Evolutionists and credentialism

[ranmaonehalf]

This is a big horn sheep. Are you kidding me. Man made that into a sheep that produces wool.

Look it has hair not wool. It's a lot taller. Brown not white and you say this all happened in a few thousand years. And primitive man is the one that did it. That is a load if I have ever heard one. There is no way man made the fluffy little sheep we have today. Just Garbage.

God Bless
LT

ok thats it, my poedar just broke the roof....

 

[ranmaonehalf]

If you look back on the previous posts you'll understand.
Btw, you do realise it does make a sound, don't you?

i believe that correct thing is, if a tree falls in a vacuum does it make a sound.

it obviously does make one when not in a vaccum.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

i believe that correct thing is, if a tree falls in a vacuum does it make a sound.

it obviously does make one when not in a vaccum.

The "correct thing" is whether or not a tree falling in the forest when nobody is there to hear it makes a noise.

And it doesn't. Sound is just vibrations in the air; it only turns into noise when there is something (like an ear) there to translate those vibrations into something a mind can perceive as noise.

 

[Baggins]

The "correct thing" is whether or not a tree falling in the forest when nobody is there to hear it makes a noise.

And it doesn't. Sound is just vibrations in the air; it only turns into noise when there is something (like an ear) there to translate those vibrations into something a mind can perceive as noise.

Sound waves exist whether or not there is anything there to hear them, and the question is does it make a sound

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Sound waves exist whether or not there is anything there to hear them, and the question is does it make a sound

And what it makes isn't a sound until it hits a receiver.

 

[Baggins]

And what it makes isn't a sound until it hits a receiver.

Yes it is, it is a sound wave whether it hits a receiver or not, sound is just the name we give to a vibration of a certain frequency that is detectable by the human ear when a tree falls it will produce vibrations of those frequencies regardless of the presence or absence of humans. The only way you could believe the contrary is if you believe the laws of physics are dependent on human observation.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Yes it is, it is a sound wave whether it hits a receiver or not, sound is just the name we give to a vibration of a certain frequency that is detectable by the human ear when a tree falls it will produce vibrations of those frequencies regardless of the presence or absence of humans. The only way you could believe the contrary is if you believe the laws of physics are dependent on human observation.

It is a sound wave; it is not a sound until it hits a receiver. It's the same with any sort of wave that requires a receiver. A sound is what a receiver turns a sound wave into.

 

[Baggins]

It is a sound wave; it is not a sound until it hits a receiver. It's the same with any sort of wave that requires a receiver. A sound is what a receiver turns a sound wave into.

Oh that's just pure semantics ES. Although I suppose it is a philosophical discussion point so I can't really expect any better.

From a scientific point of view a tree falling in a forest when there is no human there does produce sound because sound is just the name we give to frequencies between 20-20,000 Hz, and a tree falling in a forest will produce waves with those frequencies, inevitably.

The semantic discussion about sound/sound wave is beneath me , but I'd say that most people use sound when they mean sound wave anyway, they are interchangable and sound is a shorthand for sound wave. But semantics bores me, my original point stands.

 

[Baggins]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

Sound is vibration transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas; particularly, sound means those vibrations composed of frequencies capable of being detected by ears

Doesn't need to be detected, just capable of being detected.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

And what it makes isn't a sound until it hits a receiver.

If you want to take that argument to the extreme, you could also say that a falling tree is invisible when nobody is around, since there is no retina to detect the photons.

 

[Nathan Poe]

ok thats it, my poedar just broke the roof....

Agreed, this is Poe's Law taken to an obscene degree -- it's practically Poenography!

 

[Baggins]

If you want to take that argument to the extreme, you could also say that a falling tree is invisible when nobody is around, since there is no retina to detect the photons.

And ultimately reality only exists when humans are observing it. The far side of the moon doesn't actually exist unless observed when unobserved it disappears.

An interesting, if ludicrous, debating point.

 

[Tomk80]

He is more likely to be someone who knew (although not much) of Jesus.
His negative opinion of him makes it very unlikely that this was based upon hearsay. If told by Christians, they would have told him of Jesus in a way that made Jesus sound like the greatest thing on earth (which he was), because they are Christians. That would be the same if there are others involved. The only way he could have a negative opinion of Jesus is if he only knew Jesus as one of the blasphemus people of that age (which would also explain why he does not know that much of Jesus, him thinking Jesus was just another Jew commiting blasphemy).

How can you get this from the quote you provided. Have you read it? The negative opinion he portrays refers to the Christians themselves. The whole Lucian quote is about what the Christians of his time believe. It cannot in any way be remotely construed as evidence of the existence of Jesus.

He said the Athenians put Socrates to death. He was right.

I never said he was wrong in everything he said.

He said Samos buried Pythagoras. For all we know, he could have been right.

But also for all we know, he is most likely wrong. See how easy this goes?
He said that a Jewish King was killed by Jews. If this king is Jesus, he was right.[/quote]
Jesus was never a king in any sense but the figurative. Sorry, but you fail here. Abysmally. Notice something else?

He cannot be proven wrong as a source.

He cannot be proven right either, which is the problem if you want to use him as a source.

Whether or not he is right about how Pythagoras died does little to change the fact that he mentions Jesus, something that couldn't happen if Jesus didn't exist.

He doesn't mention Jesus. He mentions a "Jewish King". You assume this refers to Jesus, but you cannot show this to be true. This could have referred to Jesus, but I've already pointed out a number of problems with that. It could also have mentioned a number of other kings put to death by the Jewish (read 2 kings). These kings have the great advantage of having lived at the same time of Socrates and Pythagoras.
Here's the real big one. Again, he was writing this at a time when Jesus was long gone. Whatever he had written, have to have been based on rumours that had reached him. Since we cannot trace the root of those rumours, this again fails as evidence of the existence of Jesus.

This is first time i'm hearing that the source's accuracy needs to be estimated.

Doesn't that speak for itself? How would you go about trying to reconstruct a historical event based on written documentation?

 

[sinan90]

And ultimately reality only exists when humans are observing it. The far side of the moon doesn't actually exist unless observed when unobserved it disappears.

An interesting, if ludicrous, debating point.

I hardly see how its ludicrous because that's how the observed world works at the simplest and most fundamental level. The whole idea of quantum mechanics is that we see a crossing over of all the possibilities unless we observe what's going on. Or at least that's one interpretation using the sum over histories approach.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I hardly see how its ludicrous because that's how the observed world works at the simplest and most fundamental level. The whole idea of quantum mechanics is that we see a crossing over of all the possibilities unless we observe what's going on. Or at least that's one interpretation using the sum over histories approach.

But that is applicable in quantum mechanics only. The macroscopic universe doesn't behave like that.

 

[sinan90]

But that is applicable in quantum mechanics only. The macroscopic universe doesn't behave like that.

No its applicable to everything. A statue could suddenly start waving but the probabilities are so minuscule that in common experience it will never happen. All the probabilities come so that most normal quantum occurrences become exceedingly rare on a classical level but it could still happen. That's the point of a quantum universe, you can never be sure of anything unless you measure it.

 

[Chalnoth]

No its applicable to everything. A statue could suddenly start waving but the probabilities are so minuscule that in common experience it will never happen. All the probabilities come so that most normal quantum occurrences become exceedingly rare on a classical level but it could still happen. That's the point of a quantum universe, you can never be sure of anything unless you measure it.

You can be sure within reason, though. If you can show that the probability of occurrence X is, say, one in 10^100, you can be pretty darned certain that the next time you observe the system, X will not occur. Can you be absolutely utterly certain? No, but then you can't be absolutely utterly certain about anything. Quantum mechanics doesn't change this.

 

[sinan90]

You can be sure within reason, though. If you can show that the probability of occurrence X is, say, one in 10^100, you can be pretty darned certain that the next time you observe the system, X will not occur. Can you be absolutely utterly certain? No, but then you can't be absolutely utterly certain about anything. Quantum mechanics doesn't change this.

The "problem" with quantum is you can never be 100% of anything, you can never know where something is and how fast its travelling no matter how good the equipment is, a problem that's not found in classical physics. Even though classical physics is an amazing approximation, it is still an approximation. Because of the inherent uncertainty in quantum mechanics everything is probabilistic. But before we derail this thread any further, how about taking the discussion to a new one in the physical/life sciences board?

 

[Chalnoth]

The "problem" with quantum is you can never be 100% of anything, you can never know where something is and how fast its travelling no matter how good the equipment is, a problem that's not found in classical physics. Even though classical physics is an amazing approximation, it is still an approximation. Because of the inherent uncertainty in quantum mechanics everything is probabilistic. But before we derail this thread any further, how about taking the discussion to a new one in the physical/life sciences board?

Yes, it is found in classical physics, because there's no such thing as a perfect experiment. Limits of our experimental uncertainties usually come into play long, long before limits of quantum mechanics. Until, of course, we get down to the quantum world.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

You mean when I said that Jesus does exist?

No. Please show me where I said that. Try: when you said that there's non-biblical evidence that Jesus existed.

See, this is a perfect example of why people here are getting testy: you read into someone's words something that isn't there, argue the (non-existent) point vigorously, then continue to insist on this point when it's shown not to be true, instead of retracting and apologizing. It gets old quickly, and doesn't do much to secure your reputation. (To be fair, you haven't yet done the last step in the above case, but I fear it's only a matter of time. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.)

Should I not have said Jesus existed? My mistake. Remind me to not stand up for my beliefs again...

Putting words into someone's mouth again.

And as for being open minded, I have ackowledged what people have said, respected what they said, and (if I didn't believe the same thing) disagreed with them.

You may have respected what they said, but your posts didn't show that. There's a pretty clear change in your tone once the topic shifted (and I'm not the only one who noticed it, apparently -- thanks, Danyc).

People disagree with each other.

And it's possible to do this without telling someone that they clearly didn't read something and without just denying what they say and without making false claims about someone. There are respectful and disrespectful ways to disagree. It seems to me that you chose to do the latter.

There are lots of people here to believe different things. This is also general apologetics.

Huh? This is crevo. And, besides, what's that got to do with anything?

I know you said you're new, but you should have realised that by now...

Like I said, there's respectful and there's not. Cheap shots like this demonstrate your attitude. Don't be surprised when otherwise pleasant and reasonable people start baring their teeth. (I've never had a tetchy word out of Tomk80, f'rinstance, despite holding different religious beliefs to him, but you've managed it... go figure.)

Well, I didn't because I knew nothing about fundamental schools teaching inadequate science. If you had actually read the later posts, you'd have realised that. But I guess posting this long message must have taken up a lot of your time, huh?

Yes it did. I chose to do that for a reason. And to have you p!ss your attitude around like you are leaves a pretty bitter taste. As it happens, I have read every post in this thread, although there were a handful that were posted while I was writing. Again, your insinuations about what someone else has or hasn't done is disrespectful. Please stop it.

Now, as to the point at hand: what I was trying to point out was that no-one else (including me, even though I was -- according to you -- the target of Baggins's jibe) took it the way you did. Moreover, various people tried to explain it, but you persisted in holding on to an erroneous belief. Eventually you gave grudging concessions, all couched in excuses and further accusations. Not knowing about poor quality education in such schools excuses your initial error; it does not excuse your continued refusal to be corrected.

Also, how does this reconcile with what you yourself said: "And no, I had no idea about that private school stuff because I live in the UK, but that is not really relevent"? Your main defense is not really relevant?

Again, read recent posts.

Again, I did. I see nothing to indicate that you have changed your position, given that you continue to claim evidence for the historical personage of Jesus of Nazareth, but continue to cite evidence for the mythologized Jesus Christ.

Obviously we are talking about the historical Jesus. And that little "tapdance" earlier was someone trying to point out a grammatical error in my words, and failing.

Um, revisionism, anyone? Here are your words:

M1975: They do all agree he existed. A few believe it was as a myth.
sinan90: Even in what you write you acknowledge not all scholars believe he existed. First you say they all believe he existed then go on to say a few believe it was a myth. As soon as one scholar disagrees with the view that the historical figure of Jesus existed not all agree he existed. I know what I meant to say, do you know what you're actually saying?
M1975: They all agree he existed, but some believe it was as a myth. Those who believe he existed as a myth still believe he existed, but just as a myth. But you're right, they believe he did not exist as a historical figure. I missed that in your previous post, sorry.

I don't see how sinan90 was pointing out a grammatical error -- rather an error in what you actually said, and you acknowledge that. But, regardless, you are the one who started the semantic tapdance with your statement "They all agree he existed, but some believe it was as a myth". If we're "obviously" talking about the historical Jesus, why did you make this statement? And why did you continue to argue the point with Baggins?

Try taking some responsibility for your actions, instead of blaming everyone else.

You mean like what I have given?

Er, yes, exactly like those. That's why I'm saying those that you've given are not valid evidence for the historical Jesus: because they're evidence only of the mythologized Jesus. Evidence that people believe in King Arthur is not evidence of the historical King Arthur.

Your point being?

Quite straightforward, really. That particular paragraph was pretty clear, I think. Conclusive evidence of the historical Jesus (independent of the gospels) does not exist. If it did, it would have been cited. All the citations you've given are not contemporary primary sources. Furthermore, the fact that biographies of Jesus are built from the gospels indicate that the gospels are the sources that we have. If others existed, they'd be used.

Burden of Proof. You said evidence exists; you need to furnish it. Until you do, it is correct to say that Jesus may not have existed as an historical person.

(If anyone says that Jesus did not exist, they need to furnish proof of that statement, too; but that's not the current argument.)

You said "mythologized they certainly exist". That is what that tapdance was about. Someone was saying that it is grammatically wrong to say a myth exists. I was saying otherwise.

But you just said that "obviously" we're talking about the historical person. Your words are above, showing that you were the one that started the point about a myth existing; if we are "obviously" talking about the historical person and not the myth, then you are being ingenuous at best and disingenuous at worst -- and, either way, Baggins was quite right to call you on it.

Actually, it turns out it does not actually mean much to me, but I still provided the evidence asked of me.

No you haven't: the evidence asked for was independent non-biblical sources. Sources demonstrating the existence of the human, not the myth.

Covered. Well, the first part at least.

Yes, that's what I said.

The second is what you think.

Obviously. Otherwise I wouldn't have said it. Now, do you disagree? It seems that way. Then how about you give an argument rather than just shooting your mouth off?

Ok. Open minded means to be accepting of other's views right? Well, I have not been disrespectful to other's beliefs. If so show me when, because I know it's a mistake.

Saying (repeatedly) that Baggins thinks that all Christians are stupid, perhaps? Even after he's stated clearly that he does not? Ring any bells?