Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
What if I say "yes", but Jesus was only a man and not deity. Is that sufficient correct doctrine to get in?

I don't know about that. Do you believe He was the Son of God? I had trouble with the Trinity for a while myself.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
Sorry, but that is one thing you most certainly do NOT do. Just what do you think "scientific" evidence means?

Hint: it most certainly is NOT desperately sifting through the available observations for scraps that can be interpreted as somehow supporting your preconceived notions.

I'm not doing any of that. I don't have to reject anything, nor do I have to sift through the available data to find stuff that fits. Plus my worldview can easily explain things that are completely anomalous to the mainstream scientific community. Can your worldview explain this?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
This has already been discredited by none other than another Christian creationist
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main

I'm aware that Hugh Ross doesn't agree with Dr. Humphey's theory. I disagree with Hugh Ross, although I like him and listen to his show every week.

How many Astrophysicists have supported Dr. Humphreys work? Have his ideas ever faced the scrutiny of a peer reviewed journal? Certainly such a landmark breakthrough would cause a stir in the secular astrophysics community, has this occurred?

I don't know. Why don't you look it up for us?

I'd imagine that you believe it simply because it agrees with your worldview, not because you have compared it's scientific merits to other theories.

I don't know if I'd agree 100% with his theory, but I do think he's onto something with it.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
Then please, if you will, answer the following very simple question:

What is "science"?

It means knowledge. If you want a dictionary definition you can find one here.

 

[flash]

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
Flash, perhaps you can have the honor of being the
very first unbeliever on TOL to even identify what my
rebuttal was to the God of the Gaps claim. Of course,
I expect unbelievers to disagree with my argument.
But it will be quite a kick to hear even just one of
you actually acknowledge it, and then try to refute
it. Consider yourself cordially invited!

You made a distinction between the filling and
closing of gaps in our knowledge, although the
distinction was unclear. I do not see any signifigant
difference between the two examples you have given,
but it appears that you call the second example a
"closing" of he gaps, because the question to be
answered, "how did life spontaneously generate from
meat?", was shown to be illegitimate. If a question is
raised, filling the gap answers the question, closing
the gap renders the question obsolete.

Later, you go on to ask "can science possibly discover
real limitations of matter, energy, and natural
processes?" I am not sure if you really meant
"science" in the strictest sense - is this within the domain of science? But I will agree with you that limitations of matter, energy and natural processes may be discovered. If you present a proof of the limitations of natural processes, any results that could not be achieved with those processes must be the result of non-natural (supernatural) processes. This is a difficult proof, but it is possible that there is such a proof.

However, after granting all of this, the limits of natural process (natural process in general) still needs to be shown. Your strategy of stating that atheists cannot explain such-and-such and theists can is a god-of the-gaps argument. All of the big metaphysical questions are the gaps. Can they filled with natural or supernatural solutions? Your job, as a Theist, is to either show that you have explanations, or that a natural solution cannot possibly exist.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
I'm curious - which "different parts of the universe" have you been to, such that you have observed this? Or - if neither you nor anyone else HAS observed it, then why do you believe it to be true?

I haven't observed it, but others have. Atomic clocks at different altitudes run at different rates. This is a testable, observable, and repeatable fact. They have to take this into account with satellites and stuff like that, because their clocks in orbit run faster than the ones on Earth.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by flash
Your job, as a Theist, is to either show that you have explanations, or that a natural solution cannot possibly exist.

So if you go to hell for rejecting God, it's our fault for not being able to convince you?

 

[Heino]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I haven't observed it, but others have. Atomic clocks at different altitudes run at different rates. This is a testable, observable, and repeatable fact. They have to take this into account with satellites and stuff like that, because their clocks in orbit run faster than the ones on Earth.

You are incorrect. Clocks at DIFFERENT ALTITUDES do not run at different speeds. Clocks traveling at DIFFERENT SPEEDS, however, run at different rates, and this fact was one of the pieces of data used to confirm Einstein's Theory of Reletivity.

They installed atomic clocks in two jet aircraft, and had them fly around the world in opposite directions, meaning that one of them was traveling faster, due to going in the opposite direction of earth rotation. The difference in time on the clocks was measured in micro-seconds -- hundredths of a second.

Altitude does not affect time. Speed does. It is true, however, that some satellites orbit at high rates of speed, but not many. Most are in geosynchronous orbit.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Heino
You are incorrect. Clocks at DIFFERENT ALTITUDES do not run at different speeds.

Yes they do. Atomic clocks in Denver, Colorado run about five millionths of a second per year faster than ones at Greenwich, England.

Clocks traveling at DIFFERENT SPEEDS, however, run at different rates, and this fact was one of the pieces of data used to confirm Einstein's Theory of Reletivity.

You're talking about special relativity. I'm talking about general relativity. Educate yourself, and learn the difference.

They installed atomic clocks in two jet aircraft, and had them fly around the world in opposite directions, meaning that one of them was traveling faster, due to going in the opposite direction of earth rotation. The difference in time on the clocks was measured in micro-seconds -- hundredths of a second.

Microseconds are millionths of a second. You're not really a biologist are you?

Altitude does not affect time. Speed does.

Gravity and speed both affect time.

 

[Heino]

Could you please provide a link to a secular website that describes this affect of altitude on atomic clocks. I was under the impression that GRAVITY has an effect on the clocks, and not altitude.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Heino
Could you please provide a link to a secular website that describes this affect of altitude on atomic clocks.

Altitude in a gravity well, and no, I won't provide a link. Go to the library, or find one yourself.

I was under the impression that GRAVITY has an effect on the clocks, and not altitude.

Altitude has an effect on gravity. You've already blown it, Heino. Backpedalling isn't going to help you.

 

[flash]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
So if you go to hell for rejecting God, it's our fault for not being able to convince you?

Sure, I'll go with that. If I go to hell, it is your and Bob's fault. Please save me by providing a proof that God exists.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by flash
Sure, I'll go with that.

I won't.

If I go to hell, it is your and Bob's fault.

Spoken like a typical liberal -- everything is somebody else's fault.

Please save me by providing a proof that God exists.

I can't prove that God exists. You can either accept the evidence for His existence, or you can reject it and continue in your disbelief. The choice is yours.

 

[flash]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I won't.

You were the one who suggested it.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Spoken like a typical liberal -- everything is somebody else's fault.

I didn't say that everything was someone else's fault. And, by the way, I am a conservative on most issues. You may want to review this website before continuing this conversation.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I can't prove that God exists.

We know.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by flash
You were the one who suggested it.

I was being facetious.

I didn't say that everything was someone else's fault. And, by the way, I am a conservative on most issues. You may want to review this website before continuing this conversation.

I don't plan on continuing the conversation with you.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack I had trouble with the Trinity for a while myself.

The Trinity was one of those doctrines that I once believed and defended (first teaching to a youth groups in 1984). But during my exodus, when I started studying the "doctrine wars" of the first 3 centuries of Christianity, I discovered that Christs deity was not at all universally agreed upon among the churchs. It seems like it developed, as occurs in many religions, as a natural progression of wanting to make the sects founder greater and greater.

To say that Jesus was the "son of God" is meaningless, unless that term is completely understood and defined. The same phrase is used in many contexts.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
The Trinity was one of those doctrines that I once believed and defended (first teaching to a youth groups in 1984). But during my exodus, when I started studying the "doctrine wars" of the first 3 centuries of Christianity, I discovered that Christs deity was not at all universally agreed upon among the churchs.

Various heresies have been cropping up since the beginning, pretty much.

It seems like it developed, as occurs in many religions, as a natural progression of wanting to make the sects founder greater and greater.

I don't think I'd agree with that assessment. Jesus was pretty clear on the matter when he claimed "Before Abraham, I AM." There is no other way to interpret that statement.

To say that Jesus was the "son of God" is meaningless, unless that term is completely understood and defined. The same phrase is used in many contexts.

You know the context I'm using here. Do you believe He was the Son of God, or just some guy?

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by Heino micro-seconds -- hundredths of a second.

micro is 10^-6 (millionth), milli is 10^-3 (thousandth). and nano is 10^-9 (billionth). The differences from this 1971 experiment was 332 nano-seconds.

I think the current theory suggests that both speed and possibly gravitational strength may affect our time measurement devices.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I'm not doing any of that. I don't have to reject anything, nor do I have to sift through the available data to find stuff that fits. Plus my worldview can easily explain things that are completely anomalous to the mainstream scientific community. Can your worldview explain this?

Note that I didn't SAY that you were doing that; I asked a question ("What constitutes 'scientific' evidence?") that you have not answered.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
It means knowledge. If you want a dictionary definition you can find one here.

No, "science" does not mean "knowledge." Science is not a body of knowledge, it is a process - one which apparently you are not very familiar with.