Religion vs. Thought

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Bambi, Sep 29, 2001.

  1. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by FyreStar
    Well, your first two 'strikes' are entirely random and inexplicable, I'll ignore them until you provide a little support.
    *

    The first is too tough for evolutionists.
    Tough is usually transcribed as "inexplicable."

    One example, human DNA has about 3 billion base pairs.
    We would have to have averaged one new base pair every 18 months or so for 5 billion years straight to evolve from dirt to man.

    *So we're not here?! Dang, and here I was thinking I existed. So tell me.. if we aren't here........where are we?*

    Beats me.
    According to the theory of evolution, we aren't the final aim, so who knows where or what the final aim is?

    *Evolution doesn't look into the future and say 'Ok, we need something that can eat horses'. Nay, in fact evolution isn't about what happened in any other time period than the present. A species finds out that mice are a great source of daily protein, and that species gradually turn into living 'mousetraps'. Species (like Behe's moustrap) aren't randomly created out of nothing with but one purpose.*

    Purpose, of course, implies that there is an aim.
    So which is it, aim, or no aim?

    *Originally posted by tiassa
    I would ask you what you're arguing about if nobody's made that claim.
    *

    If nobody's made that claim, then where did the theory of evolution come from and why are there so many people trying to defend it?

    *Let's see, I could always try to dig up a birth certificate, I could always try to dig up any patents associated with the car, or I could always try to dig up the original plans for the Corvette design. Any combination of those generally provide better proof. *

    So, the existence of the Corvette itself constitutes no proof at all for you?

    *In fact, what would be best about it is if you prove the designer of the Corvette, we can then examine your method of proof and apply it to the Universal Designer and decide what we need to prove its existence. *

    OK, I named the designer and the designed product.
    At no point did you deny the existence of either, even though this would have been the perfect time to do so.
    You knew there was a car, and you automatically knew there had to be a designer.
    Not only that, the only proof you require is a piece of paper with the name of the designer written on it.

    It kind of sucks to be you right about now.
    You know there is a universe and you know there is a designer.
    There is even a piece of paper with the designer's name on it along with a description of the design.

    You're just playing stupid little head games.

    *By end, are we considering the present station in time?
    Or by end, are we considering the final version?
    *

    More head games.
    Both.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,042
    Take off, eh?

    Tony1, that was one of the most pathetic showings yet:
    You're the one who asked for proof. What I want to know is what you're arguing against if you don't believe it's there .... Talk about tilting windmills; instead of imagining windmills to be giants, you're imagining windmills to be there at all. Perhaps you should learn a little more about the theory you're complaining about?
    Correct: the existence of the Corvette does not establish the name of the designer. I see where you're going, but if you actually cared about making a point, you would have started from a different angle.
    Well, you have a syllogistic point, but syllogisms are correct even when they're utterly ridiculous. A syllogism doesn't have to be true to be correct. It merely has to respect the data.

    Let me give you another example, just for contrast's sake:

    * Jesus Christ heals people
    * My doctor healed me
    * Therefore, my doctor is Jesus Christ.

    If the two points are the only data-set available, the conclusion is not invalid syllogistically. It only works if I cut away as much relevant data as possible.

    The designer of the Corvette has taken the Universe from its naturally occurring state and manipulated it into a Corvette. The Universe is. Take the petrol that goes into the Corvette: it has been refined from its crude state. Take the Universe itself: from what were its elements refined?

    We can either undertake this challenge and strive to learn the answer, or we can crouch behind superstition and convince ourselves we don't need to know.
    It makes a difference. If you were smarter, you'd know that.

    --Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. FyreStar Faithless since 1980 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    229
    Ok tony, with your last reply to me, you demonstrated that you can cop out on an answer by some vague reference to 'tough', that you can do some simple mathematics (an average, to be spefcific), and totally misunderstand what evolutionist are bending over backwards to say to you.

    ***tony1 said:
    Beats me

    And you consider yourself qualified to debate?

    ***tony1 said:
    According to the theory of evolution, we aren't the final aim, so who knows where or what the final aim is?

    Evolution doesn't have a final aim. Evolution is a process, not a conciousness.

    ***tony1 said:
    Purpose, of course, implies that there is an aim.

    Why no, no it doesn't. The purpose of the human eye is to collect light which has a wavelength between ~300 and ~700 nanometers. That in no way implies that evolution aimed at this result. To aim, knowledge of the target is required, and since evolution is not concious, it has no knowledge.

    FyreStar
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bev123! Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    Responses to Behe's book and Tiassa and Fyrestar


    Tiassa,
    I'm referring here to the presently existing "irreducibly complex" product.
    Fyrestar's logic would have the components of the cell functioning in some other way until they all happened to bump into each other, and happened to begin functioning as a unit all at once.

    As Behe critic H. Allen Orr has noted, the "adoption from a different function" explanation is unlikely to be a general solution to Irreducible Complexity (IC) as it relies too much on pure chance as explaining apparent design.

    Also, if we don't see evidence of "permutations" (mutations that are switched from one function to another) that run through out the entire IC system, there is good reason to dismiss this explanation.

    The interesting thing about "Elimination of Functional Redundancy" pathway is that it too robs the standard Darwinian explanation of its appeal. Richard Dawkins presents Darwinism in its most convincing form:

    "We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance."

    Behe critics Richard Dawkins, Clare Stevens, and D. W.Ussery (and many more) all go back to "simple beginnings," the very opposite initial state assumed by this pathway.

    A response to Behe critics, R.H. Thornhill and D.W. Ussery, states:
    "Behe's notion of IC does indeed help us to effectively rule out some of the Darwinian pathways, as admitted by Thornhill & Ussery. What is most relevant is that the pathways ruled out by IC are also those best supported by example/evidence and those that are most persuasive in explaining apparent design. The traditional examples of Darwin's finches (and their beaks), giraffe necks, elephant trunks, antibiotic resistance, and the darkening wings in moths give us no reason to think IC systems were generated by random mutation & natural selection. The remaining explanations for IC are indeed possible, but without evidence to support them, there is no reason to seriously embrace them. Neither explanation constitutes a better general solution to IC than intelligent design. What's more, both explanations seriously weaken the overall appeal of the standard non-teleological explanations, as they resurrect a prominent role for pure chance in the origin of apparent design and/or rely on complicated initial states that may lend themselves more readily to a teleological cause.

    The whole article can be found at http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mg1darwinianpathways.htm
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 10, 2001
  8. Bev123! Registered Member

    Messages:
    35



    Thank you for the links responding to Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box".

    It is only fair that you read some of Behe's responses to these criticques.

    See: http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_brrespbr.htm and http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_responsetokmiller0101.htm

    It is easy to pick apart an argument after-the-fact, especially a book intended for the reading by the masses.

    (You see that frequently here.)

    An open mind looks at both sides and weighs the evidences.

    Have a great day!
     
  9. xvenomousx Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Religion vs Reason... hmm

    Tony1's rebuttal to Bambi's post reminded me of this little snipet about people who are usually on the religion/creationist/etc. end of the arguement and the methodolgy they use to argue:

    1. They concentrate on their opponents' weak points, while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position.
    2. They exploit errors made by scholars who are making opposing arguments, implying that because a few of their opponents' conclusions were wrong, all of their opnponents' conclusions must be wrong.
    3. They use quotations, usually taken out of context to buttress their own position.
    4. They mistake genuine, honest debates between scholars about certain points within a field for a dispute about the existence of the entire field.
    5. They focus on what is not known and ignore what is known, emphasize data that fit and discount data that do not fit.
    (refer: micheal shermer, why people believe in weird things)

    Tony1: "But Science hasn't shown as any of those things.
    What science does is collect data.
    Unfortunately, data collectors sometimes think that they can derive conclusions contrary to the data they collect."

    This is a typical decietfull statement made by proponent of religion or creationism. It is a attempt to make an false authoritive statement in order to reinforce and arguement. In short a lie. In fact the person's statement would be a much better descript of perhaps a Creation Scientist's (is that a oxymoron?) work.

    In addition the general claim is usually that science, or any scientific claim in question, is highly decietful. That scientists are making things up and imagining things in the data. Again this is a more accurate description of acceptable thinking practice of a creationist for example. It seems these proponents tend to acuse of which they do themselves, and are so well known for.

    1. The world is flat
    2. The earth is the centre of the universe
    3. The sun is the centre of the universe
    4. Our galaxy is the centre of the universe
    5. God created everything & man

    All these things have already been concretely disproven by science and fiercely defended by religion at the time, untill religion eventually adjusts itself and carrys on. We are currently in the stages of getting over the last one.
    So science won the arguement against religion along time ago, yet religion refuses to admit it. Just goes to show science and religion are incompatable combatants anyway. Both might have clout but slugging it out makes no sense.
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,042
    Are you surprised, really?

    Or is that a rhetorical question? Seems rather obvious to me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Oh, wait ... they forgot that bit about the hypothesis.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by tiassa
    You're the one who asked for proof. What I want to know is what you're arguing against if you don't believe it's there
    *

    I'm essentially arguing against the fallacious thinking that leads to such theories, not the theory itself.
    The theory itself is so contradictory and paradoxical that a person wishes to keep it around for its comedic content.

    *Correct: the existence of the Corvette does not establish the name of the designer.*

    I notice your avoidance of the fact that you could have claimed that the existence of the Corvette does not presuppose a designer at all.

    You have only the spelling of the name to gripe about.

    ** Jesus Christ heals people
    * My doctor healed me
    * Therefore, my doctor is Jesus Christ.
    *

    LOL!
    ROTFL!
    LMAO!

    Read up on logic before you stick your foot in your mouth so far that it makes your legs look slightly shorter.
    That was the most pathetic error you could have made!
    That is the example every elementary book on logic uses to show how logic does NOT work.
    It is fallacious argument #1!

    *Take the Universe itself: from what were its elements refined?*

    From that which does not appear.
    .
    Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
    (Hebrews 11:3, KJV).

    * If you were smarter,*

    You'd know that it doesn't make any difference.

    *Originally posted by FyreStar
    Ok tony, with your last reply to me, you demonstrated that you can cop out on an answer by some vague reference to 'tough'
    *

    I congratulate you on your "doubleback and hope he's not looking" type of argument here.

    Your theory of evolution finds it "tough" to explain complexity, so it usually ignores it.

    *And you consider yourself qualified to debate? *

    I'm at least as qualified as you.
    To prove that you are better, perhaps you could tell us where we are.

    *tony1 said:
    "Purpose, of course, implies that there is an aim. "

    Why no, no it doesn't.
    *

    Argument by insisting on the opposite.

    ---pur·pose n.

    1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal:
    2. A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention. See Synonyms at intention.
    3. Determination; resolution: He was a man of purpose.
    4. The matter at hand; the point at issue.---

    You evolutionists are pretty much going to have to invent a new language with which to speak about your theory.
    English has a bad habit of confounding you at every step.

    *To aim, knowledge of the target is required, and since evolution is not concious, it has no knowledge. *

    You've convinced me that you have no knowledge.
    With no knowledge and no aim, what would the eye's "purpose" be for collecting light?

    If you say, "to see," then your argument about "no aim" is pure nonsense.

    *Originally posted by xvenomousx
    1. They concentrate on their opponents' weak points, while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position.
    *

    Evolutionists always decry this for the simple reason that every single point they have is a weak point.
    The definitive statement is that evolution is nonsense.

    *2. They exploit errors made by scholars who are making opposing arguments, implying that because a few of their opponents' conclusions were wrong, all of their opnponents' conclusions must be wrong. *

    Sorry for the implication.
    We mean to say that all of their conclusions must be wrong because they are all wrong.

    *3. They use quotations, usually taken out of context to buttress their own position. *

    Evolutionists have no need for quotations because fairy tales require no proof.

    *4. They mistake genuine, honest debates between scholars about certain points within a field for a dispute about the existence of the entire field. *

    "Genuine, honest" debates in the entire field of evolutionary psychology don't make the entire field questionable.
    The entire field makes the entire field questionable.
    Although, I grudgingly admire the "experts" in the field for choosing such an otherwise unassailable field.
    Who could possibly have proof for any contrary assertion in such a field?

    *5. They focus on what is not known and ignore what is known, emphasize data that fit and discount data that do not fit. *

    Sorry, again.
    The entire field consists of that which is "not known," thus we have no choice but to ignore that which is known about the theory of evolution.

    *That scientists are making things up and imagining things in the data.*

    ---hypothesis \Hy*poth"e*sis\, n.
    1. A supposition; a proposition or principle which is supposed or taken for granted, in order to draw a conclusion or inference for proof of the point in question; something not proved, but assumed for the purpose of argument, or to account for a fact or an occurrence; as, the hypothesis that head winds detain an overdue steamer.

    An hypothesis being a mere supposition, there are no other limits to hypotheses than those of the human imagination. --J. S. Mill.

    2. (Natural Science) A tentative theory or supposition provisionally adopted to explain certain facts, and to guide in the investigation of others; hence, frequently called a working hypothesis.---

    Apparently, there are others who think that scientists are imagining things in the data.

    *1. The world is flat
    2. The earth is the centre of the universe
    3. The sun is the centre of the universe
    4. Our galaxy is the centre of the universe
    5. God created everything & man

    All these things have already been concretely disproven by science and fiercely defended by religion at the time
    *

    Now you are making stuff up.

    1.It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...
    (Isaiah 40:22, KJV).
    Circles are round.

    2, 3, 4 Can you make up your mind?
    Besides science hasn't disproven any one of those three, except perhaps in your imagination.
    It should be obvious that you cannot locate the center of something unless you know where the edges are.
    If you think that "science" has established where the edges of the universe are, you stand alone.

    5. Science will never prove or disprove this one.
    What will happen is that those who place their trust in science will simply go mad, as you are well on your way to demonstrating.

    *Originally posted by tiassa
    they forgot that bit about the hypothesis.
    *

    See dictionary for meaning of "hypothesis."
     
  12. machaon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    733
    How valid is belief alone?

    MONTGOMERY, AL:A controversial new bill pending before the Alabama Legislature has deeply divided the state along theological lines, sending right-wing fundamentalist Aesopians into an uproar. HR 1604, if passed, would broaden nutritional guidelines used in the state's school-lunch program, permitting a wider variety of fruits and vegetables to be served, including grapes, the consumption of which is a sin according to Aesopian doctrine.


    Members of the First Universal Church Of Aesop.
    "The state of Alabama is trying to bully us into submission," said Herman Bray, Pastor of the First Universal Church Of Aesop in Huntsville. "They're trying to rob us of our most cherished beliefs and send our children the message that grapes are acceptable for eating."

    Clutching a worn, leather-bound copy of Aesop's Parables, Bray explained his congregation's strict opposition to the law.

    "The Holy Writ of Aesop makes it plain that the fox, in his anger at the unreachable grapes, cursed the offending fruit and made all grapes sour forever," Bray said. "It is common sense—and a core belief of the Church Of Aesop—that this is a directive from Aesop Himself against grape consumption. Grapes are plainly exposed as a foul, sour-tasting fruit which dirties both body and soul, and this is a strict tenet of our dietary code." Alabama Aesopians are threatening to take their children out of school if the bill becomes law.


    A page from the Aesop scriptures.
    "Our beliefs and history have been laughed off by the secular media as fiction, as 'fables,'" Bray continued. "But the fox-and-the-grapes incident is not just some fantasy concocted by the Aesopian Right. Our research has determined that it most likely occurred between 605 and 602 B.C.E. in the province of Phrygia, was witnessed by a young Aesop and ultimately recorded in what became the Holy Book of Aesopians. Our church's archaeological and historical data all confirm the details recorded in the Aesop account."

    The Aesopians' claims have provoked strong reaction among academics. "They think what? That this is a directive not to eat grapes?" asked Darrin Schmidt, professor of folklore and mythology at NYU. "The whole point of the story is that the grapes aren't sour at all. I think that's pretty unambiguous." Bray dismissed Schmidt's comments as "heretical anti-Aesopian hate speech."

    Curtis Milner, president of the Birmingham-based Aesopian Coalition, said his organization is prepared to go all the way to the Supreme Court if Alabama passes what he calls "an openly hostile, blatantly anti-Aesopian piece of legislation."

    "These lawmakers are attacking our most closely held beliefs," Milner said. "Not only is it disrespectful; it is a clear violation of the Constitution of this land."

    According to Milner, the beliefs of the Aesopians are simple and direct. "We honor the courage and the noble sacrifice of Aesop, who gave His life to educate the world, not backing down even to the day of His execution by the wicked Athenian despot Peisistratus," Milner said. "That event, though tragic on the surface, was actually a day of exhilarating triumph over evil, for as a result of it, the histories painstakingly recorded by Aesop gained immortality."

    "He died for us all," Milner added.
     
  13. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    To answer your question, machaon, belief alone is not enough.
    There has to be an object to the belief, and that object has to be true.

    Your approach appears to be that the object does not have to be true, merely believable.

    The end result is that the object of your beliefs are ultimately not believable, being not true.
     
  14. Bambi itinerant smartass Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    309
    Just stirring the pot a little...

    Gang,

    I'm addressing this to all since I've been gone from the board (effectively) for such a long time that it hardly seems appropriate to now start quoting from weeks-old posts. I wish I had as much free time on my hands as some here appear to have. But anyway, I'm glad to find this thread still near the top of the list. Thanks for keeping it alive, everyone!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So, I'll just sum up some of the main points now that I have a little more time over the next few days to hang around here...

    <b>Tony1,</b>

    Basically, you need to get a grip on the difference between a population of available areas by surviving species, as opposed to evolution of said species due to the pressures imposed by the newly-colonized environment. The former happens instantaneously; the latter takes a lot of time.

    I remember us talking about alternative architectures. You claimed that sufficiently different architectures would be able to coexist. I responded with something to the effect that life is ultimately an energy consumer regardless of architecture, and that the more versatile systems would eventually be able to feed directly on the less adaptable. You doubted that, for example, organic life would find much nutrition in inorganic life. Well, recently I chanced on the following article: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01zj.html -- I just thought you might find it interesting...

    I also saw some of your more recent comments to the effect that fossils and associated formations are products of the Biblical flood. To be frank, I'm shocked that you are indeed this warped. However, I'll dare say you don't know one whit on the subject matter. I'm willing to bet that you have little if any clue with regard to geology and mineralogy, and you have not an incling of clue when it comes to the various ways in which the actual ages and natural histories of these formations have been deduced. One thing I do stand in admiration of: your utter arrogance in supposing that your own ignorance is universally applicable to these two sciences.

    With regard to your arguments about the size of the human genome, and how many base pairs would have to be added daily:

    1) Did you know that 95% of the base pairs are junk? Though at least some (if not much) of that junk is clearly broken genes that no longer function.

    2) Did you know that (gasp!) each cell of your body produces an entire new 3 billion base pairs every time it divides? Just imagine how many base pairs a day that would be...

    <b>BevKay,</b>

    I'm sorry to see you didn't find my analogies helpful. Nevertheless, let me duly credit you on arguing so forcefully that mousetraps could not have, and in fact did not evolve without intelligent input. They were indeed engineered by intelligent designers. But then again, I thought we weren't discussing human artifacts -- rather, we were discussing the origin and history of life on Earth.

    Personally, I think my analogy of traffic and traffic lights is quite good. Indeed, traffic lights have no meaning or purpose without traffic. While at the same time, without traffic lights modern traffic would be at an ultra-congested standstill (you could allegorically call it a terminal runaway clotting syndrome.) So you see, the "irreducible" interdependence is truly present in this case. Of course, in this case we do know how the present system arose from more humble beginnings (e.g. traffic cops directed traffic before traffic lights were invented.) So we know the progression that led to the current state. In the case of complex living systems, we don't know the progression because we weren't there to observe it (naturally!) That, however, is not a valid argument in support of a claim that the progression never happened.

    I tend to belong to the camp who think that a falling tree still makes a sound, even if there's nobody there to hear it. The conclusion that life on Earth indeed evolved over the last 4 billion years is foregone. Behe, for one, does not even dream of disputing it (so neither do you, I suppose.) What Behe objects to, is that we have not yet deduced the intricate history of it. He even goes so far as to say that such a deduction is impossible, a priori -- an ancient sentiment under a new (IC) banner, which has failed repeatedly in other areas of science.

    But let's look at the actual situation. In this day, we have just finished deciphering the genomes of a few simple organisms and a few complex ones (including humans.) However, we have barely began to actually make sense of all that voluminous information. We have the bit strings, but we haven't a clue yet as to how these bit strings combine into a working program. We haven't even began to construct a proteome on top of any (even the simplest) genome. The capability of completely understanding or even describing the interactions between hundreds or thousands of simultaneously coexisting proteins in a small volume is still beyond modern science. Over the last century, biochemists and physiologists have identified a number of important mechanisms, cycles and reaction chains in living organisms. However, all of that knowledge in toto is but a raindrop in the proverbial ocean. There are a vast many pathways and dependencies and mechanisms that have yet to be uncovered. We are not at the end of the road to complete knowledge of living systems on Earth; we have barely made the first steps. Given this, how can anyone reasonably expect science at its current stage of understanding to provide detailed scenarios of evolution for those few mechanisms that we indeed have discovered to date? It would be like correctly placing pieces in a puzzle where 95% of all pieces are missing!

    Take, for example, your example of cilia. By itself, a cilium is clearly not a viable organism. Thus, you can't expect to decipher its evolution while knowing almost nothing about the rest of the cell that actually builds up the cilium to begin with. How do all of the cilium's parts come to interlock so precisely to function as one unit? Impossible to say without having first examined all the other possible roles that these same parts may play in other organelles of a cell. Impossible to say without having first examined all the other parts of a cell to see if they could actually be roughly interchangeable with the various cilium components without resulting in total loss of function. Impossible to say without knowing what the precursors of a cilium might have been, or what roles they might have served. We are observing the end result. That does not mean the intermediate stages never happened.

    Behe can claim intelligence all he wants. But serious scientists will not pay attention to him at such an early stage of the game. If, once the biochemical mechanisms of many living creatures are understood comprehensively and in detail, once the genomes and proteomes of various species are cross-examined, once the order of appearance of various genes is established, once the natural history of the planet and its various environments is refined to a high resolution, once the many interactions among the various biological and nonbiological systems that constitute the evolving Earth ecology are quantified with high confidence -- in other words quite possibly as much as a century from now -- there is still no plausible explanation for natural emergence of even one of Behe's "irreducibly" complex systems, then an intelligent design argument might actually be considered.

    However, as it stands Behe (and his ilk) are simply saying that it is good not to know, that we shouldn't try to find out, and that we are incapable of finding out to begin with. That is the reason why his views cause such a strong immune response in scientific circles.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2001
  15. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    Re: Just stirring the pot a little...

    *Originally posted by Bambi
    Basically, you need to get a grip on the difference between a population of available areas by surviving species, as opposed to evolution of said species due to the pressures imposed by the newly-colonized environment.
    *

    I do?
    Well, say no more.
    The issue is now #1 on my list, right before air, water and food.

    *You doubted that, for example, organic life would find much nutrition in inorganic life. Well, recently I chanced on the following article: ... -- I just thought you might find it interesting...*

    Thanks, I did.
    Although, I was thinking you didn't really need to go quite so deep.
    My yard has earthworms which munch thru mounds of dirt every day.

    *To be frank, I'm shocked...*

    Lie down and take a deep breath, the shock will pass.

    *I'm willing to bet that you have little if any clue with regard to geology and mineralogy, and you have not an incling of clue when it comes to the various ways in which the actual ages and natural histories of these formations have been deduced.*

    You atheists are the bettingest, losingest bunch I've ever seen.
    I have more than a couple of clues.
    The problem is that those clues point more toward circular logic on the part of the researchers than the wide open Elysian Fields promised by the theory of evolution.

    *One thing I do stand in admiration of: your utter arrogance in supposing that your own ignorance is universally applicable to these two sciences.*

    Just a thing I share with atheists, no big deal, really.

    *1) Did you know that 95% of the base pairs are junk? Though at least some (if not much) of that junk is clearly broken genes that no longer function.*

    So what?
    They are still there, and have to be accounted for.

    *2) Did you know that (gasp!) each cell of your body produces an entire new 3 billion base pairs every time it divides? Just imagine how many base pairs a day that would be...*

    Did you know that (gasp!) you could copy dollar bills on a photocopier?
    Just imagine how many thousands of dollars a day that would be...

    Oh, wait! They're just copies!

    *They were indeed engineered by intelligent designers. But then again, I thought we weren't discussing human artifacts -- rather, we were discussing the origin and history of life on Earth.*

    Of course, recognition of analogies requires certain reasoning abilities which are absent in atheists.

    *Personally, I think my analogy of (insert analogy here) is quite good.*

    Of course, whatever you say.
    This is not a personal dig at you, Bambi, it's just that pretty well everyone believes that, but most leave it unsaid.

    *In the case of complex living systems, we don't know the progression because we weren't there to observe it (naturally!) That, however, is not a valid argument in support of a claim that the progression never happened.*

    Not being there to observe it, is an even worse argument in support of a claim that the progression did happen.

    *I tend to belong to the camp who think that a falling tree still makes a sound, even if there's nobody there to hear it.*

    Yes, we can tell.

    Most people interpret sound as what they hear, but to you it is the pressure waves travelling thru some material.
    Some might call those "sound waves," but feel free to call them sound.

    *The conclusion that life on Earth indeed evolved over the last 4 billion years is foregone.*

    It isn't foregone.
    For your side, it would be handy if it were, but we aren't going to let you commit intellectual suicide, without telling you that's where you're headed.

    *The capability of completely understanding or even describing the interactions between hundreds or thousands of simultaneously coexisting proteins in a small volume is still beyond modern science.*

    That's what we've been trying to tell you.
    But, oh no, you are telling us that it IS within the grasp of modern science.

    *However, all of that knowledge in toto is but a raindrop in the proverbial ocean. There are a vast many pathways and dependencies and mechanisms that have yet to be uncovered. We are not at the end of the road to complete knowledge of living systems on Earth; we have barely made the first steps. Given this, how can anyone reasonably expect science at its current stage of understanding to provide detailed scenarios of evolution for those few mechanisms that we indeed have discovered to date? It would be like correctly placing pieces in a puzzle where 95% of all pieces are missing!*

    Of course, the missing piece with the biggest impact is the piece that we have and you've thrown away.
    That piece is God.
    You admit that you have no clue, and further you admit that even finding a clue looks pretty hopeless.

    We already knew you were clueless, and we've been trying to tell you, AND we don't expect science to provide detailed scenarios of evolution.

    That would be like asking you to give us a detailed scenario of how Humpty-Dumpty got up on the wall.

    *Take, for example, your example of cilia. By itself, a cilium is clearly not a viable organism. Thus, you can't expect to decipher its evolution while knowing almost nothing about the rest of the cell that actually builds up the cilium to begin with. How do all of the cilium's parts come to interlock so precisely to function as one unit? Impossible to say without having first examined all the other possible roles that these same parts may play in other organelles of a cell. Impossible to say without having first examined all the other parts of a cell to see if they could actually be roughly interchangeable with the various cilium components without resulting in total loss of function. Impossible to say without knowing what the precursors of a cilium might have been, or what roles they might have served. We are observing the end result. That does not mean the intermediate stages never happened.*

    It also does not mean they did.
    As a matter of fact, it is pretty solid evidence that intermediate stages did not happen.

    I can see that evolutionists are starting to find out that the more they study, the more they know about less and less.
    Ultimately, you will all know everything about nothing.

    Then we can say we told you so, if you retain the ability to comprehend speech.

    *If, ... then an intelligent design argument might actually be considered.*

    Save time, do it now.

    *That is the reason why his views cause such a strong immune response in scientific circles. *

    It could be an auto-immune response, a rational AIDS response, RAIDS, if you will, where the reason inexplicably attacks reasonable thoughts and favors irrational ones instead.
     
  16. Bambi itinerant smartass Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    309
    Tony:
    Wooo, you've got me running scared now.
    Then spit them out and let's see what they are worth.

    Thanks for being so insightful. Of course, the major difference between genes and dollars, is that genes mutate. Copy, mutate, repeat. Mystery of genome size solved.

    I agree. Which is why it isn't being proposed as an argument for said conclusion. The actual argument consists of paleobiological evidence.

    No, you are telling us that. And then you're shooting down your own fictional windmill.

    What I'm saying, is that science doesn't stand still. What is impractical today will be feasible tomorrow. The fundamental barrier is not a barrier of knowledge; in this case it is a barrier of computational capacity.

    The first I admit, but not the second. I admit that "finding a clue" is hopeless with current knowledge. I won't accept that the current knowledge is complete. And I won't accept that we'll never obtain enough knowledge to "find a clue".

    No, of course not. You don't expect. You pray it won't.

    It's called learning. A foreign concept, I know. Something you definitely disapprove of.

    No, actually that's where it all started. You are a perfect representative of that starting point: everything is God and by will of God. No futher explanations required. You actually put it quite well: it's knowing "everything" about nothing.

    That's what they told Magellan.

    Of course you would know plenty about such symptomology, so I'll leave the diagnosis to the expert.
     
  17. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by Bambi
    Wooo, you've got me running scared now.
    *

    Oh, Bambi, you have the wrong idea here.
    You're not the big, evil atheist out to tip over the Christian applecart.

    You're a lost soul, who happens to be just intelligent enough to find scientific endeavors rather appealing, but not quite intelligent enough to see their limitations.

    *Then spit them out and let's see what they are worth.*

    #1. I went to the same schools you did.
    #2. I learned the same crap in those schools that you did.
    #3. My teachers were a little on the dumb side.
    #4. So were yours.
    #5. You believed them.
    #6. I didn't.
    #7. I didn't become a Christian until years after.

    *Thanks for being so insightful. Of course, the major difference between genes and dollars, is that genes mutate. Copy, mutate, repeat. Mystery of genome size solved.*

    That's like the recipe for cubed rhinoceros.

    1. Catch rhinoceros.
    2. Cube rhinoceros.
    3. Cook to taste.

    Aren't you leaving out the odd detail there, Bambi?
    Like, for example, how it happens?
    After all, when I photocopy an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper, I don't suddenly end up with millions of dollars, stacks of airline tickets and maps of the moon.
    I get a slightly degraded version of what I started with.

    And, that is how genetic duplication really works; it degrades over time.

    *The actual argument consists of paleobiological evidence.*

    But not of a progression.

    *No, you are telling us that. And then you're shooting down your own fictional windmill.*

    Here we go again.
    You're right, I am shooting down fictional windmills.
    It's the only target there is when shooting down evolutionary "thought."

    *The first I admit, but not the second. I admit that "finding a clue" is hopeless with current knowledge. I won't accept that the current knowledge is complete. And I won't accept that we'll never obtain enough knowledge to "find a clue".*

    Now we're getting somewhere.
    We agree that you don't have a clue.
    We agree that current knowledge is incomplete.
    We agree that your finding a clue looks pretty hopeless.

    We disagree about whether it is impossible or merely remote that you will ever get a clue.

    However, it isn't really where we need to go with this.
    You're an intelligent person, and it puzzles me that you would look at such long odds and persist in hoping to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, especially since the odds get longer the harder you work.

    Most people would pick up on that as a clue that you're going in the wrong direction.

    *No, of course not. You don't expect. You pray it won't.*

    I can say that I have not spent one single second praying against "evolution."

    *It's called learning. A foreign concept, I know. Something you definitely disapprove of.*

    Oh no, it makes for great entertainment.
    You, or your scientist compatriots, work hard collecting data.
    You, or someone else, work hard poring over the data.
    Somebody invents some clever device based on said data.
    Someone else writes a clever article summarizing said data, and reaching some conclusion.
    Someone else writes a clever rebuttal.

    I read said articles, acknowledging the data, and quite often laughing at conclusions in said articles.
    All the while, I benefit from the invention of said clever device.

    *You are a perfect representative of that starting point: everything is God and by will of God. No futher explanations required.*

    I ask God for explanations on a regular basis.
    You ask ... for explanations on a regular basis.

    I'm not sure what you'd put in the blank.
    I'm hoping it isn't another person in the same boat as you.
    That would be like the the blind leading the blind, wouldn't it?

    *That's what they told Magellan.*

    "They" told Magellan to consider an intelligent design argument?
    Is that recorded anywhere?

    *Of course you would know plenty about such symptomology, so I'll leave the diagnosis to the expert. *

    I do, and I see definite signs of rational AIDS.
    The symptoms are easy to detect.
    The main symptom is creating more and more complex explanations for very simple things, and as the simple things become more complex, the explanations become geometrically more complex.

    Normally, problem-solving should create simple things out complex things.

    The etiology of the RAIDS auto-immune reaction is that simple things become vastly more complex.
    In essence, the diseased mind actually attacks simple things and destroys them, leaving ever-increasing complexity in the wake of its ravages, in contrast to the normal functioning of the mind.
     
  18. machaon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    733
    just another thought to be sacrificed upon the alter of objective scrutiny.......

    It seems to me(and yes, I am guilty as well) that these exchanges tend to focus on each others supposed lack of intelligence and subsequent inability to accurately interpret the obvious self-evident truths that define each others perception of the world. This, I think, undermines the potential for personal perspectives to pivot upon the assumption that one can grow from learning how others view themselves in relation to their beliefs and vision. I do not think intelligence is the issue here. I think the real issue at hand is the natural desire to understand how, when approached with opposing views, one can justify what they perceive as invariables about themselves and the world they live in. The truth may be that there are no invariables and that any model of reality can be as dynamic as the person who perceives it. Mabye it is not a matter of who is right or who is wrong, but who makes sense of the world in a way that concurs with their own experience and ideals. Life is beatiful and short. Lets not avoid the oppurtunity to take advantage of the means to utilize global communications to learn and grow in the search for understanding.
     
  19. Bambi itinerant smartass Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    309
    Tony!

    I just want to tell you how much I enjoy our little chat.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    If I get rude from time to time, it's only trying to respond in kind.

    First of all, I don't see the circular explanations you alluded to. Could it be that you simply refused to learn them, and therefore cannot recount them now? In which case, why are you so certain that those explanations are really so circular and invalid? But with regard to what you did produce:

    1) I doubt it.
    2) I seriously doubt it.
    3) This, I find quite likely.
    4) Some of them were, but not all by a long stretch.
    5) I didn't just believe them. In fact, I was always the nerd pestering the teacher with questions and interrupting everyone's sleep. But I never intrinsically required a teacher to teach me, to begin with. I was not one of those whiny little shits who procrastinates all day and all night, and when confronted with academic failure blames it all on the inefficacy and ineptitude of his teachers. I read the books for myself, and I did not limit myself to just those readings that were prescribed at school. I also participated in science fairs and took top prizes; I built some of those gadgets that you seem to appreciate, and continuously reeled at the pervasive scientific ignorance of America and the thorough verdict of total failure built into the national school curricula from the outset. I still do.
    6) You never tried to understand. I see a pattern emerging.
    7) I really, sincerely doubt it.

    True enough, and thank you for finally acknowledging that the size of the genome is not, after all, an insurmountable problem shoved under the carpet by the evil anti-religious scientific conspiracy. Thank you.

    Shifting now to the notion of "degradation". You must realize, that in order for something to "degrade", its suitability, fitness or whatever you want to call it must be measurable (so that degradation would manifest itself as some sort of a deteriorating signal.) Given this, you must admit that one man's degradation can be another's improvement. It all depends on the context against which performance is measured.

    Progression:
    1) fossil deposits
    2) SNP family trees, which correspond with 1)
    3) hierarchical arrangement of all species by genetic commonality that corresponds with 1) and 2)

    It is very difficult to learn how to walk. Wouldn't you just rather have crawled?

    And the odds do not get longer. In fact, it is thoroughly exciting to discover such a vast new universe to explore. And the longer you spend in this new universe, the less foreign it becomes, and the more you get to realise that it actually is your home and indeed your very essense. I did not stop being excited about learning and exploring when I was 4 years old. Too bad you did -- and now you get to live with that childlike level of insight for the rest of your life (I'm actually very sad for you, if you can believe me.)

    In other words, you ask yourself for explanations on a regular basis, all the time playacting as if you were God. Funny you should talk about the "same boat", the "blind leading", etc. (I would also add the one about the dog chasing its own tail.)

    Deny it all you want, but the two of us, all of us, <u>are</u> in the same boat. It's just that some of us are trying to row with some semblance of purpose, while the rest are just hoping the land would rather come to them.

    No. "They" told Magellan that the world cannot be circumnavigated by going in a single direction. For example, some argued that since the world stands on some pillars (as described in the Bible), anyone foolish enough to reach the "underside" of the world would simply fall to his doom (since he won't be supported by a pillar.) They told him to quit, repent, and save himself both trouble and soul.

    I think your "RAIDS" is flaring up. You should probably seek medical attention.
     
  20. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by Bambi
    If I get rude from time to time, it's only trying to respond in kind.
    *

    No problem.

    *First of all, I don't see the circular explanations you alluded to. Could it be that you simply refused to learn them, and therefore cannot recount them now?*

    My answer was starting to get kind of long, so I left them out.
    I'll put them here.

    1. The age of fossils is determined by their location in the geologic column.
    2. The age of the location in the geologic column is determined by the fossils located therein.

    *In which case, why are you so certain that those explanations are really so circular and invalid?*

    I'm not certain.
    I just have a sneaking suspicion they are.

    *1) I doubt it.*

    Sure, you're the only one who went to a "good" school that was tough to get into.
    You were there by yourself, too, I suppose.

    *2) I seriously doubt it.*

    After saying that, I realized that maybe you didn't learn it.
    My apologies.

    *5) I didn't just believe them. In fact, I was always the nerd pestering the teacher with questions and interrupting everyone's sleep. But I never intrinsically required a teacher to teach me, to begin with. I was not one of those whiny little shits who procrastinates all day and all night, and when confronted with academic failure blames it all on the inefficacy and ineptitude of his teachers. I read the books for myself, and I did not limit myself to just those readings that were prescribed at school. I also participated in science fairs and took top prizes; I built some of those gadgets that you seem to appreciate, and continuously reeled at the pervasive scientific ignorance of America and the thorough verdict of total failure built into the national school curricula from the outset. I still do.*

    Oh shit.
    I'm talking to a replica of myself.

    *6) You never tried to understand. I see a pattern emerging.*

    I sense a certain "pattern blindness" in you.

    *7) I really, sincerely doubt it.*

    How would you know?

    *True enough, and thank you for finally acknowledging that the size of the genome is not, after all, an insurmountable problem shoved under the carpet by the evil anti-religious scientific conspiracy. Thank you.*

    ???????
    What?

    "Genes degrading over time" translates into "See, I told you evolution was true?"

    *Given this, you must admit that one man's degradation can be another's improvement. It all depends on the context against which performance is measured.*

    Given that the context is quite obviously atheist thought, yes, degradation equals improvement.
    Only an atheist would consider that a victory.

    I am stunned, astonished, nay, flabbergasted.

    *Progression:
    1) fossil deposits
    2) SNP family trees, which correspond with 1)
    3) hierarchical arrangement of all species by genetic commonality that corresponds with 1) and 2)
    *

    Don't get me wrong, I believe that the charts produced by evolutionists exist, and I believe that hierarchies are drawn on those charts.

    It's a bit of a stretch to go from that to the actual fossils, particularly since a simpler explanation with fewer contradictions exists.

    *It is very difficult to learn how to walk. Wouldn't you just rather have crawled?*

    There's that pattern blindness cropping up again.
    With learning to walk, there is a positive correlation between the effort expended to date, and the results achieved.
    With evolution, there is a negative correlation.

    To explain the pattern there, that means that 1) you will never complete the task, 2) it will get harder and harder to continue, and 3) you will slowly go nuts trying.

    Another analogy is that of pounding your head against a wall longer and harder hoping the pain will go away if you redouble your efforts.

    *And the odds do not get longer. In fact, it is thoroughly exciting to discover such a vast new universe to explore. And the longer you spend in this new universe, the less foreign it becomes, and the more you get to realise that it actually is your home and indeed your very essense.*

    I don't think I've ever said it isn't fun to get lost.
    Finding your way back is the tough part.

    *I did not stop being excited about learning and exploring when I was 4 years old. Too bad you did -- and now you get to live with that childlike level of insight for the rest of your life (I'm actually very sad for you, if you can believe me.)*

    I grew up, so now I learn things as an adult.

    *In other words, you ask yourself for explanations on a regular basis, all the time playacting as if you were God. Funny you should talk about the "same boat", the "blind leading", etc. (I would also add the one about the dog chasing its own tail.)*

    You funny.
    I'm surprised you won any scholarships.
    Your mind can't comprehend anything bigger than its current level of comprehension.
    You speak of new universes, but I think if I were to magically teleport into one of yours, I'd feel extremely cramped.

    *Deny it all you want, but the two of us, all of us, <u>are</u> in the same boat.*

    There are two boats.
    You're in one of them; I'm in the other.
    You're rowing upstream as hard as you can; I'm on a luxury liner on a pleasure cruise.

    For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he gives travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God. This also is vanity and vexation of spirit.
    (Ecclesiastes 2:26, KJV).

    *It's just that some of us are trying to row with some semblance of purpose,*

    Given your situation, I'd think you would be acting with real purpose, rather than the semblance of it.

    *"They" told Magellan that the world cannot be circumnavigated by going in a single direction. For example, some argued that since the world stands on some pillars (as described in the Bible), anyone foolish enough to reach the "underside" of the world would simply fall to his doom (since he won't be supported by a pillar.)*

    While pillars are mentioned in the Bible, someone should have read it more closely. It doesn't say the earth is sitting on pillars, nor does it say what the pillars are made of.
    What it does say is that the earth was hung upon nothing, and there it hangs to this day.

    *They told him to quit, repent, and save himself both trouble and soul.*

    I guess he should have listened.
    Secular scientists have a tendency to demonize religion (imagine that!) and make it appear that "they" were attempting to suppress exploration.
    In fact, Magellan was killed, thus he didn't (and couldn't) circumnavigate the globe, they were right and he should have listened to "them."

    *I think your "RAIDS" is flaring up. You should probably seek medical attention. *

    I forgot to mention that RAIDS can only be cured by Christianity.
    But thanks, I will seek help.

    On second thought, I don't have any symptoms.
    God is big and he created the complexity, not me.

    And, thanks to people like you, I can look forward to finding out more and more about the grandness and complexity of the universe he created.
     
  21. Bambi itinerant smartass Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    309
    Originally posted by <b>tony1</b>

    (how do you like my new addressing format?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )

    1) Sometimes, but not always. Where the fossils are young enough, their age can also be ascertained by carbon isotope dating. When they are younger still, their age can be obtained from fossilized tree ring counting, annual ice layers in glaciers, and by correlating the climatic conditions under which the lifeforms existed to the climate history, to name a few methods (e.g. sea fossils found in high desert mean that the high desert used to be ocean floor; places where sea fossils aren't found did not used to be ocean floor, etc.) A fossil's relative location to other dated fossils can also be used as a rough estimate of its age (provided the geology around it wasn't perturbed too much.)

    2) Hardly. Geological formations and mineral deposits are dated via various methods quite unconnected to fossil content. Carbon dating applies only to the very youngest deposits. For older ones (where the carbon signal is altogether missing), other radioactive elements with longer half-life (and thus much larger temporal range if cruder temporal resolution) are used. For volcanic deposits, the slowly alternating magnetic field of Earth leaves polarized layers with each new lava flow, thus creating a record of the entire formation's age from its first emergence to its completion. Continent drift rates can serve as another (though very crude) method when dating correlated formations on different continents that used to be part of the same formation. Land (and fossil content) that used to be under glaciers is at least as old as the glaciers themselves (whose partial age can be derived by counting layers in what little is left of the glaciers.) Dates of major volcanic eruptions established by magnetic and radiometric means provide yardsticks in formation of sediments containing ash layers from these eruptions. Now tell me you already knew all that and much more that I'm not mentioning here since it would be too much for starters. Next, expose the circularities that you see.

    Hardly.

    I wasn't, and still am not. So judging by my own experience, you must have had religious urges or insecurities all the way back then -- otherwise you wouldn't have ended up where you are today.

    Yes indeed. Genes are not perfectly reproduced over time, and tend to accumulate transcription errors. And that does not disprove the record of evolution. Indeed, it is one of the fundamental assumptions under the umbrella of theories that attempt to explain said record.

    The context, of course, being the rest of the genome as well as the encompassing environment. Victory?

    It's a bit of a stretch for you to make such a claim. And that's before I mention that the claim is unjustified. You have no clue as to how the charts were established, or what their current state is. Which, of course, entitles you to all sorts of claims of black arts and collusion with demons. But I say, go ahead and prosecute, Inquisitor!

    That must be your flood myth. I would have taken your claims of original impartiality and secularity seriously, if only you weren't stating that your explanation of geology and fossils poses fewer contradictions than the real explanations. Sorry, but a man is best judged by his deeds.

    Another meaningless claim. I know you don't like it when I point it out to you, but -- lay off the windmill. Please.

    Brilliant! Thank you for summarizing so well the reason why science and religion are not compatible. From now on, I will quote this passage of yours to all those who argue otherwise.

    There are many different ways to grow up, and yours is not preferrable. As for learning, that remains to be demonstrated.

    Megalomania. Check it out, I think you're showing symptoms.

    Let me also repeat a cute little retort I've heard in another debate: the next time you commune with God, would you please tape the conversation, so that we infidels could partake in some of the wisdom?

    In other words, I build the colony and you are busy living a drone's life. Fine. But I find it rather morally superior to contribute my share rather than live off someone else's labor. (Not to mention that living as a drone would be unbearably boring.)

    Let me save you some research: the pillars are inherited from Egyptian religions, where they hold up the world.

    "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he set the world upon them." (1 Samuel 2:8)

    Oh good. So the earth hangs. Together with its pillars.

    Well, what can I say in response? How about:
    <i>
    1) you will never complete the task, 2) it will get harder and harder to continue, and 3) you will slowly go nuts trying.
    </i>

    Goodness me. Then your case is hopeless.

    Glad to be of service. I just wish you weren't so selective about what you try to find out.
     
  22. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    It is pointless!

    Quote; Banbi
    "Megalomania. Check it out, I think you're showing symptoms"

    just in case, here's the defenition: Megalomania; 1. Mental disorder producing "delusions of grandeur". 2. Passion for grandiose schemes.

    Wow! it seems Jesus had it!!

    It has been a learning experience watching U both argue back and forth, however it's pointless!, "Once a man has been led to be blind, and does not want to see, he will stay blind, and he believes that in his blindness he will actually find light!." Me!.

    The search for truth of all things will go on either through the all imaginable "faith" or all the factual data gathering of science, you be the judge!

    It was not "faith" that brought electricity, it was mental evolution of man, it was not "faith" that created our modern way of living, it has been the work of many men religious or atheists that brought forth our civilization, if you can call it that!, however it was not through faith that we've been able to build a society.

    History has shown that, when ever the clergy has had political power, it has been a time of regression, it is clearly seen today, in the backward mythology of Islam.

    Question to Tony1, if god is benevolent, why sacrifice? what is so benevolent of sacrifice? what is god? what created it? another god? why would god allow so many religions to exists?
     
  23. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by Bambi
    how do you like my new addressing format?
    *

    What new addressing format?

    *Sometimes,*

    Sometimes the logic is circular?
    So I am supposed to believe evolution is true because sometimes the logic is circular?

    I suppose that is better than "always the logic is circular."

    *Hardly.*

    Granted, not anymore.
    But in school, yes.

    *I wasn't, and still am not. So judging by my own experience, you must have had religious urges or insecurities all the way back then -- otherwise you wouldn't have ended up where you are today.*

    Sounds like the atheist version of the "true Scotsman" argument.

    Ah, but a "true" atheist wouldn't have converted just because he saw that the evolutionary arguments are all mounds of crap.

    *Yes indeed.*

    I would venture to say that that is almost a perfect description of true insanity.
    Genes degrading over time is proof that they improve?
    Are you completely unaware of the meanings of "degrade" and "improve?"

    *Victory?*

    Your earlier statement about degradation = improvement appeared to be an atheist "victory."
    I'm sorry I'm not more familiar with atheist expressions of victory.
    I see them so very rarely and they look like everyone else's resounding defeats.

    *It's a bit of a stretch for you to make such a claim. And that's before I mention that the claim is unjustified. *

    The charts do exist, and they do have stuff on them.
    How is that a stretch?

    *Which, of course, entitles you to all sorts of claims of black arts and collusion with demons. But I say, go ahead and prosecute, Inquisitor!*

    My, my.
    Have we been taking courses in the Theater Arts?

    *That must be your flood myth. I would have taken your claims of original impartiality and secularity seriously, if only you weren't stating that your explanation of geology and fossils poses fewer contradictions than the real explanations. Sorry, but a man is best judged by his deeds.*

    I'm not claiming to BE impartial and secular.
    I merely don't mind discussing things from a non-religious standpoint.

    Of course, I find it impossible to locate a non-religious atheist.

    And speaking of myths, your evolution myth isn't just more contradictory, it is a flight of fancy from the word "go,"

    *Another meaningless claim. I know you don't like it when I point it out to you, but -- lay off the windmill. Please.*

    It can't be all that meaningless.
    After all, it is merely a paraphrase of your own statement.

    *Brilliant! Thank you for summarizing so well the reason why science and religion are not compatible. From now on, I will quote this passage of yours to all those who argue otherwise.*

    I thought you were warned pretty much by all concerned that that was the case.
    You won't need to prove it to anyone on this forum.

    You have everyone's agreement that you are slowly going nuts for trying.

    *Let me also repeat a cute little retort I've heard in another debate: the next time you commune with God, would you please tape the conversation, so that we infidels could partake in some of the wisdom?*

    It IS a cute little retort.
    Too bad you didn't think of it yourself.

    However, the ball is in your court, again.
    Why don't you invent a tape recorder that will do that?

    *In other words, I build the colony and you are busy living a drone's life. Fine. But I find it rather morally superior to contribute my share rather than live off someone else's labor. (Not to mention that living as a drone would be unbearably boring.)*

    That's the beauty of the system, we both get to feel superior.

    *Let me save you some research: the pillars are inherited from Egyptian religions, where they hold up the world.

    "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he set the world upon them." (1 Samuel 2:8)

    Oh good. So the earth hangs. Together with its pillars.
    *

    Can you prove otherwise?

    *Well, what can I say in response? How about:
    1) you will never complete the task, 2) it will get harder and harder to continue, and 3) you will slowly go nuts trying.
    *

    Brilliant quote!
    Who was the genius who originated that quote?
    I must have his name!!!

    Brilliant point you're making with it.

    Secular scientists will never complete the task of demonizing religion. It will get harder and harder to continue, and they will go nuts trying.

    Brilliant!

    *Goodness me. Then your case is hopeless.*

    Of course, the main symptom of RAIDS is a bad case of the "opposites."

    You say something which sounds brilliant to you but the opposite is true.

    *Glad to be of service. I just wish you weren't so selective about what you try to find out. *

    Oh, I'm not.
    Feel free to tell me anything, just go easy on the fictional conclusions.
     

Share This Page