Truth and Science

[thaumaturgy]

Does isochron dating really matter, Thaumaturgy?

Well, if you think the stuff Dr. Morris was using as a critique of geology has any merit then it most assuredly does.

But I know, it's hard to pay attention to details when it's so much more fun to just take your preconceived notions and ignore anyone else.

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

Oh, was Dr. Morris 200 years old? No, he was born in the 20th century and died 3 years ago. If he uses a point to critique a science, he should have paid better attention.

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

MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! Wow! Good job! So are the bad people picking on you?

YOU brought up Dr. Morris' critique of Uniformitarianism. I was responding to that.

I can tell you that I have met far more scientists who are christians than ones who were openly atheists!

If you wish to think your misapprehensions of reality are what is absolute truth, then by all means, do so. But just remember, some of us know the truth. But don't let reality step on your persecution complex. I know it's important to some Christians to think they are just like Jesus and being nailed to cross daily. Even when they aren't. Even when they are busy trying to hammer nails into fields they don't begin to understand.

You are busy trying to nail geology up to a cross and you couldn't care any more about geology than the most hard hearted Roman soldier on Golgatha cared about Jesus.

Hilarious!

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

I am sure you did. Did you understand it or even think about it? That I doubt.

You see, if you bothered to care about geology enough to study it, then maybe, just maybe I'd care about your "opinion" of geology.

So, Roman, sit there with Dr. Morris and cast lots for the "clothing" of geology. Then you can wear it around and make people think you "earned" it.

 

[Alunyel]

^^ Win.

 

[marktheblake]

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.

If Jesus Christ is not who he said he was, then he most certainly is a laughing stock.

 

[marktheblake]

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.

No amount of evidence would ever make you cede from your position either, as you demonstrate you are as closeminded as him.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If Jesus Christ is not who he said he was, then he most certainly is a laughing stock.

So, what did Jesus actually say he was? Considering that we have nothing written by the man himself, and only third- or fourth-hand accounts at best, who knows what he actually said, and what words were put into his mouth after the fact?

 

[Nathan Poe]

No amount of evidence would ever make you cede from your position either, as you demonstrate you are as closeminded as him.

Perhaps if some evidence was actually presented, we could put your statement to the test.

 

[random325nicaea]

If Jesus Christ is not who he said he was, then he most certainly is a laughing stock.

WOW!
you really don't admire great teachers....remind me to never tell you about buddah, or influential philosophers or scientists.
i care for the message, even if it comes from a madman who claims he's the son of god, i don't care. if it hold wisdom and merit. i'll consider it.
but he!, that's just me.

 

[Hespera]

If Jesus Christ is not who he said he was, then he most certainly is a laughing stock.

huh... I would not think of laughing at the guy.

But seriously... how do YOU know who he really was and what he really said?

 

[random325nicaea]

No amount of evidence would ever make you cede from your position either, as you demonstrate you are as closeminded as him.

don't make me laugh and equate me with AV.

he cannot look outiside his bible bubble.
i have no real bubble, and if it was, i'd call it a high standard of evidence.

this is more a "pot.kettle.black." reply.

if you will not even consider that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or the fallacy of circular reasoning, or considering something was written after the fact, then you are incapable of logical reasoning.

provide me with convincing enough evidence, and i will ced. provide AV with enough evidence, and he'll just stick his fingers in his ear and shout "LALALALALA! I DIDN'T SEE THAT" (figuratively)

and no, what AV has put forward as "convincing" evidence, is hardly convincing at all. and i pointed out why.

 

[Hespera]

No amount of evidence would ever make you cede from your position either, as you demonstrate you are as closeminded as him.

I think really that when the religious say this they are just looking in the mirror!

Its hardly a secret that people wont give up their faith.

That is its nature!! It probably wasnt faith if it could be given up.

Something like belief, faith if you like, in say the ToE? Or any theory, concept in science. Bring on the evidence that it is wrong, and out the idea goes. "faith" goes poof. it was just a working model anyway, no problem.

For a religious person if the final proof somehow came that their belief was for nothing, I think it would be very traumatic. For a science minded person, it would be a source of amazement and delight to find that there were deeper and stranger secrets to be learned

 

[random325nicaea]

I think really that when the religious say this they are just looking in the mirror!

Its hardly a secret that people wont give up their faith.

That is its nature!! It probably wasnt faith if it could be given up.

Something like belief, faith if you like, in say the ToE? Or any theory, concept in science. Bring on the evidence that it is wrong, and out the idea goes. "faith" goes poof. it was just a working model anyway, no problem.

For a religious person if the final proof somehow came that their belief was for nothing, I think it would be very traumatic. For a science minded person, it would be a source of amazement and delight to find that there were deeper and stranger secrets to be learned

/agree

 

[marktheblake]

and no, what AV has put forward as "convincing" evidence, is hardly convincing at all. and i pointed out why.

Sorry, I didnt make myself clear, i wasn't referring to AV or any of his evidence. I already know that you have not accepted his evidence, you plainly said so already. Nobody could have missed that. Plus you have that little grey icon thing next to your name.

I meant Future Tense:
No amount of evidence would ever make you cede from your position either.

But if you do have an open mind, feel free to demonstrate what kind of evidence you would accept, to say, chuck out evolution and accept God as creator. Its purely hypothetical of course, because no such evidence exists.

 

[Hespera]

Sorry, I didnt make myself clear, i wasn't referring to AV or any of his evidence. I already know that you have not accepted his evidence, you plainly said so already. Nobody could have missed that. Plus you have that little grey icon thing next to your name.

I meant Future Tense:
No amount of evidence would ever make you cede from your position either.

But if you do have an open mind, feel free to demonstrate what kind of evidence you would accept, to say, chuck out evolution and accept God as creator. Its purely hypothetical of course, because no such evidence exists.

The concept of falsifying a scientific theory is straightforward enough.

It has been done any number of times, in regard to lesser and greater ideas. I have falsified a couple of minor ones myself in the lab.

If someone came along with a way to do that with evolution, it would get a very very rigorous testing! It would be a very big deal and it would sure have to prove itself.

The most shorthand version i know of a way to disprove evolution would be the discovery of the cambrian bunny. Fossils always come nicely sorted out by age, so far. Bring on a triceratops from the same bone bed as you find camels and i will begin to think that there really was a "flood"!

Disproving evolution and geological time is not really the same as proving a Christian god but it would be a step toward that. If, you know, there is a god and also if he happens to sponsor christianity.

 

[random325nicaea]

Sorry, I didnt make myself clear, i wasn't referring to AV or any of his evidence. I already know that you have not accepted his evidence, you plainly said so already. Nobody could have missed that. Plus you have that little grey icon thing next to your name.

I meant Future Tense:
No amount of evidence would ever make you cede from your position either.

But if you do have an open mind, feel free to demonstrate what kind of evidence you would accept, to say, chuck out evolution and accept God as creator. Its purely hypothetical of course, because no such evidence exists.

that grey icon isn't why i don't accept it, that grey icon IS because i didn't accept it.

believe, if god would reveal himself to me, and he'd fill my standard of evidence, i'd convert. (and god would know what my standard of evidence would be)

all i got now is a 5min outloud conversation with him while i was lucid. (as form of personal testimony, probably most christains bread and butter when they speak to atheists)
hardly convincing.

"chuck out evolution and accept God as creator. "

lawl.
i'd say god is the creater, and he does it via evolution.
your limiting god power here man....

" Its purely hypothetical of course, because no such evidence exists."

don't put words in my mouth. either of these things would eb really convincing.

- show me an alien civilization that has EXACTLY the same religious texts as christianity.
-have god appear to everyone on earth at the same time and make us all understand a unifying theory physics without having us read a book, surely god has revealed greater truths then this...
-have god whipe out all ignorance for good.
- have everyone on earht have the exact same religous experience.
- have god show up in scientific measurements.

hell....there are plenty of things that would convert me to theism.

and if there is a god, he'd know them.....
he's sure takign his sweet time tho...

 

[marktheblake]

huh... I would not think of laughing at the guy

Why not, he says he is God, and you do not beleive God exists, therefore to you, he must be a lunatic (or a liar)

Dont tell me you are taking an each way bet, just in case?

But seriously... how do YOU know who he really was and what he really said?

Seriously, That is a long story, and is not for this thread, but a very simplistic answer to that question (not limited to this though) is that I consider that the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John are reliable historical documents.

If they were not, I would (still) be a Buddhist, just not a good one.

I think really that when the religious say this they are just looking in the mirror!

Funny that, i was just thinking the same thing.

Its hardly a secret that people wont give up their faith.

Touche.

 

[random325nicaea]

Sorry, I didnt make myself clear, i wasn't referring to AV or any of his evidence. I already know that you have not accepted his evidence, you plainly said so already. Nobody could have missed that. Plus you have that little grey icon thing next to your name.

I meant Future Tense:
No amount of evidence would ever make you cede from your position either.

But if you do have an open mind, feel free to demonstrate what kind of evidence you would accept, to say, chuck out evolution and accept God as creator. Its purely hypothetical of course, because no such evidence exists.

that grey icon isn't why i don't accept it, that grey icon IS because i didn't accept it.

believe, if god would reveal himself to me, and he'd fill my standard of evidence, i'd convert. (and god would know what my standard of evidence would be)

all i got now is a 5min outloud conversation with him and satan (that guy was scary) while i was lucid. (as form of personal testimony, probably most christains' bread and butter when they try to convert atheists)
hardly convincing imo...

"chuck out evolution and accept God as creator. "

lawl.
i'd say god is the creator, and he does it via evolution.
your limiting god power here man....

" Its purely hypothetical of course, because no such evidence exists."

don't put words in my mouth. either of these things would eb really convincing.

- show me an alien civilization that has EXACTLY the same religious texts as christianity.
-have god appear to everyone on earth at the same time and make us all understand a unifying theory physics without having us read a book, surely god has revealed greater truths then this...
-have god whipe out all ignorance for good.
- have everyone on earht have the exact same religous experience.
- have god show up in scientific measurements.

hell....there are plenty of things that would convert me to theism.

and if there is a god, he'd know them.....
he's sure taking his sweet time tho...

 

[Hespera]

Why not, he says he is God, and you do not beleive God exists, therefore to you, he must be a lunatic (or a liar)

Dont tell me you are taking an each way bet, just in case?

Seriously, That is a long story, and is not for this thread, but a very simplistic answer to that question (not limited to this though) is that I consider that the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John are reliable historical documents.

If they were not, I would (still) be a Buddhist, just not a good one.



Funny that, i was just thinking the same thing.

Touche.

i guess i meant the idea of laughing at Jesus never occurred to me. IF i hopped in a time machine AND knew the language AND he was actually there then I could study his habits. who knows what a person could learn from that.

I would need a LOT of convincing that the gospels are accurate historical documents. I need a lot of convincing that J Smith really did find the gold books; that the testimony of the witnesses is true.

 

[marktheblake]

believe, if god would reveal himself to me, and he'd fill my standard of evidence, i'd convert. (and god would know what my standard of evidence would be)

Thanks that's pretty good. Not confident that God would be impressed with you putting conditions on whether you would beleive in him or not though.

Mind you in saying that, my tip is if any being ever does perform some kind of party tricks to prove 'godliness' to you (or the world) that indeed does prove God exists, but it aint him, run away!

 

[marktheblake]

I would need a LOT of convincing that the gospels are accurate historical documents.

I know what you mean, it took me at least 10 years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks that's pretty good. Not confident that God would be impressed with you putting conditions on whether you would beleive in him or not though.

Mind you in saying that, my tip is if any being ever does perform some kind of party tricks to prove 'godliness' to you (or the world) that indeed does prove God exists, but it aint him, run away!

Indeed --- these guys who say that they would believe if God appeared in front of them need to realize they are playing right into the Antichrist's hands.

And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: