Intelligent Falling

[Agonaces of Susa]

If there are any non-believers who deny that the Earth exists, then you deny that human beings exist. It is exactly the same "reasoning".

No it is not the same. They claim the entire Bible is fiction. I only claim that common descent from a single ancestor via natural selection and undirected mutation is fiction.

 

[MorkandMindy]

So if it is not in the scripture, it doesn't exist in real life?

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Scripture alone is necessary to be equipped for every good work.
In addition some people may need to know certain life skills but those depend on the type of life you live like how to drive a car wouldn't help someone living in the jungle with no roads and no money, or how to watch TV wouldn't help me because I don't have one.

 

[MorkandMindy]

You can't be serious.

No fundamentalist believer on Earth thinks that.

The problem is that certain unbelievers think everything in the Bible is fiction, thus according to them the Earth does not exist.

No, fiction is where the storyline is made up. A fiction story usually contains people and that doesn't mean people don't exist.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I am a believer and I certainly think biological evolution (common descent from a single ancestor via natural selection and undirected mutation) is pseudoscience fiction. However I also believe human beings exist. Therefore your words are all bytes and no meaning.

Adam and Eve were the sole ancestors

Evolutionists believe in the evolution of a whole section of a population, one example is a one land mass is cut off from another so the single species now divided begins to develop along different routes into 2 different species.

So as a believer you should believe in common descent from a single ancestor, it is the evolutionists who don't.

 

[Spacewyrm]

No it is not the same. They claim the entire Bible is fiction. I only claim that common descent form a single ancestor via natural selection and undirected mutation is fiction.

Nobody believes that everything mentioned in the Bible isn't real. People claim that being in the Bible is not sufficient to believe that something is real. You are, without a doubt, the King of the Straw Men. Good job.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Nobody believes that everything mentioned in the Bible isn't real.

Several fundamentalist atheists on this very website have said as much. I guess they were just being dishonest. Typical.

People claim that being in the Bible is not sufficient to believe that something is real.

So if meteorites are in the Bible that doesn't make them real?

You are, without a doubt, the King of the Straw Men. Good job.

That's because the people who argue against me have no logical argument. Thus they seem like straw men against my titanium words.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I can't stand all of you Newtonians and your theory of gravity. We've never seen gravity happen. Newtonians and gravitationans have never proven gravity.
When people fall, it is because God is pushing them down.
Gravity is the most dangerous and dumbest religion on this planet.
...
The planets do not spin because of gravity, but because God does it. Black Holes are not "gravity" but gaps to heaven that God does not want you to enter. This is the most out dated theory and lie for the last 400 years.

This dangerous theory can now have an alternative.
We are trying to take out the Theory of Gravity and introduce a new way of learning why things fall.
Intelligent Falling leads those from the satanic path of gravity and leads them to the path of God and Intelligent Falling.
...

Pretty profound I have to say.

The simple truth that is not well publicised (guess why) is that the graviton is not in the Standard Model of elementary particles. In short, science does not have a particle to transmit it, and can not provide a mechanism for it.

That is big fail. Robert Hooke and Sir Isaac Newton rabbited on about gravity in the 1660s and here 340 plus years later science still can't explain it.

Very simply I would suggest getting down to the nearest church that is faithful to God and get to know him because you are wasting your time with science.

Pray the prayer, join up, go weekly, pay 10% in tithes, and with your treasure safely stored up in Heaven you can be sure one day you will go there and join it. QED (sorted!)

 

[Nabobalis]

Pretty profound I have to say.

The simple truth that is not well publicised (guess why) is that the graviton is not in the Standard Model of elementary particles. In short, science does not have a particle to transmit it, and can not provide a mechanism for it.

That is big fail. Robert Hooke and Sir Isaac Newton rabbited on about gravity in the 1660s and here 340 plus years later science still can't explain it.

Very simply I would suggest getting down to the nearest church that is faithful to God and get to know him because you are wasting your time with science.

Pray the prayer, join up, go weekly, pay 10% in tithes, and with your treasure safely stored up in Heaven you can be sure one day you will go there and join it. QED (sorted!)

So gravity isn't in the bible but the Standard Model is elementary particles is alright with you?

 

[MorkandMindy]

So gravity isn't in the bible but the Standard Model is elementary particles is alright with you?

Well I was really letting each put forth it's best argument, so took the Bible for the Christian side and the Standard Model for the Physicists side.

Of course I ignored all the benefits science has brought such as this very PC I am using now contains not just a miracle of solid state physics but a whole lot of other amazing things that would be worth a thread of their own, and religion has brought, well, .

But welcome to CF

CF as you little doubt know, has a few serious threads here in the sciences, some entertainment, a few topics people take seriously out in the religious forums, and lots and lots of rhetoric and poes.

The point of a good rhetorical argument is not whether it is true but whether it sounds convincing. If Christian evangelists stuck to the truth they would have nothing to say. I have pointed out errors to Christian evangelists before and they just carry on saying them for the simple reason that the entire argument is built out of half-truths at best.

The most useful tool in rhetoric is the simple lie, you notice I said:

'The simple truth that is not well publicised (guess why)'

actually scientists are very concerned to get gravity into a unified field theory and are achieving a fair amount toward doing just that at the moment, and I squeezed in a sort of allusion to the atheist science conspiracy with the (guess why)

Evangelists will lie to you and we all need practice in dealing with it.

 

[Nabobalis]

Well I was really letting each put forth it's best argument, so took the Bible for the Christian side and the Standard Model for the Physicists side.

Of course I ignored all the benefits science has brought such as this very PC I am using now contains not just a miracle of solid state physics but a whole lot of other amazing things that would be worth a thread of their own, and religion has brought, well, .

But welcome to CF

CF as you little doubt know, has a few serious threads here in the sciences, some entertainment, a few topics people take seriously out in the religious forums, and lots and lots of rhetoric and poes.

The point of a good rhetorical argument is not whether it is true but whether it sounds convincing. If Christian evangelists stuck to the truth they would have nothing to say. I have pointed out errors to Christian evangelists before and they just carry on saying them for the simple reason that the entire argument is built out of half-truths at best.

The most useful tool in rhetoric is the simple lie, you notice I said:

'The simple truth that is not well publicised (guess why)'

actually scientists are very concerned to get gravity into a unified field theory and are achieving a fair amount toward doing just that at the moment, and I squeezed in a sort of allusion to the atheist science conspiracy with the (guess why)

Evangelists will lie to you and we all need practice in dealing with it.

Oh ok, so I was poe'd?

 

[MorkandMindy]

Oh ok, so I was poe'd?

Yes, Poe'd, rhetoric'd and satired.

Parts of CF are a lot like Mad Magazine with lots of satire (read the OP for this thread).

Our own Nathan Poe invented the internet variety of Poe's law right here at CF on 11 August 2005: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing (http://www.christianforums.com/t1962980-6/#post17606580)

Actually a few years ago when the rules changed for a short time I went into a Young Earth Creation area and everyone believed I was the real thing after I explained Dr Walter thingy's mad plate tectonics theory to a bunch of Fundies who couldn't understand it.

They were also doing calculations and ending up with totally crazy results and I was given reputation after I said I'd done a calculation like that and found when my Teddy Bear sneezed it went off at the speed of light.

As for rhetoric well Christian evangelism is all rhetoric, so with non Christians joining in to spoof the Christians there are massive amounts of it flying around. I wouldn't be surprised if as many people get converted by non-Christians spoofing Christians as by actual Christians.

 

[Spacewyrm]

Several fundamentalist atheists on this very website have said as much. I guess they were just being dishonest. Typical.

No one has ever said that. You are the one who is being dishonest.

So if meteorites are in the Bible that doesn't make them real?

Something being in the Bible doesn't make something real. What makes something real is the fact that the thing itself exists. The Bible speaks of things that are real and things that are not. That's what I was saying.

That's because the people who argue against me have no logical argument. Thus they seem like straw men against my titanium words.

Uh, no, it's because you constantly argue against things nobody has ever said.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

No one has ever said that.

I specifically recall at least two posters who said the Bible is not historical and contains not one scientific fact.

Something being in the Bible doesn't make something real.

I disagree. History is real.

What makes something real is the fact that the thing itself exists.

So extinct animals aren't real because they no longer exist?

The Bible speaks of things that are real and things that are not.

I disagree.

That's what I was saying.

I understand.

Uh, no, it's because you constantly argue against things nobody has ever said.

Such as?

 

[Spacewyrm]

I specifically recall at least two posters who said the Bible is not historical and contains not one scientific fact.

Care to provide a link? Because I don't believe you.

I disagree. History is real.

History is real. Not all historical accounts are accurate, though. And many parts of the Bible are not intended to be historical accounts in the first place.

So extinct animals aren't real because they no longer exist?

Well, perhaps I was not careful enough with my wording, but you should have been able to understand what I was trying to say. A thing is real because it exists or once existed. We can only refer to extinct animals as things that were real in the past though, seeing as how they no longer exist.

I disagree.

I know.

I understand.

I doubt that.

Such as?

Such as you saying that people have said that everything in the Bible must be false just because its in the Bible. That's a straw man, because nobody here has ever expressed such an opinion.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Care to provide a link? Because I don't believe you.

Even if I took hours to dig it up and gave you the link you still wouldn't believe me.

Allow me to give you historical examples that summarize the thinking of certain atheists on this very website.

"... judging from the account of the Exodus of the Jews, which they have written themselves, we cannot credit it. The narrative is full of contradictions, and is so absurd and incredible, and even impossible, that we must regard it as a huge myth. There may have been an Exodus from Egypt, of which this account is an exaggeration, but it bears so many evidences of the fabulous that we cast it aside and are led to doubt whether the Jews were ever in Egypt except as tramps and vagabonds ...." -- Richard B. Westbrook, scientist, 1892

"The Jews have no history -- or what may be termed real history ...." -- Jonathan M. Roberts, scientist, 1894

History is real. Not all historical accounts are accurate, though.

At least 90% or more are accurate. The other 10%, what may be called Darwinist mythohistory, is grossly inaccurate: http://www.amazon.com/History-Wrong-Erich-Von-Daniken/dp/1601630867

And many parts of the Bible are not intended to be historical accounts in the first place.

I disagree.

Well, perhaps I was not careful enough with my wording, but you should have been able to understand what I was trying to say. A thing is real because it exists or once existed. We can only refer to extinct animals as things that were real in the past though, seeing as how they no longer exist.

The Bible is just such a history.

Such as you saying that people have said that everything in the Bible must be false just because its in the Bible. That's a straw man, because nobody here has ever expressed such an opinion.

In fact they did.

However the comment was removed by staff: http://www.christianforums.com/t7416574-7/#post53668184

 

[Spacewyrm]

Even if I took hours to dig it up and gave you the link you still wouldn't believe me.

Allow me to give you historical examples that summarize the thinking of certain atheists on this very website.

[snip irrelevant quotes]

If you found a link to a poster here saying that I'd believe you. Some random quotes that don't even say that aren't going help you make your point. There is a difference between saying that some historical accounts in the Bible are inaccurate and saying that everything in the Bible must be false.

At least 90% or more are accurate. The other 10%, what may be called Darwinist mythohistory, is grossly inaccurate: Amazon.com: History Is Wrong (9781601630865): Erich Von Daniken, Nicholas Quaintmere: Books

90% of history is accurate? What on Earth does that even mean, and why should I believe you when you can't even tell the difference between history and myth? (BTW, Erich von Daniken is a crank).

I disagree.

I know.

Well, perhaps I was not careful enough with my wording, but you should have been able to understand what I was trying to say. A thing is real because it exists or once existed. We can only refer to extinct animals as things that were real in the past though, seeing as how they no longer exist.

The Bible is just such a history.

How is that a response to what I said?

In fact they did.

However the comment was removed by staff: http://www.christianforums.com/t7416574-7/#post53668184

How convienient for you.

Listen, nobody has ever said that something is false just because its in the Bible. People have said that many parts of the Bible are not accurate historical accounts, which is not the same thing as saying that anything in the Bible must be false. People have said that something being in the Bible is not sufficient evidence, by itself, to believe that something is true, which is not the same thing as saying that anything in the Bible must be false. Yet you constantly conflate these three opinions and apply this to everyone who disagrees with you about something in the Bible. It is getting tiresome.

If you can't provide a link, I'm just going to assume you're making things up.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

If you can't provide a link, I'm just going to assume you're making things up.

I gave you the link and you ignored it obviously.

 

[Spacewyrm]

I gave you the link and you ignored it obviously.

You gave a link to a post that had been deleted! That's as good as nothing.