewed... yet you seem willing to take it's assumptions as gospel.

That is intellectually dishonest... and very unscientific.


In conclusion, Grave, you came out with guns firing, with 'so many reasons that this is an unworthy argument'. But it turned out to be a bunch of maybe's.


Maybe IS a reason why the argument is unworthy.

How far away from me are you, right now? We could do an experiment, couldn't we? Shout to each other maybe, and measure how long the sound takes to get from one of us to the other. That would be good.

How many assumptions do you think we should take into account?

How accurate should we assume our measurements are over that distance? What should we set our experimental tolerance at? Do you think it's possible we could get an answer that would REALLY be accurate to 4cm?

Since they both seem to agree that the moon is moving father away in its orbit, I have to wonder how the talkorigins site can come up with the conclusion that the moon is speeding up.


Because they are using science.

What happens if you take a hard left turn at 30?

What happens if you take the same turn at 60?

Assume the same 'turn point' in both cases, just change the velocity. Notice anything about the 'orbits'?


Possibly, although the forces that are causing it to move away now might have also been stronger back then too, meaning that the movement rate could have been higher.


In order to make your argument work we have to assume that gravity changes?


There may well be no evidence in the world that could untangle some minds from their belief.

No shit, Sherlock. But I won't stop trying.

It was calculated over a 12 year period, apparently. That would take into account the variations, I expect.

I love how "might be" is good enough for you. Lots of assumptions are good enough for you when they support your conclusions, but the unaddressed assumptions that make research flawed are dismissed by you since "I expect" isn't an argument unless you say it.


That sort of thing can be calculated. They didn't just pull the 4 cm per year out of the air, don't you think?

Again, instead of guessing, why don't you, you know, show how they actually calculated this and what they actually accounted for?


Are you suggesting that ozone and nitrogen have affected the laser readings? Do you know this, or are you guessing?

Such a possibility probably doesn't make the argument false.

Probably doesn't? Do you know how tolerances work? They made a claim that would require the calibration of their equipment to exceed our technology. Claiming a movement that could EASILY be accounted for by half a dozen problems with calibrating such equipment doesn't make their conclusion false, but it does make their data useless. As such, their conclusion is simply ignored.


Once again, how does 'might be' count as one of the 'many reasons that this is an unworthy argument'?

See what I mean. "Might" is a problem for you, but "I expect" is an argument from you. Hmmmm... no need for consistency, "I expect".


Yet another 'might be'.

As I said...


Should there be any official source? If you mean papers.....Moon Slipping Away from Earth", Geo, Vol.3 (July 1981) p. 137 seems to be where it first came to light. A pity that article doesn't seem to be online.

Absent the data, your claims are unsupported. They require us to buy into science that would require us to make a series of assumptions that are unsupportable, not the least of which is that they could accurately measure a 1e-11 change while the atmosphere is changing, while we're missing data about shape of the orbit, while we're missing data about the plasticity of the surface, and any of a dozen things that make this so far outside of tolerances as to be laughable. It's like claiming I measured the size of an electron with a tape measure.


Is that because you cannot find the 'official source?' Do you always do that? Accuse people of lying on the basis of your ignorance?

'Scientists agree that the orbiting moon dumps energy into the world’s oceans'
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/2000/158-03/15803-18.pdf
Not a peer reviewed article, but certainly not creationist.


Not a peer-reviewed source, means not scientific. Absent a scientific source, a scientific claim has no validity. And this and only this is why your science credentials are questions, because you completely refuse to operate in the realm of science when examining scientific claims.

Dishonest science isn't the same as lying. It can be, but mostly I find it usually has a person who is so desperate for their conclusion to be right that they make mistakes, mistakes like claiming that you can measure to 1e-11 without accounting for a dozen things that affect tolerances, things we don't have the data or the technology to address.

I find it amusing that science that isn't peer-reviewed or has enormous credibility problems is something you support when it supports the Creationist argument, but science that has stood up to decades of peer review and has constantly and consistently bolstered its position with new evidence is something you dismiss as speculative. Yes, I find the absurd amusing.

You are confusing two distinct things.
One: your claim that evolution does not fit the observable facts. While your evidence for that claim sofar has been unconvincing, it is quite possible you are correct. Anyone unwilling to admit that is a silly poopiehead.

Two: your claim that intelligent design and/or creation fit the observable facts better, are superior to any other supernatural explanation and are valid science. This is nonsense.

Two is also the reason most creationists are scorned by science. Sofar ID and creationism are in inferior explanations, even though it is possible they are correct. People wishing to replace a working but not perfect system with something completely useless generally are not greeted with open arms.


I did say I was going to leave this thread.....and I will.....but....I like your posts.

Poopiehead was good. Oh, and I know that many of my arguments are non-convincing, BTW. But that doesn't bother me that much. I'm skeptical of them too.

Anyway, firstly, I don't recall ever claiming that intelligent design or creation fit the observed facts overall, although perhaps they do in some cases.

What I do remember saying was that my position would allow for both evolution/long ages AND creation/intelligent design. That's because I'm not starting with the philosophical assumptions that rules either of those scenarios out. Rather, I consider both or several possibilities at once, and try to be as skeptical of all of them together.

There are other supernatural explanations, other creation myths, etc. People who adhere to those religions are welcome to make predictions based on the scenarios, and test those predictions using the scientific method. I wouldn't stop them, or even ridicule them, so long as they work within the confines of the scientific method.

But I have to ask--what are your grounds for asserting that creation/intelligent design are completely useless? I suppose you have taken into account that science was rather successful before the theory of evolution. Sure, the theory might have helped science along quite a bit. But you seem to be saying that science is impossible without the theory of evolution. Is that right? If so, why?

if you track down even further citations from here, you'll have all the info on lunar ranging you could ever want:

Lunar laser ranging: a continuing legacy of the Apollo program. J.O. Dickey, P.L. Bender, J.E. Faller, X.X. Newhall, R.L. Ricklefs, J.G. Ries, P.J. Shelus, C. Veillet, A.L. Whipple, J.R. Wiant, J.G. Williams and C.F. Yoder.
Science v265.n5171 (July 22, 1994): pp482(9).

I did say I was going to leave this thread.....and I will.....but....I like your posts.

Poopiehead was good. Oh, and I know that many of my arguments are non-convincing, BTW. But that doesn't bother me that much. I'm skeptical of them too.

Anyway, firstly, I don't recall ever claiming that intelligent design or creation fit the observed facts overall, although perhaps they do in some cases.

What I do remember saying was that my position would allow for both evolution/long ages AND creation/intelligent design. That's because I'm not starting with the philosophical assumptions that rules either of those scenarios out. Rather, I consider both or several possibilities at once, and try to be as skeptical of all of them together.

There are other supernatural explanations, other creation myths, etc. People who adhere to those religions are welcome to make predictions based on the scenarios, and test those predictions using the scientific method. I wouldn't stop them, or even ridicule them, so long as they work within the confines of the scientific method.

But I have to ask--what are your grounds for asserting that creation/intelligent design are completely useless? I suppose you have taken into account that science was rather successful before the theory of evolution. Sure, the theory might have helped science along quite a bit. But you seem to be saying that science is impossible without the theory of evolution. Is that right? If so, why?

Your problem is that you have stated explicitly that if science ignores your philosophy that it's biased, that a lack of mention of Creation is a bias, and that the requirement that such philosophies be kept seperate from the science itself is why science is biased. Science cannot incorporate your philosophies because ID and Creation are inherently untestable.

As far as predictions go, if you limit your science to predictions and testing them, then you'd get no flack. But you've gone further that and claiming that you're simply keeping an open mind isn't accurate in the least. You've openly claimed that unless science incorporates your philosophies you don't consider it science. You've also openly admitted that you don't test things that your philosophies make you believe are untrue.

Now do you expect us to forget that you've admitted that your scientific examination is hopelessly biased?

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.

You should cite your source when you repeat what others have said. Not doing so is plagiarism.

''about 2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times higher than those we see today.''
(Assuming that the 4cm per year rate has not changed.)

so?

what this says to me is that even assuming the rate hasn't changed in billions of years (haha), we are still within an order of magnitude of the actual age of the earth-moon system going by your fucking silly argument. add in the rest of what we know and it works out just perfectly. i utterly fail to see your point.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.

You should cite your source when you repeat what others have said. Not doing so is plagiarism.

:D Lawsuit from beyond the grave!

:D Lawsuit from beyond the grave!

I don't see why not. Brain activity isn't a requirement for life. Just ask anyone who would like to outlaw abortion.

I love how "might be" is good enough for you. Lots of assumptions are good enough for you when they support your conclusions, but the unaddressed assumptions that make research flawed are dismissed by you since "I expect" isn't an argument unless you say it.

'Might be' is good enough to be skeptical, but not enough to rule an argument 'completely unworthy', surely.

When I say 'I expect', that doesn't mean I have not bothered to address an assumption.


Again, instead of guessing, why don't you, you know, show how they actually calculated this and what they actually accounted for?

Rather, I can point out to you that there seems to be general agreement that the moon is moving further away. The question is why, and for how long?




Probably doesn't? Do you know how tolerances work? They made a claim that would require the calibration of their equipment to exceed our technology. Claiming a movement that could EASILY be accounted for by half a dozen problems with calibrating such equipment doesn't make their conclusion false, but it does make their data useless. As such, their conclusion is simply ignored.

Once again, the general movement of the moon seems to be accepted. I've got no reason to disbelieve them, although I'm not at the point where I can say that I have taken their word for it, which means I have to be skeptical. Like Grave pointed out, there is altogether too little information about the issue.




See what I mean. "Might" is a problem for you, but "I expect" is an argument from you. Hmmmm... no need for consistency, "I expect".

Rather, 'might' is an insufficient reason to consider an argument 'totally unworthy', but it is sufficient reason to be skeptical. Big difference.


Absent the data, your claims are unsupported.

What exactly do you think my claims are? That science supports a young earth and moon system?


They require us to buy into science that would require us to make a series of assumptions that are unsupportable, not the least of which is that they could accurately measure a 1e-11 change while the atmosphere is changing, while we're missing data about shape of the orbit, while we're missing data about the plasticity of the surface, and any of a dozen things that make this so far outside of tolerances as to be laughable. It's like claiming I measured the size of an electron with a tape measure.

I actually don't think it's that bad, but whatever....

I don't ask you to buy into the science. Remain as skeptical as you like. But if you rule out the argument based on 'maybe', then you aren't being skeptical at all. That would make you prejudiced.


Not a peer-reviewed source, means not scientific. Absent a scientific source, a scientific claim has no validity.

Perhaps.


And this and only this is why your science credentials are questions, because you completely refuse to operate in the realm of science when examining scientific claims.


I'm not defending my credentials. That's not important to me.

Claims like 'completely refuse to operate in the realm of science' seems to come from my using several references that were not peer reviewed. That's quite a leap, isn't it?


Dishonest science isn't the same as lying. It can be, but mostly I find it usually has a person who is so desperate for their conclusion to be right that they make mistakes, mistakes like claiming that you can measure to 1e-11 without accounting for a dozen things that affect tolerances, things we don't have the data or the technology to address.

But I'm not desperate for my conclusion to be right. I presented the 'slipping moon' as someone else's argument that the solar system is young. I never said I believed it, or that I expect anyone here to believe it.

BTW, I'm not sure I believe your claim that the argument depends on ''things we don't have the data or the technology to address''. My suspicion is that you are just guessing at that. But go ahead and prove me wrong, if you wish.


I find it amusing that science that isn't peer-reviewed or has enormous credibility problems is something you support when it supports the Creationist argument, but science that has stood up to decades of peer review and has constantly and consistently bolstered its position with new evidence is something you dismiss as speculative. Yes, I find the absurd amusing.

Did I say I supported it, or did I present it without mentioning whether I supported it? For all I know, it could be right, but I'm not about to 'believe' it. It is something that I am watching. Perhaps no one wants to touch it, in case it does come out in support of a young earth.

At any rate, the point that I was addressing is that much of the 'science' that is supposed to support long ages isn't valid when trying to prove the age of the earth. That is something I have noticed. The peer review system doesn't pick that up, because it doesn't ask the question of whether the earth is young.

Furthermore, whenever something does come out in favour of a young earth, like mutation rates, and organic tissue in dinosaur bones, it isn't seen as evidence for a young earth. Not because it cannot be consistent with a young earth, but because a young earth is unthinkable.
If I was to ask the question, why doesn't organic tissue in dinosaur fossils support a young earth, or at least a young fossil, what would you say? Or if I ask what doesn't today's modern mutation rate in humans support a younger origin, how would you respond?

'Might be' is good enough to be skeptical, but not enough to rule an argument 'completely unworthy', surely.

When I say 'I expect', that doesn't mean I have not bothered to address an assumption.

Unworthy simply means it's not worthy of acceptance on any level. You've not shown it to be anything other than completely unworthy.

And when you say "I expect" and present nothing that actually does address the assumption, it means you've not bothered to address the assumption. "I expect" was the summary of your response to that issue.


Rather, I can point out to you that there seems to be general agreement that the moon is moving further away. The question is why, and for how long?

I have to agree with FS, do you actually have a point?



Once again, the general movement of the moon seems to be accepted. I've got no reason to disbelieve them, although I'm not at the point where I can say that I have taken their word for it, which means I have to be skeptical. Like Grave pointed out, there is altogether too little information about the issue.

No reason to disbelieve them is not a reason to believe them. Unworthy means there is no reason to accept their conclusion. None. There is plenty of reason to reject their conclusion and you've presented with several.



Rather, 'might' is an insufficient reason to consider an argument 'totally unworthy', but it is sufficient reason to be skeptical. Big difference.

In this case, unaddressed assumptions that invalidate an argument are absolutely reason to consider something "totally unworthy". Understand that in both science and debate if your reasoning doesn't address problems in your assumptions your conclusion is not acceptable, totally unworthy. But you knew that, since you're a scientist.

It may one day become worthy when it addresses the flaws, but that it's unworthy is proven by the flaws.


What exactly do you think my claims are? That science supports a young earth and moon system?

I'm addressing the claims of the posts I've replied to.


I actually don't think it's that bad, but whatever....

Um, you realize I calculated that, yes. It is that bad. That's the tolerance that they would have to have which means they would have explain away everything about making such a measurement that would affect that tolerance. That's how tolerances work.

I don't ask you to buy into the science. Remain as skeptical as you like. But if you rule out the argument based on 'maybe', then you aren't being skeptical at all. That would make you prejudiced.

Not asking me to buy in is to say the science is unworthy. Worthy science doesn't have the level of flaws we're finding here and this is the reason that it would be unreasonable to buy in.



Perhaps.

Not perhaps. That's how science works. Peer review is like having a judicial system decide trials. It's not flawless, but your claims are like saying you've proven someone legally guilty of a crime absent a trial.


I'm not defending my credentials. That's not important to me.

Actually, you were. You were offended that people look at your claims including those about your credentials and address them as they would any claim. The evidence weighs against you.


Claims like 'completely refuse to operate in the realm of science' seems to come from my using several references that were not peer reviewed. That's quite a leap, isn't it?

They come from you admitting that you don't accept the scientific method in several ways. Peer review. Leaving unfalsifiable claims out of science. And the like. Denying the scientific method IS denying science.


But I'm not desperate for my conclusion to be right. I presented the 'slipping moon' as someone else's argument that the solar system is young. I never said I believed it, or that I expect anyone here to believe it.

You presented a claim. As such that claim falls on your shoulders. If you don't want people to keep saying you're wrong, stop saying things that are wrong. Saying "well, even if it's wrong and I presented doesn't mean I'm wrong unless I say so" is intellectually dishonest.


BTW, I'm not sure I believe your claim that the argument depends on ''things we don't have the data or the technology to address''. My suspicion is that you are just guessing at that. But go ahead and prove me wrong, if you wish.

How do you propose I do that? By showing an absense of data? You want to present and absense of evidence? And you wonder why people question your knowledge of the scientific process. You can't prove a negative claim like "the data doesn't exist". The burden falls on you to show the data does exist.


Did I say I supported it, or did I present it without mentioning whether I supported it? For all I know, it could be right, but I'm not about to 'believe' it. It is something that I am watching. Perhaps no one wants to touch it, in case it does come out in support of a young earth.

Again, intellectually dishonest. If I show up in a Creation thread presenting Darwin's arguments, it would be silly for me to act all indignant when some suggests I'm supporting Darwinism.



At any rate, the point that I was addressing is that much of the 'science' that is supposed to support long ages isn't valid when trying to prove the age of the earth. That is something I have noticed. The peer review system doesn't pick that up, because it doesn't ask the question of whether the earth is young.

So you always say. You've never shown evidence to support this. According to you they are supposed to start with the belief that the earth is young and form their opinions around it rather than simply reacting to the data. If you have evidence that supports a young earth present it. Peer-reviewed, quality sources. You act like peer-review rejects science that has no flaws in the process but I've yet to see you provide an example.


Furthermore, whenever something does come out in favour of a young earth, like mutation rates, and organic tissue in dinosaur bones, it isn't seen as evidence for a young earth. Not because it cannot be consistent with a young earth, but because a young earth is unthinkable.

Or because taking them out of context and claiming a young earth when there are more reasonable explanations that incorporate all of the data is not science. Nah, bias is a much more reasonable claim. *nods*


If I was to ask the question, why doesn't organic tissue in dinosaur fossils support a young earth, or at least a young fossil, what would you say? Or if I ask what doesn't today's modern mutation rate in humans support a younger origin, how would you respond?

I already answered that. It certainly could support it if it was all the data we have. However, that data doesn't exist in a vacuum so any theories you present have to do more than just account for that data.

If I asked the question why isn't the fact that I have on a blue shirt evidence that all white males are currently wearing blue shirts, what would you say? If you were being scientific, you'd say that you have to take all evidence into account, not just the evidence I want you to look at. And incorporating other evidence, like the fact that my coworker is wearing a white shirt, invalidates my conclusion.

If I asked the question why isn't the fact that I have on a blue shirt evidence that all white males are currently wearing blue shirts, what would you say? If you were being scientific, you'd say that you have to take all evidence into account, not just the evidence I want you to look at. And incorporating other evidence, like the fact that my coworker is wearing a white shirt, invalidates my conclusion.

Blue shirts ftw.

Blue shirts ftw.

Are you a white male? Cuz then we have two bits of evidence and ignore all others. Thus... I MUST be right.

'Might be' is good enough to be skeptical, but not enough to rule an argument 'completely unworthy', surely.


It is more than enough to rule an argument completely unworthy, when the argument states as FACT something that simply cannot be verified.


Rather, I can point out to you that there seems to be general agreement that the moon is moving further away. The question is why, and for how long?


You pointed out no such thing.

My own research has shown some people operating on the assumption the Moon is moving further away, but - in general, they seem to all be referring to one (unverifiable) source. The link I presented earlier.


I don't ask you to buy into the science. Remain as skeptical as you like. But if you rule out the argument based on 'maybe', then you aren't being skeptical at all. That would make you prejudiced.


Not at all. When someone claims to have measured a thing, and yet no evidence is forthcoming, no support is given, and no explanations are given for HOW the data was treated or analysed, it is only RIGHT to completely rule it out.

Unverifiable, uncorroboratable data - especially where there is no methodology of process or data handling, or any evidence of allowance for experimental tolerances or characteristics of the materia - is useless.


Claims like 'completely refuse to operate in the realm of science' seems to come from my using several references that were not peer reviewed. That's quite a leap, isn't it?


No. If you are willing to base a scientific argument on evidence that cannot be processed through the scientific method, then you DO 'completely refuse to operate in the realm of science'.


BTW, I'm not sure I believe your claim that the argument depends on ''things we don't have the data or the technology to address''. My suspicion is that you are just guessing at that. But go ahead and prove me wrong, if you wish.


It isn't a matter of proving you wrong. Anyone with ANY grounding in science, engineering or technology knows that processes and equipment require calibration. Everyone in any of those fields knows that any observation of data has accuracy ONLY within 'tolerance' levels.

As a chemist, when I need a litre of reagent... why do I measure it by mililitres?

If you can answer that question, you will have answered your own demand for 'proof' above.

It is more than enough to rule an argument completely unworthy, when the argument states as FACT something that simply cannot be verified.



You pointed out no such thing.

My own research has shown some people operating on the assumption the Moon is moving further away, but - in general, they seem to all be referring to one (unverifiable) source. The link I presented earlier.



Not at all. When someone claims to have measured a thing, and yet no evidence is forthcoming, no support is given, and no explanations are given for HOW the data was treated or analysed, it is only RIGHT to completely rule it out.

Unverifiable, uncorroboratable data - especially where there is no methodology of process or data handling, or any evidence of allowance for experimental tolerances or characteristics of the materia - is useless.



No. If you are willing to base a scientific argument on evidence that cannot be processed through the scientific method, then you DO 'completely refuse to operate in the realm of science'.



It isn't a matter of proving you wrong. Anyone with ANY grounding in science, engineering or technology knows that processes and equipment require calibration. Everyone in any of those fields knows that any observation of data has accuracy ONLY within 'tolerance' levels.

As a chemist, when I need a litre of reagent... why do I measure it by mililitres?

If you can answer that question, you will have answered your own demand for 'proof' above.


I think what he doesn't realize is that experimental measurements usually present the fallibility of those measurements. Here the fallibility would almost necessarily exceed the recovered measurements. Absent evidence that it doesn't it's only reasonable to go by the fact that I've never seen any equipment ever that has that level of calibration. He's proposing they got the level of accuracy of an electron microscope while projecting that microscope across a mile (relatively). The angle change that would register a 4 cm drift would be lost regularly by patterns of whether changes, by patterns of pollution, by patterns of changes in the atmosphere, etc.

There is simply no way you could measure THROUGH the atmosphere with that kind of accuracy on a regular basis even if we had the technology to do it. So unless they show that they measured all of these patterns throughout and can account for it, something he's not even suggested, this simply can't be reliable.

And if we go further and assume that did this from without the atmosphere we have to believe that without measuring through the atmosphere to achieve their relative location, they managed to keep a space vehicle in a reliable position to measure changes to the moon relative to the earth. It's all just simply to much error to accept.

But, hey, maybe we should treat it like it's reasonable despite all reason. Perhaps we should ignore all of these problems because he "expects" they didn't pull the number out of their behinds. I mean, what kind of scientist asks for evidence?

What I don't understand is why do the creationists believe that the majority of scientists are wrong? Are scientists stupid? If they are, then I guess our entire education system is garbage and all the degrees are worthless. The drug companies and medical research centers should fire all their research scientists and replace them with what?

Maybe the scientists are lying? So what we have is over 100 years of conspiracy and for what reason? They are risking casting doubt on the whole scientific method if the conspiracy is ever uncovered, and for what? Don't tell me it's to prove that God doesn't exist, there are many believers in evolution that also believe in God (just check some of the posts on this thread).

If anyone has an agenda, it's the creationists to prove that their beliefs are right. See, that is the true problem with science. Science does not care in what you believe in, it only cares about finding the truth with no concern over your feelings. That is why science has always been viewed as dangerous by those in power and why those in authourity have always tried to control science. It is why politics and science don't mix.

Here is a quote that I absolutely love and have posted in my cubicle. Just replace the word thought with science since they a synonymous.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man.

By the way, I talked to God. We have the same chiropractor. We were both waiting for the Tooth Fairy to get done... Boy, that bitch is a mess after doing her rounds!

Anyhoo... I asked Him and He's leaning toward Evolution. *nod*

By the way, I talked to God. We have the same chiropractor. We were both waiting for the Tooth Fairy to get done... Boy, that bitch is a mess after doing her rounds!

Anyhoo... I asked Him and He's leaning toward Evolution. *nod*Did you ask him for his name?

By the way, I talked to God. We have the same chiropractor. We were both waiting for the Tooth Fairy to get done... Boy, that bitch is a mess after doing her rounds!

Anyhoo... I asked Him and He's leaning toward Evolution. *nod*

The next time you bump into the Tooth Fairy, tell her she still owes me like $5. Thrifty ol' gal, she is.

Did you ask him for his name?

Who, God? I didn't really see the need. You don't get much easier to say than 'God'. Simple, one syllable word. Hell, a baby could say it.

Who, God? I didn't really see the need. You don't get much easier to say than 'God'. Simple, one syllable word. Hell, a baby could say it.Well, a name would help not to confuse him with any of the other gods.

The next time you bump into the Tooth Fairy, tell her she still owes me like $5. Thrifty ol' gal, she is.

Tell her yourself. I don't mess with people who sneak into your bedroom when you're fast asleep. :p

Well, a name would help not to confuse him with any of the other gods.

Trust me, you won't. :p

Trust me, you won't. :pSo under what name is that god you talked to known to humans? Which god were you talking to?

So under what name is that god you talked to known to humans? Which god were you talking to?

Andre the Giant, my personal savior.*

*cookie for the reference

So under what name is that god you talked to known to humans? Which god were you talking to?

Well, He goes by a whole bunch of nicknames for a reason.

God, Allah, Yahweh, Jehova, etc. As for His real name, well...

Well, He goes by a whole bunch of nicknames for a reason.

God, Allah, Yahweh, Jehova, etc. As for His real name, well...God, Allah, Yahweh, Jehova, etc. are all names assigned to the fabricated Jew-ish god. I conclude that you did NOT talk to God.

God, Allah, Yahweh, Jehova, etc. are all names assigned to the fabricated Jew-ish god. I conclude that you did NOT talk to God.

Ah, yes, another argument you make from faith. The irony never stops making me giggle like a schoolgirl. Thanks for that.

Ah, yes, another argument you make from faith. The irony never stops making me giggle like a schoolgirl. Thanks for that.

Thanks, jerk. The mental image of you giggling like a schoolyard just forced me to call my therapist and make an appointment. :p

Thanks, jerk. The mental image of you giggling like a schoolyard just forced me to call my therapist and make an appointment. :p

Or like a schoolyard, sure. My schoolyard used to giggle in deep, rumbling coughs, but usually only after I fell off the monkeybars.

Or like a schoolyard, sure. My schoolyard used to giggle in deep, rumbling coughs, but usually only after I fell off the monkeybars.

What is it with me an amusing typos. :(

What is it with me an amusing typos. :(

I don't know, but I feel like I should be recording them.

I don't know, but I feel like I should be recording them.

Seriously, especially with the Irish eating all their dead and WYTYG licking her hips. Actually, I put that last one on my wall. *looks embarrassed*

Seriously, especially with the Irish eating all their dead and WYTYG licking her hips. Actually, I put that last one on my wall. *looks embarrassed*

LIPS, damnit. It was supposed to be LIPS :p

LIPS, damnit. It was supposed to be LIPS :p

I licked the Freudian slip better.

I licked the Freudian slip better.

You licked it, eh?

I licked the Freudian slip better.

You did that on purpose :p

God, Allah, Yahweh, Jehova, etc. are all names assigned to the fabricated Jew-ish god. I conclude that you did NOT talk to God.

His real name is Smedley.

You did that on purpose :p

I did it on accident, but noticed it before I posted and decided I liked it better. Besides I was her Vampire Lord. The way I wrote it was more accurate. *nods*

Andre the Giant, my personal savior.*

*cookie for the reference

I assume you are talking about Princess Bride?

His real name is Smedley.

No wonder he keeps it a secret. That explains the YJVH thing, he was just mumbling because he was embarrassed.

No wonder he keeps it a secret. That explains the YJVH thing, he was just mumbling because he was embarrassed.

Hey, God, what's your name?
*puts hand over mouth* JYHV
What was that?
mmmphhphhmmm
Huh?
Smedly, okay? Wanna make something of it? *smites*

After about forty Jews, we learned to stop asking after we got the first answer.

His real name is Smedley.If you talked to him, it's not God, Allah, Yahweh, Jehova, etc.

I assume you are talking about Princess Bride?

Nope. An episode of House, actually. House is in rehab, and during an AA-type group session he talks about the 12 step program, and named Andre the Giant his personal savior, or some such.

Nope. An episode of House, actually. House is in rehab, and during an AA-type group session he talks about the 12 step program, and named Andre the Giant his personal savior, or some such.

Andre the Giant would make a great savior. Sure, Jesus could do the water-wine thing, but you mess with Andre the Giant and he will fuck you up.

Then eat you.

Andre the Giant would make a great savior. Sure, Jesus could do the water-wine thing, but you mess with Andre the Giant and he will fuck you up.

Then eat you.Is Andre the Giant Swedish?

Is Andre the Giant Swedish?

French actually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_the_giant

If you talked to him, it's not God, Allah, Yahweh, Jehova, etc.

"Wait, wait, Reason, come back"
"No way, dude. I'm simply not that flexible. I think I broke a hip."
"Logic, you don't have to follow him."
"What's the point of staying? It's not like this dude has any use for me."

I think the thread is dieing please let it go in peace.

I think the thread is dieing please let it go in peace.

It's more fun this way. Plus, it can't officially die without a couple of posts of a poster bashing the idea of faith, but using faith. It's a delicious irony loop. And unlike Fruit Loops, it won't ever hurt the top of your mouth and you never run out. Plus... stays crunchy in milk.

If you talked to him, it's not God, Allah, Yahweh, Jehova, etc.

No, it is Smedley. I know because I have him over for poker on Tuesdays.

LIPS, damnit. It was supposed to be LIPS :p

I have to admit... I'm coming down on the side of licking WYTYG's hips, actually. Well - of her licking them. Or something.


You know what I mean.

(You just can't type it...) :p

French actually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_the_giant

Neither, any more. :(

I think the thread is dieing please let it go in peace.

I love when posters quote themselves and the quotes are really lame, by the way. It saves a lot of time.

It's more fun this way. Plus, it can't officially die without a couple of posts of a poster bashing the idea of faith, but using faith. It's a delicious irony loop. And unlike Fruit Loops, it won't ever hurt the top of your mouth and you never run out. Plus... stays crunchy in milk.

Ok ok

Moses to the Hebrews "God has given us these 10 commandments"

......

"#5 You shall not kill"

"#6 you -"

God to moses " Yo Moses go wipe out that city they refuse to believe in me"

Will that work for ya?

Ok ok

Moses to the Hebrews "God has given us these 10 commandments"

......

"#5 You shall not kill"

"#6 you -"

God to moses " Yo Moses go wipe out that city they refuse to believe in me"

Will that work for ya?Do you have any info on this "Moses to the Hebrews" thing that is not based on the Tanakh? Any independent confirmation?

Do you have any info on this "Moses to the Hebrews" thing that is not based on the Tanakh? Any independent confirmation?

Yes, try watching Mel Brooks' acclaimed documentary "History of the World: Part 1".

Do you have any info on this "Moses to the Hebrews" thing that is not based on the Tanakh? Any independent confirmation?

I was there.

What I don't understand is why do the creationists believe that the majority of scientists are wrong? Are scientists stupid? If they are, then I guess our entire education system is garbage and all the degrees are worthless. The drug companies and medical research centers should fire all their research scientists and replace them with what?

Maybe the scientists are lying? So what we have is over 100 years of conspiracy and for what reason? They are risking casting doubt on the whole scientific method if the conspiracy is ever uncovered, and for what? Don't tell me it's to prove that God doesn't exist, there are many believers in evolution that also believe in God (just check some of the posts on this thread).

If anyone has an agenda, it's the creationists to prove that their beliefs are right. See, that is the true problem with science. Science does not care in what you believe in, it only cares about finding the truth with no concern over your feelings. That is why science has always been viewed as dangerous by those in power and why those in authourity have always tried to control science. It is why politics and science don't mix.

Here is a quote that I absolutely love and have posted in my cubicle. Just replace the word thought with science since they a synonymous.

I think the "Creationist vs science" idea is a byproduct of the thought processes of fundamentalist Christianity- because their ideas tend to fall on the outside of mainstream thought, many fundamentalist Christians believe they're "oppressed" and, to combat this apparent oppression, they must zealously oppose themselves any thought that conflicts with their views. If you watch the first few minutes of the first video (in the original post), the woman will state that she wishes to present "an unbalanced view of the facts" and then proceeds to presnt the exact opposite- an inherently biased view that constructs a strawman for the opposing side and then claims it's "unbalanced". I've seen a similar tactic by a pro-life group at York University (where I went to school)- they claimed they were presenting "an unbalanced view of the facts" and then turned around by constructing strawman arguments for every pro-choice argument they could think of, thinking that presents a seemingly unbiased view of the debate. Now, I'm not arguing that the abortion debate and the origins debate are the same thing because they're not- abortion is an ethical concern, the origins debate is, well, only a "debate" to those who oppose it- those who understand the science behind the origins don't see a debate, at least not on the level of Creationists (scientists might debate how evolution happened but not that it did). However, the thought process behind both are the same- fundamentalist Christians misconstrue a lack of support for their ideas as "oppression" and thus have to get zealous about their own ideas to counteract it- when they should work on making their own arguments more sound instead.

I was there.

but admit it... you were sleeping at the time... :p

but admit it... you were sleeping at the time... :p

Can you blame him? That Moses is one long-winded bastard.

I think the "Creationist vs science" idea is a byproduct of the thought processes of fundamentalist Christianity- because their ideas tend to fall on the outside of mainstream thought, many fundamentalist Christians believe they're "oppressed" and, to combat this apparent oppression, they must zealously oppose themselves any thought that conflicts with their views. If you watch the first few minutes of the first video (in the original post), the woman will state that she wishes to present "an unbalanced view of the facts" and then proceeds to presnt the exact opposite- an inherently biased view that constructs a strawman for the opposing side and then claims it's "unbalanced". I've seen a similar tactic by a pro-life group at York University (where I went to school)- they claimed they were presenting "an unbalanced view of the facts" and then turned around by constructing strawman arguments for every pro-choice argument they could think of, thinking that presents a seemingly unbiased view of the debate. Now, I'm not arguing that the abortion debate and the origins debate are the same thing because they're not- abortion is an ethical concern, the origins debate is, well, only a "debate" to those who oppose it- those who understand the science behind the origins don't see a debate, at least not on the level of Creationists (scientists might debate how evolution happened but not that it did). However, the thought process behind both are the same- fundamentalist Christians misconstrue a lack of support for their ideas as "oppression" and thus have to get zealous about their own ideas to counteract it- when they should work on making their own arguments more sound instead.

Good points. I've never understood their (the fundamentalist Christians) thinking that any questioning of their beliefs is somehow a personal attack against those beliefs or Christians in general. I was always taught to question everything and I believe that is the best way to live life. You have less of a chance of being ripped off, manipulated, duped, lied to and oppressed. It's probably the reason I like science so much.

Good points. I've never understood their (the fundamentalist Christians) thinking that any questioning of their beliefs is somehow a personal attack against those beliefs or Christians in general. I was always taught to question everything and I believe that is the best way to live life. You have less of a chance of being ripped off, manipulated, duped, lied to and oppressed. It's probably the reason I like science so much.Well, questioning their beliefs is equivalent to telling them they're living their lives wrong.

Well, questioning their beliefs is equivalent to telling them they're living their lives wrong.

Not to many Christians. My life wouldn't be all that different if I were to find out for sure that God does not exist. I'm not a child who behaves out of fear of punishment. I live by the principles I do because I think they're right. The fact that I worship the Lord and believe that these principles are principles he'd like for me to support is almost an aside.

However your response explains the fear and anger you express when people question your belief that God must not exist. I think it's unfortunate when people are afraid to examine their beliefs because their more concerned with appearing right than BEING right.

I was there.Did you make a recording?

Did you make a recording?

On what, stone tablets, maybe? Not like they had DVR back then.

On what, stone tablets, maybe? Not like they had DVR back then.

Clearly you have never seen the Flintstones.

Good points. I've never understood their (the fundamentalist Christians) thinking that any questioning of their beliefs is somehow a personal attack against those beliefs or Christians in general. I was always taught to question everything and I believe that is the best way to live life. You have less of a chance of being ripped off, manipulated, duped, lied to and oppressed. It's probably the reason I like science so much.

Well, questioning their beliefs is equivalent to telling them they're living their lives wrong.

I can understand why someone might get apprehensive at the thought of challenging their views, because what you believe is very much a part of "you". Standing up for what you believe in is okay, but if you can't at least consider the idea that your beliefs *can* change if the situation changes, then you can't grow. Societies don't grow unless they adapt to challenges, and that doesn't happen unless there is a willingness to adapt. The fudamentalist Christian camp, instead of considering the idea that their beliefs might need "fine tuning" (without having to alter the basic essence of their faith), lash out at any opponent, confusing "energy" with "reason". To them, they may think their enthusiasm makes them appear confident, but to outsiders, their overzealousness just makes them appear weak and ridiculous- and, ultimately, irrelevant. There was a line in Boston Public that summed it up perfectly- "you're shouting but nobody's listening". I know that line was said in a differemt context, but it's precisely what Creationists do- they shout but in doing so appear silent because the majority have just learned to tune them out.

I will say that not all fundamentalist Christians are this overzealous- I'm friends with one and he's one of the most laid-back guys I know (he's very respectful, but unfortunately he's the exception rather than the rule). However, I will also add that the fundamentalist zeal- and what I think is Christian institutions' own stubbornness- is what draws me away from them. They've strayed so far away from the Message by inventing meaningless rules that I can't see myself being a part of any of them. I still consider myself a Christian but I refuse to affiliate myself with any group, mostly because they're too stuck on "the rules" (and in the past) and not enough on the Faith. Jesus said to love your neighbour as you would yourself (Mark 12:31), yet the institutions do the opposite- opposing themselves with everyone. Thus, I choose not associate with them.

Rome: Paragraphs are your friend. Until you realize that, I refuse to read your posts. Not because I don't like you or your ideas, far from it, but my eyes are screwed up enough without having to read a wall of text.

Thank you.

I can understand why someone might get apprehensive at the thought of challenging their views, because what you believe is very much a part of "you". Standing up for what you believe in is okay, but if you can't at least consider the idea that your beliefs *can* change if the situation changes, then you can't grow. Societies don't grow unless they adapt to challenges, and that doesn't happen unless there is a willingness to adapt. The fudamentalist Christian camp, instead of considering the idea that their beliefs might need "fine tuning" (without having to alter the basic essence of their faith), lash out at any opponent, confusing "energy" with "reason". To them, they may think their enthusiasm makes them appear confident, but to outsiders, their overzealousness just makes them appear weak and ridiculous- and, ultimately, irrelevant. There was a line in Boston Public that summed it up perfectly- "you're shouting but nobody's listening". I know that line was said in a differemt context, but it's precisely what Creationists do- they shout but in doing so appear silent because the majority have just learned to tune them out.

I will say that not all fundamentalist Christians are this overzealous- I'm friends with one and he's one of the most laid-back guys I know (he's very respectful, but unfortunately he's the exception rather than the rule). However, I will also add that the fundamentalist zeal- and what I think is Christian institutions' own stubbornness- is what draws me away from them. They've strayed so far away from the Message by inventing meaningless rules that I can't see myself being a part of any of them. I still consider myself a Christian but I refuse to affiliate myself with any group, mostly because they're too stuck on "the rules" (and in the past) and not enough on the Faith. Jesus said to love your neighbour as you would yourself (Mark 12:31), yet the institutions do the opposite- opposing themselves with everyone. Thus, I choose not associate with them.

From a scriptural POV, part of the problem with Christian Fundamentalism, IMO, is that they seem often to place more importance in the words of Paul, rather than those of Jesus. I've often felt that they should really be called "Paulists" rather than Christians.

From a scriptural POV, part of the problem with Christian Fundamentalism, IMO, is that they seem often to place more importance in the words of Paul, rather than those of Jesus. I've often felt that they should really be called "Paulists" rather than Christians.

As well, they consider the English version to be exactly the same as the original texts, and that mistranslations cannot happen. As anyone who has ever studied language would tell them, however, is that when you try to translate from one language to another, discrepencies always arise. Even moreso when the two languages are from completely different language families(As is with English and the original texts of the Bible). Add to that several rounds of translations, from one language to the next, and the problems only extrapolate.

As well, English speakers, with little or no background in languages, often time have a hard time comprehending the structures of other languages, and much can be lost if proper context is not understood.

As well, they consider the English version to be exactly the same as the original texts, and that mistranslations cannot happen. As anyone who has ever studied language would tell them, however, is that when you try to translate from one language to another, discrepencies always arise. Even moreso when the two languages are from completely different language families(As is with English and the original texts of the Bible). Add to that several rounds of translations, from one language to the next, and the problems only extrapolate.

As well, English speakers, with little or no background in languages, often time have a hard time comprehending the structures of other languages, and much can be lost if proper context is not understood.

I believe the following to be true (sadly):

Most christians don't know who many of the people mentioned and quoted in the bible are.

Most christians have no idea where the bible was created.

Most christians have no idea how the bible was created.

Most christians have no idea why the bible was created.

Most christians have no idea when the bible was created.

Most christians don't know what, when the bible was created, was left out, and why.


That in itself is grounds for a smack across the face to anyone who uses the bible as a source for anything doesn't know that information.

I believe the following to be true (sadly):

Most christians don't know who many of the people mentioned and quoted in the bible are.

Most christians have no idea where the bible was created.

Most christians have no idea how the bible was created.

Most christians have no idea why the bible was created.

Most christians have no idea when the bible was created.

Most christians don't know what, when the bible was created, was left out, and why.And most christians have no clue what else happened in the eras that the bible refers to, they have no historical context.

Rome: Paragraphs are your friend. Until you realize that, I refuse to read your posts. Not because I don't like you or your ideas, far from it, but my eyes are screwed up enough without having to read a wall of text.

Thank you.

Sorry. I tend to write long paragraphs because I like explaining myself- if I just write a single line I might not get my point across, that's all.

I'm also a writer (as a hobby), so part of that is seeping through here.

As well, they consider the English version to be exactly the same as the original texts, and that mistranslations cannot happen. As anyone who has ever studied language would tell them, however, is that when you try to translate from one language to another, discrepencies always arise. Even moreso when the two languages are from completely different language families(As is with English and the original texts of the Bible). Add to that several rounds of translations, from one language to the next, and the problems only extrapolate.

As well, English speakers, with little or no background in languages, often time have a hard time comprehending the structures of other languages, and much can be lost if proper context is not understood.

I believe the following to be true (sadly):

Most christians don't know who many of the people mentioned and quoted in the bible are.

Most christians have no idea where the bible was created.

Most christians have no idea how the bible was created.

Most christians have no idea why the bible was created.

Most christians have no idea when the bible was created.

Most christians don't know what, when the bible was created, was left out, and why.


That in itself is grounds for a smack across the face to anyone who uses the bible as a source for anything doesn't know that information.

Both of you are right. My favourite example is the "anti-fornication verses"- both the word used for the verses is mistranslated and the verses are taken terribly out of context. The word translated as "fornication" in the English-language version is "porneia", which is the Greek word for "harlot". I'm told the word can have various different meanings depending on conext, but the strict definition is "harlot"- or, a prostitute.

As far as context goes, there would be a good reason to ban pre-marital sex in those times- considering that people were getting married at 14 (because their lives were much shorter then), "fornication" would be tantamount to "statuatory rape". Thus, the intention then is much different than it is now.

From a scriptural POV, part of the problem with Christian Fundamentalism, IMO, is that they seem often to place more importance in the words of Paul, rather than those of Jesus. I've often felt that they should really be called "Paulists" rather than Christians.

I've never heard this assessment before, but I'm curious- how did you arrive at that?

From a scriptural POV, part of the problem with Christian Fundamentalism, IMO, is that they seem often to place more importance in the words of Paul, rather than those of Jesus. I've often felt that they should really be called "Paulists" rather than Christians.That's mainly because wasn't illiterate like Jesus. He wrote stuff, Jesus is only quoted by folks living a generation later.

That's mainly because wasn't illiterate like Jesus. He wrote stuff, Jesus is only quoted by folks living a generation later.

I don't know if literacy would have anything to do with it (that, and there's nothing in the Bible that says Jesus was illiterate). You might be able to claim that Jesus' Words were misquoted by His listeners, but, in theory anyway, if one was going to look at the Bible and judge which verses are "most important" it's Jesus' Words- because Jesus is the central figure in Christianity.

I believe the Fundamentalists put no extra weight on any part of the Bible and make it *all* "equal"- meaning that they can take any quote they want and spin it in any way they like, regardless of whether or not the quote is taken in context.

Now, as far as Paul is concerned, I think he gets quoted a lot more than Jesus does because Paul wrote extensively on what Jesus said- or, rather, what He meant. Since the bulk of Jesus' teachings were in parables, they had to be interpreted and Paul did that- maybe not specifically, but he did analyze Jesus' Message and applied it to his times. Also, I believe Paul's writings- combined- are longer than the Gospel (I'd have to check that though), so volume may also play a part in why he gets quoted more than Jesus.

Well after 110 pages evolution is up by 500 and I still don't see any serious out-and-out creationists, a few people who are highly skeptical of evolution but no one has posted that evolution is impossible and God is the only answer, and yet creationism has 113 votes.

Well after 110 pages evolution is up by 500 and I still don't see any serious out-and-out creationists, a few people who are highly skeptical of evolution but no one has posted that evolution is impossible and God is the only answer, and yet creationism has 113 votes.

What is this, the never ending thread or something? Let it die.

What is this, the never ending thread or something? Let it die.

Everytime you right let it die the thread lives on. I don't really want it to die because it was sp succesful.

I don't know if literacy would have anything to do with it (that, and there's nothing in the Bible that says Jesus was illiterate).Jesus was a carpenter and had most likely no access to a proper education including learning to read or write. And he wrote nothing that is now in the Bible. If this "son of god" (as if) really had a message to deliver, then he should have done it in a more solid fashion. He probably should have rather changed his job to chiseler (he he), so he could leave his message in stone like the pharaohs or Hammurabi.

What is this, the never ending thread or something? Let it die.Better to have one lasting thread than many short ones.

Yeah but this thread doesn't get older, it just goes round and round through the same arguments without getting anywhere. Where's that groundhog?

Yeah but this thread doesn't get older, it just goes round and round through the same arguments without getting anywhere. Where's that groundhog?We should at least keep this thread alive until the Creationist option falls below 15%. Although, of course, it is already pretty clear that Creationists are the losers here, and not just here :p

Did you make a recording?

Yes.

Yeah but this thread doesn't get older, it just goes round and round through the same arguments without getting anywhere.

Sounds like the Creationist movement in a nutshell.

Jesus was a carpenter and had most likely no access to a proper education including learning to read or write. And he wrote nothing that is now in the Bible. If this "son of god" (as if) really had a message to deliver, then he should have done it in a more solid fashion. He probably should have rather changed his job to chiseler (he he), so he could leave his message in stone like the pharaohs or Hammurabi.

A.N.Wilson makes an interesting case for Joseph having been a scholar rather than a carpenter. He suggests that the NT account of an infant Jesus arguing with the scholars could be a distorted and half-remembered tale of a true event.

Yes.Can you put it on youtube, please?

Can you put it on youtube, please?

Can't. Ever seen Dogma?

Can you put it on youtube, please?

Can't. Ever seen Dogma?

We wouldn't want you to explode, now.

Can't. Ever seen Dogma?Yes, and?

We wouldn't want you to explode, now.According to what CthulhuFhtagn claims, CthulhuFhtagn already has.

Yes, and?

Your head would explode if you listened to it. See, Smedley was speaking at the time.

According to what CthulhuFhtagn claims, CthulhuFhtagn already has.

I'm not a mortal, so I can listen to it just fine.

I'm not a mortal, so I can listen to it just fine.I'm not a mortal either, so I could listen to it just fine.

I'm not a mortal either, so I could listen to it just fine.

Yeah, but anyone else who listened to it would die. So there. Plus, you are a mortal. You got retconned.

Yeah, but anyone else who listened to it would die.I can suffer that.

So there. Plus, you are a mortal. You got retconned.No way.

There are 111 pages to this thread? What have you guys been doing while I've been gone?

There are 111 pages to this thread? What have you guys been doing while I've been gone?Just waiting to see the Creationist option drop in percentage.

Better to have one lasting thread than many short ones.

Besides, I have a good discussion going here...

Sounds like the Creationist movement in a nutshell.

Yeah, and they're just wasting everyone's time in doing so. No wonder they get so little play in science journals.

Jesus was a carpenter and had most likely no access to a proper education including learning to read or write. And he wrote nothing that is now in the Bible. If this "son of god" (as if) really had a message to deliver, then he should have done it in a more solid fashion. He probably should have rather changed his job to chiseler (he he), so he could leave his message in stone like the pharaohs or Hammurabi.

Jesus wasn't a conventional preacher- He associated with people who were universally despised (like Matthew the tax collector) and preached a message that was considerably different than what was expected (Jews were hoping for a "fire and brimstone" Saviour who'd remove them from the shackles of Roman rule, and Jesus instead preached kindness and forgiveness, on top of supporting the Roman Emperor ("give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar"). Plus, since His target was the masses, writing things down didn't serve much of a purpose at the time- it's not like those who were listening could read what He said. You could make the case, historically, that Jesus wasn't likely to be literate since He didn't leave any writings Himself, but at the same time, an absence of writings is no indication that He definitively couldn't write, because we just may find one day a book of His writings.

A.N.Wilson makes an interesting case for Joseph having been a scholar rather than a carpenter. He suggests that the NT account of an infant Jesus arguing with the scholars could be a distorted and half-remembered tale of a true event.

I don't even think you'd need that explanation to prove Jesus' intelligence- He could very well have been a "boy genius". Joseph's profession has no bearing on Jesus' ability to comprehend, and, besides, there's nothing suggesting that Joseph could have been a smart person himself- he just chose, for whatever reason, not to pursue scholarship when he had the abilities to do so.

There are 111 pages to this thread? What have you guys been doing while I've been gone?

Jumping at every chance to challenge a creationist/disprove their "theories"/etc.

Without any of them left this thread is running on fumes.

Jumping at every chance to challenge a creationist/disprove their "theories"/etc.

Without any of them left this thread is running on fumes.

And people asking why the thread still lives.

Should I try to be a Creationist for an hour just so we can keep the thread alive? :p

Jesus was a carpenter and had most likely no access to a proper education including learning to read or write. And he wrote nothing that is now in the Bible. If this "son of god" (as if) really had a message to deliver, then he should have done it in a more solid fashion. He probably should have rather changed his job to chiseler (he he), so he could leave his message in stone like the pharaohs or Hammurabi.

We can't even prove Jesus existed, let alone his trade. Looking at the text as evidence, Jesus isn't necessarily a carpenter - but he is raised in the artisan class. He might even have carved rock... so much for your joke. There is no reason to assume he MUST have been illiterate - especially considering the political and social climate of where he lived. A meeting point of (at least) two classic cultures, raised in a third culture which highly prized the ability to read and discuss the religious material...

We can't even prove Jesus existed, let alone his trade. Looking at the text as evidence, Jesus isn't necessarily a carpenter - but he is raised in the artisan class. He might even have carved rock... so much for your joke. There is no reason to assume he MUST have been illiterate - especially considering the political and social climate of where he lived. A meeting point of (at least) two classic cultures, raised in a third culture which highly prized the ability to read and discuss the religious material...So where are his writings? For the alleged son/incarnation of God it shouldn't be so hard to leave his message directly and unmistakably.

So where are his writings? For the alleged son/incarnation of God it shouldn't be so hard to leave his message directly and unmistakably.

It does not follow that if he has no writings he was not literate. Do you have evidence he was illiterate. It was your claim and all.

Jesus was a carpenter and had most likely no access to a proper education including learning to read or write. And he wrote nothing that is now in the Bible. If this "son of god" (as if) really had a message to deliver, then he should have done it in a more solid fashion. He probably should have rather changed his job to chiseler (he he), so he could leave his message in stone like the pharaohs or Hammurabi.

Doesn't the bible jump from age 13ish to age 30ish in Jesus' life? If that's true, anything could've happened in that time period.

Doesn't the bible jump from age 13ish to age 30ish in Jesus' life? If that's true, anything could've happened in that time period.yes, like other craftspeople in his business he would have traveled and made tables, boards, chairs, etc. and there were no public schools in those days, let alone for the ordinary folks.

yes, like other craftspeople in his business he would have traveled and made tables, boards, chairs, etc. and there were no public schools in those days, let alone for the ordinary folks.

So you're going to play the odds to make a declaration, despite ignoring why the odds might be different.

You have a man educated on the scriptures. A man who openly challenged a leader by saying "have you not read" which of course would leave him wide open if he was illiterate. A man who is reported to have written on the ground (though it's possible that he only made images on the ground and the delivery in that text was simply imprecise). All things point to an educated man.

So you have two choices. Stick with your assertion that he didn't exist, or offer some actual evidence he was illiterate.

So you're going to play the odds to make a declaration, despite ignoring why the odds might be different.

You have a man educated on the scriptures. A man who openly challenged a leader by saying "have you not read" which of course would leave him wide open if he was illiterate. A man who is reported to have written on the ground (though it's possible that he only made images on the ground and the delivery in that text was simply imprecise). All things point to an educated man.

So you have two choices. Stick with your assertion that he didn't exist, or offer some actual evidence he was illiterate.

Not to mention the fact that the only evidence being brought to bear (ie. "He didn't write anything down) really seems like a silly complaint in the face of the fact that Jesus' ministry was very short in duration, with him traveling throughout. That, and most ancient teachers taught orally, with their students possibly eventually writing down their teachings. Why should Jesus have been any different?

Not to mention the fact that the only evidence being brought to bear (ie. "He didn't write anything down) really seems like a silly complaint in the face of the fact that Jesus' ministry was very short in duration, with him traveling throughout. That, and most ancient teachers taught orally, with their students possibly eventually writing down their teachings. Why should Jesus have been any different?

Because Jesus supposedly had superpowers and in addition knew when he was going to die ?

Because Jesus supposedly had superpowers and in addition knew when he was going to die ?

Counterpoint'd.

Because Jesus supposedly had superpowers and in addition knew when he was going to die ?

Well, it would seem that his message is still availabe 2000 years ago. So, it would seem writing it himself was unnecessary. And, of course, he would know that, but they same logic you just claimed.

Well, it would seem that his message is still availabe 2000 years ago. So, it would seem writing it himself was unnecessary. And, of course, he would know that, but they same logic you just claimed.

But again you're just assuming it's his message. We've only heard it through the words of other people.

Well, it would seem that his message is still availabe 2000 years ago. So, it would seem writing it himself was unnecessary.
Assuming he existed, his message is however perverted and based on thirdhand information at best.

And, of course, he would know that, but they same logic you just claimed.
That he knew when he was going to die was due to God telling him (and taking a path that had a very high risk of leading there even if that had not been the case). It doesn't mean he was allknowing.

Wow, off topic? How did creation vs evolution turn into a Christianity true/false debate?

Seems to me that the whole thing centers around whether living things can actually evolve and whether they were created. So much for a stereotypical question, are the two even mutually exclusive?

The answer to whether living things can evolve depends on the definition of evolve and the general scientific consensus is that they can. Or so I think...

As to whether living things were actually created (by a supernatural being or otherwise), I fail to see the logical connection between that and whether living things could evolve. While if anyone showed that living things could and did evolve with absolute certainty is going debunk quite a number of creationist hypothesises (the actual proof of evolution beside the point), it certainly does not completely rule out the possiblity of living things being created at any point in the history of Earth.

Perhaps we could redefine the question as two parts:

Which creationist hypothesises would be debunked if evolution of living creatures in the past was proven beyond any doubt? (not just reasonable doubt)

And

Is evolution proved beyond reasonable doubt? (Proving it beyond any doubt would be quite a feat, there's always the what if [insert extremely improbable event here] scenario...)

Perhaps we could redefine the question as two parts

You need a third part:
Would Creationism be proven beyond reasonable doubt if evolution is proven wrong ?

The answer to that is "of course not". If I prove that most apples are not purple, it does not mean they must all be white.

snip

Hey, this guy's trying to get us back on-topic! Get him!

Interesting point... Nice flipping of the question, it didn't occur to me to think of the other side... (smacks forehead)

Well, I would say that creationism would be required to meet certain criteria to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, just like everything else. The criteria would however vary between each hypothesis.

Proving evolution wrong doesn't do anything for creationism though the process might throw some light on the matter...

Hey I didn't say "snip"...

Assuming he existed, his message is however perverted and based on thirdhand information at best.

How do you know it's perverted? Perhaps it's exactly as he intended. Or do your assumptions he must have acted just as you predict extend for 2000 years.

Remember that faith is important part of the process. I'd say if the goal was to seperate those that would worship out of fear or angst and those who have pure faith in the message, I'd say how things turned out are perfect for doing exactly that.

That he knew when he was going to die was due to God telling him (and taking a path that had a very high risk of leading there even if that had not been the case). It doesn't mean he was allknowing.

And what does knowing he's going to die mean? That he could no long trust his disciples to spread his message? Oh, wait, that's right. They did.

Your argument isn't an argument at all. It's the same argument people use to claim God is evil. "If I were him and had X quality, I'd do this, therefore if he didn't he doesn't have X quality." It's a flawed argument.

Interesting point... Nice flipping of the question, it didn't occur to me to think of the other side... (smacks forehead)

You are not the only one. Which, sadly, is exactly what the ID and creationism proponents have wanted to achieve. They do not present a case as to why their hypothesis is correct, they just attack a competitor and suggest that if that competitor is wrong, they must be right. And that second part is what stays in peoples minds.
One must admire their knowledge of the human psyche.

How do you know it's perverted? Perhaps it's exactly as he intended. Or do your assumptions he must have acted just as you predict extend for 2000 years.
There literally exist thousands of flavours of Christianity. Most of them contradict eachother on quite a few issues. They cannot all be right.

And what does knowing he's going to die mean?
That he would not have time to write things later. The question was asked why Jesus would have behaved differently from other scribes. This is a possible reason.

Your argument isn't an argument at all.
It is for the thing it addresses. That it isn't an argument for something else is irrelevant.

There literally exist thousands of flavours of Christianity. Most of them contradict eachother on quite a few issues. They cannot all be right.

"Cannot all be right" doesn't mean they don't have value in the eyes of God.


That he would not have time to write things later. The question was asked why Jesus would have behaved differently from other scribes. This is a possible reason.

He was passing his message to people who could write things later.


It is for the thing it addresses. That it isn't an argument for something else is irrelevant.

It's not an argument at all. You didn't live then. You aren't the son of God. How you would behave if you were is irrelevant.

But again you're just assuming it's his message. We've only heard it through the words of other people.

We assume that just about every ancient teacher's message really was his own through the writings of his students.


That he would not have time to write things later. The question was asked why Jesus would have behaved differently from other scribes. This is a possible reason.

The question was why we should expect that Jesus would be any different from other teachers. I still don't see a reason to expect it. If Jesus had chosen to be different, then we could be looking for a reason why.

But again you're just assuming it's his message. We've only heard it through the words of other people.

I've not been given a reason to assume it's not His message. Many, hell, most teachings we get from ancient times have been filtered by other people in some way. Translations. Transcriptions. Etc. We have ONLY very few originally documents from that long ago. To suggest I should reject things because of that filter is absurd. I've got no reason to believe the current message is any less accurate than if Jesus Himself had written it.

We assume that just about every ancient teacher's message really was his own through the writings of his students. Yeah, but those folks are not supposedly God.

Yeah, but those folks are not supposedly God.

God as man. Perhaps God did not want to act differently from other teachers.

There are, of course, also many different interpretations as to just how Christ could be both God and man, some of which would rather limit him during his time here.

Yeah, but those folks are not supposedly God.

Again, on what experience do you base any assumption that God in the form of a man would act differently than other teachers of that time period? Certainly, you MUST have a rational explanation for your assumption.

So where are his writings? For the alleged son/incarnation of God it shouldn't be so hard to leave his message directly and unmistakably.

Where are your writings?

I haven't seen anything you've ever written (except these conversations in this place), so I assume you are either illiterate, or non existant.

Right?

The Hebrew scripture talks about Israel as a priest to the world. Jesus would be this concept incarnate. Maybe he could have made his mission writing, but then - perhaps being a priest was more important - and it was assumed that discussion OF his ministry would be sufficient?

yes, like other craftspeople in his business he would have traveled and made tables, boards, chairs, etc. and there were no public schools in those days, let alone for the ordinary folks.

Like in many other ages, education in that time and place was largely handled by the church, and mostly of a religious nature. This isn't an obstacle if we are assuming that we are talking about Jesus learning to read, write and discuss in the realm of theology.

Because Jesus supposedly had superpowers and in addition knew when he was going to die ?

And?

If the purpose of the ministry is to be SEEN to do wonders, even direct writing in the hand-of-god, is not as valuable as just wandering around being Israel's answer to Miracle Max.

And?

If the purpose of the ministry is to be SEEN to do wonders, even direct writing in the hand-of-god, is not as valuable as just wandering around being Israel's answer to Miracle Max.Judah's answer. At most.

There literally exist thousands of flavours of Christianity. Most of them contradict eachother on quite a few issues. They cannot all be right.


Not strictly true. What if salvation and damnation are entirely subjective - as is a relationship with God?

For each of us, our universe with (or without) God could be entirely personal... and thus, even absolute conflict between stories, would be no guarantee they were 'wrong'.

Judah's answer. At most.

This makes no sense.

As I pointed out, the Hebrew scripture talks about an entire 'people' being raised to be a priesthood to the world. If Jesus DID live, and his ministry IS a real event... then where he wandered is irrelevent - his 'mission' reached far beyond Judah.

Like in many other ages, education in that time and place was largely handled by the church, and mostly of a religious nature. This isn't an obstacle if we are assuming that we are talking about Jesus learning to read, write and discuss in the realm of theology.
What church? The Temple authority? Where did Jesus grow up at all? And why would he have access to education? Where would he have had access to education?

This makes no sense.

As I pointed out, the Hebrew scripture talks about an entire 'people' being raised to be a priesthood to the world. If Jesus DID live, and his ministry IS a real event... then where he wandered is irrelevent - his 'mission' reached far beyond Judah.What Hebrew scripture? And by the time of Jesus only Judah remained of the tribes of what we assume was once Israel based on Jewish texts.
And who would have raised this 'people' to priesthood? The deity which this very 'people' made up, so they could say he elevated them to such priesthood?

What church? The Temple authority? Where did Jesus grow up at all? And why would he have access to education? Where would he have had access to education?

You need to pick a side.

I don't accept the literal existence of a biblical Jesus - but I don't think I can rule it out completely.

If we are going to debate in the frame of reference of a biblical Jesus - then we kind of know some of the details already. We know he attended temple, and that his family were at least observant enough to attend major religious rites. We even have a couple of points at which we can pinpoint where he would have been.

On the other hand, if we are going to debate outside of a biblical Jesus, then arguments about 'where he received his education' are a waste of breath.

I have no problems differentiating between the two scenarios - but you seem to be using one to try to validate or invalidate the other.

What Hebrew scripture? And by the time of Jesus only Judah remained of the tribes of what we assume was once Israel based on Jewish texts.
And who would have raised this 'people' to priesthood? The deity which this very 'people' made up, so they could say he elevated them to such priesthood?

Again, you seem to be unable to switch modes.

We can discuss whether or not the bible is true. Sure.

We can discuss, assuming that the bible is (mainly) true, the claims made within the text.

You seem to be having a problem with this - you don't seem to be able to get past 'assuming that the bible is true'.

As for giving you a hand-in-hand guide to the scripture, I feel disinclined to spend that much time on something you really should already know, if you really feel you can be so categorical about the truth of scripture.

I've not been given a reason to assume it's not His message. Many, hell, most teachings we get from ancient times have been filtered by other people in some way. Translations. Transcriptions. Etc. We have ONLY very few originally documents from that long ago. To suggest I should reject things because of that filter is absurd. I've got no reason to believe the current message is any less accurate than if Jesus Himself had written it.

Other than the fact that Jesus himself -didn't- write it. Your friggin' soul is on the line here, with the punishment possibly being eternal damnation in a place of fire and brimstone and pain that lasts forever.

You'd think he'd want to be CLEAR what he really wanted. Sure, all these thousands of versions of christianity might have value in the eyes of god, but then again they could all be a game of russian roulette where all the chambers except one are filled. We - don't - know. That's fucked up that he didn't write out the longest book ever written, explaining in detail what will or will not fuck you over in the long run. A whole book full of red words is the only way you can truly be sure you're doing what Jesus wanted, otherwise you're just guessing. If guessing was enough, then why would god even bother telling us "Oh hey all those Roman gods are false, and worshipping them will most likely screw you over in the laughterlife. Just thought you'd wanna know."?

Either he wants us to do specific things, believe specific things, worship specific things in specific ways, or he doesn't really care what we think of him (which could infer many things, from "he's a dick" to "he's a loving, aloof deity").

Personally I can't be satisfied with simple guesswork, so I'm an agnostic. Everything's on the table, as ridiculous as some possibilities may seem (Scientology!) they're still on the table, because I have no fuckin' clue what god wants, who he is, or anything else. I do, however, mock every single thing on that table.

Personally I can't be satisfied with simple guesswork, so I'm an agnostic. Everything's on the table, as ridiculous as some possibilities may seem (Scientology!) they're still on the table, because I have no fuckin' clue what god wants, who he is, or anything else. I do, however, mock every single thing on that table.
Word.

If God didn't intend for me to laugh at His creation, then He shouldn't have invented kangaroos.

Word.

If God didn't intend for me to laugh at His creation, then He shouldn't have invented kangaroos.

Flying squirrels!

PLATYPUS!

Flying squirrels!

PLATYPUS!

Platypi, since you're going with plurals.

Word.

If God didn't intend for me to laugh at His creation, then He shouldn't have invented kangaroos.


Flying squirrels!

PLATYPUS!

...and this is why I am agnostic about the existence of Australia.

Platypi, since you're going with plurals.

There is no universally agreed upon plural of "platypus" in the English language. Scientists generally use "platypuses", "platypoda", or simply "platypus". Colloquially, "platypi" is also used for the plural, although this is pseudo-Latin.

(wikipedia)

Platypi, since you're going with plurals.

Actually, I meant it as singular. A single exclamation - not really putting the platypus in any kind of context other than that which one may yell at the top of his lungs as if to answer a question god had asked, which would obviously be "What's wrong?".

Other than the fact that Jesus himself -didn't- write it. Your friggin' soul is on the line here, with the punishment possibly being eternal damnation in a place of fire and brimstone and pain that lasts forever.

You've not established why this matters at all. Even if he had written it, it would have been filtered through 2000 years of people like almost everything we have from that time. There are still translations.

Using scribes at that time was typical. Not having himself put pen to paper really isn't significant unless you start with the assumption that it is.


You'd think he'd want to be CLEAR what he really wanted. Sure, all these thousands of versions of christianity might have value in the eyes of god, but then again they could all be a game of russian roulette where all the chambers except one are filled. We - don't - know. That's fucked up that he didn't write out the longest book ever written, explaining in detail what will or will not fuck you over in the long run. A whole book full of red words is the only way you can truly be sure you're doing what Jesus wanted, otherwise you're just guessing. If guessing was enough, then why would god even bother telling us "Oh hey all those Roman gods are false, and worshipping them will most likely screw you over in the laughterlife. Just thought you'd wanna know."?

Either he wants us to do specific things, believe specific things, worship specific things in specific ways, or he doesn't really care what we think of him (which could infer many things, from "he's a dick" to "he's a loving, aloof deity").

Personally I can't be satisfied with simple guesswork, so I'm an agnostic. Everything's on the table, as ridiculous as some possibilities may seem (Scientology!) they're still on the table, because I have no fuckin' clue what god wants, who he is, or anything else. I do, however, mock every single thing on that table.

Um, he didn't want us to believe specific things, do specific things, worship specific things. The message he passed was incredibly simple really.

Amusingly. You're starting with the assumption that massage we got ISN'T what he intended. Something entirely unverifiable.

Or Jesus could have written the "longest book ever writtent" and not been a preacher and no one would know who he was. Yep, good plan.

Oh, wait, if I assert that I'd be randomly guessing about things like you are. Some agnostic. I'm not sure about things I don't have evidence for except for this bunch of stuff over here that I could possibly know and like to assert since I don't want to let Christians be.

Come on, agnositic, make some more stuff up. This is fun.

Actually, I meant it as singular. A single exclamation - not really putting the platypus in any kind of context other than that which one may yell at the top of his lungs as if to answer a question god had asked, which would obviously be "What's wrong?".

That would make sense if not for the "kangarooS" and "flying squirrelS". Your inserting platypus into the same text.

You've not established why this matters at all. Even if he had written it, it would have been filtered through 2000 years of people like almost everything we have from that time. There are still translations.

Using scribes at that time was typical. Not having himself put pen to paper really isn't significant unless you start with the assumption that it is.


There are translations, yes. So either god made sure it was translated with the message intact or he didn't. Correct?



Um, he didn't want us to believe specific things, do specific things, worship specific things. The message he passed was incredibly simple really.

How do you know?

Amusingly. You're starting with the assumption that massage we got ISN'T what he intended. Something entirely unverifiable.

I could go either way. I told you, EVERYTHING is on the table, but I question it all.

Or Jesus could have written the "longest book ever writtent" and not been a preacher and no one would know who he was. Yep, good plan.

Or he could've done both. Him being the son of god, I'd rather he be able to make the word of god appear before him in text in an instant, rather than be able to use water to get people drunk.

Oh, wait, if I assert that I'd be randomly guessing about things like you are. Some agnostic. I'm not sure about things I don't have evidence for except for this bunch of stuff over here that I could possibly know and like to assert since I don't want to let Christians be.

Again, I'm not sure about -anything-, but the subject here isn't about -anything-, it's about christianity (though the original subject was different, it's shifted), therefore I'm going to talk about christianity. If this were about scientology, I'd talk about scientology. If it were about Islam, I'd talk about that. If it were about Buddhism, that. If Pi, that. If cake, that.

So if you want me to talk about something other than the subject at hand, then create a new thread plox.

Come on, agnositic, make some more stuff up. This is fun.

It is, isn't it?

That would make sense if not for the "kangarooS" and "flying squirrelS". Your inserting platypus into the same text.

It was meant to be taken as such:

"Flying squirrels! (in an agreeing kind of tone)

(thoughtful silence... thoughtful silence...)

(sudden urgency)

PLATYPUS! (shouted to the sky)"


I should've finished that screenplay of my story "The Question, The Answer, And The Platypus" - it would've made more sense then.

There are translations, yes. So either god made sure it was translated with the message intact or he didn't. Correct?

I would say it's obvious He didn't, since some translations differ in message from others. Granted those translations are less accurate, but the idea that it's being translated by God is absurd.



How do you know?

Faith.


I could go either way. I told you, EVERYTHING is on the table, but I question it all.

Except your own assumptions that is.

Or he could've done both. Him being the son of god, I'd rather he be able to make the word of god appear before him in text in an instant, rather than be able to use water to get people drunk.

Not really His style, really, based on what we know. There aren't a lot of convenience miracles. Meanwhile, given the message still exists 2000 years later, there's no reason why it would be necessary other than one you made up.



Again, I'm not sure about -anything-, but the subject here isn't about -anything-, it's about christianity (though the original subject was different, it's shifted), therefore I'm going to talk about christianity. If this were about scientology, I'd talk about scientology. If it were about Islam, I'd talk about that. If it were about Buddhism, that. If Pi, that. If cake, that.

Except you're making assumptions about what Christ would do. Not very "unsure" of you. You don't know what you would do in Christ's shoes and you don't know what Christ would do if all the things Christians say about him are true. You don't know. You're making an assumption of what he would do and basing your argument on that. Logically invalid is logically invalid. Follow the logic, padawan. Or don't. But the latter isn't very agnostic.


So if you want me to talk about something other than the subject at hand, then create a new thread plox.

Um, no. Not sure what is unclear about references to your assumptions. I didn't say you can't talk about possibilities. You are suggesting it would have or should have gone down a certain way in order to cast doubt. The problem is that your assumptions are equally doubtful and you're treating them as if they aren't. Bad form, old friend.


It is, isn't it?



It was meant to be taken as such:

"Flying squirrels! (in an agreeing kind of tone)

(thoughtful silence... thoughtful silence...)

(sudden urgency)

PLATYPUS! (shouted to the sky)"

Uh-huh. I was walking. Wait, don't read that as I was walking. What I mean was "I was" as in I'm used to exist. And then I saw someone walking. Don't know how you didn't figure that out.


I should've finished that screenplay of my story "The Question, The Answer, And The Platypus" - it would've made more sense then.

Heh.

I would say it's obvious He didn't, since some translations differ in message from others. Granted those translations are less accurate, but the idea that it's being translated by God is absurd.

Indeed. But if god wanted us to all have the chance to see his true message, wouldn't he have to use the holy spirit to make sure the translations didn't screw up anything from language to language?





Faith.


Exactly. Russian roulette.



Except your own assumptions that is.


I'm not really making any assumptions, I'm just saying it'd be easier, more effective, more logical, generally a better choice to do it such and such way, as opposed to such and such other way.

Then again, there could be certain circumstances in which this isn't true. I can't imagine what circumstances they would be, but it's possible.


Not really His style, really, based on what we know. There aren't a lot of convenience miracles. Meanwhile, given the message still exists 2000 years later, there's no reason why it would be necessary other than one you made up.

Convenience miracles? Like curing the blind, raising the dead, that sort of thing? He supposedly does that quite well.

I don't consider "providing proof and vessel of the word of god while ensuring the message will never be twisted or spun" to not so much be a 'convenience', so much as it would be a requirement. I think the better question is why WOULDN'T he do this?





Except you're making assumptions about what Christ would do. Not very "unsure" of you. You don't know what you would do in Christ's shoes and you don't know what Christ would do if all the things Christians say about him are true. You don't know. You're making an assumption of what he would do and basing your argument on that. Logically invalid is logically invalid. Follow the logic, padawan. Or don't. But the latter isn't very agnostic.

Right, but saying what he should've done (what I'm doing) and what he did or would do given the chance (what I'm not doing) are two completely different things. Saying what he should do is not assuming, it is suggesting.




Um, no. Not sure what is unclear about references to your assumptions. I didn't say you can't talk about possibilities. You are suggesting it would have or should have gone down a certain way in order to cast doubt. The problem is that your assumptions are equally doubtful and you're treating them as if they aren't. Bad form, old friend.

Doing no such thing. If you can cast doubt on anything I'm saying in a logical manner than please do, it'll only help us and the conversation, not to mention the thread.




Uh-huh. I was walking. Wait, don't read that as I was walking. What I mean was "I was" as in I'm used to exist. And then I saw someone walking. Don't know how you didn't figure that out.

Admittedly, I'm a terrible writer. You now know why that screenplay didn't get finished. =)




Heh.

<3

Indeed. But if god wanted us to all have the chance to see his true message, wouldn't he have to use the holy spirit to make sure the translations didn't screw up anything from language to language?

I don't pretend to know what God wants. Interesting that an agnostic would. I also don't pretend to know what God would do if He did want a particular thing. Interesting that an agnostic.




Exactly. Russian roulette.

Amusing. Faith and chance are not the same thing. That you don't recognize the difference doesn't mean there isn't one. Careful, you're slip is showing.



I'm not really making any assumptions, I'm just saying it'd be easier, more effective, more logical, generally a better choice to do it such and such way, as opposed to such and such other way.

Again, this is an assumtpion. Not something you've shown to be true. It relies on you knowing what the purpose was, that they could have had a better outcome, or that it wasn't by design. All are unfounded assumptions.


Then again, there could be certain circumstances in which this isn't true. I can't imagine what circumstances they would be, but it's possible.

Again, some agnostic. I really wish certain people would stop pretending. It's pretty sad.


Convenience miracles? Like curing the blind, raising the dead, that sort of thing? He supposedly does that quite well.

Which of those were for Jesus' convenience. I don't remember one. None were a substitute for Jesus' own work. Was there a teleportation in substitute of walking that I missed?


I don't consider "providing proof and vessel of the word of god while ensuring the message will never be twisted or spun" to not so much be a 'convenience', so much as it would be a requirement. I think the better question is why WOULDN'T he do this?

Again, you're assuming a purpose. I can answer why he wouldn't do it. Faith. God could appear to us today but it would remove the need for faith. That faith is unimportant to you doesn't mean that it's not important to others. Suggesting that Jesus and God would act against faith, because it happens to be helpful to your particular bias, is just an example of the flaw in your agnostic claim.


Right, but saying what he should've done (what I'm doing) and what he did or would do given the chance (what I'm not doing) are two completely different things. Saying what he should do is not assuming, it is suggesting.

You're assuming purpose. You're assuming that he didn't know certain things. That he wouldn't be happy with the outcome. And a plethora of other things. Outside of those assumptions there is no reason to suggest he didn't act exactly in the way that was most beneficial to his message. Is it possible, he didn't? Sure. But certainly we don't have the information to think it likely he didn't or even close to likely.


Doing no such thing. If you can cast doubt on anything I'm saying in a logical manner than please do, it'll only help us and the conversation, not to mention the thread.

I have. You are making unfounded assumptions just because they are necessary to your bias. If you were truly agnostic, you'd not be inclined to do so.


Admittedly, I'm a terrible writer. You now know why that screenplay didn't get finished. =)

<3

;)

I don't pretend to know what God wants. Interesting that an agnostic would. I also don't pretend to know what God would do if He did want a particular thing. Interesting that an agnostic.

Well, coming clean, being specific and pedantic, I'm not just an agnostic. I'm an indignant agnostic deist.

I don't believe we can know if god exists or what he wants, but I err slightly on the side of "He's comparable to a rastafarian in that he doesn't really care, and just generally wants everyone to have a good time", while maintaining that, should he exist, he has quite a bit of explanation to give.


I'm just going on logic. If he wanted to protect the word - IF being the key word here - if he wanted to protect it, and ensure we knew his true words, which would (here's the first admitted assumption) be what a benevolent, loving, caring god would do, he would ensure nothing happened through creation of the bible or translation.

If he doesn't care how molested the word becomes, then I must begin to question why he even gave it to us in the first place.

Remember - as long as there's an 'if', it's not an assumption, it's a suggestion.






Amusing. Faith and chance are not the same thing. That you don't recognize the difference doesn't mean there isn't one. Careful, you're slip is showing.

Granted, there's a small difference. Chance depending it upon where you were born, what society you were raised in, what kind of parents you had, what your childhood was like, and generally how encouraged you were to think things through and make your own decisions all play into it. Faith is simply the self-reinforcement of the influence of the result of whatever chance gave you through no logic, despite whatever logic says, despite whatever anyone or anything else says or does, faith is an assertion of what you already believe regardless of evidence against such a belief.

Either way, it starts with chance. If you're born in Bangladesh, your entire life and worldview and education are changed dramatically versus if you were raised in Beverly Hills, CA.





Again, this is an assumtpion. Not something you've shown to be true. It relies on you knowing what the purpose was, that they could have had a better outcome, or that it wasn't by design. All are unfounded assumptions.

It relies on specific situations, toying with the maybes and the probablies. I'm not definitively saying anything one way or the other, as you would seem to be suggesting.




Again, some agnostic. I really wish certain people would stop pretending. It's pretty sad.

*shrugs*




Which of those were for Jesus' convenience. I don't remember one. None were a substitute for Jesus' own work. Was there a teleportation in substitute of walking that I missed?


Well, how would effectively having the word of god in a pure form in text be for Jesus' convenience? And fine, let's assume it would be a convenience somehow, someway - then it wouldn't appear until Jesus died. It'd be found on his casket or near the cross or somewhere in the cave, I dunno. How would that be to his convenience if he wasn't there to enjoy it?



Again, you're assuming a purpose. I can answer why he wouldn't do it. Faith. God could appear to us today but it would remove the need for faith. That faith is unimportant to you doesn't mean that it's not important to others. Suggesting that Jesus and God would act against faith, because it happens to be helpful to your particular bias, is just an example of the flaw in your agnostic claim.

Granted. I assume there's some sort of purpose to this. I assume that by sending down his son and having him spread the word of god, then supposedly creating the holy text from various stories and letters would have some kind of purpose, be it to show us the way to get to heaven or to let us know that we're not out of peanut butter and there is in fact some in the back of the pantry.

I put little heft into the idea of faith. Does faith keep god alive? If not, then what use is it? Love can come from knowledge. Indeed, I believe love and understanding can only truly begin once you know something for sure, not when you're assuming and insisting based upon your faith or lack thereof.




You're assuming purpose. You're assuming that he didn't know certain things. That he wouldn't be happy with the outcome. And a plethora of other things. Outside of those assumptions there is no reason to suggest he didn't act exactly in the way that was most beneficial to his message. Is it possible, he didn't? Sure. But certainly we don't have the information to think it likely he didn't or even close to likely.

I can't see how he would be happy with the outcome. So many people killed and died in his name, for what they had faith was the true way, the one way, the path of light - if they were all wrong, then what was it for? Note the if. If they were right, then what does that say about the message and, in turn, god himself?




I have. You are making unfounded assumptions just because they are necessary to your bias. If you were truly agnostic, you'd not be inclined to do so.

Well I'm not a vegetable, so I can't be agnostic about everything. Those veggies - man, they're so indecisive, unresponsive, unrelateable. Nothing to them is solid, concrete. They can't even breathe without a machine telling them it's the right thing to do.




;)

*secks*

http://kent-hovind.com/

That is all.

Well, coming clean, being specific and pedantic, I'm not just an agnostic. I'm an indignant agnostic deist.

I don't believe we can know if god exists or what he wants, but I err slightly on the side of "He's comparable to a rastafarian in that he doesn't really care, and just generally wants everyone to have a good time", while maintaining that, should he exist, he has quite a bit of explanation to give.


I'm just going on logic. If he wanted to protect the word - IF being the key word here - if he wanted to protect it, and ensure we knew his true words, which would (here's the first admitted assumption) be what a benevolent, loving, caring god would do, he would ensure nothing happened through creation of the bible or translation.

If he doesn't care how molested the word becomes, then I must begin to question why he even gave it to us in the first place.

Remember - as long as there's an 'if', it's not an assumption, it's a suggestion.

Granted, there's a small difference. Chance depending it upon where you were born, what society you were raised in, what kind of parents you had, what your childhood was like, and generally how encouraged you were to think things through and make your own decisions all play into it. Faith is simply the self-reinforcement of the influence of the result of whatever chance gave you through no logic, despite whatever logic says, despite whatever anyone or anything else says or does, faith is an assertion of what you already believe regardless of evidence against such a belief.

Either way, it starts with chance. If you're born in Bangladesh, your entire life and worldview and education are changed dramatically versus if you were raised in Beverly Hills, CA.

It relies on specific situations, toying with the maybes and the probablies. I'm not definitively saying anything one way or the other, as you would seem to be suggesting.

*shrugs*

Well, how would effectively having the word of god in a pure form in text be for Jesus' convenience? And fine, let's assume it would be a convenience somehow, someway - then it wouldn't appear until Jesus died. It'd be found on his casket or near the cross or somewhere in the cave, I dunno. How would that be to his convenience if he wasn't there to enjoy it?

Granted. I assume there's some sort of purpose to this. I assume that by sending down his son and having him spread the word of god, then supposedly creating the holy text from various stories and letters would have some kind of purpose, be it to show us the way to get to heaven or to let us know that we're not out of peanut butter and there is in fact some in the back of the pantry.

I put little heft into the idea of faith. Does faith keep god alive? If not, then what use is it? Love can come from knowledge. Indeed, I believe love and understanding can only truly begin once you know something for sure, not when you're assuming and insisting based upon your faith or lack thereof.

I can't see how he would be happy with the outcome. So many people killed and died in his name, for what they had faith was the true way, the one way, the path of light - if they were all wrong, then what was it for? Note the if. If they were right, then what does that say about the message and, in turn, god himself?

Well I'm not a vegetable, so I can't be agnostic about everything. Those veggies - man, they're so indecisive, unresponsive, unrelateable. Nothing to them is solid, concrete. They can't even breathe without a machine telling them it's the right thing to do.

*secks*


I'll offer you a cookie if you go through and bold all the assumptions in there.

ME ME ME!!!!

Well, coming clean, being specific and pedantic, I'm not just an agnostic. I'm an indignant agnostic deist.

I don't believe we can know if god exists or what he wants, but I err slightly on the side of "He's comparable to a rastafarian in that he doesn't really care, and just generally wants everyone to have a good time", while maintaining that, should he exist, he has quite a bit of explanation to give.


I'm just going on logic. If he wanted to protect the word - IF being the key word here - if he wanted to protect it, and ensure we knew his true words, which would (here's the first admitted assumption) be what a benevolent, loving, caring god would do, he would ensure nothing happened through creation of the bible or translation.

If he doesn't care how molested the word becomes, then I must begin to question why he even gave it to us in the first place.

Remember - as long as there's an 'if', it's not an assumption, it's a suggestion.

Granted, there's a small difference. Chance depending it upon where you were born, what society you were raised in, what kind of parents you had, what your childhood was like, and generally how encouraged you were to think things through and make your own decisions all play into it. Faith is simply the self-reinforcement of the influence of the result of whatever chance gave you through no logic, despite whatever logic says, despite whatever anyone or anything else says or does, faith is an assertion of what you already believe regardless of evidence against such a belief.

Either way, it starts with chance. If you're born in Bangladesh, your entire life and worldview and education are changed dramatically versus if you were raised in Beverly Hills, CA.

It relies on specific situations, toying with the maybes and the probablies. I'm not definitively saying anything one way or the other, as you would seem to be suggesting.

*shrugs*

Well, how would effectively having the word of god in a pure form in text be for Jesus' convenience? And fine, let's assume it would be a convenience somehow, someway - then it wouldn't appear until Jesus died. It'd be found on his casket or near the cross or somewhere in the cave, I dunno. How would that be to his convenience if he wasn't there to enjoy it?

Granted. I assume there's some sort of purpose to this. I assume that by sending down his son and having him spread the word of god, then supposedly creating the holy text from various stories and letters would have some kind of purpose, be it to show us the way to get to heaven or to let us know that we're not out of peanut butter and there is in fact some in the back of the pantry.

I put little heft into the idea of faith. Does faith keep god alive? If not, then what use is it? Love can come from knowledge. Indeed, I believe love and understanding can only truly begin once you know something for sure, not when you're assuming and insisting based upon your faith or lack thereof.

I can't see how he would be happy with the outcome. So many people killed and died in his name, for what they had faith was the true way, the one way, the path of light - if they were all wrong, then what was it for? Note the if. If they were right, then what does that say about the message and, in turn, god himself?

Well I'm not a vegetable, so I can't be agnostic about everything. Those veggies - man, they're so indecisive, unresponsive, unrelateable. Nothing to them is solid, concrete. They can't even breathe without a machine telling them it's the right thing to do.

*secks*

Do I get a cookie?

ME ME ME!!!!



Do I get a cookie?

Doesn't 'secks' assume consent?

:D (I don't want half of your cookie, you can have it).

Doesn't 'secks' assume consent?

:D (I don't want half of your cookie, you can have it).

Ha. By the way, I'm funna call you.

There is no universally agreed upon plural of "platypus" in the English language. Scientists generally use "platypuses", "platypoda", or simply "platypus". Colloquially, "platypi" is also used for the plural, although this is pseudo-Latin.


Perhaps a grammar thread next.

...and this is why I am agnostic about the existence of Australia.

i'm an aaustraliaist. i mean, honestly, you don't go around being agnostic about the existence of other mythical places full of clearly imaginary creatures, do you? no, you just simply do not believe in them. why should australia be any different, just because the dominant strain of our culture assumes it?

Perhaps a grammar thread next.It might indeed have some educational value. As opposed to creationism, for an instance.

Speaking of educational value ...:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/193785.ctl

Happyhappy, joyjoy!
:)

Doesn't 'secks' assume consent?

:D (I don't want half of your cookie, you can have it).

AWWWW! No cookie :(

http://kent-hovind.com/

That is all.

That is all what? A conman?

That is all what? A conman?

Nah. Just a servant of Satan.

Nah. Just a servant of Satan.

While strangely enough, NOT employed in the U.S. Bush administration.
:confused:

While strangely enough, NOT employed in the U.S. Bush administration.
:confused:

Not openly, at least.

Oh dear, this has become more of a "You're not really an agnostic" thread rather than what it previously was, which was, granted, not what the OP intended.


So yes. Continue.

While strangely enough, NOT employed in the U.S. Bush administration.
:confused:

Not openly, at least.

He's in jail, IIRC. I think tax evasion, but I can't remember. Silly fundies and their inability to follow the law.

Oh dear, this has become more of a "You're not really an agnostic" thread rather than what it previously was, which was, granted, not what the OP intended.


So yes. Continue.

I was talking to my brother about you, and he actulay agrees, you're not really agnostic!

Finally! This thread has now EVENTUALLY, turned into spam. The absolute truth that all lengthy threads end in spam remains 100% true.

Finally! This thread has now EVENTUALLY, turned into spam. The absolute truth that all lengthy threads end in spam remains 100% true.

What spam ? There is a discussion if one of the most prominent creationists is in fact a servant of Satan (like all liars are according to Scripture) and general evildoer.

What spam ? There is a discussion if one of the most prominent creationists is in fact a servant of Satan (like all liars are according to Scripture) and general evildoer.

And tax evader *nods*

I was talking to my brother about you, and he actulay agrees, you're not really agnostic!

Okay, then what am I?

Incidentally, if anyone was to go to the well known blog of biologist, PZ Myers, and scroll just over a third of the way down the page they would find a musical tribute video to Kent Hovind. Unfortunately this forum's rules forbid me from posting a link.

Okay, then what am I?

The agnostic is the person with the position "I don't know" on the issue of God, as is the undecided. The difference between them is in whether "I don't know" is the reason for the position they hold, or the conclusion of it.

If someone is merely uninformed (or considers themself to be) on the concept of "God", then they are undecided. They don't have enough information to form a conclusion. The agnostic knows exactly why he must conclude "I don't know" as a position on God. He has information in the form of philosophy, and based on that "I don't know" is the only conclusion that he can reach.

The true agnostic is the mystic.

The agnostic is the person with the position "I don't know" on the issue of God, as is the undecided. The difference between them is in whether "I don't know" is the reason for the position they hold, or the conclusion of it.

If someone is merely uninformed (or considers themself to be) on the concept of "God", then they are undecided. They don't have enough information to form a conclusion. The agnostic knows exactly why he must conclude "I don't know" as a position on God. He has information in the form of philosophy, and based on that "I don't know" is the only conclusion that he can reach.

The true agnostic is the mystic.

I thought an agnostic was someone who thought it was impossible to know if god exists or not.

dictionary.com seems to agree:
ag·nos·tic /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ag-nos-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

I thought an agnostic was someone who thought it was impossible to know if god exists or not.
Right. If a thing is impossible to know, then one must declare, "I don't know." The trick is to follow through the philosophy and find out what makes it impossible. If you know why you're declaring "I don't know," you're agnostic.

Right. If a thing is impossible to know, then one must declare, "I don't know." The trick is to follow through the philosophy and find out what makes it impossible. If you know why you're declaring "I don't know," you're agnostic.

So you're saying I don't know why I don't know?

I find that a bit incorrect, considering I've gone through many phases and types of religious concept and belief before concluding that I can't possibly know the nature of god.

I'm... not entirely sure why you would think otherwise of me.

So you're saying I don't know why I don't know?
Not at all. I'm making no assumptions about your beliefs. I was just clarifying the distinction in definition. You're perfectly capable of deciding for yourself if you qualify, or if you'll go by a different definition.
:)

and it shall rise again from the third page!




this topic is the second coming, the end is here! run!

Methinks Whereyouthinkyougoing has a quote en Francais for this. :)

I just finished reading the play Inherit the Wind, it actually doesn't go all that deep into evolution being as Brady banned science from the case. However the age of the Earth is brought up. Basiaclly it undoes part 5 of Evolution vs. Creation. It was a good book, you should read it.