Well that proves it then
-
and just because you THINK you understand it does not make it true.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
That is not what I said which again proves what I just said, you don't even know what you are saying.
It is exactly what you are saying. Repeatedly you just use an argument that we don't know what we're saying without providing evidence of why we are wrong. Please explain why we are wrong.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
No offence taken. But then I'm URC[^], so WTF would I know about God. :-D
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
you have forgotton a major point. You can't educate pork
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
You missed the sarcasm. I was brought up to be a young earth creationist like yourself. I believed everything you believe now and before you say I fell away because I wasn't a true believer, I'll guarantee you that this is not the case. My father was a brilliant biblical scholar so I don't have to speculate on how a apologist approaches the bible which is the exact approach you are taking. I was prepared to go into the ministry, and it was at that point, after a discussion with a well informed non believer that I decided I needed to know what secular sources actually claim about what I believed. I studied the bible and its history in depth. I studied many books on apologetics alongside the secular rebuttals to the arguments. Being objective in this way is simply being honest with yourself. I would encourage you to do the same. Put the same requirements of proof on your own beliefs that you place on those who disagree with you.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
You missed the sarcasm. I was brought up to be a young earth creationist like yourself. I believed everything you believe now and before you say I fell away because I wasn't a true believer, I'll guarantee you that this is not the case. My father was a brilliant biblical scholar so I don't have to speculate on how a apologist approaches the bible which is the exact approach you are taking. I was prepared to go into the ministry, and it was at that point, after a discussion with a well informed non believer that I decided I needed to know what secular sources actually claim about what I believed. I studied the bible and its history in depth. I studied many books on apologetics alongside the secular rebuttals to the arguments. Being objective in this way is simply being honest with yourself. I would encourage you to do the same. Put the same requirements of proof on your own beliefs that you place on those who disagree with you.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
you have forgotton a major point. You can't educate pork
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
But if you smoke it up real good, it becomes bacon...
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
But if you smoke it up real good, it becomes bacon...
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
which is no harder to educate mmmm bacon
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
But if you smoke it up real good, it becomes bacon...
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Now I'm hungry.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
Now I'm hungry.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
mmm fried bacon grill sarnies with hp sauce yummie
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
mmm fried bacon grill sarnies with hp sauce yummie
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Stop it. I'm going to have to get another breakfast if you guys keep going...
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Stop it. I'm going to have to get another breakfast if you guys keep going...
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
You could argue that bacon proves [insert deity of choice here] exists
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
And when someone rational gives an honest answer and says, "I don't know", you'll just consider it another triumphant success for the "logical" argument for an intelligent creator. What is silly about this is that a truly logical mind will say, "Let's go and figure out the origins of the red and yellow sand as best we can. Let's test these theories and use test results to discover the answer." The religionist will say, "To hell with research. We KNOW the answer. We don't have to PROVE the answer or TEST the answer, we just know. Again... To hell with science."
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
Let's go and figure out the origins of the red and yellow sand as best we can. Let's test these theories and use test results to discover the answer.
"And keep doing it forever till people get frustrated and do not ask anymore, or until we can convince them that everything around us came from nothing."
-
Marcus Kramer wrote:
Let's go and figure out the origins of the red and yellow sand as best we can. Let's test these theories and use test results to discover the answer.
"And keep doing it forever till people get frustrated and do not ask anymore, or until we can convince them that everything around us came from nothing."
That's the joy of it. There is always room for more knowledge in research. It's always better never to stop asking.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Yes
Yes, you can tell me what a translation of the Hebrew version of Exodus actually says?
ryanb31 wrote:
Pharaoh hardened his own heart
And that is how it should have been translated? Twaddle. The original Hebrew clearly refers to Yahweh hardening Pharoah's heart. So, other than using 'the LORD', rather than Yahweh or Jehovah, "the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart" is a correct translation.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Yes
Yes, you can tell me what a translation of the Hebrew version of Exodus actually says?
ryanb31 wrote:
Pharaoh hardened his own heart
And that is how it should have been translated? Twaddle. The original Hebrew clearly refers to Yahweh hardening Pharoah's heart. So, other than using 'the LORD', rather than Yahweh or Jehovah, "the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart" is a correct translation.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Nice try.
Yes, I thought so. I was pleased to be able to expose your ignorance in all its sad entirety.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
But some of the plain and precious truths have been removed, even some of them were removed intentionally. For example, the King James version says the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart after each of the plagues by Moses. That can't be true because it contradicts all of the other teaching of the Lord's.
ryanb31 wrote:
That isn't the original text.
So what. Yaweh hardens Pharaoh's heart. Whether at the beginning or at the end of a plague is irrelevant. Indeed, Yahweh makes it clear up front that that Moses and Aaron will be speakin' to da hand, cos da heart ain't lisnin. 2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee; and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land. 3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. 4 But Pharaoh will not hearken unto you, and I will lay My hand upon Egypt, and bring forth My hosts, My people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt, by great judgements. Hey, that Yahweh is one cruel dude. He gonna make Pharoah say 'No!' jus' so as he can whup Egypt some more.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
jschell wrote:
You obviously have no idea how science nor even logic works then.
A calculated theory is not an assumption. It is a starting point whereby research begins. That is how logical processes start.
jschell wrote:
You can't prove anything without assumptions.
Correct. It is a good thing that science uses thoughtfully calculated theories based on observation to begin researching and testing and not assumptions.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
A calculated theory is not an assumption. It is a starting point whereby research begins. That is how logical processes start.
Did you ever take any advanced math classes? A theory STARTS with assumptions and then expresses some idea based on those.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
Correct. It is a good thing that science uses thoughtfully calculated theories based on observation to begin researching and testing and not assumptions.
The formulation of all theories rests on a foundation that either directly or indirectly leads back to assumptions. As an example the theorem that the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees has the following assumptions in it (there are others.) - The proof is in euclidean space - Parallel lines do not intersect.
-
jschell wrote:
First off science is based on assumptions. Fundamental ones that cannot be proven.
So in order to "believe" these things in science, you are placing the burden of proof on the scientist to provide. Why is it, that you cannot be held to the same standard with regards to your belief. Not to convince me, but to be honest with yourself regarding it.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
So in order to "believe" these things in science, you are placing the burden of proof on the scientist to provide.
No idea what you are talking about. But as a guess I understand what an assumption is. I did not ask nor do I require that anyone prove them. That however doesn't alter that they are assumptions. And as far as I can tell from discussing belief systems with people over the years those with a strong belief in science are seldom able to actually grasp what an assumption really is nor to see what their personal view is. Given that my science education made the notion of assumptions very explicit it makes me wonder whether others were not taught the same or just failed to grasp the concept. Or perhaps humans have a need to believe absolutely in something and I personally do not have that strong of a need.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
Why is it, that you cannot be held to the same standard with regards to your belief.
What I said has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. Or at least only relating to those of logic, science and human psychology related to belief systems. Not sure even what you think you were conveying. Perhaps if you expand on it I could comment on it.