Well that proves it then
-
Where have I called you names and where have I acted childish? Where have I been degrading? Please enlighten me with your exclusive wisdom.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
You are getting frustrated because your logic takes you in circles.
I'm not going in circles, you are. What ever someone has said to contradict your opinion, your single answer has been they're wrong because it is not what you believe. Can you show me how dating techniques are flawed? No you can't because you have failed to understand how they work. By understanding the principles, you'll be able to see what we're ll talking to you about.
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
If my answer is a "single answer" as you put it then I could not possibly be going in circles. You are right, my point has not changed. I have not claimed that dating techniques are flawed. On the contrary I have pointed out several times that they MIGHT be right. But there is no way anyone can prove that a dating technique that claims something is 400,000 years old is correct. It is a good theory, but just that, a theory.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
You ignored the whole point. We do not know all of the laws of physics.
You're answering off thread here. I know that we don't know everything, least of all the laws of physics. But I do know that there is a far better understanding now then there was during the [roughly] 3,000 years when the bible was written.
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
-
If my answer is a "single answer" as you put it then I could not possibly be going in circles. You are right, my point has not changed. I have not claimed that dating techniques are flawed. On the contrary I have pointed out several times that they MIGHT be right. But there is no way anyone can prove that a dating technique that claims something is 400,000 years old is correct. It is a good theory, but just that, a theory.
So, where is your proof that the Bible is fact rather than just a theory...
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
-
So, where is your proof that the Bible is fact rather than just a theory...
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
-
That is a whole different topic for another day. So, since you have never answered me, I guess you do not believe in the timeline of the Bible. There, that was easy. I answered for you.
No, that is the point that you are trying to make. So put up or shut up, where is your proof?
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
-
Not looking for lessons in manners. You made some accusations. I'm just asking you to clarify them. Nothing more, nothing less.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Not looking for lessons in manners. You made some accusations. I'm just asking you to clarify them. Nothing more, nothing less.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
I can't find any name calling. He's trying a 'look at the shiny!' argument to move away from the original discussion.
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
-
So, you accept one historical record because your faith is in science and cannot accept a different historical record because some people corrupted religion. The Bible did not teach the earth was flat or the sun revolved around it. How has the theory of evolution "held good - so far?" Since you are 1137 and I am not maybe I am missing something but the theory of evolution has a hole, it cannot explain how something came from nothing. That is not holding good at all. It is an incomplete theory.
ryanb31 wrote:
you accept one historical record because your faith is in science
No, sweetie, I accept the historical records of the Greek philosophers because they have been well documented for over 2,000 years.
ryanb31 wrote:
you... cannot accept a different historical record because some people corrupted religion.
The corruption of religion by "some people" is irrelevant to my choice of historical record. I accept historical records (including those in the Bible) that are largely in accordance with archaeological evidence.
ryanb31 wrote:
The Bible did not teach the earth was flat or the sun revolved around it.
Have you read your Bible? The Old Testament uses the Sumerian/Babylonian cosmology. Earth: relatively flat, fixed, never to be moved. Sun: enters Stage East, climbs the vault of heaven by noon, descends, bows and exits Stage West. Tiptoes back behind vault for the next performance.
ryanb31 wrote:
How has the theory of evolution "held good - so far?"
Well, the advent of genetics, various dating methods, etc. have not managed to disprove it. And it has predicted the existence of species types whose fossils have subsequently been discovered.
ryanb31 wrote:
the theory of evolution has a hole, it cannot explain how something came from nothing.
The Theory of Cognitive Development has the same hole. Could it be that providing an explanation of the Origin of the Universe, (or the Origin of Life, if that is what you are attempting communicate) is not their job?
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
jschell wrote:
If one starts with the assumption
And that is the nub of the problem. Anyone who makes assumptions is a fool. Would you believe anything I told you just because I told you? Assume nothing, believe only what you can prove. In law an assumption of guilt is not enough, it has to be proved, or would you like to go to jail on the evidence of an accusation?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
Anyone who makes assumptions is a fool.
You obviously have no idea how science nor even logic works then.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Would you believe anything I told you just because I told you?
And it seems possible that you don't understand what the word "assumption" means. And certainly not in the context in which I presented it.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Assume nothing, believe only what you can prove.
You can't prove anything without assumptions.
Dalek Dave wrote:
In law an assumption of guilt is not enough, it has to be proved, or would you like to go to jail on the evidence of an accusation?
Certainly a hideous analogy. And even worse based on the specifics of the last. The US judicial system is full of examples of failures.
-
All science does is give us ideas as to how God created things and how it is that He made everything work. Science is great but I would never claim it to be all knowing.
ryanb31 wrote:
All science does is give us ideas as to how God created things and how it is that He made everything work.
You've abandoned the Biblical account? You accept the Evolution of Species? How about the Big Bang Theory?
ryanb31 wrote:
Science is great but I would never claim it to be all knowing.
How would you know? Your understanding of Science is even less than that of Religion. However, as the Scientific Method is designed to extend our knowledge, obviously Science is not "all knowing".
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
you accept one historical record because your faith is in science
No, sweetie, I accept the historical records of the Greek philosophers because they have been well documented for over 2,000 years.
ryanb31 wrote:
you... cannot accept a different historical record because some people corrupted religion.
The corruption of religion by "some people" is irrelevant to my choice of historical record. I accept historical records (including those in the Bible) that are largely in accordance with archaeological evidence.
ryanb31 wrote:
The Bible did not teach the earth was flat or the sun revolved around it.
Have you read your Bible? The Old Testament uses the Sumerian/Babylonian cosmology. Earth: relatively flat, fixed, never to be moved. Sun: enters Stage East, climbs the vault of heaven by noon, descends, bows and exits Stage West. Tiptoes back behind vault for the next performance.
ryanb31 wrote:
How has the theory of evolution "held good - so far?"
Well, the advent of genetics, various dating methods, etc. have not managed to disprove it. And it has predicted the existence of species types whose fossils have subsequently been discovered.
ryanb31 wrote:
the theory of evolution has a hole, it cannot explain how something came from nothing.
The Theory of Cognitive Development has the same hole. Could it be that providing an explanation of the Origin of the Universe, (or the Origin of Life, if that is what you are attempting communicate) is not their job?
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
All science does is give us ideas as to how God created things and how it is that He made everything work.
You've abandoned the Biblical account? You accept the Evolution of Species? How about the Big Bang Theory?
ryanb31 wrote:
Science is great but I would never claim it to be all knowing.
How would you know? Your understanding of Science is even less than that of Religion. However, as the Scientific Method is designed to extend our knowledge, obviously Science is not "all knowing".
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
I am not a so called intellectual, I am currently working on my second degree, Evolutionary Biology, so I do know what I am talking about. At no point did we ever think the earth is flat, and we do not 'Believe' because of science, we 'Know' because of science, you really ought to study it and understand the terminology. Of course things can be proven to be 2 billion years old, if you think otherwise then you need a little more education in regards to physics and maths. Science does not need faith, for all science is repeatable, that is one of the tennets od science. If it can be repeated, it can be shown to be, and once shown to be, no belief is necessary. I can prove things with fact, believers in sky pixies cannot argue their case. How can you prove something that only exists because you believe in it? It is a self defeating point of view. Proof of god is impossible because it doesn't exist. Your only argument that god exists is that your parents told you so, and their parents told them etc. Not much of a way to build a world is it? Generations of people killing and warring because of a story handed down by old people who have a vested interest in keeping the story alive.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
I am not a so called intellectual, I am currently working on my second degree, Evolutionary Biology, so I do know what I am talking about.
At no point did we ever think the earth is flat, and we do not 'Believe' because of science, we 'Know' because of science, you really ought to study it and understand the terminology.
Of course things can be proven to be 2 billion years old, if you think otherwise then you need a little more education in regards to physics and maths.Sigh...obviously a failure in the educational system then given that you do not understand the basics of science. Even worse that that you do not understand that assumptions are a fundamental and explicitly stated part of every mathematical proof.
Dalek Dave wrote:
I can prove things with fact, believers in sky pixies cannot argue their case. How can you prove something that only exists because you believe in it?
Another demonstrated failure in education. First off a given belief system doesn't need to prove anything at all within another the belief system. No more so that science is required to prove or disprove the bible. And science is a belief system. If you think not then please present proofs for the following. 1. Everything, and I do mean everything, is measurable. 2. Given object A and object B and the statement that A 'equals' B then prove that B is in fact A.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Proof of god is impossible because it doesn't exist.
It is well known in science that that statement is nonsense. Science doesn't seek to address the existence of god in the general sense because it is recognized that it outside the domain of what science seeks to cover (and that is another fundamental mathematical concept one that does have proofs.) You are free to believe that there are no dieties. It is not possible for you to prove that (and that is another fundamental concept of mathematics/logic.)
Dalek Dave wrote:
Your only argument that god exists is that your parents told you so, and their parents told them etc.
Not much of a way to build a world is it?Perhaps you were not referring to me, but I will note that my post said absolutely nothing about my viewpoint about the
-
Are you being trying really hard to be this obtuse, or is it that you really just can't understand logic and reasoning. Theories are not accepted on belief, they are accepted based on testing and observation. It is the existence of DD's termed "sky pixie" that requires blind belief. With the logic you are using, I could claim myself to be your god and that you should give me all of your money and your women.(At least the good looking ones) Would you believe me and do so. Of course not, you would require me to provide proof of the same before you believe any of it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which in the case of your beliefs, does not exist in anything other than conjecture. As a side note, there is more proof for the existence of the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus than there is for your deities.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
Are you being trying really hard to be this obtuse, or is it that you really just can't understand logic and reasoning.
Theories are not accepted on belief, they are accepted based on testing and observation.
It is the existence of DD's termed "sky pixie" that requires blind belief. With the logic you are using, I could claim myself to be your god and that you should give me all of your money and your women.(At least the good looking ones) Would you believe me and do so. Of course not, you would require me to provide proof of the same before you believe any of it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which in the case of your beliefs, does not exist in anything other than conjecture. As a side note, there is more proof for the existence of the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus than there is for your deities.Err...no. First off science is based on assumptions. Fundamental ones that cannot be proven. Further every discipline of science has assumptions that are taken as absolutes and are never questioned. At least not by the rank and file. Second your hypothetical scenario is exactly what some people do - without proof. They believe completely that certain individuals have some connection with a diety or some other non-scientific factor. Thus you are doing nothing but stating your personal belief. Third your "extrodinary" statement is of course a fine attitude for a skeptic to take. That however is a personal decision, not an absolute. And most people do not follow that. So you might require that but is by no means absolute for most people and that includes even those that have a strong scientific leaning. If that isn't the case then it should be easy to demonstrate that those who believe in science are less likely to be taken in by financial scams.
-
I am not trying to argue the Bible as religious truth or not. Everything you quoted is from the Old Testament and the Law of Moses and as you know, since you are Christian and believe in the Bible, when Christ came he fulfilled the Law of Moses and introduced the fullness of the Gospel and the higher law. No more eye for an eye so don't be silly with your Old Testament arguments. Take the religious aspect out of the Bible and you have a historical document that gives genealogy and dates showing that Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden around 4000 BC. Are you saying that part is also incorrect?
ryanb31 wrote:
I am not trying to argue the Bible as religious truth or not. Everything you quoted is from the Old Testament and the Law of Moses and as you know, since you are Christian and believe in the Bible, when Christ came he fulfilled the Law of Moses and introduced the fullness of the Gospel and the higher law. No more eye for an eye so don't be silly with your Old Testament arguments.
There are other Christians that would disagree with that.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
I am not trying to argue the Bible as religious truth or not. Everything you quoted is from the Old Testament and the Law of Moses and as you know, since you are Christian and believe in the Bible, when Christ came he fulfilled the Law of Moses and introduced the fullness of the Gospel and the higher law. No more eye for an eye so don't be silly with your Old Testament arguments.
There are other Christians that would disagree with that.
-
If your god was all-knowing and all-powerful and such, then don't you think he could have come up with 1 perfect set of rules that would stand the test of time as opposed to changing the rules to coincide with man's discoveries and knowledge? I can respect the position of a Christian like Nagy who doesn't claim that absolute truth in a 2000 year old book, but uses his intellect to decide what is simply poppycock. What I cannot respect is willful ignorance which is what you are demonstrating here. The only foot you have to stand on is circular-reasoning where you believe what the book told you because the book told you it's right and you have to believe that because the book told you.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
If your god was all-knowing and all-powerful and such, then don't you think he could have come up with 1 perfect set of rules that would stand the test of time as opposed to changing the rules to coincide with man's discoveries and knowledge?
Utter nonsense. The fact that a god is all knowing says absolutely nothing about why such a god would take any single or group of actions. And the very assumption of an all knowing god suggests implicitly that such a god could very well have 'reasons' for any action which is in fact impossible for a human to comprehend.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
What I cannot respect is willful ignorance which is what you are demonstrating here. The only foot you have to stand on is circular-reasoning where you believe what the book told you because the book told you it's right and you have to believe that because the book told you.
More nonsense. If one believes that the bible does in fact have some meaning then the belief itself is the starting point of all that follows. It isn't circular. And even if it were as a belief it is allowed to be just that. There is of course the logical fallacy of attempting to 'prove' some belief. But that ignores both the fact that such a 'proof' originates in another belief system and also ignores the fundamental belief of a god in the first place which by itself is sufficient to explain everything.
-
Marcus Kramer wrote:
Are you being trying really hard to be this obtuse, or is it that you really just can't understand logic and reasoning.
Theories are not accepted on belief, they are accepted based on testing and observation.
It is the existence of DD's termed "sky pixie" that requires blind belief. With the logic you are using, I could claim myself to be your god and that you should give me all of your money and your women.(At least the good looking ones) Would you believe me and do so. Of course not, you would require me to provide proof of the same before you believe any of it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which in the case of your beliefs, does not exist in anything other than conjecture. As a side note, there is more proof for the existence of the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus than there is for your deities.Err...no. First off science is based on assumptions. Fundamental ones that cannot be proven. Further every discipline of science has assumptions that are taken as absolutes and are never questioned. At least not by the rank and file. Second your hypothetical scenario is exactly what some people do - without proof. They believe completely that certain individuals have some connection with a diety or some other non-scientific factor. Thus you are doing nothing but stating your personal belief. Third your "extrodinary" statement is of course a fine attitude for a skeptic to take. That however is a personal decision, not an absolute. And most people do not follow that. So you might require that but is by no means absolute for most people and that includes even those that have a strong scientific leaning. If that isn't the case then it should be easy to demonstrate that those who believe in science are less likely to be taken in by financial scams.
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.