I would like to tell you a bit more about God

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"I really have no desire to spend the time to reduce an entire concept (JEDP) to a forum thread length. Google it -- it has tons of info on the web. "

I presume you are reffing to the doucmentary hypothesis? Im reasonably familair with it and would reccomend Richard Elliot Friednman's "Who Wrote he BIble" as a very good summary, perhaps you might comment on this? But te documentary hypothesis does not give any indication as to whether the authors of the bible thought they Genesis was literal or not.

"As I said, most scholars I know or have read believe the authors wrote what they understood. It would make little sense for them to be supernaturally gifted with divine knowledge that would escape their readers intellect for 2K years."

Writing what they understood is not what I am debating , the issue is shoudl we treat what hey understood in any special way?

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

I do not know in which journal the following discoveries were documented, and I was unable to take in all the scientific evidence that was used to substanciate it, but it has basically been proven that humans did not evolve from anything (especially apes). It has to do with how our genetic material is transferred from one generation to the next. Basically, humans are the most intricate and complicated forms of life on earth. Less evolved forms of life could've evolved from humans but not the other way around. I'll try to get hold of the report and make sure what the precise mechanisms are.

Waiting..... Waiting..... Waiting.....

I don't know about anyone else but I am really looking forward to finding out which 'Journal' published this groundbreaking piece of research. Please hurry up and find it

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreece 190]

Quote

While I believe many took the account of creation in Genesis as science, I don't believe that was the "intent" So therefore I don't believe science "debunked" Genesis. I believe science may have proven false theories on Genesis wrong. Now that that is straight.

The NT doesn't make any scientific claims I know of so what would science "debunk?"

My original intention to this relpy was to try to give some scientific calims of the NT that scientist could attempt to debunk, and give some links to some of the funniest videos I've ever seen that are related to this thread, but instead I ended up on a rabbit trail......

So far, in regards to scientific claims that scientist could debunk, I've only come up with spiritual issues and miracles(water to wine, rising from the dead...things like that) So nothing "tangible" yet...I doubt they will look for something because they already have all they need to feel as though they debunked the Bible, but I'm always interested in searching for anything in the Bible, regardless of intent.

I also feel inclined to give a defense for the fundies eventhough I'm still "investigating" their claims, and that such defenses mean nothing to the athiests...

If all Christians believe in the miracles in the NT and the power of God described, couldn't this power be used to illustrate that God could perform the miracle of creating a universe and an earth in 6 literal days by speaking it into exsistance from nothing? Futhermore, the fundies believe that God had the power to create Adam as a mature adult, and use this to explain that God also had the power to create a light span in it's full "maturity" so that it instnatly was seen on earth. And so everything was created in full maturity giving the appearance that it is older than it actually is.

Anyways...

Here are some hillarious videos that I've recently watched related to this thread and thought that you guys could appreciate the laugh.

This first video is of a televangilst (Robert Tilton) who allegedly "stole" millions of dollars from desperate people from around the country in the 80's This guy's style is why I think so many are "turned off" to christianity in addition to the Bibles claim that it is itself fooloishness to the world...The sound effets with this guy's facial expresions are clasic....He recently has claimed copyright infringement and most of these videos have been removed from the web...but I still managed to find the best of one several....enjoy...The illustrations get better near the end
http://www.jokeroo.com/funnyvideos/fartingpreacher5.html

In this next video, I agree with both Richard dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson. Though I haven't read much of Dawkins...I do agree with his hillarious defense in this video.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LEl4QfcAK2o

This is just a good old fasion joke that I think we will all love.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=I4IFIegBFug

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

I do not know in which journal the following discoveries were documented, and I was unable to take in all the scientific evidence that was used to substanciate it, but it has basically been proven that humans did not evolve from anything (especially apes). It has to do with how our genetic material is transferred from one generation to the next. Basically, humans are the most intricate and complicated forms of life on earth. Less evolved forms of life could've evolved from humans but not the other way around. I'll try to get hold of the report and make sure what the precise mechanisms are.

Waiting..... Waiting..... Waiting.....

I don't know about anyone else but I am really looking forward to finding out which 'Journal' published this groundbreaking piece of research. Please hurry up and find it

I hear you. I'm kinda done here; I think I understand where everyone is coming from in this thread. There's been nothing new for a few pages. I agree with some, disagree with others, and hope we've all had some fun.

But I REALLY want to see the source of those claims (as well as the thermodynamics stuff, though I have seen the kind of places that put that stuff out and kinda know what to expect COUGH - Discovery Institute - COUGH).

But the claims from that post - I want to see the source.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

But I REALLY want to see the source of those claims (as well as the thermodynamics stuff, though I have seen the kind of places that put that stuff out and kinda know what to expect COUGH - Discovery Institute - COUGH).

Yeah, the thermodynamics arguments really are a special case in these kinds of debates.

Now, when it comes to evolution and genetics the creationists can usually dissemble enough and be vague and misguided enough that it is sometimes tricky to really pin them to the wall on their mistakes.

The "2nd law" argument, on the other hand, is so blatantly, completely, provably, unmistakably wrong that I am still waiting for Nigel99 to come back and apologise for breaking physics.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

The "2nd law" argument, on the other hand, is so blatantly, completely, provably, unmistakably wrong that I am still waiting for Nigel99 to come back and apologise for breaking physics.

In my undergrad thermo class, I "disproved" the 2nd law loads of times.

Actually the laws of thermodynamics read like a cynics guide to the universe (Ginsberg's Theorem)
1st: you can't win
2nd: you can't even break even
3rd: you can't get out of the game

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

The "2nd law" argument, on the other hand, is so blatantly, completely, provably, unmistakably wrong that I am still waiting for Nigel99 to come back and apologise for breaking physics.

In my undergrad thermo class, I "disproved" the 2nd law loads of times.

Actually the laws of thermodynamics read like a cynics guide to the universe (Ginsberg's Theorem)
1st: you can't win
2nd: you can't even break even
3rd: you can't get out of the game

What about the zeroth law?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

But I REALLY want to see the source of those claims (as well as the thermodynamics stuff, though I have seen the kind of places that put that stuff out and kinda know what to expect COUGH - Discovery Institute - COUGH).

Yeah, the thermodynamics arguments really are a special case in these kinds of debates.

Now, when it comes to evolution and genetics the creationists can usually dissemble enough and be vague and misguided enough that it is sometimes tricky to really pin them to the wall on their mistakes.

The "2nd law" argument, on the other hand, is so blatantly, completely, provably, unmistakably wrong that I am still waiting for Nigel99 to come back and apologise for breaking physics.

Yeah, well, the complexity argument is bogus, the information coding argument is bogus, the micro/macro argument is bogus. Pretty much every argument they use is designed to appeal to the ignorant.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JackC 0]

Quote

What about the zeroth law?

Yeah, I think I "disproved" that one a couple of time too.

[philh 0]

"Where they trying to record a literal account? Some say yes, some say no. We cannot know for sure."

Well thats something I think we can agree upon

"If they were not trying to write a science book, but rather a story about man's relationship with God than I think they did real good."

I doubt there was any notion of what a science book was at the time of its writing. I wonder what your criteria is for saying they did a good job.

"That is simply not true in all cases. Many theologians change their ideas when science proves w/o a doubt something recorded as wrong."

I didnt say theologians, I said theists. One can be a theologian and be an athiest, in fact I know of severla who are. My point is that theists dont seem to look at their texts objectivley. thy seem to me to start with the assumption that they are true. In science if a fact contradicts a theory one might assume the theory will either be modified or junked all together. It seems to me that theists will only consider the former and not the latter and thats why theism appears to me to be intellectually lacking.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"If they were not trying to write a science book, but rather a story about man's relationship with God than I think they did real good."

... I wonder what your criteria is for saying they did a good job.

1000s of passages in the OT beginning with the book of Genesis point to JC

steveOrino

[philh 0]

well one explanation of that is that the authors of the OT, with all its innacuracies about our history ( for whatever reason) had divine inspiration or some more simple explanation that dont require invisble beings:

1. The Nt auhtors retrofitted their story for the OT
2. Chisitians interpret texts in ways that suits them , much in the same way people have a tendency to see patters when there aren't any.

I think Ocams Razor should apply here, the explanation with the least unproved assumption is the best one and the invisble being explanation isnt it.

[steveorino 7]

Those are "plausable" theories. Obviously I don't share them.

steveOrino

[pirana 0]

Quote

The "2nd law" argument, on the other hand, is so blatantly, completely, provably, unmistakably wrong that I am still waiting for Nigel99 to come back and apologise for breaking physics.

Well, if he succeeds in breaking the laws of physics, then we could all be in really big trouble. I mean, imagine if he accidentally ripped open the fabric of space and time in a way big enough to transport the entire planet Earth instantaneously to the milleseconds just following the Big Whoosh.

Of course we all know that only the combined efforts of Spock and Scotty could make such a thing so; but if Nigel did manage to do that - I would expect an apology.

BTW, I didn't catch the poster, but those 3 rules for thermodynamics - very funnt stuff.

I've found that the same thing aplies if you sit at a Blackjack table for too long.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But I REALLY want to see the source of those claims (as well as the thermodynamics stuff, though I have seen the kind of places that put that stuff out and kinda know what to expect COUGH - Discovery Institute - COUGH).

Yeah, the thermodynamics arguments really are a special case in these kinds of debates.

Now, when it comes to evolution and genetics the creationists can usually dissemble enough and be vague and misguided enough that it is sometimes tricky to really pin them to the wall on their mistakes.

The "2nd law" argument, on the other hand, is so blatantly, completely, provably, unmistakably wrong that I am still waiting for Nigel99 to come back and apologise for breaking physics.

Yeah, well, the complexity argument is bogus, the information coding argument is bogus, the micro/macro argument is bogus. Pretty much every argument they use is designed to appeal to the ignorant.

I think uninformed is a better term. For those of us that try to keep up with such things at least on a layman's level (yes, it just might be an officially classifiable ICD category), the flaws are often obvious. For a person that has not studied, or at least read up a bit, the slick tactics and fast talking of a fire and brimstone psuedo scientific huckster probably comes off as pretty interesting, cool, and plausible stuff. They are often very charming and credible people if you do not actually pay attention to what they are saying - or are not intimate with the subject matter.

This is where my biggest beef is. They prey on people, even though I am sure (IMO) almost all of them know what they are peddling is a sham. That ought to be a crime. At least in civil cases , they are being held in check for now. They ought to go to jail.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

This is where my biggest beef is. They prey on people, even though I am sure (IMO) almost all of them know what they are peddling is a sham. That ought to be a crime. At least in civil cases , they are being held in check for now. They ought to go to jail.

Luckily, quite a few of them do. God may not want them to pay taxes, but the IRS needs a better excuse than that

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[maadmax 0]

Yeah, well, the complexity argument is bogus, the information coding argument is bogus, the micro/macro argument is bogus. Pretty much every argument they use is designed to appeal to the ignorant.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

OK Kallend I'll bite. What argument do you have that is so enlightened? What qualities and values with I acquire if I subscribe to your view of reality?
Will I love my fellow man more? Will my inner peace increase? Will anger and hate disappear?
Will greed and self-centredness turn into generosity?
Will cynicism turn into optimism ?

And religion and believing in God has done that???

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

OK Kallend I'll bite. What argument do you have that is so enlightened? What qualities and values with I acquire if I subscribe to your view of reality?
Will I love my fellow man more? Will my inner peace increase? Will anger and hate disappear?
Will greed and self-centredness turn into generosity?
Will cynicism turn into optimism ?

Irrelevant.

Creationist arguments are wrong (more often than not deliberate lies) and lead to ignorance, science offers us the path towards knowledge.

I for one would rather have knowledge than live in ignorance, and I refuse to believe that I need to sacrifice knowledge in order to gain those 'enlightened' qualities that you speak of. If I am to have those qualities they will come from me, not some guy on a pulpit or tribal book of mysticisms.


Question to you; do you think that if you accepted evolution you would lose your 'spirituality' or 'grace' or whatever you want to call it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here"

-- Richard Dawkins, excerpt from Chapter I, "The Anaesthetic of Familiarity," of Unweaving the Rainbow:


I love that quote.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here"

-- Richard Dawkins, excerpt from Chapter I, "The Anaesthetic of Familiarity," of Unweaving the Rainbow:


I love that quote.

I never knew Dawkins was "pro-life"

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

I never knew Dawkins was "pro-life"

I don't know that he is, at least in the sense you mean it.

Unweaving the rainbow is a book that trys to show that science isn't the dry dusty old subject people think it is. The world is a wonderous place even without god in it.

Here's another one from the same book.

After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn't it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked -- as I am surprisingly often -- why I bother to get up in the mornings. To put it the other way round, isn't it sad to go to your grave without ever wondering why you were born? Who, with such a thought, would not spring from bed, eager to resume discovering the world and rejoicing to be a part of it?

-- Richard Dawkins

[maadmax 0]

Creationist arguments are wrong (more often than not deliberate lies) and lead to ignorance, science offers us the path towards knowledge.

I for one would rather have knowledge than live in ignorance, and I refuse to believe that I need to sacrifice knowledge in order to gain those 'enlightened' qualities that you speak of. If I am to have those qualities they will come from me, not some guy on a pulpit or tribal book of mysticisms.


Question to you; do you think that if you accepted evolution you would lose your 'spirituality' or 'grace' or whatever you want to call it?

[maadmax 0]

And religion and believing in God has done that???

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Hi Jakee, you make some mighty big assumptions, but I am afraid very few of them apply to me.
I see evolution as the creative force God uses to maintain His creation. Pretty neat don't you think?

Then why on earth did you write a hostile reply to a post about bogus creationist arguments?

I'll assume then that your post about values was directed against general atheism. If so, it's still equally irrelevant!

If it is true that there is no God, then I'm not going to pretend that there is one on the off chance that it'll make me feel fuzzy inside.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?