It defies your logic, not logic. Your logic is limited.
How does my logic differ from plain logic? Is it because it does not agree with your
a priori assumptions?
All depends what exactly you are refering to. If it is a same past, you have not covered it.
Once again, you are clearly too unenthused to use referrences. We were talking about the burning of the Temple:
Me: So because it was a spread out building, it took >48 hours to burn? If it was sky-scraper tall, then it might take that long. But it was an ancient temple.
You: Hey, you ought to have the honesty to admit you lost the pouint.
Me:
Ad hominem. I try to have a rational debate with you, and resort to this?
You: No, I covered it beyond reasonable doubt,
Me: Hardly. Simply stating this does not make it so. I have outlined, quite clearly, our debates.
You: All depends what exactly you are refering to. If it is a same past, you have not covered it.
Notice how your train of thoughts is convoluted, and rife with non sequiturs and
ad hominems.
Are you suggesting you had facts on the specifics of the palace that took 3 full days to burn, and the temple of Solomon, you chaffed at taking 2 days to burn, and you made claims on basis of some evidence???
Yes. Do you disagree with my analysis?
He informed them of the results of their disobedience. He kwew where it would lead. Such as a good parent should do. You read God into a place where He isn't, and out of places He is.
You are, as ever, ingnoring my point.
Preemptive warning is irrelevant. I fully accept that your god warned of the punishment that would be dealt. But you asked where the Bible condones punishing the child for the sins of the father:
Leviticus 26:28-29: Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.
And this is what I cited. Leviticus 26:28-29 is a direct threat from your god to cannabilise the children for the sins of the father. This is
exactly what I said your god did.
It has to do with the spiritual, and after life.
No, our conversation pertains to the mutability of the physical laws, and the existance of your non-PO universe (which you call the spiritual). The afterlife is irrelevant.
As it happens, Confucious himself said that, at the age of 50, '五十而知天命 (
I knew the will of the heavens)'.
Says you, we know better.
Of course you do. I'm just a poor, unsaved, Pagan scientist. What would I know about objective evidence (you have yet to disprove my point. You only cite subjective evidence).
We witnessed the ressurection.
You have done no such thing. The ressurrection was claimed to have occured ~2000 years ago, and I very much doubt that you are >2000 years old.
I try to simplify for the lurkers.
Why? It is not your responsability to ensure that all posters here share the same vocabulary. If someone does not properly understand a term, then they are invariably swiftly informed by the many other posters here who
do understand the term.
Not everyone may be savy to the intricasies and puritan interpretaions of words, like you like.
Perhaps. But since this is a discussion between only the two of us, what does it matter?
Sorry if you thought God was going to ram it down your throat.
Utter non sequitur. How is this pertinent?
Nothing is demostrated in the lab of the kind.
On the contrary, this is from
Talk Origins:
Prediction 5.6: Speciations
The
standard phylogenetic tree illustrates countless speciation events; each common ancestor also represents at least one speciation event. Thus we should be able to observe actual speciation, if even only very rarely. Current estimates from the fossil record and measured mutational rates place the time required for full reproductive isolation in the wild at ~3 million years on average (
Futuyma 1998, p. 510). Consequently, observation of speciation in nature should be a possible but rare phenomenon. However, evolutionary rates in laboratory organisms can be much more rapid than rates inferred from the fossil record, so it is still possible that speciation may be observed in common lab organisms (
Gingerich 1983).
Confirmation:
Speciation of numerous plants, both angiosperms and ferns (such as hemp nettle, primrose, radish and cabbage, and various fern species) has been seen via hybridization and polyploidization since the early 20th century. Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and
S. malheurensis).
Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the
Drosophila species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many
Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in
Drosophila has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms.
Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles,
Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures.
Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is
the sole major genomic difference between humans and chimps, and some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years (
Britton-Davidian et al. 2000).
More detail and many references are given in the
Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ.
Better to keep it short, and consise, and try to make a post make some sense on it's own.
Irrelevant, as ever. Try to use something other than a non sequitur, would you?
OK, glad you cleared all that up. Now, what is your point?
That you are making non sequiturs, and then claiming that you have forgotten what we are talking about! How can we debate if you are so... incapable?
Why is it proven, or scientific that they were??
Do not dodge the question.I have, repeatedly, demonstrate why it is scientific to assume a 'same past'. Now I ask you again: Why is it unscientific to assume that the physical laws were 'the same' in the past?
You never refered to my beliefs??
Here is a few snips of..you
"The Bible is an archaic set of documents compiled by those who thought the Torah's messiah had come. It is not evidence of a special purpose for humanity until the relavent verses can be proven to be true
No, audiovisual hallucinations are far more common than actual observations of the Christian theology.
I'm sorry? Jesus may have existed, and he may have said the things the Bible claims he said, but this does not mean he was right. He was just a man, like you or me, and you cannot prove otherwise. Indeed, you cannot even rightly assert that he is beyond human.
Then why do Christian participate in gay bashings then?
These are false stories. Prove me wrong.
Fascinating fable. Did you get that from your Bible?
There are no real Biblical prophecies, the ressurection did not happen,
I reject your god because he is an amoralistic deciever.
If your messiah demands that one hates ones one parents, then your messiah is no better than Hitler.
Jesus paid the price that he set up in the first place.
the notions of the Bible are laughable at best, and downright offensive at best."
Ah, so
now you are willing to sift through the posts. Interesting.
You must understand that I have not made
ad hominems, because I am willing to validify my claims. An
ad hominem is a personal attack
without justification. I have justification, so therefore your examples are not
ad hominems. They may be offensive, and for that I am sorry, but my claims stand unless you can refute my justifications.
Pure semantics, I'm afraid.
Observations work where they are observed, you do not, and cannot observe heaven or Eden.
Neither have you.
Note that I never claimed to have observed heaven or Eden. I merely claimed that empiricial observations will work in heaven and Eden just as they do now. Prove me wrong.
It was the not questioning reality thing, not morality. So, you are kind of settling in now, that your mom was real?
No. I
assume my mother is real (not 'was'. She is not dead yet), I
assume my sensory input is at least a vague representation of the true reality, I
assume that empirical observations are empirical and not manipulated by some unseen entity.
However, you have still not answered my question:
Why should I follow your example when you have not demonstrated that it is better than mine?
Eph 2:8 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Even though you just said:
Our rewards in heaven are based on works, not getting there.
So, tell me, how do I get into heaven?
Then present some. You have cited
no facts in the past 20 pages.
but is not a science case.
Then it fails the scientific method and is rejected. You can believe in it all you want, but it is illogical, irrational, and unjustified.
You need to learn the difference. Science is only in possesion of some of the facts. I don't mean probably.
Science is a methodology. We have hypothesises & theories (explanations of why the facts are as they are), and the scientific method is the first falsification test to see if they are logical, probable, etc. An argument can be unscientific, but that directly implies that it is illogical, irrational, improbable, etc.
Right, a lot of US lurkers, you know.
I fly the Union Jack by my avatar. You might want to notice this in future.
