|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 05/24/2006 : 22:16:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
You know, the more I look at tiny mycobacterium, the more it resembles dinosaurs and elephants.
Good. This is the same reason that scientists have come to the conclusion that they share common ancestry. Although the differences are huge between them, the similarities are just as telling. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 03:39:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
You guys just don't "read" between the lines, you seem to read a Super Computer betwix the lines.
Why must we 'read between the lines?' Can't you Creationists simply spit it out, rather than play the coquette?
quote:
You know, the more I look at tiny mycobacterium, the more it resembles dinosaurs and elephants.
You are correct. I predict that this bacterium will have as much impact upon evolutionary science as have the dinosaurs.
|
"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 - 05/25/2006 : 06:09:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
Filthy: Bill, please explain very clearly, and in detail, how Noah, using only Bronze Age tools, was able to build a wooden vessel - a very large wooden vessel - that was able to remain afloat in the most turbulent seas ever known in the history of man. Be aware that wooden ships are notoriously unstable/leaky and that such a feat has NEVER been duplicated.
Bill: God did it.
The rest of the Skeptic Friends forum: Uhh... Bill? Could you perhaps be just a little more detailed in your explanation?
Bill: I can't explain the unexplainable. It's the almighty God after all. I can't be expected to understand how He works... I just know that it is the truth....no explanation necessary.
quote:
Filthy: Bill, please explain very clearly, and in detail, how Noah, using only Bronze Age tools, was able to build a wooden vessel - a very large wooden vessel - that was able to remain afloat in the most turbulent seas ever known in the history of man. Be aware that wooden ships are notoriously unstable/leaky and that such a feat has NEVER been duplicated.
Bill: God did it.
I believe you might be starting to understand. It's not that hard of a concept to grapple. I am surprised your having this much trouble. I am a Christian dude. My whole worldview begins with "God did it". I am not sure what you are wanting me say, God didn't do it? Why would I say that if it was not what I believed to be true?
Fripp: So let me see if I understand here. You, as a Christian, believe that God is the eternal creator of all things that exist?
Bill: Yes, that's right.
Fripp: Everything?
Bill: Everything.
Fripp: Where did the universe come from?
Bill: From God of course.
Fripp: God did it? Oh how convenient.
Bill: Yes, it is convenient. Especially when you consider it is what I believe.
Do you yet understand? I will say "God did it" because that is what I believe, that God did do it. That is the foundation for my worldview, In the beginning God... while yours is God did not do it.
Now if your question in reality is, HOW DID GOD DO IT?, then this would be even more evidence of your confusion as you would be asking the finite, who has limited knowledge, to explain and speak for the infinite, who has unlimited knowledge, and this is a logical absurdity. Do you not understand this yet? If God, creator of the cosmos, wanted to sustain Noah on giant block of granit then this would not be a problom for the creator of the cosmos. Can I explain how God would have done this? Of course not. What part of finite human not having full knowledge of the infinte and not being able to speak for him do you not understand here? Or do you consider it a logical request for the finite to have full knowledge of the infinte?
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 06:13:27 [Permalink]
|
Then god could have done it all with the Big Bang, warm pools, and evolution. Right?
BTW, I don't think anyone said "god didn't do it". We just reject what is stated in the bible literally since there is no proof. If you say god can do it and it doesn't leave evidence except for the bible, then there is can be no debate.
So, have you shoehorned your god into what is literall written in the bible, or can your god do anything it wants, regardless of what was written by men in the bible?
I know it is tough, since men wrote in the bible that god and the bible are the same ("the word of god").
So, Bill, you believe in the 100% literal words in the bible?
If you do, there is no debate. There is nothing that can be shown to you that will dissuade you. You don't require evidence, since god can do anything, including make the world in six days despite all the physical evidence to the contrary. Since your "theory" cannot be falsified, it cannot be argued, and your presence here is moot.
However, the minute you try to use science to prove us wrong, you are now in our territory, and you just can't cop out by saying "god did it" when you get cornered. Note the distiction between "god did it" and "we don't know", they are really different, in case you were thinking that we cop out by saying "we don't know" when we, in fact, don't know. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 05/25/2006 06:20:47 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 06:20:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
And resurrections have never been repeated?
(bill) Sure they have. Go back and reread your New Testament.
quote:
And you are citing lawyers on this? Pul-leese!
(bill) No, please pay attention. I cited modern day scholars as well as Jewish historians and former Roman leaders.
quote:
In science, the claim (experiment) must be repeatable.
(bill) Well I do not consider the study and/or claim of history to be an experiment and who knows what you consider it to be? So does this mean that Abraham Lincoln had to be assassinated twice before you would accept it as a historical event?
quote:
Writings and opinions means nothing if not supported by empirical evidence.
(bill) Opinions I would agree, however let me ask you this, give me your favorite character of history and tell me how we/you know anything about such said character?
quote:
quote:
(bill) It does not matter what you accept, but, rather what the evidence looks like when laid beside the evidence for other persons of history, which when done so the debate over the occurrence of the resurrection becomes a moot point.
Huh? What evidence? More writings by lawyers of things that have nothing to do with law? History is written by the victors, always to their favor. Thus far, according to the evidence, the resurrection comes off as a myth little different than any other.
(bill) I don't know where you dreamt up lawyers, but anyway, if the resurrection is a myth, after examining the evidence, then so is most of human history, by your criteria, that we claim as reality.
quote:
quote:
(bill) So not only do you want me to be able explain and have full knowledge of the infinite, but now you want me to duplicate his works as well? I think I will have to get back to you on that one.
Hey, you've been doing that to us for as long as you've been here. Multiple times, you have insisted that we give you every detail of the abiogenesis and Big Bang hypothesis, and multiple times it has been explained to you why we cannot. But I gotta admit; you're consistent.
(bill) So then at the bare minimum I have demonstrated for you how absurd it is for you to ask me to perform a equally impossible task. Asking me to prove what size wood screws Noah used and to dig up his personal organizer that would contain all his manifests, purchase orders and task lists is absurd to say the least. Not to mention the list of assumptions that you lean on in attempt to claim that you know what the earth was like in the days of Noah. I mean heck, you guys could not even agree amongst yourselves on the atmospheric issue. Keep his calculations in... No get rid of them... No they are valid.... No they are not... And this was just one of an infinite amount of conditions that you would be assuming on.
quote:
quote:
(bill) No. Which is one reason I am very skeptical of materialistic abiogenesis theory, based on no evidence what so ever, and I accept the documented and corroborated historical event known as the resurrection of the Lamb of God who died that you and I could be reconciled to God for our many transgression against him. He died that we may live...
Yeah, right!
Again, we have explained as much as is known about abiogenesis. And you have replied with no better than Biblical myth. The existence of the Holy Lands and the milina-old stories surrounding them is not evidence for any sort of resurrection, nor even walking on water.
(bill) I can't argue with those who have the magic power to refute historical evidence with a hand wave.
quote:
quote:
(bill) I found the division of all politicians into a Repub. or Dem. corner is a waste of time as many dems vote conservative on many issues while many repubs go left.
Change the word "many" to "some" and I'll agree with you. Unfortunately, many Democrats have become afflicted with acute pussyism and I'm very pleased to not belong to that party.
(bill) I have learned to try and take each politician on his/her own merit and throw the labels out the window.
quote:
quote:
(bill) Which is why I find your insistence that I account for every single detail of the Noah's Ark era and your insistence that your conclusion was not based off of multitudes of assumptions based on more assumptions absurd on so many levels.. For example if there was a fellow named Noah, who 1000's of years back built a boat to make it through the coming flood, then this would have accrued in a world that was created by the Judeo-Christian God. According to the Bible God gave Noah the instructions on how to build his boat. Now if God can create the universe where the universe did not exist before and bring about life, from nothing, where no life existed before, then sustaining Noah and his ark would not be a problem for God. If he did this all supernaturally, or, if he, using his infinite knowledge, gave Noah a schematic to make the boat it makes no difference to the final outcome and we probably will never know, |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 06:24:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
quote:
Why do you keep on doing this, Bill? Time and again you are saying that because science doesn't have all the answers, it can't have any answers at all.
(bill) Where did I say this?
Eeeerm, everytime you claim that scientific theories must account for creation ex nihilo (or something other that is totally irrelevant) even though they were never meant to answer for it.
quote:
Your point about your request for more "information" somehow doesn't sit well with our "holy cow of materialism" is moot. Science is comfortable with there being gaps in knowledge. These gaps are actually the reason for there being science in the first place.
(bill) Non-sense. My request for more information merely shows that man has no clue how life got started and all these "shot in the dark" attempts to even come up with a plausible hypothesis are simply evidence of this ignorance.
I suspect that you didn't really address what I actually wrote. It is not nonsense that science is uncomfortable with gaps in knowledge. The raison d'etre of science is to try to fill in those blanks.
quote:
(bill)To give a naturalist hypothesis on the origin of life the materialist must begin with nothing and go from there.
No, bill. Try to understand this. A naturalist hypothesis on the origin of life does not have to account for creation ex nihilo any more/less than a naturalist hypothesis on the origin of the produce in your supermarket would.
Naturalist: These oranges in the fruit section originated from Brazil.
Bill: Your assumption is that there is no infinite god with infinite powers. The origin from Brazil hypothesis doesn't account for the creation of matter from nothing.
quote:
(bill)To begin the story with primordial soups and extraterrestrial objects from outer space already in existence and offer no explanation for this existence, or any evidence at all for the story, puts this in the category of wishful thinking at best, and fairytale at worst.
And to begin the origin from Brazil story with the existence of Brazil and oranges would also be a fairytale.
quote:
No, bill. Try to understand this. A naturalist hypothesis on the origin of life does not have to account for creation ex nihilo any more/less than a naturalist hypothesis on the origin of the produce in your supermarket would.
Naturalist: These oranges in the fruit section originated from Brazil.
Bill: Your assumption is that there is no infinite god with infinite powers. The origin from Brazil hypothesis doesn't account for the creation of matter from nothing.
No Hawk. Brazil was not the creator of the fruit that we call orange. Your story only explains where those partical oranges that you are pointing to were grown, as the OJ I drink all comes from Florida oranges. Your story says nothing on the origins of the fruit known as the orange, only that the particular oranges you pointed to were grown in Brazil.
quote:
quote:
(bill)To begin the story with primordial soups and extraterrestrial objects from outer space already in existence and offer no explanation for this existence, or any evidence at all for the story, puts this in the category of wishful thinking at best, and fairytale at worst.
And to begin the origin from Brazil story with the existence of Brazil and oranges would also be a fairytale.
Only if your implying that Brazil is the origin of all oranges, and the orange it's very self, which it is not.
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 07:25:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Then god could have done it all with the Big Bang, warm pools, and evolution. Right?
BTW, I don't think anyone said "god didn't do it". We just reject what is stated in the bible literally since there is no proof. If you say god can do it and it doesn't leave evidence except for the bible, then there is can be no debate.
So, have you shoehorned your god into what is literall written in the bible, or can your god do anything it wants, regardless of what was written by men in the bible?
I know it is tough, since men wrote in the bible that god and the bible are the same ("the word of god").
So, Bill, you believe in the 100% literal words in the bible?
If you do, there is no debate. There is nothing that can be shown to you that will dissuade you. You don't require evidence, since god can do anything, including make the world in six days despite all the physical evidence to the contrary. Since your "theory" cannot be falsified, it cannot be argued, and your presence here is moot.
However, the minute you try to use science to prove us wrong, you are now in our territory, and you just can't cop out by saying "god did it" when you get cornered. Note the distiction between "god did it" and "we don't know", they are really different, in case you were thinking that we cop out by saying "we don't know" when we, in fact, don't know.
quote:
Then god could have done it all with the Big Bang, warm pools, and evolution. Right?
(bill) Could? Yes. Did? No.
quote:
BTW, I don't think anyone said "god didn't do it". We just reject what is stated in the bible literally since there is no proof. If you say god can do it and it doesn't leave evidence except for the bible, then there is can be no debate.
(bill) You can lead a horse to water but you can't.... The handwriting is on the wall. Heck, it all over the wall. What you do with the evidence is up to you.
quote:
So, have you shoehorned your god into what is literall written in the bible, or can your god do anything it wants, regardless of what was written by men in the bible?
(bill) Yes, God can do what ever he chooses and one of his chooses was to reveal himself in several different ways and one way he choose was through the written Word. Again, as a finite entity, you grossly underestimate the infinite. Which is understandable...
quote:
I know it is tough, since men wrote in the bible that god and the bible are the same ("the word of god").
(bill) It is tough for you since you are a mere finite being. You seem to think that God is finite as well. You could not be further from the truth.
quote:
So, Bill, you believe in the 100% literal words in the bible?
(bill) That is a pretty loaded question. Do I believe the Bible is the Word of God? Yes. But the Bible, in whole, is not all to be taken in a wooden literal sense. Example: In the beginning God created... This is literal. Example: In the Psalms we read that God took Israel under his wing for protection. Not to be taken in a wooden literal sense as God is not a cosmic sized chicken.
quote:
If you do, there is no debate. There is nothing that can be shown to you that will dissuade you. You don't require evidence, since god can do anything, including make the world in six days despite all the physical evidence to the contrary. Since your "theory" cannot be falsified, it cannot be argued, and your presence here is moot.
(bill) Non-sense. We can go back to the NA thread and continue with the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you can convince me that the resurrection of Christ was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on man, rather then the cornerstone which all history pivots around, then I would drop my defense of the Judeo-Christian God like a rock.
quote:
However, the minute you try to use science to prove us wrong, you are now in our territory,
(bill) You seem to have a broad definition for the word science.
quote:
and you just can't cop out by saying "god did it" when you get cornered.
(bill) Your confused. I proclaim that God did it from the beginning. Not when you believe you have me cornered.
quote:
Note the distiction between "god did it" and "we don't know",
(bill) Yes. I claim that God is the creator of life, while you have no clue, apart from God.
quote:
they are really different, in case you were thinking that we cop out by saying "we don't know" when we, in fact, don't know.
(bill) Equally you were thinking that I cop out by reverting to "God did it" when you believe you have me cornered when, in fact, I stated that God did it before the conversation even began.
|
"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 05/25/2006 07:49:23 |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 08:36:23 [Permalink]
|
OK, let me start by saying that I do not have a lot of time to devote to this today. And since your position is basically an inarguable (sp?) position, I doubt that I will pursue this dialogue much further.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
My whole worldview begins with "God did it". I am not sure what you are wanting me say, God didn't do it? Why would I say that if it was not what I believed to be true?
But you have stated several times in various threads that you were initially an "un-believer" (my words/term, so don't get your panties in a knot claiming that you "never said that") and that through "common sense", you have come to the belief that All comes from God. How can that be if you start with the precept that "god did it" and that nothing can change your mind? If "common sense" led you see this, then it should be painfully clear and easily explainable to the rest of us. Don't cop out and say that you've explained it time and time again...you haven't.
quote:
Fripp: So let me see if I understand here. You, as a Christian, believe that God is the eternal creator of all things that exist?
Bill: Yes, that's right.
Fripp: Everything?
Bill: Everything.
Fripp: Where did the universe come from?
Bill: From God of course.
Fripp: God did it? Oh how convenient.
Bill: Yes, it is convenient. Especially when you consider it is what I believe.
That was actually a very good representation of our potential dialogue...no straw men (applause)
But... my next question after your "From God of course." would be..."Sooo...where did God come from?"
I will assume that your response would either be...
A) God is eternal. He has always existed.
or
B) I can't possible know that. God's supreme infiniteness is beyond my comprehension.
Bill, these are cop outs.
Both of those responses don't answer ANY questions about the universe and how it came to be. With that attitude, ancient man could have said, "god pushes the sun around the earth" and never pursued knowledge any further. I find no need to trod over well-traveled roads regarding these logical fallacies, as they have been written about and expounded upon ad nauseum.
quote:
I will say "God did it" because that is what I believe, that God did do it. That is the foundation for my worldview.
In other words, "I don't let facts get in the way of my thoughts"
quote:
If God, creator of the cosmos, wanted to sustain Noah on giant block of granit then this would not be a problom for the creator of the cosmos.
If I were Noah, I'd be pissed. If God can do anything He wants, why did he make Noah labor so hard to built a boat as a reward for his good behavior?
Why not tell Noah, "Look, stay right here. Bring your family here. I'm going to send every animal to hang out in these fields around your house. Now it's going to rain bucketloads but don't be alarmed. I am going to make a big invisible wall around your house and animals to keep you safe."
Heck, how about a quick, bright flash, and everyone of those sinners burns into ash. It's all over in a millisecond.
Bill, there's is just so much of the tale that defies common sense, and quite frankly, lacks any sort of imagination. The events of the tale scream of the limited storytelling and happenings of old-era man. The trappings of the Flood haven't aged well, dramawise. And they fail to convince of the supposed "majesty and glory of God". So the fable is actually counter-intuitive: it lessens the mystique of a Supreme Being. Even elementary school children can find the vast logical flaws of the story. The only thing that keeps it from descending into a trivial farce is the admonition of a teacher/priest/parent/authority reminding one that this is the word of god, and should you choose not to believe it, you'll burn in hell. People are deathly afraid of that imaginary Sky Daddy. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 08:58:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
(bill) Could? Yes. Did? No.
Okay, now we have a definitive statement which can be tested. Thank you.
quote:
(bill) You can lead a horse to water but you can't.... The handwriting is on the wall. Heck, it all over the wall. What you do with the evidence is up to you.
That works both ways, but I digress...we'll get to your evidence in a minute.
quote:
(bill) Yes, God can do what ever he chooses and one of his chooses was to reveal himself in several different ways and one way he choose was through the written Word. Again, as a finite entity, you grossly underestimate the infinite. Which is understandable...
How do you know that the book you have is the written word of god and not the work of a lesser god who lies or the devil? And "the bible says so" and "I beleive it is" don't count as answers. What independent evidence do you have?
quote:
(bill) It is tough for you since you are a mere finite being. You seem to think that God is finite as well. You could not be further from the truth.
You are finite also, but this has nothing to do with anything, so we move on...but even though you are finite, you seem to know an awful lot about god and how it works. Based on a book written by other finite men. Interesting. I submit you know know no more about god than anyone else, which is zilch.
quote:
(bill) That is a pretty loaded question. Do I believe the Bible is the Word of God? Yes. But the Bible, in whole, is not all to be taken in a wooden literal sense. Example: In the beginning God created... This is literal. Example: In the Psalms we read that God took Israel under his wing for protection. Not to be taken in a wooden literal sense as God is not a cosmic sized chicken.
I should have been a bit clearer, but yes you got my meaning.
quote:
(bill) Non-sense. We can go back to the NA thread and continue with the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you can convince me that the resurrection of Christ was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on man, rather then the cornerstone which all history pivots around, then I would drop my defense of the Judeo-Christian God like a rock.
Jesus Christ has absolutely nothing to do with Genisis and evolution, so you can drop that as a "defence". Besides, you have already stated that you beleive in god first, ask questions later. So how exactly would someone prove otherwise to you?
quote:
(bill) You seem to have a broad definition for the word science.
Funny, I thought the same of you i.e. "faith evidence"
quote:
(bill) Your confused. I proclaim that God did it from the beginning. Not when you believe you have me cornered.
I'm not confused. You believe that since you proclaim it from the beginning it isn't a cop out. See below.
quote:
(bill) Yes. I claim that God is the creator of life, while you have no clue, apart from God.
Back up your claim. Provide evidence. This is a skeptic forum, and if you noticed we require evidence. Quoting from the bible or calling it faith does not count. And attemtping to poke holes in other theories does not validate yours.
quote:
(bill) Equally you were thinking that I cop out by reverting to "God did it" when you believe you have me cornered when, in fact, I stated that God did it before the conversation even began.
It is a cop out. "We don't know" indicates the absence of an answer, while "God did it" indicates the presence of an answer.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 05/25/2006 09:04:12 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 08:59:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill:
Could? Yes. Did? No.
Literalists are a pain in the ass. Even as theologians debate how Genesis should be interpreted, these guys know. And with the Truth in hand they have set out to debunk any and all evidence that suggests that their interpretation may be incorrect. Scientifically, they put the cart before the horse, which is antithetical to science. Theologically they make their belief in God an either or thing even as many other Christians choose to see the quest for knowledge and workings of God in the very science that people like Bill are threatened by. God must be force fit into the very narrowest literal view. In doing that, they are basically saying that they know the mind of God. And they proudly march out onto that limb, defenders of the faith…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 09:38:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Bill:
Could? Yes. Did? No.
Literalists are a pain in the ass. Even as theologians debate how Genesis should be interpreted, these guys know. And with the Truth in hand they have set out to debunk any and all evidence that suggests that their interpretation may be incorrect. Scientifically, they put the cart before the horse, which is antithetical to science. Theologically they make their belief in God an either or thing even as many other Christians choose to see the quest for knowledge and workings of God in the very science that people like Bill are threatened by. God must be force fit into the very narrowest literal view. In doing that, they are basically saying that they know the mind of God. And they proudly march out onto that limb, defenders of the faith…
Non-sense. I have just stated numerous times that, as a finite entity, it would be impossible for me to know the mind of an infinite God.
God's Word, not Bill's word, declares that death was not introduced into the creation until after the fall while Darwinian evolutionary theory states that death existed for millions and millions of years before man was even on the scene, so therefore death is not a result of man's sin. Obviously, these two view points are diametrically opposed and that the Jedeo-Christian God did not create using evolution as the mechanism but instead created man rather then evolved him.
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 10:29:44 [Permalink]
|
Bill, your initial questions about the article weren't skepticism because you weren't questioning the validity of the scientific discovery itself. All you were doing is asking for answers to other questions which weren't even being addressed by this discovery. Dude summarized the discoveries impact on the theory of the origin on life in earth pretty well here: quote:
The article suggests that the chemistry of energy storage used by this microbe may have occured independently from any life form thus providing a source of useable energy that may have allowed larger organic molecules to form and kickstart the first life form.
See, the whole point was that this discovery brings scientific knowledge of the natural world one step closer to the now obvious possibility that life emerged from non-life.
Bill wrote: quote:
Starting point? I thought this was new information on life's origins? This piece begins in the middle of the story with the starting point not even mentioned.
filthy put it well, saying, quote:
The long and short of it is; we will never know it all and that which we will learn will come to us in bits and pieces. And many of those bits will be perhiferal to the subject at hand, as are these microbes, but important in increasing our understanding.
And we know from experience that such scientific inquiries have increased our understanding of the natural world. Otherwise we wouldn't be building on our technological abilities so rapidly.
Bill wrote: quote:
I am not sure what you are wanting me say, God didn't do it?
A true skeptic would say “We don't know how it was done.” But you've been told that before on this forum repeatedly.
Bill wrote: quote:
Do you yet understand? I will say "God did it" because that is what I believe, that God did do it. That is the foundation for my worldview, In the beginning God... while yours is God did not do it.
Yeah, I get it. Your stance on this is a meaningless tautology: I believe God did it because I believe God did it.”
quote:
Now if your question in reality is, HOW DID GOD DO IT?, then this would be even more evidence of your confusion as you would be asking the finite, who has limited knowledge, to explain and speak for the infinite, who has unlimited knowledge, and this is a logical absurdity. Do you not understand this yet? If God, creator of the cosmos, wanted to sustain Noah on giant block of granit then this would not be a problom for the creator of the cosmos. Can I explain how God would have done this? Of course not. What part of finite human not having full knowledge of the infinte and not being able to speak for him do you not understand here? Or do you consider it a logical request for the finite to have full knowledge of the infinte?
This is a total change of subject, Bill. This conversa |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/25/2006 10:32:56 |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 10:40:34 [Permalink]
|
Bill, your position is untenable. You assert things as "fact" merely because that's what God has proclaimed. Because his existence is infinite, incredibly beyond our comprehension, we cannot understand these "facts" but have to take them on faith. This is a ridiculously indefensible position. It is quite literally, impossible to argue factually either side of the issue.
It stuns me how many believers come here with the SAME, unimaginative, intellectually paper-thin arguments that vaporize under the most benign scrutiny.
If our brains and intellect were bestowed upon us by a Supreme Being, isn't intellectual curiosity and critical analysis the best and most glorious use of that intellect. Aren't we, in fact, pleasing the Creator MORE than blindly faithful sheep who choose not to question/examine/explore this world? Are we (the skeptics) not more in awe of the vastness and stunning complexity of the universe? For it is us who dismiss claims that are NOT the work of the Creator. How happy would God be if he found out that some minor "magic" or "miracle" attributed to Him as "His work", was actually the work of a lesser god, an angel, or even, Satan. My guess is that he would be pretty unhappy. This is why churches (supposedly) investigate claims of divine miracles - to separate the truly divine from the merely misunderstood mundane. THAT is critical skepticism.
In fact, isn't our God (or whatever Supreme Prime Mover, that wound up the engine of the universe) bigger than yours? At the very least, ours is far more imaginative.
And if we use our God-given intellect incorrectly/insufficiently (because we are 'supposedly' imperfect, or "fallen") and it leads us AWAY from God, is that not God's fault then?
And does your God have no forgiveness? Because, in the end, we are only working with what he gave us. So it's really his mistake, not ours. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 10:44:50 [Permalink]
|
| Very eloquently written, Marfknox. I was writing my response before I read yours. I cannot improve on what you said. Well done. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 11:26:37 [Permalink]
|
Re-read the OT.... 
When I want fiction and fantasy, I'll pick up Harry Potter. It's much more entertaining and a lot better written.
What, you are asking me to take as fact the stories in a book that claims talking snakes and donkeys, resurrections of the dead, physically impossible floods and ships, towers built to reach the sky (again with Bronze Age technology  ), and all of it controlled by a malicious spirit behaving like some drunken tyrant with a syphilis-rotted brain? I ain't buyin' it Bill.
Historical writings and scientific investigation are not the same thing. The latter, when it is found to be in error, is correctable; the former, as related to silly religious texts and the support thereof, are not. Thus far, you have produced not a single iota of evidence that would be acceptable in any scientific journal; only claims, hand-waving, and logically fallacious, outright bullshit.
We, on the other hand, have presented you a great deal of it. What you do with is, of course, your own concern.
Erm, have you come up with a refutation of the Leipzig and the Morton essays yet? I suspect not, as you seem to have abandoned that, particular thread.
|
"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!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
