|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 05/12/2006 : 20:40:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
The only difference is that you have zero, nada, zilch, evidence other than your book.
Your ignorance shows.
Please, Bill, present your evidence for God.quote:
So pleco is the holder of truth. After all truth is exclusive so someone has to be right, while others are wrong. If he says it is truth it must be.
No, you have presented no evidence for the existence of God despite people repeatedly asking for it. The logical conclusion is that you either (A) disregard the Bible's pointed orders for you to evangelize, or (B) have no evidence. The first option would be unthinkable for a fundamentalist such as yourself, so the second is the only thing that makes sense.quote:
You'd make a great trial layer P. (Not) My favorite is when you refute entire posts with "liar".
Judge: He's your witness counselor Pleco.
Pleco: Lair. OK, we rest your honor...
Strawman: pointing out your lies is to demonstrate what a crappy Christian you are, Bill, and not to refute any argument.quote:
Your absurd. The whole foundation of my worldview states that Yahweh is the creator and sustainer of all that exists in our cosmos. What part of "creator and sustainer of all that exists" do you not understand?
Well, so much for free will.quote:
Pleco: Bill, See that brand new car sitting on that car lot over there? Bill, who assembled that into a complete car?
Bill: Well looking at the VIN numbers I can tell you that this car was assembled at the Ford assembly plant in Louisville Kentucky with genuine UAW employees.
Pleco: I see. What about the engine? Who assembled that onto the frame of the car?
Bill: Well, as I said this car was assembled in the Louisville Kentucky plant by some of the UAW's best.
Once again, you're missing the point. You've been repeatedly asked to provide evidence that there is a "VIN number" (however redunant) that we can all see and verify somewhere in the universe. You haven't done so.quote:
Because you keep asking, over and over and over...
No, you're missing the point, over and over and over...quote:
Yahweh left more then a trace, he left the entire creation, including yourself. Seek and you will find. Of course do not seek and you will not find. You can have the writing on the wall and still refuse reality. God has given man that prerogative.
And yet, you refuse to help your neighbors to see the light. How is "Bill, please show us your evidence for God" not an act of seeking? Or was Jesus' first Commandment "every man for himself?"quote:
Maybe someday your blinders will be removed?
Maybe someday you'll be judged, as well.quote:
Again, you are being absurd an so many different levels.
Bill: I believe that Yahweh is the creator of all that exists and is the sustainer of all that exists as well.
Pleco: OK Bill, then in your worldview please tell us how a global flood could have taken place? Oh yeah, in your explanation your not allowed to account for any creator, let alone Yahweh, as I reject your God, Bill.
Again, this misses the point, which is that many fundamentalists attempt to use science to prove that God exists. filthy's article is, in part, a demonstration of how such attempts fall flat on their faces.quote:
That is right. There is so much unknown to the naturalist that his/her worldview is assumptions piled upon assumptions. For the naturalist to pretend they, definitively, know what the earth was like in the days of Noah, let alone 4.5 billion years ago, is absurd on so many different levels.
Why don't you tell us what you think "naturalists" think the Earth was like in the days of Noah or 4.5 billion years ago? My bet is that whatever you describe will be horribly wrong.quote:
The naturalist worldview is a house of cards with each card representing assumptions. Pull just one failed assumption out from the foundation and the whole house collapses in the void.
Name one failed assumption made by any naturalist here on the SFN.quote:
Yet there are no unknown physical laws to God. Heck, he is the creator of all physical laws, even the ones that are unknown or unexplained to us. They don't surprise the creator of all that exists.
Irrelevant, since you've provided no evidence that the creator exists.quote:
It is equally absurd to think that the finite creation, one who has, admittedly, limited knowledge as far as knowing all there is to know about all that exists in the cosmos, could/should be able to fully explain, define, contain, the infinite creator. The fact that I have been asked, many times, on this cite to drag God out from behind the curtains demonstrates the ignorance that has blinded some to rational thinking. To expect the finite to be able to fully explain and answer for the infinite shows just how little the asker of the question really comprehends the question they are asking.
Another strawman: you're being asked for the evidence you have of God. You're not being asked t |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2006 : 21:10:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chippewa
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
...I mean, who wouldn't want to accept the promise of eternal happiness if you only had to believe and follow a certain set of rules?...
Anyone who thinks critically wouldn't. Who could accept eternal happiness knowing that a loved one was condemned to eternal torment simply because they questioned or disobeyed one or two of those set of rules? To accept eternal happiness in that case is to accept being brainwashed.
Anyone with a love of humanity would be appalled at the notion that eternal punishment magically proclaimed from on-high, and established within one culture, applies to all people of a different culture, who are themselves unknowing of those rules or have rules of their own.
I see. Its arbitrary. You know, thats one of the things that disturbes me about Christianity. I started a short-lived thread a while back called 'The Injustice of Salvation' in which I brought up this point. Your salvation depends on being born into the right culture, or if not then it depends on you being convinced by some missionary or other. You could go to hell because the missionary, or whoever, is simply incompetent. The whole thing just doesn't make sense. And it should piss me off if true.
I guess I should give up and finally accept the conclusions I've reached. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2006 : 00:18:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
The piece attempts to dismiss the account looking at the events, and analyzing them, with his preconceived belief that Yahweh is not the creator of the entire cosmos and all of the reality that we see before us. With his basket of assumptions in hand he goes about attempting to discredit the account in a world where his beliefs dictate that Yahweh does not exist, let alone created the entire cosmos and is involved to the point that the numbers of hairs on each of our heads, or lack there of, has been accounted for. To dismiss the account using an imaginary reality, where Yahweh is refused to be accounted for, is a strawman fallacy that the creator of loves to huff and puff and… Well you know the rest. To account for reality with Noah one must also account for the same reality where Yahweh is the creator of Noah.
I've been through something similar to this with you before. Let's here for arguments sake that the flood did happen and that Noah did have an Ark with all these animals. It does not logically follow in any way that there would have to be a creator of Noah that also created the cosmos. But please show me wrong. Please show a few premises and how you would get to your conclusion. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2006 : 03:49:07 [Permalink]
|
As I have shown, the Flood and Noah's, et al, survival of it could only have happened with divine intervention, and that intervention would have to have been constant and on-going throughout the entire argosy -- that pathetic example of a ship would not have lasted 'till lunch time otherwise, and it would be impossible to care for it's cargo whatever the method used to tally it's quantity.
As Marty Leipzig has even more clearly demonstrated, the Flood was not possible in the first place, unless the laws of physics were not merely violated, but raped, pillaged, plundered, flayed, and their salted-down hides nailed up on the side of the celestial shed to dry.
I wonder why fundamentalist believers can't accept a good story for what it is: a good story, albeit composed by a non-seafaring people with a very limited, world experience. All religions have been filled with these things, and Noah's is an excellent example of a cracking good yarn intended to support the religion of the ancient Jews. But it is still just a tale to be told in a lonely shepard's camp, or by the elders of a nomadic tribe at some celebration. These stories helped to solidify the people in common cause, as indeed, did their religion.
Jesus spake in parables, eh (at a later date, of course)? So why not the rest of the Bible? Gardens of Eden, towers of Babel, pillars of salt; all compare nicely with the tales of the various pantheons that coincided with and indeed, preceded them.
Whether or not God exists, the Flood as described did not occur. Unless.... unless the Heavenly Maid Service came in shortly afterward and cleaned up the mess.
One more example of the no-Flood evidence: the fossil record (yeah, yeah I know, Bill. Here we go again  ). Had the event occurred as written, and all of the fossil record was created during that event, it would look like a pile of jackstraws. Fossils of all species would be intermixed in an undecipherable tangle, Dimetrodon cheek by jowl with Equus, H. sapiens cuddled up with Megatherium. Trees, people, dinosaurs, lobe-finned fishes, you-name-it, all would be found together in the sedimentary strata. Further, due to the sudden, mass extinction that included all scavengers, and the silts forming forming the strata in a very brief time period (a mere year) fossils would be a lot more common.
But as is seen, such is not the case. All fossils are neatly indexed in the time periods in which the creatures lived. There is no mixing, and therefore the fossil record was created by some other process. No Flood; no Flood at all beyond the ordinary. Merely a good story.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2006 : 08:33:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Your absurd. The whole foundation of my worldview states that Yahweh is the creator and sustainer of all that exists in our cosmos. What part of "creator and sustainer of all that exists" do you not understand?
What part of "I don't give a damn for your opinion unless you can prove it's unquestionably right (hint: hard evidence, not fable books written by desert dwellers in a dead language a couple centuries years ago)?" you don't understand? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2006 : 10:08:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
One more example of the no-Flood evidence: the fossil record (yeah, yeah I know, Bill. Here we go again ). Had the event occurred as written, and all of the fossil record was created during that event, it would look like a pile of jackstraws. Fossils of all species would be intermixed in an undecipherable tangle, Dimetrodon cheek by jowl with Equus, H. sapiens cuddled up with Megatherium. Trees, people, dinosaurs, lobe-finned fishes, you-name-it, all would be found together in the sedimentary strata. Further, due to the sudden, mass extinction that included all scavengers, and the silts forming forming the strata in a very brief time period (a mere year) fossils would be a lot more common.
But as is seen, such is not the case. All fossils are neatly indexed in the time periods in which the creatures lived. There is no mixing, and therefore the fossil record was created by some other process. No Flood; no Flood at all beyond the ordinary. Merely a good story.
The fossils were secretly sorted by several of Satan's sureptitous SCUBA divers just to fool paleontologists.
Good point Filthy - that is one of the biggest holes in flood "geology". Another problem is the relative homgeneity of most sedimentary rocks. If they were dopsitied in a great cataclysim, sands and shales, coarse and fine sediments would be all mixed up and we would not have any oil and gas reservoirs where hydrocarbons have been trapped in nice permeable sandstones capped with impermeable shales. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2006 : 10:53:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Filthy:
But as is seen, such is not the case. All fossils are neatly indexed in the time periods in which the creatures lived. There is no mixing, and therefore the fossil record was created by some other process. No Flood; no Flood at all beyond the ordinary. Merely a good story.
Naturally, this problem has occurred to biblical literalists. Check this bit of apologetics from the ICR founder, Henry Morris.
quote:
Henry Morris:
The fossil sequences in the sedimentary rocks do not constitute a legitimate exception to this rule, for there is a flagrant circular reasoning process involved in using them to identify their supposed geologic age. That is, the fossils have been dated by the rocks where they are found, which in turn had been dated by their imbedded fossils with the sequences based on their relative assumed stages of evolution, which had ultimately been based on the ancient philosophy of the "great chain of being." Instead of representing the evolution of life over many ages, the fossils really speak of the destruction of life (remember that fossils are dead things, catastrophically buried for preservation) in one age, with their actual local "sequences" having been determined by the ecological communities in which they were living at the time of burial.
Bolding mine. Why Christians Should Believe in a Global Flood
See, the way it works is that geologists and paleontologists are all wrong unless they look at the record in light of a global flood for which no evidence exists. So far, they have probably found about five or six engineers, I mean, creation scientists, willing to absolutely torture the scientific reality to fit their narrow view…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2006 : 12:02:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Kil:
See, the way it works is that geologists and paleontologists are all wrong unless they look at the record in light of a global flood for which no evidence exists. So far, they have probably found about five or six engineers, I mean, creation scientists, willing to absolutely torture the scientific reality to fit their narrow view…
Yes, and hardly any of them were named "Steve." 
It really is amusing, the ways they twist and spin. For anyone not familiar with it, the process ol' Hank tries to speak of is very simple and straight-forward. Let us say that you find a fossil in a sediment of unknown age. If the fossil is of known species, the age of the strata can be ascertained quite nicely by it's siblings found in dated strata elsewhere. Even if the fossil is unknown, the age can be roughly determined by what "kind" ( ) of organism it once was. No mammals in the Devonian, and so forth.
You really have to have a spastic mind-set to not be able to handle such an uncomplicated concept.
And let us not forget Hydraulic Sorting. I understand that Hovind, et al, is still spouting that booshwah. Here's an interesting link to pretty much the whole, mendacious shootin' match.
ICR "scientists"
hold a meeting
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2006 : 21:41:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Filthy
I wonder why fundamentalist believers can't accept a good story for what it is: a good story, albeit composed by a non-seafaring people with a very limited, world experience. All religions have been filled with these things, and Noah's is an excellent example of a cracking good yarn intended to support the religion of the ancient Jews. But it is still just a tale to be told in a lonely shepard's camp, or by the elders of a nomadic tribe at some celebration. These stories helped to solidify the people in common cause, as indeed, did their religion.
Makes sense in that context - the Ark would have been big enough for the few animal species that they knew of.
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
See, the way it works is that geologists and paleontologists are all wrong unless they look at the record in light of a global flood for which no evidence exists. So far, they have probably found about five or six engineers, I mean, creation scientists, willing to absolutely torture the scientific reality to fit their narrow view…
Any mechanical or civil engineer who believes in the Ark codswallop should be decertified as an incompetent menace to public safety.
There are those who consider civil engineer is an oxymoron - Creation Science definitely is (with emphasis on the moron). |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
| Edited by - Ghost_Skeptic on 05/13/2006 21:57:18 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2006 : 07:19:22 [Permalink]
|
| Dave - thanks for the reply - I was out of town this weekend (Tool concert in Chicago) with no access to a computer. I feel no need to reply to that gibberish after what you posted, so I owe you one! :-) |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2006 : 07:20:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
(bill) Yahweh left more then a trace, he left the entire creation, including yourself. Seek and you will find. Of course do not seek and you will not find. You can have the writing on the wall and still refuse reality. God has given man that prerogative.
Could you explain why you think it is so obvious that God created the universe? Is it because of some vague feeling that “it's all too beautiful and complex and fine-tuned” to have been created without the input of an intelligent agent? Or is there something more specific?
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. I really want to know. While I have come to the conclusion that there is no God, I also realize that, deep down, I would like to believe. I mean, who wouldn't want to accept the promise of eternal happiness if you only had to believe and follow a certain set of rules? After all, the rules are mostly common-sense and I follow most of them already. It wouldn't be too difficult.
The problem is that I have gotten to the point in my life where I need a solid body of evidence before I believe in something so fantastic, not just the say-so of others. I think most people ‘believe' because they have been brought up being told, over and over, that the beliefs they are being brought up with are true. It is engrained and reinforced by both family and community, and becomes a fundamental part of their identity. However, there are many different Faiths, and most are mutually exclusive. They can't all be right, and perhaps none are. That is, I think, what started me down the road to the rejection of my beliefs. At some point I began to ask myself what it was that made my beliefs correct and the others wrong. I found that my faith was based on the assertions of others, and that the evidence that was presented was not very convincing.
So that's where I stand right now. I have abandoned beliefs in the supernatural, but I keep looking for that solid body of evidence to convince me otherwise. That's why I am interested in your claims. You seem confident and assured of your beliefs.
If you've got it, I'd like to see a line of evidence that was not based on an appeal to either authority or incredulity. I know I've asked you a very similar question a little while ago in another thread, but I was hoping maybe you could single out just one argument you find particularly convincing.
P.S. It occurs to me that this may look like an attempt to hijack the thread, but I'b be stunned if it did.
quote:
Could you explain why you think it is so obvious that God created the universe? Is it because of some vague feeling that “it's all too beautiful and complex and fine-tuned” to have been created without the input of an intelligent agent? Or is there something more specific?
(bill) It is a combination of many things. Yes, I see the complexity we find in the human body and it screams out "designer" to me. I look at all the different systems in our natural world and how they are independent, yet, many work together for the big picture. The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard; yet their voice goes out through all the earth, |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 05/15/2006 07:53:01 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2006 : 07:50:32 [Permalink]
|
Mt. St. Helen & the Big Ditch. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2006 : 08:14:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Mt. St. Helen & the Big Ditch.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html
Response:
The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments (the Vishnu schist), plus a touch of relatively recent basalt.
(bill) So what? Mount St. Helens was a "minor" eruption. Showing what can take place during just a minor eruption.
The canyon was not entirely formed suddenly. The canyon along Toutle River has a river continuously contributing to its formation.
(bill) How big was this canyon pre-eruption?
Another canyon also cited as evidence of catastrophic erosion is Engineer's Canyon, which was formed via water pumped out of Spirit Lake over several days by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
(bill) Even if true it further demonstrates these canyons can be made in short periods of times and millions of years are not required.
The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.
(bill) Does not account for canyons being formed in minute fractions of the predicted millions of years.
The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable.
(bill) It was noted that MSH was a small volcano. Please list source and references for the scale of the canyons. Also the peice referanced is from 1986. Have you or talk origins done any fact checking to make sure this is all still valid and has not been revised by the author of the peice? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 05/15/2006 08:17:49 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2006 : 08:47:03 [Permalink]
|
| I thought this was about Noah's Ark? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2006 : 08:58:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
I thought this was about Noah's Ark?
Here is where it started to go tangent...
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
P.S. It occurs to me that this may look like an attempt to hijack the thread, but I'b be stunned if it did.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
