Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by D the Atheist
:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

Thanks dude

You're most welcome

be excellent to one another
and
party on dude
:thumb:

 

[D the Atheist]

Originally posted by HillbillyWilli
You're most welcome

be excellent to one another
and
party on dude
:thumb:

I try to be (Sometimes failing) and I will (Party on that is) :bannana:

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by HillbillyWilli If you realy want answers, there are MANY creation web sites. If you have an open mind, here are a few thoughts from drdino.com

As someone that used to teach others the "truths" of the ark story, I find your Dr. Dino evidence an extreme oversimplification of the real issues. How many "kinds" of animals were really on the Ark? I read on YE sites anything from 35,000 down to the all time low suggested by Hovind. And what exactly is a "kind", I've not read a good definition from any YE sites? And how fast did those Ark animals evolve into the millions of species we now have? And what food did the animals eat when they got off? And how much water did they store for those animals? And how did the earths crust plates function differently so that all the water could sit on top? And how much manure did those 8 people have to shovel every day?

You see, the problems are not trivial and Hovinds (Dr. Dino) simplistic answers don't begin to address them.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by HillbillyWilli here are a few thoughts from drdino.com

Did you know that Hovind isn't even considered a good source of scientific information by other Young-earth creationists?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp

 

[D the Atheist]

Let me tell you good readers about an animal that is very famous and is peculiar to Australia. You would have all heard about it. It is the Kangaroo. There are many species of Kangaroo from those roaming the plains to those that can climb trees.

If mature wild Kangaroos are held in confined spaces or a different environment, they die of stress.

To raise a young Kangaroo (A Joey) from an early age gives Noah and clan quite a few problems. He first has to get one, that is physically catch the mother and remove the Joey and hope the first attempt at this produces a female and the next produces a male.

The problems do not end there however.

Male Kangaroos depend on having a harem of females to keep the genes strong.

In the wild it is only about 2 in 10 Joey’s that survive to adulthood.

The raising of Joeys, even if Noah got hold of a couple, is only now being done with reliable results of reaching adulthood. To raise a Joey is intensive as it can get and is a full time job with feeding every three hours at first with the right formula of milk (Lactose free) that has only become commercially available in the last few years.

Only magic could have overcome these and other problems concerning Kangaroos.

Most Australian marsupials are difficult to handle and keep alive.

 

[Bigotboy]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
Did Jesus also think that the many parables he used to teach were valid historic events?

If you actually read Jesus's reference to Noah, it is far from clear that his useage is supporting the notion of a global flood that killed all but 8 humans. In fact, the passage in Luke 17, uses the story of Lot leaving Sodom as a parallel passage and uses the same terminology of "destroy them all". So unless you think everyone in the world outside of Lot's group were destroyed you'd have to admit that Jesus isn't necessarily supporting your interpretation of the Genesis story.

Com'on Ex_ your're better than this. In the Luke 17 passage it is pretty plain to see that Jesus was referring to the stories as they are related in the Scriptures. He obviously supported them as commonly understood.

As for the parables, a good rule to use is this: if the people are given names, then it is probably an actual event. If only pronouns are used, then it is probably only an illustration.

Let me return to my original thought. Why do you think it is valid to use current animal requirement in relation to the Arc story ?

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by Bigotboy
Com'on Ex_ your're better than this. In the Luke 17 passage it is pretty plain to see that Jesus was referring to the stories as they are related in the Scriptures. He obviously supported them as commonly understood.

And how is it that you know how they were understood 2000 years ago? And did you know that even then there were a variety of interpretations and understandings of various Torah passages? Yep, even 2000 years ago there was NOT universal agreement of such things.

As for the parables, a good rule to use is this: if the people are given names, then it is probably an actual event. If only pronouns are used, then it is probably only an illustration.

Like the rich man and the beggar story with Abraham and Lazarus in supporting roles? Where is it written that your method of hermeneutics is correct? Many Christian groups and Jewish schools of thought have used a much less literal hermeneutic methology.

But back to your literalist interpretation of Luke 17, Jesus was talking about the condition of the world when Noah existed (and then again Lot) and comparing that to his return. So unless you think the "destroy them all" phrase associated with Lot was also a global world-wide destruction of humanity (except Lot and crew) then this passage in no way supports the notion that Jesus was saying the flood was global and killed all animals, etc.

Let me return to my original thought. Why do you think it is valid to use current animal requirement in relation to the Arc story ?

Oh great, I've been waiting for a chance to respond like Jack. Here goes: Why not?

 

[SOTK]

Re: Re: Re: The Blinding Light

Re: Re: Re: The Blinding Light

Originally posted by flash
Are you really being honest about your intentions for being here? If you don't want to talk or debate with atheists, what are you doing in the part of the forum that is designed for debates? There are other areas in TOL where you can talk with other believers.

Yes, I think I have been very honest about my intentions. I am not debating anything with an atheist. I made an observation with an opinion of that observation. Do you see me debating any of your ridiculous atheistic notions with you or anybody else? What am I doing in forum designed for debates? Again, I made an observation with an opinion of that observation. This isn't the first time that I've brought up this observation. I legitimately find atheists hanging out in here ironic and suspect. The last time I was pleasantly surprised to hear some pretty honest answers from atheists. Thought I'd ask it again as there are some of you I've never heard before and was interested in hearing your reactions. Needless to say, I wasn't surprised this time!

Originally posted by flash You are here voluntarily, and so are the atheists. If you cannot take the heat (defend your views) get out of the kitchen.

Again, what views about my beliefs have you seen brought up for debate and discussion? Are you having trouble following me? Maybe my point hits to close to the truth and it's you that can't take the heat.:doh:

 

[Heino]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
Did you know that Hovind isn't even considered a good source of scientific information by other Young-earth creationists?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp

It is very interesting that Ken Ham would be criticizing Kent Hovind, as Ken Ham is not what I would consider a scientific person. I have read a book that was given to me by an evangelical friend (apparently being a Lutherin is almost as bad as being an unbeliever). It was "The Lie: Evolution" by Ken Ham.

It was one of the most unscientific books I have ever read on any science topic. As an example. In one chapter, Ham argues that Evolution is responsible for Homosexuality. I am not joking here. He really says this. What is the "scientific" proof offered? He got a letter from a former homosexual, who confessed that being taught evolutionary theory in grammar school made him a homosexual! With that, Ham concludes that homosexuality is caused by belief in Evolution! I find this astonishing, since homosexuality has been around thousands of years before evolution was proposed.

Of course, this is just one topic on which Ken Ham makes absurd statements. He claims that Evolution is responsible for Hitler and the Nazis, sexual discrimination, and a host of other things, all of which are supported by "proof" as thin as his proof of the cause of homosexuality.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
Once again, Jack scrambles madly trying to salvage his original mis-statement. Gravtitational strength diminishes with the distance from the center of mass of the body in question, but that's hardly the same thing as "diminishes with altitude".

The higher you go, the further away from the center of mass you are. Surely, that should be apparent to one as learned as you fancy yourself to be.

(It would be the same if the body in question were of uniform radius and density, or at least density that varied solely with radius, but that's certainly not the case here.)

Question -- where is the Earth's center of mass?

But since Jack has already shown himself to be such a pedant when it comes to dictionary definitions, we have to note that he has consistently used the term "altitude" here, as opposed to "elevation" or "height above ground." "Altitude" is properly used to refer only to specific measurement - the height of a given object or location above a specified reference, in this case that reference almost always being mean sea level.

And the problem with that is... what exactly?

To see how this relates to Jack's very questionable original assertion - that time varies "with altitude" - consider the problem of an airliner flying at a constant altitude, say 31,000 feet MSL. Per Jack's original assertion, we would expect the passage of time aboard this airliner, assuming that it maintains a constant velocity, to remain steady, since its ALTITUDE is unvarying. However, if we are to believe Einstein, time varies with the position in a gravity well (due to the curvature of space/time by the origin of that well, typically a mass

In this case, the Earth.

- and since Jack's apparently unable to connect these particular dots, this effect on time, under general relatively, is directly analogous to special relativity's case of time variations caused by relative velocity in a supposedly "flat" space, per special relativity.) Now, consider the following situations:

- The airliner, maintaining its constant altitude and velocity, flies over a mountain (say, Mt. Everest - we'll clear it with a bit to spare), or

So what's the problem? The distance from the Earth's center of mass is still about the same.

- The airliner flies over an area of greater density (a mass concentration) within the Earth - again, while maintaining constant altitude.

Again, what's the problem? The distance from the Earth's center of mass is still about the same.

I'm rather surprised, though, that Jack himself drags relativity into this, since the Einstein theories - which Jack apparently does not question - cause some very significant problems for the creationist/young Universe notions.

Such as?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Gravity's affects on time

Re: Re: Re: Gravity's affects on time

Originally posted by bmyers
"Wildly different speeds", Jack? Perhaps you could quantify that.

Sure, no problem. According to Dr. Humphrey's theory, we're talking about 6,000 years here equalling roughly 14 billion years in the farthest reaches of space.

How would such a center be located,

According to Dr. Humphrey's theory, our location is roughly the center of the universe. Even though observation tends to bear this out, it's generally rejected by mainstream scientists for philosophical reasons.

and once you've located it, please describe for us how much the passage of time would differ between, say, HERE (the general vicinity of Earth) and, oh, a million light-years away in the direction of the Andromeda galaxy...

About a million years.

 

[Analogous]

My take on the latest debate

My take on the latest debate

Bob: Yes, if atheism is true, there is great waste in theism; but on the other hand, if God exists, then atheists have expended an opportunity cost, the value of which depends upon God’s nature and actions, upon what that God is like.

Analogous: Does Bob mean the opportunity to become the intellectual chattel of the biblical god? The one attributed with the creation of heaven and hell? The one attributed with the establishment of the concept of “sin”? Gosh, what a wonderful opportunity I’ve been missing out on.



Bob: If the true God also is as the Bible presents, and put eternity into our hearts, and will judge us based upon our humble trusting in Him, then you calculate the atheistic cost in terms of eternal loss of the utmost consequence.

Analogous: Of course, that is what Bob failed to demonstrate through-out his entire debate with Zakath. If we take a critical look at the bible, it is actually this alleged god who is deserving of judgment. When Bob, or any other theist can provide some compelling arguments to support their claim of eternal life…you know, something besides the bible…there might be grounds for such an argument. As it stands, no one has ever provided such compelling argumentation, so…

Bob: For example, is it absolutely wrong to drag a living black man behind a pickup truck to tear apart his body out of white supremacist motives?

Analogous: Only if it was absolutely “right” for Bob’s god to command Samuel to tell Saul to slaughter every man, woman and child of the Amelakites, after…long after…telling Moses “Thou shalt not kill”. Only if it was absolutely “right” for Bob’s god to dispatch two she-bears to murder 42 children just because they made fun of a man’s bald head. Only if it was absolutely “right” for Bob’s god to exterminate the entire world population with the exception of one family. Only if it was absolutely “right” for one of Bob’s god’s representatives to have 450 people slaughtered because they followed the wrong god.

But then, Bob never did explain where slavery fits into this “absolute” appendage to moral justification. Is slavery absolutely “right”? According to Bob’s bible, allegedly inspired by Bob’s god, slavery was an acceptable practice and Bob’s god even inspired some standard rules of treatment. Bob’s Jesus never spoke against it. So why are Christians now living in absolute contradiction to Bob’s god’s absolute standard of owning slaves?

Bob: For now, let’s move from the potential consequences of atheism, on to develop my answer to your second question for evidence for God, evidence that I will draw from different spheres of study, beginning with physics and biology.

Analogous: Oh my…why do theists like Bob always rely on my naturalistic methodology for evidence? Can Bob not depend on his own epistemology of prayer, fasting, revelation, inspiration, biblical interpretation to provide us with evidence for his god? Why does he abandon his own epistemology, run over into the paradigm of mine, which is incomplete, and point to that incompleteness as evidence for his god? I appreciate Bob’s sincere desire to help us poor dumb scientists figure out where to go next, but does Bob really think his speculative gap stuffing has any more credence than any other hypothesis or speculation? Just because his god fits in the cracks doesn’t make Bob’s claim of “evidence” any more cogent than any other crack stuffer. For instance, we could stuff the same crack with aliens. Is Bob willing to consider the possibility that our universe, life and human consciousness are all products of an alien race just because that speculation also fits in the same crack?

Bob asks: 1. Does truth exist?
a) Yes
b) No
c) I don’t know

Analogous: That’s what we’re trying to determine Bob, is your claim that this biblical god literally exists, a true statement? If you can’t support this claim with clear, undeniable evidence, then truth remains as conditional as morality. If you ever get around to actually proving your god exists, then we shall have to re-evaluate the concept of truth. Until then, the truth-value of your claim remains conditional on your being able to take it out of the subjective realm into the bright crisp clean air of “absolutely”. Just like the truth-value of my claim that god doesn’t exist remains conditional on YOUR inability to prove otherwise. So you see Bob, the ball is, and will always be, in YOUR court. It doesn’t matter what I believe until you can support what you believe. Actually though, in all fairness to Bob, the ball is in his god’s court, if such a creature exists.

 

[Heino]

Originally posted by SOTK4ever
I continue to find it amusing that atheists, ex-fundamentalists, or whatever else you call yourselves continue to hang out at a theology based forum website and have the audacity to claim we are brainwashers shoving our beliefs down others' throats.

Would you find it equally amusing for a bunch of fundamentalist evangelicals to hang out on an atheist forum, or in my case, a biology forum, and tell all of us that we are brainwashers trying to shove evolution down others' throats?

I find your motivation in hanging out in here suspect.

It is very simple. There is a debate between an ATHEIST and Bob Enyart, a Christian. Obviously, not just Christians have an interest in such a debate. Some atheists were invited to participate in the forum, and even I got an email announcing the debate. There is nothing dubious about it.

I don't know about any other Christian or theist here, but I will never be convinced by anything any of you have to say because of this, and more importantly because of my faith. I would never waste my time or yours going to an atheist specific web site to harrass the people socializing and engaging in specific belief related discussion. I would, however, go there if I was interested to learn about what you believe in and thought I
could maintain openmindedness. But I am not in the least bit interested which is why I choose to hang out in a theist online community.

What about the people who got invited by the hosts of these forums? When one is invited to an interesting discussion, would it not make sense to show up?

I should add that there are many non-Christian forums out there, with fundamentalist christians harrassing the non-Christians. Having seen many myself, I do not consider what goes on here to be harrassment by any means. I do not feel threatened by atheists, because they haven't said anything threatening yet. I have seen a few rude fundamentalists, though.

I realize that I am new to TOL, but I have spent a great deal of time reading the arguments between theists and atheists, amongst other topics as well, and have concluded that you atheists go around and around, spouting the same stuff over and over again. For what?

Possibly because they see the same criticisms over and over again from people like yourself, and give the same responses to them again and again. It makes sense, doesn't it?

It can't be an honest attempt to understand the theist or be openminded to his beliefs as I have seen no evidence of this whatsoever. What is it? Hmmm...how about the enjoyment of ticking off theists??

I am not ticked off. In fact, I think that Jack is the only person here who might be ticked off, as he is being rude to me, and I am not even a atheist. I believe that a bunch of interesting scientific topics are being discussed. For example, I learned yesteday that gravity can dilate time, just like velocity does. When I did a google search after reading Jack's comments, I found a bunch of fascinating material that I had never read before. Thanks to Jack for bringing up that topic, by the way.

If you are all so interested in discussing evolution, blah, blah, blah.....discuss it amongst yourselves. If I want to deepen and enlarge my knowledge of the faith I have in Christ, I talk, and even sometimes argue, with fellow believers. Doesn't that seem logical?

Well, how does one expect to have a "debate" about the existence or non-existence of God, without atheists? You cannot "debate" without opposing views, can you not?

With all of this being said, I do want to emphasize that if any of you are legitimately, honestly interested in what a theist believes and have questions, by all means, fire away! I'd be more than happy to talk with any of you about my beliefs.

I think you need to calm down, take a breath deeply, then realize what the debate is about. There has to be atheists here, because we are discussing the existence or non existence of God.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by D the Atheist
Jack suggest that like an anaconda

Madagascar boa. Anacondas live in South America.

he has heard about (No references given)

It was in a book I read over 20 years ago when I was in elementary school. Forgive me if I can't remember the name of it.

that lived for four years without food, likewise other animals could not be so dependant either. Sorry, but most animals are not like reptiles. In fact only reptiles are like reptiles.

I only mentioned reptiles in that statement. I said nothing relating this to any other types of animals.

Jack says the water intake was something in the order (I’m guessing here so I do not have to wade through mountains of stuff) 30,000 litres or gallons a day.

Where did I say this? You know how to use the quote function now -- provide a quote, or retract your statement.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Heino
Would you find it equally amusing for a bunch of fundamentalist evangelicals to hang out on an atheist forum, or in my case, a biology forum,

You need to stop trying to pass yourself off as a biologist. It's obvious you're not. I'd expect a biologist, or any scientist for that matter, to at least know what a microsecond is. You gave yourself away when you said it was a hundredth of a second. Of course, many atheists won't hesitate to lie about their credentials when it comes to debate forums, since nobody can really verify their claims.

 

[flash]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Blinding Light

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Blinding Light

Originally posted by SOTK4ever
Yes, I think I have been very honest about my intentions. I am not debating anything with an atheist.

Actually, you are debating right now, albeit badly.

Originally posted by SOTK4ever I made an observation with an opinion of that observation. Do you see me debating any of your ridiculous atheistic notions with you or anybody else?

Great. You are just here to make assertions. Ok, fine with me. Have fun. Here are a few of my assertions for you to chew on.

-God does not exist.
-The Earth is flat.
-There is life on Jupiter.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Of course, many atheists won't hesitate to lie about their credentials when it comes to debate forums, since nobody can really verify their claims.

But Mr One Eyed Jack, we have not seen your profound scientific grounds for your claim that evolution theory is not a scientific theory, neither did we see you mention a scientific theory that could replace it.

And you know I have asked you that several times, so please provide us then the profound scientific reasons why we would be wrong about evolution theory.

Can you even proof ONE scientific ground on which "creationism" would be right?

Are human inventions, like cars, proof of "creationism" or do these human inventions also proof development?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by attention
But Mr One Eyed Jack, we have not seen your profound scientific grounds for your claim that evolution theory is not a scientific theory, neither did we see you mention a scientific theory that could replace it.

Why do you need a theory to replace it?

And you know I have asked you that several times, so please provide us then the profound scientific reasons why we would be wrong about evolution theory.

It's never been observed. If you want to believe it, that's fine, but don't call it science, which is based on observation.

Can you even proof ONE scientific ground on which "creationism" would be right?

Animals reproduce after their kind. This is observed.

Are human inventions, like cars, proof of "creationism" or do these human inventions also proof development?

I wouldn't say cars are proof of Biblical creation, if that's what you mean. But then again I'm not interested in bandying semantics with a guy that can barely speak English.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Why do you need a theory to replace it?

I don't need that, since I am not the one that challenges evolution theore, but you have come up with scientific arguments that would make evolution theory non-scientific. Well as far as science is considered, this would then mean a paradigma change at the basis of scientific arguments, and the replacement of the theory with another one.

That is what YOU have to do, if you want to do it in a scientific way.

And if you DON't want to do that, and can't find the scientific reasons to challenge evolution theory, you should not mention your pseudo-scientific arguments either, but simply claim that evolution theory is invalid, cause it does not fit your belief system.

That would not be a valid scientific reason, but it would be a valid human reason.

It's never been observed. If you want to believe it, that's fine, but don't call it science, which is based on observation.

When was the last time we actually observed electrons, black holes and extra-terrestial planets?

Did we observe the Big Bang?

Even so, these things are valid scientific phenomena, so your point of view that the only thing that is valid are that what can be observed directly, is not a scientific argument.

Animals reproduce after their kind. This is observed.

Jeeeh. What an OUTSTANDING observation. Apes don't give birth to snakes, therefore evolution theory is invalid.

YOU ARE VERY OUTSTANDING JACK!!!!! NOW WE KNOW THE TRUTH!!!

I wouldn't say cars are proof of Biblical creation, if that's what you mean. But then again I'm not interested in bandying semantics with a guy that can barely speak English.

It has not appeared to me you had any problem discussing with me before on the basis of that, so that is just an ad-hoc argument Jack.

What do you have besides AD HOC argumentation, false claims, and pseudo-scientific reasons.

You know that the term "creation" can only refer to the kind of things we humans make, since no other direct observation of any phenomena could lead to the classification of "creation".

So, if creation science is right, then at least we would have to assume it is a valid hypothesis for the field of phenomena of human inventions and creations, since that field is the only field in which "creation" is a meaningfull term.

Well, is it?

Do cars exist because of "creation", or are cars development products of human society???

How did we arrive at the concept of a car?

It would be good if you could explain us that, because that is more recent historic material then for instance the question how the first cell arrived here, and it would therefore more easy to discuss that sort of things instead of things that went on 3.2 billions years ago.

If you can not hold on the claim that human inventions are phenomena that can be rightfully qualified as "creation" instead of being development products of human society, then what do you have as OBSERVATIONAL evidence for your claim of "creationism"?

Show me the OBSERVATIONAL evidence for "creation" Jack, and if you can't, then please don't state that you have "scientific" arguments for not "believing" evolution theory, cause you don't have that.

You only have an argument based on your belief system, but that is not proof in itself. Besides of that, you have NOTHING. Nothing at all that should bother us to accept the fact that evolution is true.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by attention
I don't need that, since I am not the one that challenges evolution theore, but you have come up with scientific arguments that would make evolution theory non-scientific.

Well then, what's the problem?

When was the last time we actually observed electrons,

Probably during the last thunderstorm.

black holes

Never. Not even light can escape a black hole, making them unobservable. You can observe their effects though.

and extra-terrestial planets?

I imagine somebody on Earth is observing one of the other planets in our solar system right now.

Did we observe the Big Bang?

No, we didn't.