The insect kinds

[Baggins]

Well you can laugh at this too:

OK

I don't buy that atheists-can-be-agnostics junk at all.

That's Ok, if you want to re-defiine words to suit yourself feel free, don't expect the rest of us to play along.

It is perfectly easy to understand that one can be of the opinion that we don't have enough information to make a definitive statement about the existence gods, but that until we do we don't believe that they exist.

That is how one is agnostic and an atheist.

I don't believe in gods, but I also accept that there isn't enough information to be categorically certain.

That's me, Richard Dawkins and millions of others in that camp AV, the fact that you cannot get your head round such a simple concept doesn't alter its validity.

Nor do I buy that Imma-weak/strong-agnostic copout,

Well boo! hoo!

I don't really care what you buy to be honest. I know what I am, I am an Atheist, I am an agnostic and I am an Humanist. The fact that you cannot grasp that doesn't bother me a whit.

Especially by those who put down [strong] Biblical institutions because they don't cater to current scientific interpretations.

The 2 major strong Christians institutions, who account for the majority of the world's Christians are the Catholic and Anglican churches, they have no problem with current scientific interpretations.

You are a fringe of a fringe AV, most Christians don't take your precepts seriously so I don't see why the unreligious should.

It's okay for a person to be a "strong agnostic," but no one can claim to be a "strong Christian"?[/

Strong Christians are able to deal with scientific progress without retreating into the blinkered worship of a book and ignoring reality

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

By the way, CACTUSJACK, just off the record, what goes through your mind when you see people here calling the authors of the Scriptures "ignorant goat herders"? I'm on that goofy fstdt site as [supposedly] putting down the Hebrew language, but I never see anyone challenge an Atheist when they regularly use anti-Semite language. I'm telling you, my friend, there's not a person in Helsinki who'll regularly stand up to these guys and their blasphemy of all things sacred, but us Christians.

i acknowledge that the bible was written by my superstitious pre-science ancestors. They werent stupid, they just didnt know how to interpret what they were seeing so they called it God. A big flood kills nearly every person and livestock animal in town? God must be punishing us. That story gets passed down by word of mouth for a few centuries and this elaborate game of telephone morphs a real event into Noah which is then physically written down by the highest rabbis of the day. When i pick up a hotel bible i recognize some of the stories that arent in the torah (the 5 books of moses) like job, maccabees (chanukka), and esther (purim). Why didnt these make the original bible? Why are there accounts of Jesus that arent included in the gospel? These stories are written down decades or centuries or possibly even millenia after the inspiring event occured.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you dont accept my argument not because it is a flawed or invalid argument, but because it is inconsistent with your belief system.

I don't accept your argument because it violates Point 1 here.

It's the time factor I don't go with --- not the micro-evolution factor.

What? It's not good enough I believe beetles micro-evolved? I have to believe they did it over a period of millions of years now?

It's obvious that even agreeing with you clowns isn't good enough. We have to agree with every jot and tittle you guys vomit out.

No, thanks.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I don't accept your argument because it violates Point 1 here.

It's the time factor I don't go with --- not the micro-evolution factor.

What? It's not good enough I believe beetles micro-evolved? I have to believe they did it over a period of millions of years now?

It's obvious that even agreeing with you clowns isn't good enough. We have to agree with every jot and tittle you guys vomit out.

No, thanks.

millions of years isnt a jot, its a major part of the concept. Evolution takes time and geology and astronomy agree whole heartedly with that time. are three entire major sciences completely wrong? Especially when there is so much evidence? but hey, since when did evidence ever change your mind about anything?

 

[AV1611VET]

i acknowledge that the bible was written by my superstitious pre-science ancestors. They werent stupid, they just didnt know how to interpret what they were seeing so they called it God. A big flood kills nearly every person and livestock animal in town? God must be punishing us. That story gets passed down by word of mouth for a few centuries and this elaborate game of telephone morphs a real event into Noah which is then physically written down by the highest rabbis of the day. When i pick up a hotel bible i recognize some of the stories that arent in the torah (the 5 books of moses) like job, maccabees (chanukka), and esther (purim). Why didnt these make the original bible? Why are there accounts of Jesus that arent included in the gospel? These stories are written down decades or centuries or possibly even millenia after the inspiring event occured.

Danced right around my question, didn't you? Oh well, drop it. I'm not in the mood to play games.

 

[Patashu]

I don't accept your argument because it violates Point 1 here.

It's the time factor I don't go with --- not the micro-evolution factor.

What? It's not good enough I believe beetles micro-evolved? I have to believe they did it over a period of millions of years now?

It's obvious that even agreeing with you clowns isn't good enough. We have to agree with every jot and tittle you guys vomit out.

No, thanks.

Well, think about it.

There are hundreds of thousands of known beetle species; we don't even know how many there are in total.

In addition, the mutation rates in everything we can observe and measure are at a reasonable level, not nearly high enough to produce the hundreds of new species every year you'd need for a pair or two of beetles to hyperevolve into every specie we can catalogue today without anyone noticing this phenomenon.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

It is unfair to call the ancient hebrews stupid. but i dont consider it antisemitic. is it anti-Greek to call the ancient greeks pagans?

 

[Baggins]

By the way, CACTUSJACK, just off the record, what goes through your mind when you see people here calling the authors of the Scriptures "ignorant goat herders"? I'm on that goofy fstdt site as [supposedly] putting down the Hebrew language, but I never see anyone challenge an Atheist when they regularly use anti-Semite language. I'm telling you, my friend, there's not a person in Helsinki who'll regularly stand up to these guys and their blasphemy of all things sacred, but us Christians.

Is it anti-semitic to call the writers of the bible bronze age goat herders?

They lived in the Bronze age, some of them herded goats. It is a flippant remark, supposed to be humerous and is in no way intended to be anti-semitic.

See I don't like being accused of racism, if I was the reporting kind this would be straight in there, but I'm not so I will let it slide and assume that your anger got the better of you for a minute there.

But don't be accusing me of racism again AV, look to your concience before you do a thing like that

 

[AV1611VET]

It is unfair to call the ancient hebrews stupid. but i dont consider it antisemitic. is it anti-Greek to call the ancient greeks pagans?

I said "ignorant goat herders." Let's just drop it. I know which side your bread is buttered on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is it anti-semitic to call the writers of the bible bronze age goat herders?

They lived in the Bronze age, some of them herded goats. It is a flippant remark, supposed to be humerous and is in no way intended to be anti-semitic.

See I don't like being accused of racism, if I was the reporting kind this would be straight in there, but I'm not so I will let it slide and assume that your anger got the better of you for a minute there.

But don't be accusing me of racism again AV, look to your concience before you do a thing like that

Your flippant humor stinks --- and I said "ignorant goat-herders."

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I said "ignorant goat herders." Let's just drop it. I know which side your bread is buttered on.

oh please let me know which side my bread is buttered on just because i dont think calling ancient people ignorant as being racist.

 

[Vene]

I don't accept your argument because it violates Point 1 here.

It's the time factor I don't go with --- not the micro-evolution factor.

What? It's not good enough I believe beetles micro-evolved? I have to believe they did it over a period of millions of years now?

It's obvious that even agreeing with you clowns isn't good enough. We have to agree with every jot and tittle you guys vomit out.

No, thanks.

I thought you weren't YEC, at least that's what you keep claiming.

 

[Baggins]

Your flippant humor stinks --- and I said "ignorant goat-herders."

Well I didn't so don't be accusing me of things I didn't say either.

Bronze age people were no cleverer and no more ignorant than 21st century people, we just have a greater period of human endevour to build on.

I think you need to examine your motives for accusing me of racism ( which is what anti-semitism is ) when I have done no such thing.

I spent a lot of my youth fighting racism in general and anti-semitism in particular, on the streets against British facists.

I hugely resent being accused of anti-semitism, and I would like you to take that back.

If you don't I will put you on ignore, which would be a shame, but I don't like people accusing me of being something I most certainly am not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well I didn't so don't be accusing me of things I didn't say either.

Bronze age people were no cleverer and no more ignorant than 21st century people, we just have a greater period of human endevour to build on.

I think you need to examine your motives for accusing me of racism ( which is what anti-semitism is ) when I have done no such thing.

I spent a lot of my youth fighting racism in general and anti-semitism in particular, on the streets against British facists.

I hugely resent being accused of anti-semitism, and I would like you to take that back.

If you don't I will put you on ignore, which would be a shame, but I don't like people accusing me of being something I most certainly am not.

Did I accuse you, Baggins? I have mentioned no names. But I'll ask you straight-up:

• Have you ever called the writers of the Scriptures "ignorant goat herders"?

If you have, then that's an anti-Semite slam.

I'm not going to go through the whole Bible, but if my memory serves me correctly:

• Moses tended sheep.
• Joshua was a military general.
• The judges were of various occupations.
• Boaz was a farmer.
• Mordecai was an exiled citizen.
• Amos was a fig picker?
• Nehemiah was a king's valet.
• Matthew a tax collector.
• Luke a physician.
• Paul, as Saul, was a tent maker.

None of which herded goats that I'm aware of --- nor were they ignorant by a long shot.

 

[FishFace]

It's a wonder AV is still trying to convince us of what he is or isn't - when everyone knows and agrees that he is a young-earth, omphalic creationist, the only twist being that he thinks that you can be X years old without having existed for X years.
AV: We have you pinned down like a butterfly in a museum draw. Here are your beliefs, except this time, instead of pointing out the contradictions with oh-so-subtle "confusions" I'm just going to pretend I'm you.
You believe:

• The earth is 4.5 billion years old.
• The earth was created 6100 years ago.
• The difference is accounted for by "embedded age."
• Embedded age is "maturity without history."
• You are not YEC because you think the earth is 4.5 billion years old
• You are not Omphalos for the same reason

That, I am very confident, is what you believe. However, some of the results are:

• You believe the earth has existed for 6100 years.
• You believe that the earth nonetheless looks 4.5 billion years old, and the reason for that is God.

The problem for you is that, if we take normal English this means that:

• You are a young earth creationist, since "The earth has been in existence for 6100 years" (In normal English) Is a YEC statement
• You subscribe to a version of the Omphalos hypothesis because, as well as the above, YEC, statement, you think the earth appears very old - your claim that the earth IS old notwithstanding because, as I say, we are talking in normal English.

So, little butterfly, you wiggle and flap and pretend we don't understand you. But we do - we know exactly what's going on. You almost certainly won't reply to this post, at least, not in any useful way. I suppose when we stab a butterfly it tends to be dead, or will be shortly thereafter.

This nonsense is made even more ironic when you don't even understand what an atheist or agnostic is - or at least, can't get your head around some common conceptions of them. There are essentially two fundamental sets of definitions. Firstly, the strong-agnostic concept coupled with a weak/strong atheist distinction, that is:

• Agnostic: One cannot know whether God exists
• Weak atheist: I do not believe that God exists
• Strong atheist: I believe that God does not exist

The other set is:

• Agnostic: I don't know whether God exists
• Atheist: God does not exist

The problem with any agnostic conception is that it expresses an epistemic state not an intentional one, and it therefore depends on your idea of knowledge. However, because of that fact, in either of those two sets of beliefs above, it is perfectly possible for one to be agnostic and atheist because one expresses something to do with knowledge, the other, to do with belief.

Anyway. If you assume that there was only one, or a few beetle kinds, you have a problem. Why don't we observe hyperevolution now?

 

[Baggins]

Did I accuse you, Baggins? I have mentioned no names. But I'll ask you straight-up:

• Have you ever called the writers of the Scriptures "ignorant goat herders"?

If you have, then that's an anti-Semite slam.

I'm not going to go through the whole Bible, but if my memory serves me correctly:

• Moses tended sheep.
• Joshua was a military general.
• The judges were of various occupations.
• Boaz was a farmer.
• Mordecai was an exiled citizen.
• Amos was a fig picker?
• Nehemiah was a king's valet.
• Matthew a tax collector.
• Luke a physician.
• Paul, as Saul, was a tent maker.

None of which herded goats that I'm aware of --- nor were they ignorant by a long shot.

No I called them Bronze age goat herders.

They lived in the Bronze age and some of them certainly herded goats, the list you give is hardy comprehensive, the remark may be flippant but it is in no way racist. It is meant to point out that they did not grasp much in the way of science.

So stop tap dancing around accusing me of racism AV, take it back or you go on ignore and people can make up there own minds about your motives for this foul deed.

I thought you were better than this

 

[Nathan Poe]

Your flippant humor stinks --- and I said "ignorant goat-herders."

Did they not herd goats?

Were they not ignorant about 90% of the world around them? I mean, come on, these folks hadn't even figured out indoor plumbing yet!

 

[Patashu]

AV, what hypothetical evidence would make you admit that you were wrong?

The question suddenly occured to me and I'm curious now.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did they not herd goats?

I doubt it.

Were they not ignorant about 90% of the world around them?

No --- we are. They knew their world much better than we know it. That's why people today don't understand such things as ---

[bible]Numbers 31:17[/bible]

--- we weren't there.

I mean, come on, these folks hadn't even figured out indoor plumbing yet!

They were avant garde for their time.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, what hypothetical evidence would make you admit that you were wrong?

The question suddenly occured to me and I'm curious now.

Wrong about what?