Game Maker's Garage Forum
Game Maker's Garage => Trash Talk => Topic started by: Gan on April 24, 2011, 07:27:58 PM
-
First I gotta say:
We Didn't Start The Fire! (http://yeli.us/Flash/Fire.html)
In a brief moment I had the chance to use Doctor Who's Tardis to go back through time and retrieve a partial of the Religion Vs Science thread!
Unfortunately I was a little off and managed to get just the beginning of it. I wanted try again to get the whole thing but then the Daleks started attacking. Doctor Who needed his Tardis back to, you know, save the universe. Sorry guys.
(Click To Enlarge)
(http://cl.ly/3R2K1R2t0q1z1i1Y272L/Back_in_Time_Religion_Vs_Science_small.png) (http://cl.ly/270W0P473N0k350f0F0o/Back_in_Time_Religion_Vs_Science.png)
(Bahaha. I actually retrieved this by going to my home folder->Library->Cache->apple.com.safari->Web Previews and then some searching to find the right image. Turns out Safari saves nearly all sites you go to. So heh, might want to be careful next time you're being sneaky.)
-
Aw man you cut off my post!
-
Oh boy, another religious debate, as if it hasn't happened on the internet before. Ever. Another internet debate where religious people preach with wide eyes and alienate me to the point that I want to hang myself and where rational, sensible people turn into frustrated stressed out monsters who go to bed so wound up they chew the mattress just because they're filled with so much anger.
Yawn.
-
That was a very vivid and disturbing picture.
-
damn, my second post was the real follow up to silverwinds response, it was something like:
black and asian people? yea, but didnt we all came from noahs family?
doesnt the noahs ark story imply incest
why are there so many languages if we all came from one family
why did god leave the fate of all liveing creatures in the hands of a human?
why did god create dinosaurs before humans? was he just testing the waters? was it an accident? give me SOMEthing! but you cant cause the bible was written during a time before the existance of dinosaurs was known
why did god stop interacting with us?
-alpha-maleism amoung angels and god? why do angels have these flawed human behaviors? why would angels lust for power when theres no benefit of power in heaven sinse theres no such thing as luxury or material things, its not like any of them have to work for a liveing
-if lucifer was so jelous that god made earth, why didnt he just go make a better one, i mean what else has he got to do for the rest of eternity?
-how much is the discount do you get on games at toys r us?
-when you think of these ideals in literal terms, they make no sense. its like, how many good deeds can i do to get a freebee bad deed? what if i cured cancer, thats a pretty good deed, i could probly kill a few people and still make into heaven, silliness
the bible is filled with so many fairy-tale-like stories, i think only people with a very limited understanding of the world could believe it, and thats just my opinion, and i dont mean that in a derogatory way, i WANT to belive in an afterlife, but when you consider whats beyond our universe or even just our galaxy, and just how much civilization has evolved in the past 2000 years sinse jesus last "visited" us, the stories in the bible just dont add up. i wonder if religion will still be around in 100 years, cause i think civilization will evolve alot more in the next 100 years than it has in the past 2000 and people will be so naturally educated and smarter from all the accessible information that the bible will just be an out-of-date primitive understanding of existance and rules. oh i just realized, "rules", thats another reason for the bible and religeon. its a reason to behave during a time when society and government was so uncivilized and dangerous, that this threat of an afterlife in hell would force you to conform. and now the standard of living is so good for most people theres no reason to be angry commit crimes, plus government and law enforcement is much more efficent now, people dont need the threat of an invisible man watching them
what troubles me is that all our thoughts, feelings, culture, beliefs, and all that are just a bi-product of conciousness. and conciousness is just a bi-product of creatures that have more sophisticated biology than an amoeba. our purpose is the same as any other life form, to exist and multiply. but becuase we have more sophisticated tools such as hands, we need a more sophisticated mind to use them, and its as if self-awareness is just a side-effect of a sophisticated mind.
when you sleep and dont dream, where your conciousness is turned off, is that death? cause when my mind dies where will my conciousness go? will it cease to exist or frolic in the clouds with people that have wings and nice boobies..... which reminds me, will i still be atracted to female anatomy? cause some of those angels dress somewhat provocativly
sensible people turn into frustrated stressed out monsters who go to bed so wound up they chew the mattress just because they're filled with so much anger.
this isnt really a debate about religion, i believe in "god", this is more about the bible sounding like fiction. for this topic to work, we need silverwind to participate sinse he knows this stuff
silverwind, we await your response
-
I would like to preface this by saying is am very strongly against conventional religion on almost every level.
I still think there is an argument for A God if your definition is warped enough, although perhaps not in the way most would conceive of. You need to understand I use the term God very loosely. I mean by it some sort of higher intelligence. Not a power or "being". Just another level of intellect. Let me explain. We know that the human brain is made of billions of neurons, none of which are touching. They are separate, yet communicating. Furthermore there are many regions of the brain that process specific groups of things; for example the precentral gyrus is known for motor initiation and is thus the primary motor cortex, the post central gyrus is the primary sensory cortex and has a somatic map, Broca's area is important for hand gestures and motor control in speech - etc. The point is this; the brain has many disparate functions, but where does it all come together? At what place does it become consciousness, the fundamental "I"? The best answer modern Neuroscience has been able to come up with may not please you, it is that the mere processing of data as a unit, gives rise to the experience of a conscience, and the idea of the ego, the me, whatever you want to call it. Simply put, the facets create the whole without need of a singularity or convergence point. Given this assumption think on this: if all our brains are separate and are processing "as a whole" the same reality (which minor Einsteinian differences, but lets ignore these as they are inconsequential) does that mean that our collective intelligence would give rise to a higher conscience? Are we collectively all a "God"? Personally I think there would be nothing more fitting than this. The universe created us from star-stuff, intricate patterns built up over time, through chance and oppertunity and error we came to be. And now, in the very act of arguing the existence of a God, in trying to validate out own ephemeral and entirely unprovable existence we create "God". Not a benevolent creator, nor a wicked dictator, but instead whatever we are, our collective thoughts and dreams.
Perhaps we are the raw material that evolved to form this higher consciousness. Much like our own cells - maybe - if they could think they might think they are an individual in a great community, when really they are only the units that make up our existence. First there was mere RNA, the beginning of a great tree of evolution. Then came cells that housed the newly altered form of RNA known as DNA. Then these cells made up organisms, and now perhaps organisms make up something else. Why can't these millions of years of evolution not progress towards another level of intelligence? Of course I don't actually believe any of this, and I certainly wouldn't waste my time trying to prove it, I am just trying to make people think. Its more of a verbose and bombastic troll (I can't think of a better word) than anything else. Still, its a nice thought.
I have, however, strayed away from science, and into half supported speculation. But if that is not the fuel of Philosophy, I don't know what is.
-
There's too much focus on some specific event and the requirement that you must believe in this event in order to not go to Hell.
Assuming there's a God (and I have no concrete evidence either way - this is called agnosticism) - and there's a Heaven and Hell and all of that, you know - what I hold in my heart is to ultimately do the right thing, yes I've sinned, and I'll inevitably sin again, by various definitions - and geez, I'm sorry about that.
If that's not enough - damn, that sucks. I'd like to think God's a little more understanding than some black and white definition. A murderer goes to Heaven and someone who lived by a simple but honorable creed - do the right thing - they go to Hell?
There's really no argument you could make to budge me from this belief so don't bother. It's just an idea that I've put forth.
-
The Bible is a story, and somethings in there are just that. Stories. But that is not to discredit it. It is to stop fixating crucially on the details of a story passed down a hundred times, before being written down. and believing that to be the word of God. It's not. It's just an outline to be interpreted. It may sound stupid but I learned that from Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. Everyone's game isn't supposed to be the same following concrete rules. It is supposed to be a flexible outline with a lot of extra stuff only a few people (extremists) actually believe is law. But it's not. It is just an idea for you to seriously consider, and interoperate differently than even your best friend. Religion isn't law. It's spirit
-
Those are some bold words.
Got anything to back it up?
-
Those are some bold words. Got anything to back it up?
uh-oooohhhh, gan the flamer is flameing it up!
-
Those are some bold words.
Got anything to back it up?
Got anything to refute it?
-
Got anything to refute it?
Yeah, just a whole buncha historical references, the Bible itself, archeological facts, and some random arguments against the darwinian theory. Ah, also don't forget cliff notes.
The Bible is a story
A story can be either true or fictitious. The bible contains many first hand accounts recorded by scribes.
It is to stop fixating crucially on the details of a story passed down a hundred times, before being written down. and believing that to be the word of God.
Something you must know, the new testament of the Bible was recorded while it was happening. No word of mouth passing. These guys, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and many more witnessed stuff and wrote it down.
The old testament is a bit different, it's before Jesus. It was written by prophets describing historical events, God's word, and prophecies to happen. In fact, in the old testament they wrote about Christ and the prophecies he would fulfill. They recorded hundreds prophecies. Hundreds of prophecies have come true. Especially about Jesus.
and believing that to be the word of God. It's not. It's just an outline to be interpreted.
The Bible is a history book. A history book that outlines in detail how to get to heaven. It's not easy to interpret differently cause it's pretty specific. It states that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. Fairly straightforward. No complex pray 7 times a day and sacrifice to Mecca.
Then there's the 10 commandments, those don't leave room to interpret either.
In fact now that I think of it, there was no word of mouth passing down. Every book was written by a certain scribe. In fact one such man named Paul wrote the book of Phillipians whilst in a roman prison.
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. Everyone's game isn't supposed to be the same following concrete rules.
I suppose the same goes for our country's laws? Ya know, killing's illegal for you but hey, I only follow some of the rules and that's not one of them.
It is supposed to be a flexible outline with a lot of extra stuff only a few people (extremists) actually believe is law.
It is? Did you write it? Cause I'm pretty sure in the Bible it states that:
John 14:6
"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
I don't see much flexibility.
interoperate differently than even your best friend.
That is, if you and your best friend even read it.
Religion isn't law. It's spirit
Ahh.... what?
-
some random arguments against the darwinian theory
Wait, I know I wasn't gonna participate but... really?
-
Yeah, really.
-
Gan I mean no offence, but you started by saying "Yeah, just a whole buncha historical references, the Bible itself, archeological facts, and some random arguments against the darwinian theory. Ah, also don't forget cliff notes." And then just made a whole lot of claims plus your own opinions with nothing to lend any credence to your words. I expected better from you, and I can't take anything you say seriously if you are going to present an argument like that.
The same goes for Kurt when he said:
"The Bible is a story, and somethings in there are just that. Stories. But that is not to discredit it. It is to stop fixating crucially on the details of a story passed down a hundred times, before being written down. and believing that to be the word of God. It's not."
After that its purely opinion, which needs no references I guess, and is perfect OK in my opinion.
Also I would love to see you try and refute the theory of evolution. While your at it, may as well try and refute theory of gravity, the theory of relativity and the theory of thermodynamics.
-
y u no english?
Religion is undoubtedly the root cause of almost all human conflict. There are an abundance of flaws and contradictions in the text itself, and I understand how religion and spirituality may enhance the quality of life for some, but ultimately I've chosen science, as I can perceive and witness the physical over the mental. It's simpler to relate, understand, and exist - while religion struggles to form bonds between all those things.
I like the idea of a higher being, but have no proper evidence to confirm. Some may say 'The Bible', but what is the bible anyway? Words with meaning, on the pages of any hundreds of millions of copies. It's commonplace. It only holds semiotic meaning (meaning signified cultural value).
It's a tough debate, and I'll admit there are solid points for each side. 8)
-
Gan I mean no offence, but you started by saying "Yeah, just a whole buncha historical references, the Bible itself, archeological facts, and some random arguments against the darwinian theory. Ah, also don't forget cliff notes." And then just made a whole lot of claims plus your own opinions with nothing to lend any credence to your words. I expected better from you, and I can't take anything you say seriously if you are going to present an argument like that.
I know. ;D It was really late last night and I had an assignment to do. I think I'll dig up some sources and cite them properly.
Also I would love to see you try and refute the theory of evolution. While your at it, may as well try and refute theory of gravity, the theory of relativity and the theory of thermodynamics.
Evolution? Easy as pie. Gravity? Nearly 3 times harder. 9.81...
I actually read a scientific article against gravity, crazy eh? What's nice is that the effects of gravity are easy to witness. While evolution, eh... Maybe micro but not macro.
For the theory of relativity, could you specify? Talking about how light travels relative to an object or the idea that everything is a matter of perspective with no truths?
Religion is undoubtedly the root cause of almost all human conflict.
Root? No. Maybe a branch of it, but not the root. The root of human conflict is the lust for power and people will use religion for their own gain. Though there are some disturbing religions out there. Some requiring you to sacrifice children, others involving self mutilation, promoting drug use, and even calling people to kill infidels.
There are an abundance of flaws and contradictions in the text itself
Specifically the Bible? Where?
but ultimately I've chosen science, as I can perceive and witness the physical over the mental. It's simpler to relate, understand, and exist - while religion struggles to form bonds between all those things.
Depends on the religion.
I like the idea of a higher being, but have no proper evidence to confirm. Some may say 'The Bible', but what is the bible anyway? Words with meaning, on the pages of any hundreds of millions of copies. It's commonplace. It only holds semiotic meaning (meaning signified cultural value).
Evidence can only be found through observation. The Bible provides plenty of evidence which I'll have to cite in an upcoming post. Then again, if you really think about it and get all down and dirty in logic you can say that it makes sense that an intelligent being made everything. (I'll probably have to further expand on this)
I'm gonna post again a bit later. I'll try my best to answer Eq's previous questions and what you guys have to say. In fact I'll work on citing my sources.
-
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
This is the bible translated into lolspeak. Man I want this book.
-
Evolution? Easy as pie. Gravity? Nearly 3 times harder. 9.81...
I actually read a scientific article against gravity, crazy eh? What's nice is that the effects of gravity are easy to witness. While evolution, eh... Maybe micro but not macro.
For the theory of relativity, could you specify? Talking about how light travels relative to an object or the idea that everything is a matter of perspective with no truths?
That wasn't an argument against gravity. It was an argument suggestion gravity is like centrifugal force - theres technically no such thing. Someone suggested that gravity is a like a 3D warp in the fabric of space, much like a pit is a warp in the fabric of 2D space. Since we much cling to the surface of 3D space, it is easier to go with gravity than against, and hence it has its effect - we always follow the path of least resistance.
By the theory of relativity I mean the whole theory. The fact that light moves relative to the beholder is one small part of it. The most important part is that space and time (spacetime as it was coined by Einstein) are relative and any movement through space diverts our movement through time, and most importantly nothing can move through either space or time at a speed greater than that of light.
No example of macroevolution? The human biology department at my university alone has hundreds. Here are a few of the more notable ones I could find photographed and explained on the internet:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
Also if you are going to buy into creationism how do you explain the abundance of fossils found? Also how do you explain that every dating technique in existence points to the Earth being older than a few thousand years? How do you explain the geological layers built up over time that very accurately coincide with the numbers given by ALL of these dating techniques? How do you explain the hundreds of thousands of comet craters on the Earth and moon, considering no big onces have hit in living memory (the last few thousand years). Are you going to say that God created it like that? If so why? To refute claims of his own existence? Because that would make little sense. If God had the power to create the Universe, why does he not have the power too stop world hunger or poverty? Or better yet why doesn't he just wipe humanity from the face of the Earth, for if all creatures are God's creatures we are surely a virus infecting and destroying his ecosystem at an amazing rate.
-
What's nice is that the effects of gravity are easy to witness. While evolution, eh... Maybe micro but not macro.
Yes, evolution has been observed at the micro level. What happens at the micro level eventually contributes to the macro level (i.e. many small changes over time are large changes). That is to say, micro- and macro-evolution are not mutually exclusive. I actually specialized in macroevolution and phylogenetics, and both sympatric (Barluenga et al 2006) and allopatric speciation (Darwin's finches, also Dodd 1989) have been well documented in nature through many scientific papers. This, combined with what we observe on the molecular level is irrefutable evidence that yes, speciation does occur.
-
(http://www.thewhitbyguide.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/whitby-fossil-2.jpg)
Look closely. It's a fossil. Once a proud living creature many millions of years ago. According to creationists, this poor thing - all the BILLIONS of these poor things - was placed on the earth by Satan to try and trick us. I don't know about you, but that's an awful lot of pressure to put on a dead ammonite who only cares about eating plankton.
-
Pfft. It's an old cinnominn roll. Who cares.
-
According to creationists, this poor thing - all the BILLIONS of these poor things - was placed on the earth by Satan to try and trick us.
I must admit I am biased on this matter, however. I believe creationism should be banned from public school curriculum.
-
That wasn't an argument against gravity. It was an argument suggestion gravity is like centrifugal force - theres technically no such thing. Someone suggested that gravity is a like a 3D warp in the fabric of space, much like a pit is a warp in the fabric of 2D space. Since we much cling to the surface of 3D space, it is easier to go with gravity than against, and hence it has its effect - we always follow the path of least resistance.
Found it:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/04/is-gravity-a-result-of-thermodynamics.ars
With the advent of quantum theory over the past 100 years, scientists have been able to develop an elegant mathematical framework capable of uniting three of the four fundamental forces that are thought to exist in the universe. The fourth, gravity, still remains the fly in the ointment, and has resisted unification to this point. Early last year, Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde published a manuscript to the arXiv that purports to explain why science cannot reconcile all four fundamental forces. According to him, it is simple: "gravity doesn’t exist."
Crazy, eh?
And.... I skimmed the rest of the article.
Pfft. It's an old cinnominn roll. Who cares.
That's funny. ;D
Anywho. I've noticed my time is limited, I'm gonna be spitting out answers in bits instead of a super humongerous post like I was planning.
-
Hey Gan that article says exactly what I said :p. Its not saying gravity doesn't exist, its just saying its not a force unto itself.
-
Religion isn't law. It's spirit
Those are some bold words.
-
You might want to quote Kurt's whole paragraph, that wasn't the only or main sentence I was referring to.
-
I am aware. Just thought I would go ahead and derail this thread.
-
Someone told me to check out this website the other day, and it seems extremely helpful: http://www.christianityexplored.org/
They've taken the time I don't have to offer biblical answers to some of the biggy questions concerning life, the universe and everything. Worth a look perhaps!
-
life, the universe and everything
42!
-
42!
I'm not sure you understand the question.
-
Someone told me to check out this website the other day, and it seems extremely helpful: http://www.christianityexplored.org/
They've taken the time I don't have to offer biblical answers to some of the biggy questions concerning life, the universe and everything. Worth a look perhaps!
Wow they have a lot of videos. Looks like I'm gonna have to check this out.
Thanks Silver.
-
Yeah, it explains it in the end of the second book. The question is "What do you get when you multiply 7 and 6"
-
With consideration to my tendency to lurk through here only every 3-6 months or so, would it be high treason of me to necro this thread? That is, if I were to throw in my two cents, would anyone be interested in engaging? For example, the burden of proof got batted around a little recklessly, and it's hard for me to resist the urge to comment.
As an aside (seriously, I don't want to derail), are you all too young to remember the old religious debates on the original AOL forums? Ironic, because I spent a lot of time arguing in favor of religion back then, which was probably the first catalyst for my eventual atheism (ie. I actually began thinking rationally about the beliefs I took for granted). Jazz might remember if he still floats around here at all. Long overdo kudos to Flair (who will surely never read this) for shutting everyone up once with his comprehensive break down of carbon dating. I just had too much pride to admit it back then. But I digress.
-
Mmmm carbon(Radiocarbon) dating.
Reference:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
It actually seems like an intelligent way of measuring how old a dead plant is. It has been proven, using objects from a few thousand years back. Proven indeed to be accurate. At least to a few thousand years.
Unable to be proven accurate past that cause we have lack of supporting documentation and written timeline to show the accurate time for an older object.
Main flaw in this: The assumption that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is predictable further back in time.
I'm sure something like a giant flood couldn't have skewed the number of c14 in the atmosphere at all.
-
Oh, good. I wasn't entirely sure where to start, and I was a little hesitant to dive in with a hodge-podge of quotes and my comments on them. So, Gan, I'll address you directly for now, and we'll see how this evolves (rimshot). For the purpose of clarity, I am an atheist. No god, no spirits, or to invoke my anime fu, there is no ghost in the shell. Do you have a central argument for god(s), or am I just up against pre-packaged creationism?
Now, if you're simply going to parrot someone else's anti-science arguments, then I may as well just park this link here to start with:
http://bit.ly/mQAkhM
Or more specific to your comments on carbon dating (just to save you some searching):
http://bit.ly/rijrTl
But that makes for a very dull debate.
It's a relief to see you cite Wikipedia, which I take to mean you consider it a reliable source, as that will make references a little simpler. Some people like to cherry pick information, and I hope you won't go on to disappoint me by moving the goal posts later.
One thing has me a little confused, however. Your own citation mentions in the first sentence that the dating method can "estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years." This is notably more substantial than, "a few thousand years." I hate to make a snide remark like, "did you actually read it," but... did you?
I don't mean to inundate you with too many points to counter, so one final question. Are any of your points meant to demonstrate any truth to your supernatural claims? To me, they wouldn't seem to.
-
http://bit.ly/mQAkhM
Whoa. That's crazy. Who in the right mind would ask those questions? Probably someone in the Westborro church... (there aren't really Christians)
http://bit.ly/rijrTl
Interesting. Doesn't refute my final comment.
Oh, good. I wasn't entirely sure where to start, and I was a little hesitant to dive in with a hodge-podge of quotes and my comments on them. So, Gan, I'll address you directly for now, and we'll see how this evolves (rimshot). For the purpose of clarity, I am an atheist. No god, no spirits, or to invoke my anime fu, there is no ghost in the shell. Do you have a central argument for god(s), or am I just up against pre-packaged creationism?
Mmmmm, interesting question. Getting right to the meat and potatoes.
It's a relief to see you cite Wikipedia, which I take to mean you consider it a reliable source, as that will make references a little simpler. Some people like to cherry pick information, and I hope you won't go on to disappoint me by moving the goal posts later.
Anyone can make a website and put data on it. Wikipedia just seems like a more respectable source.
One thing has me a little confused, however. Your own citation mentions in the first sentence that the dating method can "estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years." This is notably more substantial than, "a few thousand years." I hate to make a snide remark like, "did you actually read it," but... did you?
Ah! You caught me. Nope, I just posted the first link Google found.
Of course I read it and noticed that sentence. Only problem is it doesn't provide proof of dating reaching back that far. Only reliable dating is what we know to be true, backed by historical records.
I don't mean to inundate you with too many points to counter, so one final question. Are any of your points meant to demonstrate any truth to your supernatural claims? To me, they wouldn't seem to.
Truthfully I made only 1 claim.
The unreliable assumption that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is predictable further back in time.
Yup. This stuff ain't pre-packaged. It's home grown.
-
Interesting indeed, you take some very big bites in a debate. I'll see if I can oblige, and be aware that I integrate my links, but the color change doesn't pop very well.
Whoa. That's crazy. Who in the right mind would ask those questions? Probably someone in the Westborro church... (there aren't really Christians)
Was that a typo (http://bit.ly/xfHgv)? And the answer is apparently you, I hate to say, since many of the arguments you've casually alluded to in this thread are on that list (http://bit.ly/nrwCUI). Your comment suggests to me that you haven't spent much time looking over it, and I encourage you to do so.
Yup. This stuff ain't pre-packaged. It's home grown.
That might assert I've never heard these arguments before, which so far isn't the case (http://bit.ly/n4Q7iH). And I find that unfortunate. What you would appear to be referencing, at least in part, is called flood geology (http://bit.ly/I6qJJ).
Truthfully I made only 1 claim. The unreliable assumption that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is predictable further back in time.
Excellent! You've nobly taken on the burden of proof, and I'm excited to see your evidence. We can trade papers.
Only reliable dating is what we know to be true, backed by historical records.
And let's take a glance at those historical records (http://bit.ly/bsyvfL), if I understand your implication, because we certainly don't want to be guilty of selective scrutiny.
By what method do you suggest we corroborate historical reports so as to reach a reasonable consensus on "what we know to be true"?
Of course I read it and noticed that sentence. Only problem is it doesn't provide proof of dating reaching back that far.
This was the kind of referencing tit-for-tat I was hoping we could avoid. None the less, Wikipedia has this funny thing about citing references, and I suppose it may be easy to miss the little [1] link right after that sentence. While I can only help you along so far, within reason, for now I'm happy to provide that link (http://bit.ly/peoz8I).
And even if you'd like to overlook that, not only is carbon dating not the only radiometric method (and it's not, at all, the method used to determine estimates of millions and billions of years), but geological dating isn't the only significant factor in supporting the age of celestial bodies. Via light travel time (or lookback time) (http://bit.ly/prGDda), a beautiful starry night, or moreover the fact that there is one, demonstrates a universe much older than a mere few thousand years. The Andromeda galaxy is visible to the naked eye at a distance of 2.5 million light years (http://bit.ly/qibBhv), and the furthest galaxy visible from Earth (not to the naked eye) sits at about 13 billion (http://bit.ly/pQABFq). This is relevant because it begs the question that if the universe is that old, why would you resist measurements and evidence that suggest a very old Earth as well? It would seem arbitrary to suggest flaws in the method on the sole premise of ancient hearsay. Again, by what method would you suggest we corroborate any particular historical report so as to reach a reasonable consensus on, "what we know to be true"? Various radiometric dating methods (such as rubidium-strontium (http://bit.ly/pn7llb) and K-Ar (http://bit.ly/gMDVKd)) are among the means to that end, and these methods continue to prove credible in the face of ongoing peer review and re-evaluation. Now if at every turn you have to overlook the science, then you're not engaging in scientific inquiry. You're simply choosing what to believe.
Given that, it wouldn't seem inaccurate to suggest that you may not be prepared to accept evidence when it's there. I won't leave that up to implication, so I'll give an example of what I mean. Let's say I claim that the Ninja Turtles really do live in the sewers of New York. When we don't find them, no problem. They're ninjas, after all, and they don't want to be found. What if you just bombed the sewers? That's an unlikely hypothetical, but you would probably kill the Ninja Turtles. What if you thoroughly dug through all the rubble and didn't find any bodies? That sounds like a tremendous undertaking, but they must have survived and/or escaped. What a relief! What if beforehand, you guarded all the exits with people and cameras and you could somehow prove that everyone was watching, and none of the cameras malfunctioned? I might not think that you could prove that entirely, but even if you could, again, they're ninjas, and that's what they do. I have successfully defined them into existence, therefore they must exist (http://bit.ly/lGsgX). At this point, you can't refute my claim that something like the Ninja Turtles could exist in the sewers of New York. Notice also the modifier I added, "something like the Ninja Turtles," so that if you find something that isn't exactly the Ninja Turtles, but mostly fits my definition of them, I can still say I was right (or at least rational) (http://bit.ly/iIzi).
Now obviously that's just basic intellectual dishonesty (http://bit.ly/nwTc3N).
-
Was that a typo?
Indeed it was. I was rushing my post as I was gonna be late for my morning class. I was 1 min early.
That might assert I've never heard these arguments before, which so far isn't the case. And I find that unfortunate. What you would appear to be referencing, at least in part, is called flood geology.
Hey, what can I say? A lot of smart people tend to think like me. With reason.
Excellent! You've nobly taken on the burden of proof, and I'm excited to see your evidence. We can trade papers.
Yes, I'd love to see your papers on the reliability of c14 predictability.
This was the kind of referencing tit-for-tat I was hoping we could avoid. None the less, Wikipedia has this funny thing about citing references, and I suppose it may be easy to miss the little [1] link right after that sentence. While I can only help you along so far, within reason, for now I'm happy to provide that link.
From what I see, nothing significant there...
And even if you'd like to overlook that, not only is carbon dating not the only radiometric method (and it's not, at all, the method used to determine estimates of millions and billions of years), but geological dating isn't the only significant factor in supporting the age of celestial bodies. Via light travel time (or lookback time), a beautiful starry night, or moreover the fact that there is one, demonstrates a universe much older than a mere few thousand years. The Andromeda galaxy is visible to the naked eye at a distance of 2.5 million light years, and the furthest galaxy visible from Earth (not to the naked eye) sits at about 13 billion. This is relevant because it begs the question that if the universe is that old, why would you resist measurements and evidence that suggest a very old Earth as well? It would seem arbitrary to suggest flaws in the method on the sole premise of ancient hearsay. Again, by what method would you suggest we corroborate any particular historical report so as to reach a reasonable consensus on, "what we know to be true"? Various radiometric dating methods (such as rubidium-strontium and K-Ar) are among the means to that end, and these methods continue to prove credible in the face of ongoing peer review and re-evaluation. Now if at every turn you have to overlook the science, then you're not engaging in scientific inquiry. You're simply choosing what to believe.
Aha! There we go. I like where you're heading.
Seems like you need to brush up on some of this "ancient hearsay".
In fact it even seems to align with what you're stated here!
According to the Bible, before the Earth was made it was a blob. Undefined mass.
Gen 1:1&2 - In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
How long was the earth without form and void? Billions of years? Trillions? Long enough to let a Universe expand for a while? Remember, this was before the 7 days.
Interesting facts. The Bible states the Earth is round. Before it was widely accepted and even proven.
Second thing, nothing in the Bible is hearsay. The whole New Testament is eye witness accounts written as it was happening. The old testament is a bunch of life stories, genealogies, songs(especially book of psalms) and historic records.
-
With reason.
Great! Name one.
-
Haha, should've continue reading my post. You would've found one. ;)
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SOv2Uc5TuMM/TeIKatX6-8I/AAAAAAAAAC4/2hsqPtriOWQ/s1600/napkin-religion-300x300.jpg)
I understand what you've chosen to believe. That's not a reason. The question is, why do you believe the napkin?
-
Haha, here I was debating on the reliability of carbon dating and you're just wanting to know why I believe what I believe. Silly me.
I believe cause it makes sense. The Bible is littered with historical references, all proven. It gives at least partial credibility. The multiple viewpoints such as John, Luke, and Matthew(eye witnesses) of Jesus. In fact many outside documents confirming the Bible. Jesus is real, just as much as Abe Lincoln.
Now comes the next part. Is Jesus who he says he is? If he is, can all he say be true? Is there a God with ultimate power that created and loves us?
The records of everything Jesus has done is literally in the thousands, possibly more. Many documents tell of numerous miracles. Things we can't even do now-a-days. Feeding thousands with a few pieces of bread and fish, healing with a touch, raising from the dead.
If there's so much evidence of everything he's done, can what he say possibly be true? Yeah.
Some of it's based on faith, other parts are just...
...well you just need to open your eyes.
-
Haha, here I was debating on the reliability of carbon dating and you're just wanting to know why I believe what I believe. Silly me.
Absolutely, I'm not sure where you got confused. You believe the consensus on carbon dating reliability is wrong, and you've done nothing to advance your argument beyond that statement. I get it, I hear your claim, and whatever demonstrated this to you, in the pursuit of truth, I'd like to see it as well. As it happens, you brought the Bible into it.
Let's make one thing clear. You haven't debated anything. In the face of extensive material, so far you've only demonstrated your unwillingness to engage. I'm not trying to squeeze blood from a turnip, so if you don't want to, I'm not trying to make you. We don't have to waste each other's time while you dance around the issues.
You've made claims and cited nothing to corroborate them. Likewise, in the face of corroborated evidence (my second post was littered with linked articles), you've simply shrugged them off with barely a comment. Many of those comments blatantly demonstrated you ignored the material almost entirely. Again, I can't make you read, and I'm not trying to, but a debate can't stand on one leg. I'm a very gracious debater, perhaps to a fault, and I won't ignore or dismissively gloss over any material you care to provide.
The records of everything Jesus has done is literally in the thousands, possibly more. Things we can't even do now-a-days. Feeding thousands with a few pieces of bread and fish, healing with a touch, raising from the dead.
That's fine for a starting point. List a few of those records. Obviously the Bible itself doesn't count, because a single account can't corroborate itself (naturally that extends to you, too). Give that napkin 2,000 years and it'll have the same credibility to its claim.
If there's so much evidence of everything he's done, can what he say possibly be true?
For some reason, you've presented no evidence whatsoever. I'm not saying you presented evidence that I reject or disagree with, you just simply haven't put anything on the table. And I'm eager to see it. Again, the Bible can't corroborate itself. That shouldn't be a problem, though, since you seem confidant so many other records exist. I've shared a great deal of material with you, so please, reciprocate and provide your own. For all the confidance you exert, I'm not sure why you would continue to dodge this point.
Some of it's based on faith, other parts are just...
...well you just need to open your eyes.
To what? Your subjective account? What objectively convinced you of these supposed truths, and are you willing to share that information with others? If you'd like to have an intellectual exchange, I'm still waiting to have it. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but up to now, you've only implied you're not interested. A more raucous debater might accuse you of being incapable, or just trolling, or that you're avoiding it because you don't actually have any material at all. I'd like to give you more credit than that.
It's especially puzzling to me personally, given that I used to debate extensively in your favor. I've heard the arguments before, and I've made my own. I'm not talking about the old GM board debates, those were a very, very long time ago. I used to argue for the rational suspicion of radio waves before their detectability, or the potential for an infinite spacial dimension that encompasses all lesser dimensions. That is an intellectual exercise. But "the Bible told me so" is just Sunday school.
I hope you're willing to put some effort into your position, as we could both learn a lot from this. In the mean time, have a good evening, and I'll check back soon.
-
Absolutely, I'm not sure where you got confused.
No sir, it wasn't me who was confused. This thread revival started with your comment of:
"shutting everyone up once with his comprehensive break down of carbon dating"
I've been on that subject this whole time while you just seemed... to want to do some Bible bashing.
As it happens, you brought the Bible into it.
Haha funny:
"For the purpose of clarity, I am an atheist. No god, no spirits, or to invoke my anime fu, there is no ghost in the shell. Do you have a central argument for god(s), or am I just up against pre-packaged creationism?
"
You brought creationism, Christianity, and the Bible into it. I merely suggested that a flood or possibly another nature disaster could alter the number of C-14 particles in the atmosphere.
You've made claims and cited nothing to corroborate them. Likewise, in the face of corroborated evidence (my second post was littered with linked articles), you've simply shrugged them off with barely a comment. Many of those comments blatantly demonstrated you ignored the material almost entirely. Again, I can't make you read, and I'm not trying to, but a debate can't stand on one leg. I'm a very gracious debater, perhaps to a fault, and I won't ignore or dismissively gloss over any material you care to provide.
I went through them, but unfortunately didn't see anything worthy of comment in relation to the original topic of this debate revival.
List a few of those records.
A few: http://www.garvandwane.com/religion/bible_supporting_documents.html
As well as the dead sea scrolls and even pieces of the Koran.
Give that napkin 2,000 years and it'll have the same credibility to its claim.
Give that napkin a few weeks and it'll be disintigrated, thrown away, rotting, ect. The napkin holds no truths, no eye witness accounts and no signficance.
It's a silly analogy that can't even begin to represent the object it's being compared to.
For some reason, you've presented no evidence whatsoever.
First check out the Bible. The best known evidence of all that Jesus had done. Then look at other supporting documents such as what's posted above. It'd be ignorant to claim the Bible as an unreliable historical resource. It'd suggest using one.
To what?
Open your eyes to all the possibilities. Don't just have those evolution shades on all the time.
Yeah it's a theory that attempts to explain where we came from(and fails to explain the origin of the universe) but that's it. It's a theory and way too many scientists close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears because that can be the only way. That somehow the universe existed all on it's own and through astronomically unlikely chances, life magically came together. From some goo. Specifically 11 enzymes that happened to be in the same place at the same time at perfect conditions that when mixed not only made soup but it made a complex creation that happened to be able to reproduce, eat, live and thrive. In which that single cell mutated and instead of dying out, mutated into multiple cells that spread across the planet adapting to the planet's conditions while the planet stabilized and eventually made all the creatures we have today.
In which the proof in favor of this theory is nil. Many assumptions mixed with circular reasoning and lack of observation. It's not science, science is ever changing and constantly objective. It's more of a cult.
But "the Bible told me so" is just Sunday school.
That's the first step. Don't have a blind eye to the Bible. You gotta read what it tells you so then challenge it.
That's the whole purpose. The Bible actually says to challenge it, take a different approach to this world, way the odds and ends.
Look at theories, observate, look at data but don't stop questioning. When you see something that contradicts that Bible, take a closer look both at it and the Bible.
For example, your comment on saying the universe was incredibly old due to the way light travels and such. You were using that to downplay the Bible, to prove it false. Unfortunately the first few sentences of the Bible destroyed that argument.
That's the problem, you gotta know it before you toss it.
-
It's apparent, then, why this thread died. I'm disappointed.
-
Yeah, unfortunate.
People refuse to be objective.
Then again this is the age old reason why debates get no where, just end in a heated mess.
There's an incredibly low chance of a debate changing someone's mind if they are blind to all but what they believe.
-
Obviously the Bible itself doesn't count, because a single account can't corroborate itself (naturally that extends to you, too).
wow you are a good debater ;)
anyways! The bible is not one reference its an anthology of 66 books. Therefor making it a viable resource. If you count Gan bible references, I'll assume he's given you 15 bible-only links that you "shrugged off" and "danced around"
^oh snap^ ^double snap^
http://bibleresources.bible.com/afacts.php
There is only one flaw to my previous rebuttal. How reliable, and noteworthy are the bibles books?
They've been checked multiple times. They only were added to the bible only if they were inspired by God, or the holy spirit, and coincided with the Torah, because those were put in the ark of the covenant by moses himself with the entire jewish race as his proof of validity. Since then They've been checked and re-checked by historians, who share you're views of it being invalid. There's even a show about it on either the discovery channel or the history channel. (Sadly I don't know what it's called so I can't cite that.) When archeologists checked the books of the bible they all found archeological evidence (third link.)
saying the bible isn't a viable resource is like we saying all scientists work is bogus, because we have no proof of their lab reports being accurate.
That is actually what happened with global warming. They released incomplete reports and everyone started flipping out. Until someone actually looked farther into it and found out it was just a shifting climate.
http://bible.org/article/how-many-books-are-bible
http://www.creatingfutures.net/validity.html
http://www.creatingfutures.net/archaelogical.html
-
Yeah, unfortunate.
People refuse to be objective.
Then again this is the age old reason why debates get no where, just end in a heated mess.
There's an incredibly low chance of a debate changing someone's mind if they are blind to all but what they believe.
that is a good point. And sadly it's true.
-
We had an awesome sermon a few weeks back on Christian rationality. Totally worth a listen if you have a spare 20 minutes: http://www.cliftonparish.org.uk/sermons/?sermon_id=129
-
People refuse to be objective.
Ayn Rand will tell you that Christianity is for communists.
I will be objective for you: facts are facts, proved by man's reasoning mind. I cannot reason with eyewitness accounts, that doesn't make any sense. I could tell you that tonight I saw a politician urinate on a flagpole - I could tell you which street he did it on, what time it was, what it meant for him to do so etc. Basically, going back to the napkin - if I were writing in the bible that it happened all those years ago, you'd be inclined to believe it actually happened - when really, I might have just been making it up.
However, I can reason with science. How would a lump of silicon become a microprocessor without the application of knowledge to make it happen? Where does that knowledge come from? Certainly not god. It comes from his or her own mind, from his or her own observations.
I'm still bewildered why anyone even gives credit to the idea that there might be scientific evidence that might back up the bible.
Example: fossils. Explain why they are here. The answer should be a simple "they died and were preserved in the rock by volcanoes billions of years ago"
-
I'm still bewildered why anyone even gives credit to the idea that there might be scientific evidence that might back up the bible.
Not scientific evidence. Historical evidence. It was in one of my previous points.The bible contains these stories yes, but there are also other sources that backup too. Saying the bible isn't reliable because its eyewitnesses is like saying History books aren't reliable because the Its mostly eyewitness. There may be other things like evidence in a newspaper, but the newspaper is as reliable as St. Peter's book.
P.S. I do agree though there is no scientific evidence to back up the bible, and the church agrees. With those sort of matters the 'devils advocate' (I'm not making this up) challenges miracles with science. If he can't find a way to prove it scientifically then its a miracle!
P.P.S. nice too see you after silence for so long
-
I cannot reason with eyewitness accounts, that doesn't make any sense.
Come now Tel, it's not that silly to believe in something someone claims to have seen, especially if they took the trouble to write a book about it and made every possible effort to tell people about it against fierce opposition and without the slightest personal gain. Many early church Christians died horrible deaths preaching the gospel. The risk (and frequent realisation) of death didn't stop them, so it's only reasonable to assume that they were a trustworthy bunch, as in they certainly believed the message they preached and thought it was worth preaching.
I'm still bewildered why anyone even gives credit to the idea that there might be scientific evidence that might back up the bible.
I'm afraid I know next to nothing about carbon dating whatnots and modern science flim-flam, as "scientific proof" is something I've yet to develop a longing for since becoming a Christian - I've always found it somewhat easy to rely in the accuracy and divine authority of the Bible. I would however entirely disagree with Kurt's opinion that there is no scientific proof to back up biblical claims; surely if something is true it can be proved, and things will reflect its truth.
Anyways, here are a few helpful links if you are seriously interested in whether there is a God or not, rather than just wanting to debate:
Logical argument for the existence of God (http://www.gotquestions.org/argument-existence-God.html)
Teleological argument for the existence of God (http://www.gotquestions.org/teleological-argument.html)
Moral argument for the existence of God (http://www.gotquestions.org/moral-argument.html)
Cosmological argument for the existence of God (http://www.gotquestions.org/cosmological-argument.html)
Transcendental argument for the existence of God (http://www.gotquestions.org/transcendental-argument.html)