Hypothetical for Scientists

[AV1611VET]

...instead of a Toyota or Honda.

This One You Oughta Tow Away

Had One - Never Did Again

CLICK HERE

 

[Split Rock]

You guys will pick this apart, then whine because I'm not making sense, or replying to your posts.

Then how about you:

A. start making sense and

B. actually reply to our posts?

 

[thaumaturgy]

If you see eight Fords sitting in a parking lot with ten other cars --- all ten different makes from ten other countries --- would you not conclude that the eight Fords all come from the same company?

Would you also conclude that the other ten cars are foreign cars?

In other words, you can easily spot the American-made cars.

(I know --- Fords have parts on them made from other countries, etc. You guys will pick this apart, then whine because I'm not making sense, or replying to your posts.)

This example has no bearing on the discussion.

The appropriate version is:

If you saw 8 Fords all sitting in among 10 other makes of cars from different countries, would you assume that the Fords were made by Zeus and Vulcan working together at Vulcan's forge and are therefore indestructible flying vehicles?

No, you'd say, well the Fords look the other cars in many many ways, therefore they are probably all human-made cars and all have various commonalities, including problems with the engine or occasional quality control issues, but will all do just what regular human-made cars will do, ie get in them, start the motor and drive on the ground to your destination.

You will have to drive them on the ground since none of them fly. You will have to pay attention while you drive because they are not indestructible, and you will have occasional quality issues because none of them were made by gods.

THAT'S the appropriate way to structure that analogy.

 

[AV1611VET]

This example has no bearing on the discussion.

The appropriate version is:

If you saw 8 Fords all sitting in among 10 other makes of cars from different countries, would you assume that the Fords were made by Zeus and Vulcan working together at Vulcan's forge and are therefore indestructible flying vehicles?

No, you'd say, well the Fords look the other cars in many many ways, therefore they are probably all human-made cars and all have various commonalities, including problems with the engine or occasional quality control issues, but will all do just what regular human-made cars will do, ie get in them, start the motor and drive on the ground to your destination.

You will have to drive them on the ground since none of them fly. You will have to pay attention while you drive because they are not indestructible, and you will have occasional quality issues because none of them were made by gods.

THAT'S the appropriate way to structure that analogy.

I read the first five lines, then quit.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you see eight Fords sitting in a parking lot with ten other cars --- all ten different makes from ten other countries --- would you not conclude that the eight Fords all come from the same company?

Would you also conclude that the other ten cars are foreign cars?

In other words, you can easily spot the American-made cars.

(I know --- Fords have parts on them made from other countries, etc. You guys will pick this apart, then whine because I'm not making sense, or replying to your posts.)

Ah yes, the anti-Flying Spaghetti Monster theory of human construction. Why do you so strongly deny His Noodliness? Everyone knows that these cars were created ex nihilo by the FSM.

 

[tanzanos]

I read the first five lines, then quit.

Bravo! AV1. At least nobody can accuse you of illiteracy!

 

[monkeypsycho62]

Ok, but, I claim all the women.

I call being able to kill babies and teenagers.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I read the first five lines, then quit.

Jesus would be so proud of you.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I read the first five lines, then quit.

Fine. Really. I wish there was some way to express the disdain I have for this type of response. "truly offensive" springs to mind, but somehow misses my disgust.

If one can't be bothered to think about one's own faith more than merely superficially then I suppose one deserves the faith one ends up with.

I have said before and I'll say it again:

As Celsus supposedly said about the early Christians:

"the following are the rules laid down by them. Let no one come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with confidence." - Origen's Contracelsus Chpt 44

But Luther further gilds the lilly with:

Reason is the Devil's greatest harlot; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious harlot; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed harlot; harlot eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.
Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

 

[nvxplorer]

But Luther further gilds the lilly with:

Reason is the Devil's greatest harlot; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious harlot; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed harlot; harlot eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.
Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

As reason is the Devil's greatest harlot, I would be under the influence of this harlot if I reasoned that Luther's words are truth.

 

[FishFace]

I'm not talking about tares growing within the pages of the Bible, Itself; I'm talking about other versions.

Once again, just compare the AV1611 with Its seven predecessors, and see if any tares have entered.

(Start with 1 John 5:7 --- the most likely place a tare would appear --- and you'll see none.)

"I'm not talking about tares growing within the pages of the Bible, itself?!" Well, what are these "other versions" if not the Bible?

You've just ignored the point entirely - the version of the Bible that you, apparently, treat as holier-than-holy, is not the original words that God spoke. Therefore, when you read part of it, you don't know whether you're reading God's word or man's word.

You've not made any attempt to solve this problem.

 

[FishFace]

(I know --- Fords have parts on them made from other countries, etc. You guys will pick this apart, then whine because I'm not making sense, or replying to your posts.)

Well, you're not. You're telling us you can tell Fords from foreign cars, which is easy, given that they tend to say "Ford" on the back in a little oval badge.

Last time I checked the Bible (not so long ago) different bits didn't have "wheat" or "tare" or "God's word" or "Man's word" in any way, certainly not in a badge.
If you can tell the difference, tell us how, don't just assert that you can.

 

[PacificPandeist]

CHAPTER ONE​

You hold in your hand a rock known as, let's call it, Dalite.​

This Dalite emits one particle called a Dalon every year on January 1.​

Analysis shows that the Dalite you're holding has 10 particles of Dalon embedded in it.​

CHAPTER TWO​

Absolutely without fail, observation shows that every time Dalite is formed (keyword: formed), it always forms with 100,000 Dalons embedded --- irregardless of the size of the rock.​

CHAPTER THREE​

Chris T. Ian claims that, according to The Book, this universe has only been in existence for 100 years, and the following converstion ensues:​

YOU: Not so --- I have a Dalite rock with only 10 Dalons left. This is evidence that this rock is 999,990 years old.​

CHRIS: Not so --- when God created (keyword: created) Dalite, He must have created it with only 110 Dalons (embedded age); but when it forms, it forms with a process that embeds 100,000 Dalons into it.​

QUESTION​

Would you be willing to admit that your evidence is inconclusive?​

Hmmmm, yeah I'd be willing to admit that my evidence is inconclusive.... but being inconclusive is not the same as leaning in the other direction.... suppose there's another "book" that says the Universe is 300 years old, and yet another says 500, and still another says 400 trillion years old (and suggests that the dalite aged super slow for most of that time and just appears a lot younger than it is).... all of those explanations get exactly equal plausibility....

But I'd still be justified in saying that whatever the age that the dalite appears to be, that's when God made it!!

//// The PanDeism Fish Swims Again!!

 

[Tiberius]

im this:

[bible]Matthew 17:20[/bible]

Very well. Since you obviously have faith, could you please move Mount Everest to the Australian outback?

That passage is true, yes? You can actually move mountains, can't you?

 

[llDayo]

If you see eight Fords sitting in a parking lot with ten other cars --- all ten different makes from ten other countries --- would you not conclude that the eight Fords all come from the same company?

Would you also conclude that the other ten cars are foreign cars?

In other words, you can easily spot the American-made cars.

So basically, you can spot which cars are which. Wonderful. Now, which one of these was made to run perfectly? How do you tell which car is better than the others and is the car for you?

 

[llDayo]

I call being able to kill babies and teenagers.

If you're killing all the young'uns, who'll worship us in a few years?

 

[AV1611VET]

But I'd still be justified in saying that whatever the age that the dalite appears to be, that's when God made it!!

Then hows come I'm not justified when I say that whatever the age that the earth was at Creation, that's when God made it? (Which is what I've been asserting all along.)

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Then hows come I'm not justified when I say that whatever the age that the earth was at Creation, that's when God made it? (Which is what I've been asserting all along.)

But you don't. What you have been asserting all along is that Earth is both 6100 and 4500000000 years old, which is as impossible as it is unsupported.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you don't. What you have been asserting all along is that Earth is both 6100 and 4500000000 years old, which is as impossible as it is unsupported.

Then let me say it again, for about the umpteenth time:

I never dispute the age of the earth with someone I'm talking to; whether he thinks the earth is 6100 years old, or whether he thinks the earth is 6100[sup]6100[/sup] years old, I will not dispute it --- since the point is moot with me.

How you got that mixed up with me saying the earth is both 6100 and 4500000000 years old is beyond me.

(Actually I do understand --- your icon says it all.)