Tim Minchin on the danger of opening your mind too much:
Recent Comments
- Leland Somers: These people are consistent, logical and take the text as meaning... on John Piper and Divine Command
- kholdom0790: Why do parents get to decide it’s fine to risk the lives of every child... on Vaccination and Taxes
- Paul: And thus was born religious mysogeny on Why Are You Here, Jesus?
- Paul: I need this on a t shirt on Can I hear an Amen?
- kholdom0790: What a champ. I have admired this guy for years, but now it’s at... on Attenborough on The Almighty
- grumpygirl: Back in those days, there were the traditional but liberal... on Mr. Conservative on religion and politics
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
I love this guy (Tim)! So funny! :)
I’ve become a recent fan, thanks for the most part to videos posted here by Daniel and by commenters.
he should sign up for the next american idol, simon would love him, (not literally)
LRA,
what are your thoughts on differences between scientists that are Christians and creationists?
is there a difference?
One is very rare and the other is extremely rare? *rimshot*
” Fortunately not the same thing.
link fail (it showed up right in the preview)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller
I was a scientist who was a christian. There are some scientists who are christians, and they don’t believe in a literal bible. They are liberal because they have to be. The science is too convincing not to be.
Creationists aren’t scientists necessarily. You may have a creationists who does some kind of science (like Behe at Lehigh, who does biochem but not genetics or paleontology) but this person is not an expert on evolution and has no business criticizing it UNLESS they can provide observable, replicatable results (which no creationist has done to date).
Sorry I’m getting to this so late– I had a paper due today!
Sorry–
I would like to add that it wasn’t evolution that turned me away from christianity, it was my cognitive science studies. I studied the brain for a living and I began to have doubts about moral culpability, free will, even the existence of a soul…
LRA,
it’s been great chatting with you, it’s hard with the radical verbal abuse that comes through this site to have any meaningful conversation though.
I’ll stop back in from tine to time.
“Radical verbal abuse”? I must have missed that. How were you verbally abused? Did someone threaten you?
He did get called a dumbass once. Radical indeed.
He doesn’t like it when people disagree with him.
“I’ll stop back in from tine to time.”
He clearly wasn’t radically verbally abused enough.
And I did refer to him as a “blockhead.” In retrospect, I meant to write “moronic blockhead.”
No coming back here and forking around.
*wince* Good catch, but bad pun …
interesting….
The Fallacies of Radioactive Dating:
So how can the youngest basalt lava flows in Grand Canyon, whose eruption was possibly witnessed only thousands of years ago, yield the same radioactive rubidium-strontium age of 1.1 billion years as some of the oldest basalt lava flows at the bottom of the Canyon?
Answer: The molten rock that produced the young basalt lava flows came from deep inside the earth, from what geologists call the earth’s mantle; so these lavas have inherited this rubidium-strontium composition from their mantle source. That is, their rubidium-strontium composition has nothing to do with their age, but everything to do with their source!
Everything seems to point back to the same question of source, and timelines…I am curious as to the response from the scientific community when something like this happens. It appears that the timelines that are supported (ie. millions of years) is cancelled out in these instances, how do they react to recent findings of the rubidium-strontium composition?
So, either the rock record is the evidence of millions of years, or it is largely the evidence of Noah’s Flood. It can’t be both. If I believe what the geological establishment says—that the earth is billions of years old and shows no sign of a worldwide Flood—then that belief contradicts my belief in Noah’s Flood. If I accept God’s inspired, inerrant testimony regarding the Flood, I cannot logically believe in millions of years. Noah’s Flood truly washes away millions of years.
I’m sorry, but the evidence is overwhelming that the Great Flood did not occur. Remember, there were six other “great” civilizations around at the time: Mesopotamia (Sumerian), Indus Valley, Egypt, the Minoan, the ‘Holy Land’ area, and China.
Some examples of contradictory evidence:
- The Great Pyramid of Cheops was built about 2589-2566 BC, about 230 years before the flood, yet it has no water marks on it. The Djoser Step Pyramid at Saqqara, Egypt, built about 2630 BC doesn’t show any signs of having been under water. Likewise for many other ancient structures. But even more importantly, the Egyptians have continuous historical records for hundreds of years before and after the time of the flood that make no mention of a great flood.
- Where did the water needed for the flood come from? Where did it go? The atmosphere only holds enough moisture to account for about an inch of water worldwide. To cover even Mount Ararat, where Noah’s Ark supposedly landed after the flood, in 40 days would require over 400 feet of water per day.
- Was the flood water fresh or salty? If it were freshwater, then the saltwater fish would have died, but if it were saltwater, then the freshwater fish would have died.
- Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don’t open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?
- Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.
* Some, like sloths and penguins, can’t travel overland very well at all.
* Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
* Some cave-dwelling arthropods can’t survive in less than 100% relative humidity.
* Some animals lived on islands, and otherwise would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction.
- Why are there polar ice caps?
- Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors?
- Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.
- There is too much genetic variation in each animal species for that species to be descended from a single pair only a few thousand years ago.
- Nevermind time and space constraints. (15,000+ animals in 7 days is a constant rate of one animal every 38 seconds.) Also nevermind caring for all those animals.
There are dozens of other critical objections. The Great Flood could not have happened. You can hold your hands over your ears and say “lalalalalala I can’t hear you!”, if you want.
* Loading 15,000+ animals…
Very good info, I will chew on this a bit. thanks Rodney!
Also, I have to again point you to the *actual* science:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
There is not enough water on the entire earth, including all the ice, glaciers, and both poles to flood the entire earth. Second, there is a vast difference in the dating of basalt, which is from the mantle and the bones found in the layers of accumulated soil on the earth.
Why is it easier for you to look at one point and declare everything illogical, than to look at a thousand points and see logic?
Because your entire mind is set on proving what you believe. Its like a cop who is convinced of a persons guilt, they do not see evidence which exonerates them. Free your mind and the rest will follow.
Besides, no scientist proclaims truth, they tell you what thier best reasoning is based on what we do know. No scientist proclaims to have the mind of God in them and to be able to know the total truth based on the writtings of people who did know even know what steel is.
Have you ever been in a mass flood, do you watch the news, isn’t it interesting how quickly rain can completely consume a whole city, just by it’s continuation?
Why is a mass flood so hard to comprehend, the Bible claims that it rained straight for 40 days, wow, that’s a butt-load of water, I don’t need a weirs for that.
Mass rain fall produced the flood with the help of the oceans outpouring.
Do you think clouds magically produce rain out of nothing?
Clouds are moisture in the air. The moisture is dense enough to be visible (as clouds). If the density gets high enough, droplets of moisture fall from the sky; we call these droplets “rain”.
All the atmospheric moisture on Earth (that is, all the water in the air, from the ground to the vacuum of space) is enough to cover the planet in about one inch of water.
There is not enough water on the planet for a global flood.
* Not “barely not enough”, not nearly enough. Submerging Mount Ararat (where the Ark purportedly landed) in 40 days would require 400 feet of water per day. Everest would require 725 feet per day, which is 30 feet of water per hour. And all the airborne moisture on Earth would add up to one inch. Hm.
If conditions were the same, where did this water come from? If they were different, where did it go?
I commented on this earlier, see below….
Fresh Dinosaur bones found:
A guide by the name of Margaret Helder, Ph.D. who moments before had been discussing animal ecology and evolution, found when confronted with news of the new discovery—that she simply could not believe it.
could you please cite your reference for this?
Here’s an interesting comment on the origin of the species:
Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of new species, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits—a concept that creationists and evolutionists agree on. The creationist model of how life spread across the globe after the Flood of Genesis uses many of the same principles of natural selection and adaptive radiation that are used in the evolution model. One of the main differences is that the biblical creation model recognizes that one kind cannot change into another and that the changes are a result of variation within the created kinds—not descent from a single common ancestor. As a result of the Curse, genetic mutations, representing a loss of information, have been accumulating, but these do not cause new kinds to emerge. According to creationists…Accepting the idea of a single common ancestor denies the authority of God’s Word.
Source?
The Great Turning Point: The Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology—before Darwin (Master Books, 2004)
Most likely a Christian publication
The author is an employee of Answers in Genesis (AiG). Do you understand why this book is not a reliable source?
Among other things, as an employee of AiG, the author signed a “Statement of Faith” that includes:
Also, bear in mind that even if you did not know that, you do know (or could easily discover) that he is a theologian and historian, not a scientist. (PhD in history of geology) He is therefore qualified to make expert evaluations of the history of geology, and analysis of the history of geology; but he is not qualified (no more — or maybe a bit more — than you or me) to make expert evaluations on geology, or analysis of the science of geology.
I don’t see any problems with their statement of faith. Scientists have their checks and balances, so do Christians. (or they should)..
The checks and balances of the scientific community lies in whether or not the results of a study can be replicated. You can actually look on the websites of scientific journals to see how many times a study has been cited by other scientists. This gives you a rough idea of how well it worked and how many people are using the results now to expand their own studies.
That Statement of Faith declares that Scripture is necessarily true and any scientific evidence that disagrees must be ignored.
Do you understand that and still don’t see any problem?
In other words, that means anything AiG produces is rhetoric (using language as a means to persuade), not science (a system of acquiring knowledge). Their goal is not to discover truth, but to comminicate their message. You might argue that they have discovered truth and are trying to communicate that truth, but they’ve already declared their mission and message are true by fiat. This is study/experiment/etc to support a preconceived conclusion, rather than study/experiment/etc to generate a new conclusion.
I understand, and I also understand that each instance sited in their writings must be verified through scripture to prove it’s valid. This to me can either support popular evolutionary theory or prove it false based on historic biblical accounts. The Bible is (as some would argue) historic and factual and should be considered as such. AIG produces accurate information and is worthy of discussion. They, like scientists, are still discovering new facts about the earth and its origins.
Modern evolutionary theory is false based on Biblical accounts.
The Bible is false based on modern evolutionary accounts.
Done.
But AiG explicitly rejects any “new facts” that contradict the Bible. That’s not a quest for truth, it’s a quest to validate the Bible.
More importantly, it’s a quest for absolute truth. The Bible in the Christians mind doesn’t need validated. The Christian is still trying to understand the truths of the Bible. Some of the facts do line up with evolutionary theory, some does not. I am interested in the facts that are acceptable to the believer.
A quest for *absolute* truth, huh?
Do you have a god’s eye view of the world? How are we to ascertain said *absolute* truth with our limited minds?
If this truth is *absolute*, then how do we verify that? How do we know?
Read up on truth here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
We are certainly not going to agree on everything that is discussed. I am hoping though to learn through this discovery of comparable facts.
Example:
Did you know that the study of the biblical account of Joshua and the “day the sun stood still” has scientific data collected that verifies this truth? Apparently the earth stopped spinning for period of time and it was recorded and it was documented. Now obviously the people of that day didn’t understand that the earth revolved around the sun, but the fact still remains. Do you have any information on this?
Ref:
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.
Joshua 10:12-14
I am sorry, I am showing my stupidity here…
The earth revolves around it’s axis and revolves around the sun once a year. But again, Joshua’s army nor the writer of the book of Joshua had this information.
By declaring yourself certain that you know what is true before even setting out to discover truth, you have declared yourself incompetent to make the distinction between truth and falsity. If you start with the assumption that something — anything — is true, you are not seeking absolute truth, you are seeking relative truth.
“the biblical account of Joshua and the “day the sun stood still” has scientific data collected that verifies this truth?”
False.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
From a creationist website (that you’ve defended already in this thread).
“Did you know that the study of the biblical account of Joshua and the “day the sun stood still” has scientific data collected that verifies this truth? Apparently the earth stopped spinning for period of time and it was recorded and it was documented. Now obviously the people of that day didn’t understand that the earth revolved around the sun, but the fact still remains. Do you have any information on this?”
Look, you have to remember that the earth is spinning *very* *very* fast. Somewhere around 1000 MPH at the equator. Thus if the earth stopped spinning suddenly, the first problem is that the atmosphere (not actually attached to the earth) would still be spinning at that speed, and although I’m not an engineer, I do not believe that any structure or most natural formations are capable of withstanding 1000 MPH winds. Second problem is that everything on the earth would be flung tangent to the former rotation at 1000MPH. Now this wouldn’t actually get us anywhere near escape velocity, (which is like 25,000 MPH.) However according to my rather basic understanding of classical mechanics, it would throw everyone/thing on earth quite a fair distance resulting in mass deaths, damages, etc.
Funny then that no other civilization mentions the strange day that everything got thrown half a mile for no apparent reason.
Fresh Dinosaur bones found:
A guide by the name of Margaret Helder, Ph.D. who moments before had been discussing animal ecology and evolution, found when confronted with news of the new discovery—that she simply could not believe it. She could not accept that fresh (not permineralized, meaning unfossilized) dinosaur bones had been found in Alaska. Such bones could never have lasted 70 million years, she said.
Unlikely or not, it is a fact that such bones have been found. However, whether they could have lasted in that condition more than a few thousand years is a matter which demands attention.
In 1987, while working with scientists from Memorial University (Newfoundland, Canada) on Bylot Island, just east of the northern tip of Baffin Island, a young Inuit (Canadian Eskimo) picked up a bone fragment. It was identified within days as part of the lower jaw of a duckbill dinosaur and proclaimed to the world as such.1
The story was different however in north-western Alaska. In 1961 a petroleum geologist discovered a large, half-metre-thick bone bed. As the bones were fresh, not permineralized, he assumed that these were recent bison bones. It took 20 years for scientists to recognize duckbill dinosaur bones in this deposit as well as the bones of horned dinosaurs, and large and small carnivorous dinosaurs. Presently William A. Clemens and other scientists from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Alaska are quarrying the bone bed.2
How these bones could have remained in fresh condition for 70 million years is a perplexing question.
Ref:
Edmonton Journal, October 26, 1987
Saturday Night (a monthly magazine of analysis of current events) in August 1989, Vol.104 No.8, pp.16-19
l985 in Geological Society of America abstract programs Vol.17, p.548
Journal of Paleontology, Vol.61 No.1, pp.198-200
Time, September 22, 1986, p.64
Canadian Geographic, Vol.106, No.6, pp.2837 (1986/7)
I note all this research is 20 years old. Is there not a single update to it?
Not sure, I will keep checking though, thanks for calling that out RD
How come nobody is responding to this one?
Frankly, given your track record of basic ignorance, I don’t have time to go chasing down another load of crap. Especially give that even if you are right and there are some examples of dinosaurs that survived until a few thousand years ago it doesn’t follow from that that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
Think of it this way, I have evidence that suggests that my car could not be more than 10 years old, does it follow that the earth can not be more than ten years old? of course not.
You are committed to the claim that there is nothing older than 6000 years, we are absolutely not committed to the claim that there is nothing younger, thus if we find something older, your theory has been falsified, but if we find something younger, then our theory has not.
my point here is that scientists use the millions of years scale to explain the dinosaur and it’s existence. Actual findings of dinosaur bones is not a load of crap. Science doesn’t make exceptions currently for any recent findings of these bones (at least not to my knowledge)
I sense a lot of hesitation here to dig through factual information. What is everyone afraid of….?
I know, now you are going to attempt to discredit me, call me a kook, whacko, unreliable, etc…
Of course the finding of actual bones are not a load of crap, but I’m guessing that your interpretation of that datum is. Also it is clear that you misunderstood my point, sure scientists do fit dinosaurs into very old timescales, but even if your find and interpretation is categorically correct, they still have no reason to refrain from doing so. This is because even if we find young bones, we have still found bones that are very old. The earth must be at least as old as it’s oldest naturally occurring feature, so unless you are going to argue that all the other older dinosaur bones were brought here and buried by aliens, your article is completely irrelevant.
I also notice that you have, as yet, failed to respond to my point about your bible proving its own inaccuracy.
Probably because none of the references are on-line, and I’m guessing it’s not easy to find any other references that may exist on-line.
Exactly… When I read your post above, my first thought was, okay, so some species of dinosaurs may have survived longer than others. How does that prove that the earth is young?
Check out the sources, the only one having scientific value is the “Journal of Paleontology”. does it says on that article anything about the bones being “unfossilized”?
There’s got to be more to this study. I suspect by the age of the articles that either a mistake as made and corrected, or that the bones were re-tested several more times and this study turned out to be an anomoly.
Doug- I can’t find any of your references on pubmed.
I did find this information here:
http://creation.com/are-dinosaurs-alive-today
Not exactly a scientific site!
dwade:
You copied this story directly from a page on Answers in Genesis. But as it turns out, it’s nothing but a stinking pile of lies. See here.
Since the christian god doesn’t exist, he has no word; there is no “him” to have a word. (“Him”, huh? Bet you never pulled up his robe and looked.) The words those people wrote and attributed to some rather repulsive god have no authority.
I have dwade’s number. It’s #556!
556. ARGUMENT FROM OTHERWISE UNACHIEVABLE DENIAL
(1) I have faith in the Bible despite the fact that it endlessly contradicts common
sense, the laws of nature, the sciences, a Himalayan Mountain of facts, and of
course itself.
(2) Such titanic denial could never be achieved by mere mortals alone.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Of course he fits #557 too:
557. ARGUMENT FROM UNTIDY THEORY OF EVOLUTION
(1) In attempting to unravel such a simple, straightforward matter as the evolution
of life over the course of the last 2.7 billion years, scientists have encountered
certain difficulties and differences of opinion.
(2) Therefore the Theory of Evolution is a house of cards and creationism is
self-evident.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
And he sums it up with #568:
568. ARGUMENT FROM SCIENCE (III)
(1) Science can’t explain everything.
(2) God can.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Nothing original or thoughtful there!
Well this conversation, as was started by LRA and several others, will include information about science, philosoph, history and theology.
My interest is in the study of absolute truth and to me, all of the facts are valid. Including the Bible. I am aware of many facts in the Word that aligns with the sciences, and I would like to continue in this post, siting these events and the data at hand. After all you take
AIG, although you may not agree, has many highly-educated people in their organization. In some cases they agree with science, in some they disagree. Each person can state their responses accordingly, as Plato believed and taught, “Follow the evidence wherever it leads.”
thanks for the post.
If you start with the assumption that the Bible is true, you are drawing a conclusion before you even look at any premises.
If you really want to investigate truth, you must start from zero; that is, that the Bible may or may not be true.
In other words, the Bible contains claims. Look at other sources and decide whether the claims are factual.
I just did, you are discounting other sources as quacks. Where am I to go here. Not every imperfect man should have the scientific stamp of approval just because he came from or works for an ivy league institution. Many errors are evident in our quest for right and wrong. These authors make these claims themselves. I am simply trying to open up discussion for debate so that nobody can claim “close-mindedness” on these subjects.
Consider the possibility that the reason I have repeatedly dismissed your sources as bad is not that I dismiss good sources that disagree with me, but that your position is supported only by bad sources.
Consider this thought,
How is it that skeptics can ridicule believers and their faith in the Bible, but don’t realize that their belief system of “millions of years” actually takes more faith to believe. The Bible records real accounts of real people. Eye-witness accounts of the natural, supernatural and even the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Even if you don’t believe that Jesus was who He claimed to be, it’s not hard to realize that these writers, (even if you believe that they were not inspired by God) were writing about their experience during that moment in time.
So from a historical record, it should be permissible.
Science because it makes claims that date back millions of years has no eye-witness, only theory and facts that are available from a modern day line of reasoning.
Let me just say, that I would need more faith to believe evolutionary, cave man, big-bang theory.
You might want to know Biblical history before you attempt to debate people.
No one knows who wrote the gospels. The earliest gospel attributed to Mark wasn’t even written until 40+ years after Jesus’ death. If Mark actually wrote it, he would have been over 70 years old. The author of John would have been between 90-100 years old if he was the actual disciple.
Since the average lifespan of the time was just over 30 years, it doesn’t leave much chance that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. And after forty+ years, you could invent whatever stories you wanted.
Look I’m sorry, but do you know anything about the provenance of the bible? Like one single fact? It is not a collection of eyewitness accounts, not the new testament and especially not the old testament. For instance the new testament’s earliest books were written by Paul, a man who never met the living Jesus, so frankly he didn’t see shit by his own admission. Of the books that claim to be accounts of Jesus’ life Mark (the earliest) was written 40 years after jesus’ death by a person or people unknown who were living in a different country and spoke a different language.
Not to mention the fact that these different accounts of Jesus’ life actually contradict each other (for instance, on what day was Jesus crucified? how many people were at the tomb? who went to the tomb? what did they do afterwords? and my personal favorite, to obtain salvation, must you keep the law or not? (Matthew and Paul do not agree on this.)
The situation with the old testament is much much worse as even a cursory glance can tell you, especially with your precious creation/flood stories.
“Eye-witness accounts”? What eye-witness accounts? Do you know how much of the Bible was written after the fact? Decades or even hundreds of years later.
I’m sure it would take many Creationists more “faith” to believe in evolution, because from what I and many others have seen of them on this site they don’t seem to possess the intelligence to UNDERSTAND it or the evidence.
Haha you got in front of me there GBM!
Wow, I’m in a snarky mood today =P
What can I say? I think the inerrency of the bible is the most asinine doctrine in the history of humans, so my rage translates into quick typing. It’s like these people don’t know that we don’t have the original manuscripts, or that there were many, many other books that were regarded as authoritative for centuries which were left out of the cannon, or that a few books of the bible are almost certainly forgeries .
Of course… there’s just no way that we can blindly accept the Bible is inerrant, anymore than we can readily accept the records of Alexander the Great being born of Heracles and Aeacus with no misgivings… lol. Never mind the claims that his mother was impregnated by thunderbolts from Zeus >_<
DWade needs to watch the “Ray Comfort becomes a Muslim” video.
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/04/19/ray-comfort-becomes-a-muslim/
There’s no more reason to accept one religion on it’s “divine truth, eyewitness accounts” than any others. They all say they are true on the basis that they say they are true.
I going to try and study the history of modern Britain using the Harry Potter books as my reference source.
Again– read up on truth here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
It is a complicated subject!
If you were to study Electricity using Thomas Edison’s work as you are using the bible (i.e. everything Edison thought was right, and nothing outside of Edison can be considered, and then further state that anything which contradicts Edison is by definition wrong), how could you ever read Tesla? Tesla, who invented the electric motor, alternating current, and the flouresant light bulb? Concepts which Edison never conceived?
You cant look for truth by declaring truth is the Bible, and then setting out to prove it. You must seek truth on its own merits.
Not a good comparison when you understand that we are comparing the natural, supernatural and the sciences to gain understanding of absolute truth. This is something that goes on all the time though. In order for there to be understanding, each party needs to be open to the other parties findings.
Forgive me, I am stating the obvious here.
But the supernatural has no “findings”, only the word of a book written decades after the stories it purports to tell by people who weren’t even there! How can you call that a “finding”, other than “finding” the whole idea of believing that rubbish entirely absurd?
ahhh, this is where you are ignoring the information that exists out there. There apparently seems to be a supernatural world out there.
Doctors are studying the effects of prayer and how it effects peoples physical health. Doctors are continually amazed by the effects on a persons physical body by someone of faith….I will bring some evidence later.
and don’t use the endorphins argument.
Why? Because you can’t counter it? Never heard of placebo effect? Sorry, but until you can make that credible, I call bullshit.
fair enough
ON Tim Minchin: I thought he was funny, but wish the song wasn’t so jumbled.
It’s part of the act. He was interviewed on the Skeptic’s Guide podcast a while back, and he goes on for a bit about why his character needs to be so odd.
Where is the ref to this “evidence” that the earth stopped rotating for a day as it reads in Joshua? Do you understand that the earth revolves at 900 miles per hour? Got any idea what would happen to every living thing should it suddenly stop? everything on earth would have a 900 mph impact force exerted upon it. Waters would have sloshed from the oceans, most every tree would have fallen over, every animal not in a burrow would have been killed.
So where is the ref for this great cataclysm?
Here’s a read, there’s more, but I will start with this:
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/secret/velikovsky2.html
or as Charles Darwin stated:
“doing what little one can to increase the general stock of knowledge is as respectable an object of life, as one can in any likelihood pursue”
as well as:
“I am a strong advocate for free thought on ALL subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follow[s] from the advance of science.
Advocate of free thought is what I am referring to.
Dwade, you’ve misunderstood the quote that you’ve posted. That’s the danger of using an appeal to authority as the basis for an argument, really.
What Darwin was saying was that theism is so ingrained into people that they are incapable of accepting the proofs that their faith is false and based on lies. He knew that the only way to change this was to introduce knowledge and let theism die out slowly rather than to attempt to stamp it out in one go.
Personally, I believe that we are in the last century of Christianity being taken seriously by anybody but kooks, and that within another 100 years of that, Judaism and then Islam will also be considered as bad jokes.
I live in hope, anyway.
I didn’t misunderstand this, and I believe this to be true in America. Not other countries, China for instance is thriving and the Gospel is spreading (through the underground church)….any wonder why they are slowly owning this country.??
As someone who currently lives and teaches in China I can assure you that Christianity is absolutely not the reason that China is ‘slowly owning’ the U.S. The vast majority of my students are not christian, and in fact they seem to regard Christianity in much the same way that the skeptical denizens of this blog do; that it is a superstition equal parts laughable and pernicious.
GBM,
I know that are many factors (especially political) that have lended to China owning us. ( I guess we can also thank Wal-mart for this), but the truth of China’s growing Christian population still stands.
And so you understand, China has one of the biggest Christian populations in the world. Over 80 million now, see this report:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/12/8/132707.shtml
That’s #19!
19. ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
(1) Millions and millions of people believe in God.
(2) They can’t all be wrong, can they?
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
80 million out of more than a billion you dumbass. This is not a significant minority, especially since one of the qualifications for joining the ruling party is to reject Christianity. these people are not making decisions, so you cannot pretend that the good decisions that are made as a result of christianity
GBM,
man you are good at steering conversations in your favor, very clever. You must be a great teacher.
Look I’m sorry for calling you a dumbass, but to put this in perspective there are 86 million Chinese with the surname Zhang. Granted Chinese surnames tend homogeneous, but there are a lot of people here, so getting impressive sounding raw numbers is not difficult. Also I should point out that your 80 million number is an *estimate* which is incredible difficult to do given the underground nature of the religion. Even granting the accuracy of that number, however, you are still only talking about roughly 6% of the population. China is many things, but one thing it is certainly not is a Christian nation.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/ch.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/world/asia/21china.html?em
as posted above.
False, even a hardcore creationist cite says that’s wrong.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
Do you ever do research on the authors of books you read? Even just reading the dust jacket, but potentially more. Always consider the source.
I had never heard of Immanuel Velikovsky, so I looked him up. I know you don’t like Wikipedia, but I was just interested in the facts: where did he go to school, what is he famous for, etc. Before getting to the end of the second paragraph of the article, my interpretation was that he is a quack. Then, third paragraph: “In general, Velikovsky’s theories have been vigorously rejected or ignored by the academic community”. Cited, no less: a textbook used by Cambridge University says that. Now it’s subjective evaluation time: who do I trust more, an author I’ve never heard of or another author I’ve never heard of who has written a geology textbook used by Cambridge University?… hmm…
Consider the source.
I meant to bold that: “In general, Velikovsky’s theories have been vigorously rejected or ignored by the academic community”
OK lets be honest here, is he being ignored because he’s a quack, or is he being ignored because he doesn’t fit into the ivy league evolutionary clubs?
I have been around the academic community for some time, (my wife works for a university) these folks are quick to dismiss someone because they don’t have a degree. And a degree does not always a smart man make.
(don’t read into this statement, I know there are many of you with lotsa smarts)
Doug- people with degrees have proved that they’ve done the work to get the degree. Smart people, if they want to publish work in the scientific community, need to get a degree in the actual science that they want to contribute to. If anything, it is so that they can get research funding. Without funding, science doesn’t get done. And funders certainly don’t give money to just anybody!!!
I’m going to be a great rock guitarrist. I could study music and practice it everyday. I could hear what other group bands are doing… but what the hell! That’s a lot of work and “a degree does not always a smart man make” Let’s simply play it as I can.
Of course, if you don’t like my music is not for my lack of knowledge (and talent), it’s because you are being very close-minded
It’s called “punk music”. :)
OK lets go with that.
Let’s use Jimi Hendrix as an example. He was terribly edu-ma-cated, never studied music (on a professional level). He did not attend the Berklee school for music, but he ended up being and is still considered one of the best rock guitarists in the history of music.
Do we disqualify him for being un-intelligent?
…Purple haze all in my brain
It’s a perfect example. He had his first guitar at 14 yo and he was playing the guitar for 8 years -learning looking at other guitarrists and hearing discos- before he really started with the Isley’s Brothers. He didn’t go to any school, but he indeed did a lot of practice.
I agree with you that it’s not necessary to study science in order to do science. It’s not a closed club. But it’s not so easy to have acces to all that knowledge in an structured way. Besides, scientists live for science, they are practising each hour; could anyone be compared to them in his fields? maybe, but that would be very rare exceptions.
I guess we could say that about many of the authors and scientists quoted in these blogs, as we don’t know them to be anything other than what someone else claims they are…I am not knocking higher-education but I do know some really stupid smart people., So unless you know these scientists personally, we are basically leaving it up to our own reasoning, correct?
I’m not really sure what you’re saying. Are you suggesting that Immanuel Velikovsky and Cambridge University are equally trustworthy? Or that everyone is equally trustworthy and we should accept that whatever claims made by whatever entity are true? Sources should never be challenged? Sources should always be challenged? Sources are irrelevant?
I’m sorry, but there just isn’t an easy objective distinction between “reliable source” and “unreliable source”. No black and white, only a gradient of gray. Some sources are light gray and some sources are dark gray, though. Here is part of Wikipedia’s source guideline, which is a pretty great start:
You should feel free to challenge any source at any time, but I strongly recommend doing some research yourself before demanding someone else do so.
Certainly not everyone is equally trustworthy, and sources should be challenged. But I don’t see this going both ways when we discuss science vs. creation. If you are able to determine that your sources are trustworthy, than I am able to determine that my source of God’s inspired Word is trustworthy and should be accepted into evidence as trustworthy.
I feel the same about “most” secular authors, that you state about the writers of the Bible. They were merely men and don’t have all the answers.
Doesn’t mean we can’t discuss their findings though, am I being any clearer? It’s getting late and my brain is fading….
“I feel the same about “most” secular authors, that you state about the writers of the Bible. They were merely men and don’t have all the answers.”
and here’s the big difference. The secular authors claims aren’t accepted as true without question as you accept the writings of the biblical authors. The secular authors are based, confirmed, supported by their evidence. The biblical authors aren’t supported by any evidence, they are suppose to be taken on blind faith.
That is why the two are not equals. One is based on previous accepted, and independently confirmed truths, the other is suppose to be taken as truth simply because it says it’s true.
Joe,
I will post this again from an earlier post for your convenience:
Consider this thought,
How is it that skeptics can ridicule believers and their faith in the Bible, but don’t realize that their belief system of “millions of years” actually takes more faith to believe. The Bible records real accounts of real people. Eye-witness accounts of the natural, supernatural and even the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Even if you don’t believe that Jesus was who He claimed to be, it’s not hard to realize that these writers, (even if you believe that they were not inspired by God) were writing about their experience during that moment in time.
So from a historical record, it should be permissible.
Science because it makes claims that date back millions of years has no eye-witness, only theory and facts that are available from a modern day line of reasoning.
Let me just say, that I would need more faith to believe evolutionary, cave man, big-bang theory.
NO! Doug, you don’t need faith to believe evolution– you need education! The evidence is there, you have to take the time to actually read it!
and what is the support for those accounts being truly eyewitness?
as others pointed out the first time you posted that, the eyewitness-ness of the bible is questioned and I’m sure the two questioning it above can supply better evidence, faster than I can.
The bible says it’s true, eyewitness accounts, and you are suppose to just believe it.
If you think about the gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke & John), all written at separate times, from different perspectives, but the stories match, the incidents they are writing about line up, in regards to Jesus’ life and practices. So I would say that this should be considered.
Paul, wasn’t claiming to have known Christ personally, but his testimony is on the extreme changed life, he was a radical unbeliever turned believer and lived his life to extremes. Paul gave up everything, every belief, every practice to follow Christ, now that’s commitment.
Not all of the Bible is historic, it breaks down into many books with many purposes, you have the OT and NT, see:
http://demo.lutherproductions.com/bibletutor/level1/program/start/books/menu.htm
So you cannot use generalities when discussing the Bible. Each book contains information useful to reveal the Character of God. So you can know Him.
The Bible doesn’t say it’s true, it’s up to everyone to determine if it’s true or not.
I think most of the skeptics confuse the Church and it’s historically flawed practices with what God is really showing us through His word. A good example, I could read something by Darwin and we could all pull something different from His words. Even more difficult to understand the mind of God. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attempt to understand on a personal level what He is communicating to us through the spoken Word.
I also sense that most skeptics reading the Bible make excuses for not wanting to believe, like the murder issues that occurred in the OT, the abuse of women, all explainable if you consider the culture. Most critics say, “this statement contradictory to what is written previously in the Bible” so I am going to throw out the whole book. Not taking these events in context of time, place, culture, and ultimately what God is teaching us.
A true scientist would rate each event on it’s own merit, am I correct?
Joe,
Blind faith isn’t needed to understand that the Bible is God’s Word. Many have studied the words and claims that Jesus made and come to the realization of this. I think that you at least have to believe that there is God though.
I received Christ after being involved in the occult for several years. Now you don’t know me personally, but if you did, you would see a changed life. I don’t allow the organized religious church to decide things for me either. My knowledge of God’s character and His purposes is from personal study of His word.
One of the differences here that I am attempting to point out, is that a relationship with Jesus is a personal thing. No amount of data or convincing thought is going to change anyone’s mind.
For what it’s worth to you.
“If you think about the gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke & John), all written at separate times, from different perspectives, but the stories match, the incidents they are writing about line up, in regards to Jesus’ life and practices. So I would say that this should be considered.”
That is the point; if you actually read the book they do not match. To pick a few examples off the top of my head, in Matthew, Jesus specifically refuses to perform miracles to prove his identity, whereas in John that is basically the only reason he performs them. In John, Jesus’ ministry lasts around three years whereas in Mark it appears to last a few months. Jesus’ crucifixion day is different in several gospels. The genealogies of Jesus given in Luke and Matthew contradict each other, and directly contradict the story of the virgin birth (since both are explicitly genealogies of Joseph,) and by the way, everything surrounding the birth narratives is completely and totally different in the two gospels.
These contradictions are not just about small things either–remember the Paul/Matthew contradiction? Where both supposedly inspired authors say things that are diametrically opposed about how you are supposed to gain salvation? Or how about the fact that only the gospel of John explicitly states that Jesus was divine? Did Matthew, Mark, and Luke just forget to mention the single most shocking and important teaching of their supposed prophet?
All of that is before we even get started on the historical plausibility of the various stories which is often close to nil, to wit;
why don’t we have a record of Herod slaughtering the infants?
why don’t we have records of an empire-wide census that required people to return to their ancestral homes?
Why on earth would anybody even want people to return to their ancestral homes for a census? doesn’t that defeat one of the primary purposes of taking a census?
Why didn’t the authorities arrest Jesus after he cleansed the temple in John (or because they do arrest him in the synoptic gospels should this go in the contradictions section?)
Before I go to far, lets not forget the out and out forgeries in the NT and OT, (respectable scholars call them psuedopigraphic, but that just means forgery) including, but not limited to; Colossians, Ephesians,Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, The Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews, the Pentateuch, etc.
“Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attempt to understand on a personal level what He is communicating to us through the spoken Word.”
You are patently begging the question by assuming that this contradictory and empirically unreliable book is the word of anyone other than a motley collection of Iron Age sheepherders.
Incidentally I agree that it is up to us to determine whether or not the bible is true. Overwhelming evidence suggests that it is not, evidence both internal and external.
GBM,
I am not impressed with your interpretation of the bible. Sorry, I just don’t see what you are seeing.
That sounds a little like #14.
14. ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there’s really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you
stupid atheists; it’s too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you
like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Or a bit of #15.
15. ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE
(1) Okay, I don’t pretend to be as intelligent as you guys — you’re obviously very
well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God
does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you’ll just ask
him into your life. “For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son
into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth.” John
3:16.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Hahahahhahahahahaha!
also, feel free to research this on your own, there are many references to the fact of this event.
for the 3rd time
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
#3 on the list of false pro-creationist claims from a creationist organization that you’ve defended the merits of on this thread.
Point well taken, thanks Joe.
I thought the song was great.
I was just watching that DVD a few nights ago. Wish they’d sell a Region 1 copy at some point, it’s one of my favorites.
Anne: “First, assume that anything any scientist has ever said may or may not be true.”
Bob: “Okay, great. Next?”
Bob: “First, assume that anything in the Bible may or may not be true.”
Anne: “No.”
I am trying to understand why atheists are so close-minded to the Bible. I am beginning to understand now. You are looking for proof and ignoring the evidence.
evidence to follow, gtg
So, I’m closed-minded because I am open to the possibility that it might be false? And you are open-minded because you are closed to that possibility?
Also, keep in mind it is possible that I was a Christian for longer than you have been. “I am trying to understand why atheists are so close-minded to the Bible.” You seem to be under the impression that I’ve never thought the Bible was inerrant.
Hm, something apparently hasn’t been clear. I’m not absolutely sure why, because I’ve said it clearly and precisely. No one is asking you to assume the Bible is false. That is just as bad as assuming it is true. Assume that it may or may not be true. Just the possibility that it’s false. That’s all. You can’t evaluate the truth of something by first assuming it is true.
I guess I shouldn’t be making blanket statements like that, I realize that everyone is at a different place in their understanding.
Thanks for the clarification Rodney.
What evidence is that? So far you have played the normal trick of posting no evidence that supports your claims just little snippets of “I found this little bit of information that contradicts theory X” in an attempt to provide ‘evidence’ for you claims or claiming that people aren’t open minded because they won’t believe something without evidence. This is not evidence but merely an attempt to muddy the waters and to make matters worse you point blank ignore information when you are shown to be wrong. Do you for one second believe that the big bang theory is accepted because the steady state theory was wrong; do you believe that if evolution was shown to be untrue that your creator god would therefore be true?
If you wish to be open minded then stop ignoring masses of evidence that contradict your chosen holy text and start determining the facts from the evidence. Starting with the position that the Bible is true regardless of any evidence is frankly daft.
So then post some evidence in support of your claims or you really are just wasting people’s time.
Dwade, you need to go back a few threads and watch the video about open mindedness. You’re actually being very hypocritical; science encourages the acceptance of new ideas which are supported by observable facts and the abandonment of old ideas which are no loger supported as we are able to observe more facts.
You, however, accept an 1800 year old account of a 2000 year old story as absolutely accurate and do not accept any idea which contradicts it.
So, who’s closed minded? It’s not atheists, it’s you.
I’m not closed minded towards the bible. I have read it cover to cover several times and and am no less convinced that it is nothing more than a load of sometimes dangerous waffle.
…mmmm, waffles…
I’m “close-minded” to any bit of fairy-tale superstition that has not one shred of empirical evidence to support its claims. You don’t happen to believe that Santa Claus actually exists, do you? Why not? Do you believe in the existence of a Tooth Fairy? Clearly, both figures have had stories written about them, so why do you not believe? Heck, the Santa myth actually has a basis in reality, yet you do not believe there’s an actual man who lives at the North Pole and flies around on a sleigh delivering presents once a year. Why? Well, I suspect that if someone started preaching to you the gospel of Santa, you’d require a lot more than an appeal to a Rankin/Bass production as proof of the existence of Santa and flying reindeer.
@dwade trying to understand why atheists are so closed-minded to the bible (mmmmmpphhhh *snort* *snicker* why should anyone be open minded to something a bunch of Mediterranean yahoos cobbled together and why is dwade so closed-minded to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, praise Him, rAmen!)
I think his number is 52.
52. ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY (II)
(1) How could God NOT exist, you bozo?
(2) Therefore, God exists.
53. ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY
(1) The Bible is true.
(2) Therefore, the Bible is historical fact.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Next, try #13.
13. ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) [arbitrary passage from OT]
(2) [arbitrary passage from NT]
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Quote from a collection of unpalatable writings from the mythology that you choose to believe, following Formula #13, and Wow! I’ll be hornswoggled! I’ll just have to believe your chosen mythology because you quoted it! Hahahahahahahahahaha!
@rodney: Love your Anne and Bob dialogue, that’s a common double standard I’ve come across.
@dwade: I think you subscribe to the popular opinion that atheists are hypocrites who make the opposite claims of fundies(namely, that God does not exist and the bible is DEFINITELY erroneous), with the SAME amount of arrogance and assumption that they do. We do not assume to know anything – we accept the possiblity. What is missing is evidence. I’m quite offended by you labelling atheists as close-minded, particularly on this site where so many of us(though not me, I should say) have been Christian etc. for a significant part of our lives.
Sorry for making blanket statements like that, I know everyone is coming from different backgrounds.
I am not close-minded though. You have to understand that I experienced the radical transformation 20 years ago, God convinced me. Like Paul (not comparing myself to him though) I couldn’t deny the evidence.
I was a Christian for over twenty years. I gave up because I couldn’t deny the evidence. Observation of the world and people around me convinced me, and I was radically transformed in a positive way.
Why is your experience more valid than mine?
Because, apparently, God convinced him, but couldn’t be arsed to convince anybody else. Talk about being selective! Did I not do well enough on my SATs or GRE to warrant a personal visit from God? Hmph!
Your experience is just as valid as mine, I didn’t make this claim.
True, you didn’t. You put it up there as a reason we should take you seriously. I’m just pointing out that it doesn’t really prove anything much. Lots of people have transformative experiences change their lives, often not involving any supernatural being, and some in complete opposition to your version.
Damn… I’m in Australia and it’s 3.22 in the afternoon. I think I always miss these discussions because of the time difference =[ That sucks.
Yeah, I find myself coming in on things way too late!
@dwade
The biggest problem you’re going to have here is the same problem that (virtually) every other believer has. You are incapable of believing us. No matter the points we make, no matter how many times we refute what you say, you still continue to say it.
If you were to claim that the sky was red, and we were to prove that it was blue, you would STILL call it red because to admit that you were wrong would, in effect, prove that your belief that the Bible is true, is wrong. At the end of the day, you’ll go back to your circle of friends who all believe the sky is red, and call us blind and close-minded.
Even though the Flood has been disproved, do you still believe it? If so, why? In the face of so much evidence against it, so many things that demonstrate that it could never have happened, why do you still believe it is true? Why are you, then, incapable of realizing that the Flood never happened?
Oh you’re so closed minded :-)
Dwade – he’s a true Christian….
yes I’ve heard this used before, funny thing is, Christians say the stupidest things about each other, gives the skeptics lots of ammo.
They sure do! It sure does! They say a lot of stupid things to atheists too.
These things take time. Most Christians think the world is round now don’t they? One day there will be nothing left…
@sock,
Quite frankly I am not convinced by the information presented that the flood never happened. But I am researching further.
And I agree that the sky is blue.
Do you believe in the flat-earth? It’s on the bible
The Bible explains the earth as a sphere….
In one place in Isa it can be interpreted that way (though I think really it just means “circle” — that is, looking around it is 360º).
But on others passages it doesn’t (four corners of the earth, etc). Why do you choose to believe the one that say it’s a circle?
Maybe modern “science” is wrong and the Bible is right that there are four corners, eh?
because of the scientific fact you silly guy.
So if it was the other way around, and the earth was flat, you’d claim the Bible is right when it says it is flat. So you interpret the bible as always correct, even when it’s wrong! ;)
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in (Isaiah 40:22). This is from one of the earliest books discovered…
Does that describe a coin shape, or a ball shape?
Does it matter?
1. Circle does not equal sphere. The hebrew word – hwg – means circle. There are other hebrew words that denote roundness or spheres, and they are not used.
2. Those similes – tent, curtain – are classic ways to describe the firmament, the colossal dome that separates the (flat) earth from the waters above. Seriously, have you ever seen a spherical tent?
3. Isaiah is from the early 7th century. Hardly one of the earliest works we have. Some of the Ugaritic works date back to the 14th century. We have copies of the Epic of Gilgamesh from around the same period.
4. Pythagoras conjectured that all the celestial bodies were spherical in the 6th century. So even if Isaiah were ahead of his time, he’d only be ahead by a century or so.
The only way that could be interpreted as meaning that the author thought the world was a sphere is to stretch it far beyond its clear sense. It sounds to me like the author thinks of the world as a piece of flat ground enclosed to make a protected space, with the sky held up in some way from the earth. The metaphor breaks down completely if ‘circle’ means ‘sphere’.
# 13 *again*! With a little of #556 and #53 mixed in.
I’ll be hornswoggled, I’m supposed to believe your mythology because you quoted from it!
Only if we trade: If I quote a myth about Odin or Quetzalcoatl or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, *you* have to believe it!
wade, You can research all you want, but as long as you refuse to even consider the possibility that the Bible is not literally true and the Earth more than a few thousand years old, your conclusion will be made up in advance.
At most, you’ll agree there are some of your claims which can’t be explained by any natural means, at which point you’ll turn to a supernatural explanation, in the form of divine intervention. After all, God is behind it all, so why not throw in a few miracles to tie up the loose ends.
If you are not convinced by “a global flood would require about 20,000x more water than there is on the entire planet” and “if the flood was freshwater it would have killed all the saltwater fish, and if the flood was saltwater it would have killed all the freshwater fish”, I don’t know what would be convincing. Those are extremely plain objections.
Silly rodneyAnonymous, as long as you keep looking for more information to confirm your own views you can assume anything you want and reject all evidence against it without being closed-minded, because you are still “researching further.”
Serious?
Not at all. (Yay Poe’s law)
Maybe the addition of the B to the name threw you (was separating myself from the other Joe that made the misinformed vaccination claims).
No, not the name; the content was convincingly nonsensical. ;)
Then I guess I did a good job of capturing dwade’s process.
Hm, that was slightly inaccurate. A global flood would require about 20,000x more water than there is in the air. There is a lot of water in oceans, lakes, etc.
But for a global flood to happen, that water can’t move, there has to be more water on top of it. So, supporting the idea that the Great Flood really happened by pointing out the existence of oceans is similar to pointing out the existence of land. Irrelevant.
More than slightly, my math was wrong: about 200,000x
You say that you’re not convinced by the evidence against it… then I ask.
What’s the evidence for it? There are MULTIPLE sources that clearly outline why it could not have ever happened. There are historical recordings from other cultures of the time frame in which it would have happened that do not mention it. This, alone, is insurmountable evidence. If that does not convince you that it never happened… then what is your evidence that it DID?
If your evidence is the Bible, then I’m afraid that I’m done reading anything you ever post here again. If that is the sole source of your evidence, then you really have no clear understanding of what “evidence” really is.
You can call the Bible a factual recounting of real events all you want. You can call it that until you’re blue in the face, and you can believe that with the whole of your being. That does not, however, make it so. And for as long as you continue to believe this, in spite of constantly mounting evidence to the contrary, then there’s no point in reading anything else you have to say.
If the Bible is what’s being disputed, then you cannot reference the Bible as evidence for itself. You have to look beyond it, and prove what it says with other sources. The evidence against the Flood, against most anything in the Bible, is mounting. While the “evidence” -for- the Bible is being made up, lied about, and embellished.
Anyone can make a claim about something, but to continue to make that claim even after it has been proven wrong is intellectually dishonest at best. This is a practice that most all creationists are guilty of. Refusal to accept the clear errors and faults of the Bible does not make it true, it makes you wrong. And for as long as you continue to make these false arguments, you will continue to be wrong.
Actually, it’s kind of an understatement that evidence against the flood is mounting. It’s mounted. You can safely declare it ridiculous. It can’t have happened.
You are assuming creationists actually care for evidence. We all know this to not be the case. What they want is confirmation, whether or not it is based on reasonable evidence.
And so, they will use almost any source uncritically, no matter how tenuous, as long as it says what they want to hear (Answers in Genesis, anyone?). Or they’ll simply make stuff up (Answers in Genesis, anyone?). And, hey, we know the Bible is absolutely true, so this also means there’s absolutely no problem in using it to prove itself.
Source criticism is the last thing creationists care for. Because their faith simply must be confirmed, no matter how much wishful thinking, tortured logic, and willful ignorance this requires.
Sock, how dare you not believe in that global flood that has been proven to not have occurred!
I do love Tim Minchin :-)
Well, this is something to consider (I don’t play the piano but it’s always nice to know you have a spare leg in the closet, and I could certainly use a wife), but I think I prefer to take the 1million Randi challenge.
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/the-case-for-christ.htm
Read Proverbs Chapter 3:5,6: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight.” This is a promise of guidance. God will direct our paths if we fulfil the conditions. What are the conditions?
http://sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=21152&forum=34&0
The bible tells you to believe the bible. Very convincing to people who do not already assume the bible is true.
Tried it. No guidance provided. Epic fail. If I’d continued to wait for guidance that wasn’t appearing I would be completely immobile by now. I nearly was.
Incidentally, I find the reference in that link about the correct place for a wife being in the home, and a woman being out of order for being the head of a home, both completely impractical (I’m a single woman, how would that work???!!!) and rather offensive.
To be fair, that part isn’t meant to be taken literally. It’s a metaphor for the relationship between Reason and the Holy Spirit. Reason should know her place: staying in the house, doing everything she can to please the Holy Spirit, accepting that sometimes He needs to stay late at the office with His beautiful young secretary, Superstition, and understanding that no matter what happens, He only hurts her because He loves her, and anyway she wouldn’t last a second without Him.
LOL! I might have to try that on a few people, just to stir them up a bit.
Lol. Way to quote the bible as a last resort, in the dim realisation of having NO evidence for anything. Well done!
Oh yeah, read your chosen mythology! Hahahahahaha!
You talk but don’t listen, huh? People on this site – even people who created the site, ha! – have read it, and probably know it better than you!
It’s #13 all over again! Some promise! If god existed, he broke it. But your chosen mythology isn’t believable, verifiable, and therefore not a promise — regardless of whatever the hell you meant by it!
Read what dr.R. is telling you: “Trust in dr.R. with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight.” This is a promise of guidance. Dr.R will direct your paths if you fulfil the conditions. What are the conditions? You only have to listen to him!
And this is what dr.R. is telling you:
Grow up.
dwade:
Here is a reply to your “fresh dinosaur bones” claim by someone who researched the matter very thoroughly (scroll down three or four pages).
It appears Answers in Genesis are lying through their teeth. What a surprise.
Unfortunately I expect that this will just be ignored. The typically scenario is:
Alice: What about this?
Bob: No that’s wrong [shows evidence]
Alice: Ah yes but how about this?
Bob: Nope that’s wrong as well [shows evidence]
Alice: erm yeh well, but what about this?
Bob: Can’t say I know the answer to that.
Alice: See I was right my god did it!
Bob: Oh and that evidence you said you where going to post for your god.
Alice: I’m a bit busy at the moment but I’ll post it tomorrow.
You’re probably right. I suspect dwade will continue to use Answers in Genesis as a source, despite this obvious example of AiG being blatant liars.
But just in case he decides to respond:
dwade, what do you think it says about the credibility of a source when it’s caught red-handed lying and distorting? Do you still think AiG is an excellent source? And what do you think it says about the general credibility of AiG’s claims about a young earth when they must resort to lies to defend those claims?
Hence the reason that I look up his “sources” in pubmed and find nothing:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
If you go to pubmed and type in evolution or dinosaurs, THOUSANDS of articles will pop up. But if you type in the authors or journals that he suggests NOTHING pops up.
Also, talk origins dot com compiles the scientific literature on things from geology to genetics and it CITES its sources in a way that you can click on the pubmed links and see the actual abstract or article in the scientific literature.
Surprise, surprise.
But I find it hard to believe you actually spent time on that. Let’s face it, the scientific evidence is overwhelming, the “evidence” put forward by creationists is always crap, and still people like Dwade come up with always the same crappy arguments. I think they will keep on denying until the end of times
You’re not being very open minded there — just because AIG interpret the data from a different world view point doesn’t mean they are wrong and a bunch of liars who are trying to confirm their own ideas with no regard for intellectual honesty.
On the one hand we have massives of evidence and on the other a literal reading of the Bible. It’s very closed minded of you not to realise that both of these stand points are equally valid although when I say valid I mean the Bible is right and you are wrong.
Yes, that’s usually what it means in practice when creationists talk about considering all the evidence. It means: “I refuse to consider your evidence, and I blindly accept my own evidence, no questions asked.”
It’s one of my real annoyances — yep you can believe in the Bible or any other holy text but don’t try and show that the belief is anything more than faith.
Other annoyances; using ‘science’ to disprove current theories but then saying none of this counts when applied to god as he exists outside of time and space; making the even larger leap of faith from there is a creator to that creator is the one described in my holy text; anything that Ray Comfort says.
Daniel,
I am real impressed with your loyal following. It’s like a swarm of mad bees protecting the precious queen bee in the hive.
Someday maybe you can lead these guys back to the truth of God’s word!
And this message is for everyone….when you finally get to your lowest point in life, and you have exhausted all of your personal pride…Remember the postings of the Christians on this site…
done.
In other words, when you have nowhere to turn and will try anything, try Jesus! And what do you know, you actually get better from your lowest point. Who would have thought?
Of course, it works for anything else too…
Actually, what I think he’s saying is, “I’m really ticked off that I haven’t been able to convincingly refute ANY of the challenges to my superstitious woobabble; therefore, instead of saying, ‘I’ll Pray For You,’ I’ll merely hope that you all become destitute junkies giving handjobs for smack…then you’ll have no choice but to believe in my Imaginary Sky Friend! Then I shall laugh–but I shan’t, for I am filled with Christ’s love! Or some such…”
Exactly! If you’re at your “lowest” point, everything is “up”, or better than it was. For anybody, no matter what they believe and don’t believe, because their belief is irrelevant!
If the culture around you convinces you that their goddidit, and you buy it, your circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular….
Hahahahahahaha!
When I finally get to my lowest point in life, and have exhausted all of my personal pride I’m going to turn to Zeus. I like his beard better.
1. Nobody here is doing anything to protect Daniel. What they are doing is refuting your crappy arguments.
2. Been there on the “lowest point ask jesus for help” scenario. Turns out he doesn’t answer those prayers either. (In fairness it’s tough for the non-existent to answer prayers.)
3. Do you have any clue how condescending this post was?
Oh, I’m sure he knows exactly how condescending he was being. I read that as the frustration of a godbot who knows he’s been bested and cannot offer anything more than a snotty, Jesusy “fuck you.”
“Loyal following”? Because I spent five minutes googling for a refutation to your creationist claims? Believe me, it wasn’t that hard. And so, because your nonsense is thoroughly debunked you suddenly portray us as rabid members of some atheist brotherhood? Your failure to state your case is supposed to make us look bad? We show AiG to be deceptive frauds and you take offense with us? That’s weak, man.
I’ll let you in on a secret, dwade. The thing about creationists is that they have no sense of source criticism, which also means they’ll happily repeat verbatim any old nonsense which has been debunked plenty of times in the past. All one has to do is take a characteristic sentence from the nonsense a creationist writes, google it, and in a few minutes one can find both the original source and the counter-arguments that destroy it. It is usually extremely easy.
If you had any interest in honest research you could do this yourself, and you’d find tons of sites that debunk everything your precious AiG spews out. But I know you won’t. You have blind faith.
TRJ,
I might attempt to prove AIG to be lying, but I know many of the people involved in this organization and they are reputable, honest people. Again, I know them personally so your claims of them presenting falsehoods is a lie.
and faith is only blind faith to those that don’t seek Him with a sincere heart.
No, “blind faith” means faith without doubt or question.
“I have met them, they seem honest and reputable, I might attempt to prove what they say is not true, but who needs facts when you’ve got feelings.”
AiG is not out to find absolute truth, they are out to find relative truth. It’s in their mission statement. It’s not a secret.
Their conclusion is that the Bible is fact, and they seek premises to support this conclusion, and ignore premises that contradict it.
It is generally considered irrational to start with a conclusion instead of premises.
Oh, give it a rest. Now you’re just being tiresome and petulant.
You mean remember *these* kinds of utterly predictable postings form “loving” christians?
“You are in for such a big surprise/nasty shock when you die. We have to give up the good stuff in this life, but we’ll get ours (the good stuff) when we die. You bad atheists get the good stuff now, but you will get YOURS (the really really bad stuff) when you die. And it will be FOREVER! And you will finally see I’m right when you get yours, and I will finally have my revenge and you will finally have your comeuppance, bwaaaaahhaaahaahahaha….”
You mean that? Heard it before – a dozen times. Is that why you just say to “remember” it? Cuz it’s been blathered before?
Falsehood. You fail!
Not like christians acting as god’s self-appointed defense attorneys jumping in with noticeable desperation to defend their created god and their mythologies and bumper-sticker quality calls-to-faith and sayings, though, huh?
No offense dwade, but you don’t know me at all. I have been to some very very low points in my life and there was no Jesus there to pick me up. You know who was there? ME.
LRA, you’re the kind of person that inspires me to be a good person, and reminds me why I do what I do. If only there were more people that thought like you. I know it seems obsurd for a Christian to say that about someone who just said Jesus wasn’t there for them, but if you knew where I’m coming from (don’t know how to explain it), It would make a lot of sense.
Thank you, Niva!
:)
I assure you, He was there
I assure you, he wasn’t there.
(Just saying that doesn’t count for much, does it? Because there’s no evidence, so you’re just giving us your opinion which of course would be that he was there.)
That sounds like a #1
Yeah LRA – dwade assures you jesus was there. Despite not having been “there” to see whether jesus was or wasn’t there for you, dwade knows for a fact he was there. Why can’t you see that? Why assume your actual eaxperiences are a better indicator of whether jesus was or wasn’t there? Just listen to dwade. Like the magic eighy ball he knows all.
Of course, if he was there, it’s also possible he just ignored you. Which doesn’t really make him the bestest savior ever.
Dwade,
I am real impressed with your inability to argue for your god. It’s like you’re one of the swarm of mad bees protecting the precious unicorn-santaclause-imaginary friend.
Someday maybe you can think for yourself and realize that your beliefs are completely false!
And this message is for everyone… when you’re on your deathbed praying for your god to keep you here, you’ll realize that he really isn’t there, and you’ll remember the postings of the non-believers on this site…
done.
Hey dwade,
Maybe you should give up all your worldly goods, stand on a street corner, and preach this ‘god’s word’ you like so much. If it’s THAT important to you, I’m sure you’ll be on the next bus to a popular street corner with a Radio Shack megaphone.
There’s no reason for you to do ANYTHING but preach your god’s word. In fact, you may just buy yourself into heaven!
If you’re worried about food and water. Worry not! Your god will provide! Says so in your book!
I thought thats what I was doing, only Daniels site reaches more than I could with a Radio Shack megaphone.
Heaven was already purchased for both of us.
take care.
I was skimming the comments here and had to go back and read the whole thing. I just love watching a troll get handed his ass on a platter.
The only problem is that he will have ignored everything that has been presented to him as somehow wrong. This is always what makes me laugh about the creationist movement — they continually bang on about how they want both sides of the argument to be heard when a) they actually only want the side of the argument to be heard and b) there argument consists solely of trying to muddy the waters and then claiming goddidit.
Conversations between the skeptic and the Christ follower:
Skeptic: “God does not exist until you prove it to me”
Christ Follower: “God does exist, let Him prove it to you”
1. THE ART OF ARGUING WITH CHRIST FOLLOWER (I)
(1) Some smart guy told me God doesn’t exist
(2) I’ve examined the proof that God doesn’t exist
(3) I sited all these references by men that don’t want to believe God exists
(3) I won the argument by tearing down a Christ-followers character and called them “stupid” and all my blog friends laughed at my post
Therefore God doesn’t exist
“I won the argument by tearing down a Christ-followers character and called them “stupid” …”
Nope the ‘evidence’ that you presented was shown to be false …
Wow. Still a blockhead.
You can stop invoking your imagined martyrdom as evidence for your cause now.
We don’t claim to have proven God’s non-existence. We claim that your arguments are false, and we show them to be so. We’ve given evidence for your personal YEC-flavored God to be a ridiculous concept, but one can always hope that God, should he exist, is considerably less ridiculous than what you personally want him to be.
dwade:
While I’m at it I might as well repeat my question to you:
What do you think it says about the general credibility of AiG’s claims about a young earth when they must resort to lies to defend those claims? Doesn’t that bother you just a teensy weensy bit?
C’mon, trj; lying for Jesus is AWESOME! ;)
Do you think the people who write AiG know that every time you lie, Jesus kills a kitten?
trj:
It would if I believed they were lying.
Everyone lies though (quoting House)
Something every human being is guilty of:
All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.
Paul Simon
“It would if I believed they were lying”
Please explain the basis for your belief that they are not lying.
Oh right, of course. It was probably accidental that:
- none of AiG’s sources turn out to support the claims of fresh dinosaur bones
- two of the sources directly contradict it
- one of the claimed sources never brought the story
Yeah, probably just an honest mistake. Never meant to deceive at all.
Seriously, like Bill, I’d like to hear how you think they were not lying their asses off.
and on men’s anti-God theory and human reasoning:
Each day a few more lies eat into the seed with which we are born, little institutional lies from the print of newspapers, the shock waves of television, and the sentimental cheats of the movie screen.
Norman Mailer
Don’t lie if you don’t have to.
Leo Szilard
They don’t have to.
The lie you can tell most convincingly is the one you believe to be true.
Yeahh!! What rodney said!
That’s it?! That’s your defense of AIG?
Ok – How do you know they don’t have to?
That and he knows the people at AiG *personally*–that totally vouches for how trustworthy and sciency their information is.
@Bill
Nothing I can say here can convince you, I am sure.
But to attempt to answer your question of how do I know?:
It is my understanding at this time that the AIG folks have thousands of financial backers, they answer to an executive board, they are well respected in the areas of theology, geology, biology, and creation studies.They also have a legal department that they are accountable to. And, They are debt free.
How could an organization with their reputation and size have grown this big and acquire this amount of prestige by being deceitful….AIG is considered experts on the subject of creationism and they obviously do their homework. As you can tell by their website.
(argument here)
I believe the “rub” here from the skeptics is that AIG is finally addressing these issues from a Christian perspective and the skeptics don’t like it. Evolutionists are probably losing money because of it.
(even bigger argument here)
This is my understanding. Not speaking for them. For what it’s worth, I do enjoy the conversations with everyone on this site. I only wish the conversations didn’t get so out of hand.
take care and peace.
“AIG is considered experts on the subject of creationism and they obviously do their homework.”
So even though you have been given clear evidence that they are intellectually dishonest you choose to ignore that fact? The rub here is the AIG is not based on science at all but instead starts from the answer of goddidit and then mis-represents information to show that to be a ‘fact’ and plays to the ignorance of its intended audience. I’m truly sorry that you completely fail to see the obvious truth about AIG’s purpose and it’s not science.
Please answer how AiG were not lying in the specific case of “fresh” dinosaur bones.
They’re not lying they’re viewing the evidence with a Christian perspective which as far as I can tell means just making stuff up.
They do when the scientific evidence disproves everything they claim to be “true.”
You know, plenty of WOMEN have “anti-God” (ie: theories that go against your ‘omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, highly improbable, impossible-to-prove-because-there-is-too-ambiguous-a-definition being theory) theories, too. Oh, but they don’t count, do they.
You’re a sexist, bigoted, irrational piece of evolution. Deal with it and get off this site if you don’t like what you read. No one’s forcing you to stay.
LOL I’m really drunk right now but I can still type. Whoooooooooohoo.
That should read “impossible to DISprove” btw =[ stupid butterscotch schnapps + Pepsi. What a weird mix.
Ewwww :(