|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 05/15/2006 : 09:32:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
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, and their words to the end of the world.
I think it's great, Bill, that you've got your own personal reasons for your faith. Now why is it that you think those opinions should trump science when the two overlap?quote:
I could also point to archeology as one of the evidence that I have found to back Scripture. Here is but a small example of why I believe Scripture is supported in this field:
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible?
...
Is there any confirmation of Biblical events from written sources outside the Bible?
...
Have any man-made structures mentioned in the Bible been unearthed by archaeologists?
...
It's a real shame, I guess, that there is no archeological or textual evidence supporting any of the miracles described in the Bible, or the divinity of Jesus.quote:
I could point to many different things like the fact that geology demonstrates that we do not need millions of years for many of the wonders we see in the natural world as the naturalist crowd likes to trumpet that we do. Take Mt. St.. Helen's for example:
Using the same "logic," one might say that since it is possible that some geological features took millions of years to create, then they all did. It's a piss-poor argument for any particular age of the Earth, which is why geologists don't make such arguments, and why creationists shouldn't make such arguments.quote:
Of Course we could go back and forth for ever discussing every single biblical event or situation in which you wanted me to explain how it was done. In the end this will be a futile exercise as you are asking the finite to have complete knowledge on the infinite. An absurd task to request.
That's why nobody is doing so, despite your insistence to the contrary. Again: where is there any evidence for the existence of God?quote:
What changed his mind? What evidence did Dr. Greenleaf encounter that so drastically turned him around? What facts did he discover that he could not rationally ignore?
Don't know, but that's what you get when applying legal standards to matters of science. The law doesn't rely on replication and testability to sort out truth from fiction, after all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2006 : 09:37:22 [Permalink]
|
Big Ditch Formation, or "Where is the Shovel?"
The OP is mine, therefore the thread will be off topic when I say it's off topic. 
However, if anyone feels the need to pursue the thoroughly debunked Flood & Ark further, that's ok and all a part of the game. 
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2006 : 09:52:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The OP is mine, therefore the thread will be off topic when I say it's off topic.
True, true...I just notice that sometimes when a particular topic is not looking good for one side, the topic will get changed, usually with a huge posting with a bunch of quote mining or the like. Seems like an intentional tactic to me, I dunno. |
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 : 11:11:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
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, and their words to the end of the world.
I think it's great, Bill, that you've got your own personal reasons for your faith. Now why is it that you think those opinions should trump science when the two overlap?quote:
I could also point to archeology as one of the evidence that I have found to back Scripture. Here is but a small example of why I believe Scripture is supported in this field:
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible?
...
Is there any confirmation of Biblical events from written sources outside the Bible?
...
Have any man-made structures mentioned in the Bible been unearthed by archaeologists?
...
It's a real shame, I guess, that there is no archeological or textual evidence supporting any of the miracles described in the Bible, or the divinity of Jesus.quote:
I could point to many different things like the fact that geology demonstrates that we do not need millions of years for many of the wonders we see in the natural world as the naturalist crowd likes to trumpet that we do. Take Mt. St.. Helen's for example:
Using the same "logic," one might say that since it is possible that some geological features took millions of years to create, then they all did. It's a piss-poor argument for any particular age of the Earth, which is why geologists don't make such arguments, and why creationists shouldn't make such arguments.quote:
Of Course we could go back and forth for ever discussing every single biblical event or situation in which you wanted me to explain how it was done. In the end this will be a futile exercise as you are asking the finite to have complete knowledge on the infinite. An absurd task to request.
That's why nobody is doing so, despite your insistence to the contrary. Again: where is there any evidence for the existence of God?quote:
What changed his mind? What evidence did Dr. Greenleaf encounter that so drastically turned him around? What facts did he discover that he could not rationally ignore?
Don't know, but that's what you get when applying legal standards to matters of science. The law doesn't rely on replication and testability to sort out truth from fiction, after all.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
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, and their words to the end of the world.
I think it's great, Bill, that you've got your own personal reasons for your faith. Now why is it that you think those opinions should trump science when the two overlap?
(bill) Which science would be referring to?
quote:
It's a real shame, I guess, that there is no archeological or textual evidence supporting any of the miracles described in the Bible, or the divinity of Jesus.
(bill) Simply nonsense, Dave:
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh.html
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/Psalms/psalm_22.shtml
http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm
quote:
quote:
I could point to many different things like the fact that geology demonstrates that we do not need millions of years for many of the wonders we see in the natural world as the naturalist crowd likes to trumpet that we do. Take Mt. St.. Helen's for example:
Using the same "logic," one might say that since it is possible that some geological features took millions of years to create, then they all did.
(bill) Except for when one says this they don't have tangible evidence to point to as an example for their claims, such as what we see when canyons and geological layers are formed at MSH's is nano-seconds, when going on macro evolution time scale. When it comes to millions of years for explaining these processes all you have is your just-so story rather then a tangible event to point to as an example
quote:
It's a piss-poor argument for any particular age of the Earth, which is why geologists don't make such arguments, and why creationists shouldn't make such arguments.
(bill) It's a great argument. It can be tangibly demonstrated that millions of years are not required. It is a just-so story that millions of years are required.
quote:
quote:
|
"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 11:21:52 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2006 : 11:47:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Big Ditch Formation, or "Where is the Shovel?"
The OP is mine, therefore the thread will be off topic when I say it's off topic.
However, if anyone feels the need to pursue the thoroughly debunked Flood & Ark further, that's ok and all a part of the game.
(bill) That's cool, you point to your Microsoft excel chart while I point to what is left of Mt. St. Helen. One is tangible while one is digitally generated... |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2006 : 12:20:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
The OP is mine, therefore the thread will be off topic when I say it's off topic.
True, true...I just notice that sometimes when a particular topic is not looking good for one side, the topic will get changed, usually with a huge posting with a bunch of quote mining or the like. Seems like an intentional tactic to me, I dunno.
Indeed it is. But I like 'em to to cover a lot of territory and this one's coming along nicely. 'Topic' is often rather a loose term around here, anyway.
I find it amusing that Bill is trying to use the volcanic ash of Mt. St. Helen as an example of canyons forming in a very short time. Of course canyons can form quickly, given the right conditions -- anyone who has seem the results of fast water in loose dirt knows that. But it cannot compare with the Grand Canyon which is composed of lime and sandstones, and lava. I've read that one can trace out a good part of the fossil record just by observing it's walls.
But you raise a good point, pleco. Bill seems to think that he has dodged the Leipzig Bullet and we've forgotten all about it.
He has not. I am waiting with my accustomed patience for his carefully calculated refutation of it and an explanation as to how the esteemed doctor could have been so mistaken. 
|
"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!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 05/15/2006 12:22:48 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2006 : 12:28:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Which science would be referring to?
Biology, physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, etc.quote:
Simply nonsense, Dave:
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh.html
No evidence to be seen at that link, just a bunch of arguments from authority and incredulity and a pile of "facts" which aren't actually atested to by anything other than the Bible.quote:
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/Psalms/psalm_22.shtml
This one is pretty pathetic with its factual inaccuracies (solar eclipses only happen during new moons, for example), its abuse of the word "testifies" (Jophesus was reporting what he'd heard about Jesus, not testifying), and its lack of evidence regarding the events it takes as fact. It also relies heavily upon a false dichotomy, that either the authors of the gospels got everything right or they were lying. Other possibilities exist which are simply not examined.quote:
http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm
More of the same, with the added inconsistency of a claim that people back then didn't generally write fiction, followed by an acknowledgement that people back then wrote fiction.
Not a single Roman artifact from 33 AD saying "Pilate ordered the execution of this Jesus guy." The authors of these pieces demand that first-century historians were rigorous and meticulous, but the evidence that would document the most-important New Testament claims is simply absent.quote:
Except for when one says this they don't have tangible evidence to point to as an example for their claims, such as what we see when canyons and geological layers are formed at MSH's is nano-seconds, when going on macro evolution time scale. When it comes to millions of years for explaining these processes all you have is your just-so story rather then a tangible event to point to as an example
Except generalizing the Mount St. Helens eruption to all geological features is faulty for a variety of reasons, as has already been pointed out.quote:
It's a great argument. It can be tangibly demonstrated that millions of years are not required.
Only for loose volcanic ash deposits. Or are you claiming that geologists - even Christian geologists - are so incompetent that they can't tell the difference between volcanic ash and sandstone?quote:
It is a just-so story that millions of years are required.
You've got evidence that sandstone, limestone, granite and/or shale can be created in just one day?quote:
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh.html
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/Psalms/psalm_22.shtml
http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm
Repetition doesn't make something true, Bill. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2006 : 17:45:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) It's a great argument. It can be tangibly demonstrated that millions of years are not required. It is a just-so story that millions of years are required.
The thing about extrapolating is to know when to do it and when not to. As Dave W pointed out, extrapolating the formation of canyons in volcanic ash to the formation of canyons in sandstone does not work. Let me give you another (easier to understand?) example of why your reasoning failed. In New Zealand there lives a parrot in the cold mountains of the South Island. This parrot like to pick at the windscreen wipers of cars (or anything else they can get their naughty beaks on). The analogy to your conclusion that all canyons can be formed in a short span of time is to (given the above information) conclude that all parrots live in cold mountains and that they all like to pick at windscreen wipers. Do you think that this is a reasonable conclusion? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2006 : 21:28:06 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for responding to my request, Bill.
You offer, to me at least, nothing at all convincing to support your belief in God. Especially the stuff about Mt. St. Hellens. My background is in geology and geophysics, and I can you that the material you linked to is simply pathetic. Anyone who knows even just a little geology should be able to spot much of the nonsense listed. Many here have already pointed out the problems. I can only assume that you are totally geologically ignorant, or that you choose to turn off your brain when considering evidence for your beliefs. Probably the latter since you show no sign of acknowledging the errors that have been pointed out to you. You just ignore them.
I have read enough on the archaeological evidence to know that much of what you present is irrelevent. Even writers of historical fiction will place their story in an historical context, complete with real-world places, figures and events. I know that the scholarly consensus is that there is little or no evidence for the events in the Bible concerning the Israelites until around the time if David, and even that is sketchy and debateable. (I feel bad not supplying references here, but its late and I am tired. I'll get some if anyone asks).
And drop the Mt. St. Helens stuff. It's really awfull. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 06:23:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Which science would be referring to?
Biology, physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, etc.quote:
Simply nonsense, Dave:
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh.html
No evidence to be seen at that link, just a bunch of arguments from authority and incredulity and a pile of "facts" which aren't actually atested to by anything other than the Bible.quote:
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/Psalms/psalm_22.shtml
This one is pretty pathetic with its factual inaccuracies (solar eclipses only happen during new moons, for example), its abuse of the word "testifies" (Jophesus was reporting what he'd heard about Jesus, not testifying), and its lack of evidence regarding the events it takes as fact. It also relies heavily upon a false dichotomy, that either the authors of the gospels got everything right or they were lying. Other possibilities exist which are simply not examined.quote:
http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm
More of the same, with the added inconsistency of a claim that people back then didn't generally write fiction, followed by an acknowledgement that people back then wrote fiction.
Not a single Roman artifact from 33 AD saying "Pilate ordered the execution of this Jesus guy." The authors of these pieces demand that first-century historians were rigorous and meticulous, but the evidence that would document the most-important New Testament claims is simply absent.quote:
Except for when one says this they don't have tangible evidence to point to as an example for their claims, such as what we see when canyons and geological layers are formed at MSH's is nano-seconds, when going on macro evolution time scale. When it comes to millions of years for explaining these processes all you have is your just-so story rather then a tangible event to point to as an example
Except generalizing the Mount St. Helens eruption to all geological features is faulty for a variety of reasons, as has already been pointed out.quote:
It's a great argument. It can be tangibly demonstrated that millions of years are not required.
Only for loose volcanic ash deposits. Or are you claiming that geologists - even Christian geologists - are so incompetent that they can't tell the difference between volcanic ash and sandstone?quote:
It is a just-so story that millions of years are required.
You've got evidence that sandstone, limestone, granite and/or shale can be created in just one day?quote:
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh.html
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/Psalms/psalm_22.shtml
http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm
Repetition doesn't make something true, Bill.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Which science would be referring to?
Biology, physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, etc.
(bill) OK then where am I overlapping cosmology science with my beliefs and dismissing the science, by default, when I have done so?
quote:
quote:
Simply nonsense, Dave:
<http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh.html>
No evidence to be seen at that link, just a bunch of arguments from authority and incredulity and a pile of "facts" which aren't actually atested to by anything other than the Bible.
(bill) Non-sense as all three links, as well as my previous posts, did a fine job, in the limited space available, demonstrating the established reliability of the Bible. For you to dismiss everything from the Bible simply because it is the Bible is absurd. It is a historically reliable document or nothing is.
F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: "Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh.html
By the end of the 19th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.
Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."
Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with t |
"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 05/16/2006 07:09:35 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 06:39:22 [Permalink]
|
| How much of the above post is Bill's own thoughts or some tripe he dredged up from other web sites? I guess we will never know.... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 06:58:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
How much of the above post is Bill's own thoughts or some tripe he dredged up from other web sites? I guess we will never know....
BTW, I offered theses sources a couple of times. Dave said they contained no evidence so I simple pulled a fraction of the evidence that I found from each, commented on it, sourced it, and then posted it. Now you refute it. |
"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 05/16/2006 07:59:57 |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 07:16:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
How much of the above post is Bill's own thoughts or some tripe he dredged up from other web sites? I guess we will never know....
From what I've determined, anything that presents a calm argument for some position is cut-and-pasted from some web site or other. The rantings of personal opinion are his own.
He obviously doesn't think these things through. He accepts them at face value and ignores even the most obvious errors when they are pointed out. Perhaps deep down he knows that these pillars of his faith would crumble upon the slightest inspection, so he deliberately keeps his eyes shut.
I suspect that it is very difficult for someone who has spent their entire lifetime being spoon fed the "truth" to entertain the idea that they may have been mislead. Especially if their faith has become a central part of their life.
I don't mind the cut-and-paste so much. Its the fact that the arguments are so lame and that Bill doesn't bother to _think_ about them that is somewhat annoying. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 07:24:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
How much of the above post is Bill's own thoughts or some tripe he dredged up from other web sites? I guess we will never know....
From what I've determined, anything that presents a calm argument for some position is cut-and-pasted from some web site or other. The rantings of personal opinion are his own.
He obviously doesn't think these things through. He accepts them at face value and ignores even the most obvious errors when they are pointed out. Perhaps deep down he knows that these pillars of his faith would crumble upon the slightest inspection, so he deliberately keeps his eyes shut.
I suspect that it is very difficult for someone who has spent their entire lifetime being spoon fed the "truth" to entertain the idea that they may have been mislead. Especially if their faith has become a central part of their life.
I don't mind the cut-and-paste so much. Its the fact that the arguments are so lame and that Bill doesn't bother to _think_ about them that is somewhat annoying.
quote:
He obviously doesn't think these things through. He accepts them at face value and ignores even the most obvious errors when they are pointed out. Perhaps deep down he knows that these pillars of his faith would crumble upon the slightest inspection, so he deliberately keeps his eyes shut.
(bill) So inspect them and bring forth your criticism so we can discuss.
quote:
I suspect that it is very difficult for someone who has spent their entire lifetime being spoon fed the "truth" to entertain the idea that they may have been mislead. Especially if their faith has become a central part of their life.
(bill) I did not become a Christian until my mid 20's, so your assumption, as usual, was wrong.
|
"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
