Truth and Science

[pgp_protector]

Haha, something that exists outside of reality doesn't exist. It isn't real.

That has to be your funniest joke, yet, Av.

I still wouldn't recommend Stand Up, though.

Is Virtual Reality Real ?

 

[AV1611VET]

The most dangerous belief is one that can't be changed.

Did Jesus walk on water?

If your answer is anything other than, 'yes' --- your whole post means nothing to me; and Aquinas & co. make take a hike.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Did Jesus walk on water?

If your answer is anything other than, 'yes' --- your whole post means nothing to me; and Aquinas & co. make take a hike.

Is there nobody you'll listen to besides yourself?

 

[random325nicaea]

Did Jesus walk on water?

If your answer is anything other than, 'yes' --- your whole post means nothing to me; and Aquinas & co. make take a hike.

aaaaand, you have just admitted intellectual defeat.
you will not, ever, cede from your position (as is apparent from your posts). no matter how much counter evidence we bring up or how badly we shred your logic.

you've just admitted to being closeminded biblethumper.
if you believe that a mere mention in the bible makes something so, then for you, there is no science, there is no inquiry, there is only dogma.

 

[Amoeba]

aaaaand, you have just admitted intellectual defeat.
you will not, ever, cede from your position (as is apparent from your posts). no matter how much counter evidence we bring up or how badly we shred your logic.

you've just admitted to being closeminded biblethumper.
if you believe that a mere mention in the bible makes something so, then for you, there is no science, there is no inquiry, there is only dogma.

For someone who supposedly desires to "spread the good news throughout the world", such blind fundamentalism is a total turn off to any rational person seeking a higher power. Not to mention a laughing stock for non-believers. It makes the bible look like a children's fairy tale book, which it isn't. Creationism is the worst thing to have happened for anyone who believes in the bible. A divisive, ideological, dogmatic, sectarian, radical, hostile, point of view which does nothing but make enemies to the detriment of the message of Jesus Christ.

 

[pgp_protector]

Did Jesus walk on water?

If your answer is anything other than, 'yes' --- your whole post means nothing to me; and Aquinas & co. make take a hike.

QV

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

For someone who supposedly desires to "spread the good news throughout the world", such blind fundamentalism is a total turn off to any rational person seeking a higher power. Not to mention a laughing stock for non-believers. It makes the bible look like a children's fairy tale book, which it isn't. Creationism is the worst thing to have happened for anyone who believes in the bible. A divisive, ideological, dogmatic, sectarian, radical, hostile, point of view which does nothing but make enemies to the detriment of the message of Jesus Christ.

My wife and I were just talking about this yesterday. If there is a devil, and he wanted people to turn away from the truth of Jesus and Christianity, what better way than creationism. Any reasonable person with a modicum of education would be turned off by the ridiculousness of it immediately. And that's the really funny part, christians did this to themselves.

 

[AV1611VET]

For someone who supposedly desires to "spread the good news throughout the world", such blind fundamentalism is a total turn off to any rational person seeking a higher power. Not to mention a laughing stock for non-believers. It makes the bible look like a children's fairy tale book, which it isn't. Creationism is the worst thing to have happened for anyone who believes in the bible. A divisive, ideological, dogmatic, sectarian, radical, hostile, point of view which does nothing but make enemies to the detriment of the message of Jesus Christ.

Like I say, the only ones who have problems with the Creation are the ones who don't take Genesis 1 seriously.

And if you don't take Genesis 1 seriously, I have a feeling you're not gonna take John 3:16 very seriously as well.

 

[Amoeba]

Did Jesus walk on water?

No one can say with absolute certainty but Jesus certainly was a character out of this world. Your rhetorical question is irrelevant to the message of Jesus. It seems as though your measure of salvation is whether one takes an absolute literal interpretation of every word in the bible. Do you believe a seven headed beast is coming out of the ocean as it says in revelation?

If your answer is anything other than, 'yes' --- your whole post means nothing to me; and Aquinas & co. make take a hike.

1 Samuel 2:7
The LORD sends poverty and wealth; he humbles and he exalts.



When will the Lord humble you?

 

[Amoeba]

Like I say, the only ones who have problems with the Creation are the ones who don't take Genesis 1 seriously.

And if you don't take Genesis 1 seriously, I have a feeling you're not gonna take John 3:16 very seriously as well.

Taking Genesis 1 seriously does not assume a misguided literal interpretation of it and total wholesale rejection of a scientific explanation of natural history.

 

[AV1611VET]

My wife and I were just talking about this yesterday. If there is a devil, and he wanted people to turn away from the truth of Jesus and Christianity, what better way than creationism. Any reasonable person with a modicum of education would be turned off by the ridiculousness of it immediately. And that's the really funny part, christians did this to themselves.

Did you conclude that Jesus' resurrection, which is central to salvation, violated science as well?

It's interesting that you chose to discuss a topic that is highly-debated, to bring down a topic that is well-documented.

This is as I suspect.

You guys will not --- will not --- will not --- ask questions about something that is clearly documented.

That's because you know better.

Instead, you'll prefer to question things that are controversial, even w/i the family of God.

 

[Amoeba]

My wife and I were just talking about this yesterday. If there is a devil, and he wanted people to turn away from the truth of Jesus and Christianity, what better way than creationism. Any reasonable person with a modicum of education would be turned off by the ridiculousness of it immediately. And that's the really funny part, christians did this to themselves.

Very unfortunate indeed. Jesus is someone everyone should want to know. It's sad to see some of his followers so blinded by ideological view points, that it turns Jesus's message into the laughing stock of non-believers. These people are like horses with blinders on, only seeing what they want to see. Very sad...

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

What is this heavy documentation you keep referring to? And the only hot "debating" is from YECs, and nowhere else.

 

[AV1611VET]

Taking Genesis 1 seriously does not assume a misguided literal interpretation of it and total wholesale rejection of a scientific explanation of natural history.

And Matthew 28 does?

Or is the Resurrection on the same plane as the Creation as well?

 

[Hespera]

AV sez Did you conclude that Jesus' resurrection, which is central to salvation, violated science as well?

It's interesting that you chose to discuss a topic that is highly-debated, to bring down a topic that is well-documented.

This is as I suspect.

You guys will not --- will not --- will not --- ask questions about something that is clearly documented.

Instead, you'll prefer to question things that are controversial, even w/i the family of God.



Hespera sez... it doesnt violate anything because it didnt happen.

Your idea of documentation is at variance with reality so discussing what is or isnt documented is kind of pointless.

But IF something is deomnstrably true, well documented, maybe there is nothing to discuss.

 

[Hespera]

Amoeba sez...Very unfortunate indeed. Jesus is someone everyone should want to know. It's sad to see some of his followers so blinded by ideological view points, that it turns Jesus's message into the laughing stock of non-believers. These people are like horses with blinders on, only seeing what they want to see. Very sad...QUOTE///////////


H sez. Take off YOUR blinders and consider that you are saying this only from your point of view.

Whoever or whatever jesus was, and whoever / whenever the teachings attributed to him originated, there is a lot of good wisdom there.

The MESSAGE isnt a laughingstock. The antics of some who consider themselves to be believers are. and rightly so.

 

[thaumaturgy]

What a pity.

Your attitude will serve as a blinder, but here it is anyway:-Defender's Study Bible, by [the late] Dr. Henry M. Morris

Oh goody! You've already read my mind using your Jesus-Powers! I think you'll find the first bit intersting.

The great ages needed to make evolutionism appear feasible are based mainly on a handful of very slow radioactive decay processes (uranium to lead, potassium to argon, etc.). These must each be based on at least three unprovable assumptions:

• Known initial boundary conditions (assumption of no initial radiogenic lead in the uranium/lead mineral).

Well, perhaps Dr. Morris didn't know about isochron dating. Even though I've found a reference to it as long ago as 1979, I don't know when it was developed. Maybe Dr. Morris didn't read much in the area of radiometric dating before he critiqued it.

Too bad people like you are so blinded by your preconceived ideas that you don't bother to learn the science, so you just believe whatever guy comes along that reinforces your preconceived notions.

• Isolated system (no ingrss or egress of components of the sytem during the times it is functioning).

Did the Late Great Dr. Morris know about crystallography? Sometimes we know what elements were in places before they decayed into others precisely because we see how they are supposed to fit or don't fit in a structure.

But to be honest (I'll assume Dr. Morris was just uninformed and not dishonest) scientists go to a great deal of effort to make sure they are looking at systems that are relatively pristine. In some cases we know that things like Argon-40 will be able to escape (Want an example? Try this ONE, it's from 1961, a time when even the Late Great Dr. Morris could have read it.)

But why ruin a good strawman argument with considering the other side?

• Constant rate of process (no effect of environmental radiations or any other force on the decay rate).

Actually, just recently I read something about neutrinos effect to the tune of a fraction of a percent on the half-life of some radioactive decays. I'm waiting to read more when it is published. Apparently physicists are still skeptical of this. (HERE)

If Dr. Morris was so unsure of radioactive decay rates, perhaps he would be surprised to know that many of these rates have been quite well studied for the past century. If there are still some questions, good. But to speed up the uranium decay rate from a few billions of years down to a few thousand without melting the planet would probably be something people would have noted much earlier.

Again, why bother stopping at the simple thermo effects from a good "SWAG"? (I'll let you figure out what SWAG is, if you care about science at all).

None of these assumptions are capable of either proof or disproof since conditions are unknown prior to recorded history. All are known to be wrong in almost all natural processes.

Guess Dr. Morris didn't spend any time in science despite being a degreed engineer.

What Dr. Morris is doing is taking on the "unobserved past", which means that if you were to talk to him you'd probably find someone incapable of even talking like a rational human being owing to his near lack of function. As an example: he'd have to look at you and assume you might have come to earth from outerspace. Since there's no way for him to PROVE that you were born like a regular human being (since he didn't SEE you being born).

In fact, since he didn't see his mom and dad pro-creating him, he'd be in as safe a space assuming he, himself, sprang from the forehead of Zeus fully formed. He would have no way to know otherwise!

I'm pretty sure Dr. Morris wasn't alive to see Jesus in the flesh. How did he know anything about Jesus?

I've seen Creationists take this dodge a LOT but they never bother to follow it through to the logical extreme. That's because they know that when they travel down this road it leads to madness.

It's helpful that most Creationists never sat through a philosophy class (or likely would be unable to). This sort of reasoning is related to extremes of "Empiricism" and in the end we all end up assuming there are limits to whatever philosophy one espouses.

It's a fun philosophical concept, but he must have been pretty close to disfunctionally insane if he actually lived his life like his statement on science indicates. I doubt that he did. Hypocrisy is the meat and potatoes of many Creationists, even if it's just that soft hypocrisy of not actually holding everything to the same ridiculous limits they put on the science they hate.

Now, don't let me slag Hume! Au Contraire, I like Hume and I'm somewhat of an empiricist. But I recognize limits of rational thought.

On the other hand, there are scores of worldwide natural processes which, even with the above "uniformitarian" assumptions, will indicate ages far too brief for evolution to be feasible. Some of these are listed in the accompanying tabulation, with references for each.

Dr. Morris obviously never took a geology class after oh, about the 1950's. See, AV, we've known about catastrophic events for a long time. In fact the kind of strawman arguments you and "creationist intellectuals" like Dr. Morris construct bear almost no resemblance to the actual field of geology. Certainly nothing like the geology I've seen for the past 27 years (since I started in geology in 1982 as an undergrad).

If you "buy" Dr. Morris's stuff ("blue sky" if you will) then you either need to take a geology class and be FAIR about the analysis of the data or you need to just admit you don't respect other people, you do respect whoever will support your own pre-conceived notions.

So take your "Dr. Morris" worship and do some real geology with it. I'd be interested to see if you can. Oh, I forgot, you don't care about geology except as it serves as your punching bag.

Too bad I can't treat your religious faith with the same level of "respect" without getting banned on this board.

(At least I've read the Bible and spent a great deal of time studying Christianity before I critique it. Too bad you don't have the cojones to do the same for geology.

DIAGNOSTICS:
​

Christian Failure Mode: Luke 6:31 FAIL

 

[Amoeba]

And Matthew 28 does?

Matt 28 does what?

Or is the Resurrection on the same plane as the Creation as well?

The Resurrection is a matter of faith. You can't prove the resurrection happened but you believe it out of faith as a central tenet to your belief of Jesus as God. Creationism is not a central tenet to believing in Jesus, nor is it provable in any logical framework. Unlike the resurrection, there is an observable, testable, measurable, verifiable explanation of natural history.

So your attempt to link creationism with the resurrection of Jesus is ludicrous. You can believe in the resurrection of Jesus and not abandon a rational understanding of nature.

If anything, nature has shown to us, that seemingly supernatural events are very much possible. Quantum mechanics anyone? But this must not be disconnected from the fact that much of this relies on faith and nothing else. Jesus apparently was in touch with the very essence of the universe, knowing how to manipulate the laws of physics with ease. A divine character indeed...

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, perhaps Dr. Morris didn't know about isochron dating.

Does isochron dating really matter, Thaumaturgy?

Did it matter 200 years ago when there were scientists who didn't believe in the Bible?

500 years ago? A thousand?

Do you think isochron dating, dendrochronology, evolution, laws of thermodynamics, or the Crusades are the real reason bona fide scientists reject Scripture?

Or just excuses?

(And in case you're wondering, I read your whole post.)

 

[gaara4158]

Does isochron dating really matter, Thaumaturgy?

Did it matter 200 years ago when there were scientists who didn't believe in the Bible?

500 years ago? A thousand?

Do you think isochron dating, dendrochronology, evolution, laws of thermodynamics, or the Crusades are the real reason bona fide scientists reject Scripture?

Or just excuses?

(And in case you're wondering, I read your whole post.)

Scientists are scientific-minded. They don't let ancient stories cloud their results. They are disciplined, objective observers who perform experiments, record results, and compare notes. Many scientists are able to reconcile scripture with their findings. To accuse them of using their results as an excuse to disobey the Ten Commandments is an abhorrent, heedless, conceited insult to the practice of science. Clearly you have no idea what science even is.