|
|
Post by tragicmishap on May 27, 2007 10:48:33 GMT -5
Dont' blame me for the fact that there is no evidence for your religion being any more correct/real than any other religion. Ok sorry. I remembered you said this but unfortunately didn't look it up again. I remembered you saying that Christianity is no different than other religions, which is not precisely what you said. That would be my bad. |
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on May 27, 2007 11:09:35 GMT -5
You point out a way (claimed resurrection of christ) that christianity was different than other religions. Your point in doing that was what, exactly? I didn't deny that there were differences between christianity and other religions - that's why christianity is not the same as say islam or buddhism. That's common sense. Just because it's different and has a fantastic claim, doesn't mean that it has any credulity. You can't just jump to that conclusion. And I never did jump to that conclusion. I simply haven't responded yet to all your arguments because frankly I'm lazy. I see that the devil is in the details for you, as it should be for any scientist, so now it's time to buckle down and respond to your arguments properly. I'd appreciate it if you'd be patient with me in that. You've presented a lot of arguments so it will take some time. Yes in a way you could make that case. But the fact remains that it's fundamentally different from all other religions in that way. The "must" is replaced with "please" in Christianity. I personally am uncomfortable with that. I was speaking of other people who apparently like wearing jock straps to protect them from the fence  . There are many of them and there is a clear division within Christianity on that point. Most intelligent design theorists are some brand of theistic evolutionist. Fully half of them accept common descent and an old earth, maybe more. If you want an explanation on that point you will have to ask one of them. However it is worth pointing out that there are portions of the Bible that are clearly not literal. Jesus' parables for instance. No one believes they literally happened somewhere. That is clearly understood by the reader. He tells them to demonstrate a moral. Revelations and the superlative language used in other prophetic books are mostly metaphorical. Even those who say they interpret Revelations literally don't literally believe in a seven headed dragon with ten horns rising from the sea to chase a women all over creation. C.S. Lewis thought that the books of Job and Jonah are fictional stories intended to teach a moral lesson. I'm with him on the book of Job. I disagree with him about Jonah, which it's rare to find me disagreeing with Lewis . Lewis tread lightly on the subject of creation so I don't really know what he thinks about Genesis, but I'm with most creationists in that I believe Genesis was intended to be a literal, historical account of what happened. So it's back to the facts then. Fine. I'm perfectly comfortable with that, but I'm just a little lazy as I said before. *sigh* 1. I wasn't lecturing you. I asked you a question. You answered. Thank you. Now I know we will get nowhere with that line of thought. 2. I never appealed to experience. Some others did. You and I are like minds. We need to know by reason and evidence that what we believe is true. We are a rare breed and I have had to learn to live with people who aren't one of us. They aren't that bad once you get to know (experience) them . 3. Just because you can think up or even demonstrate a natural explanation never disproves supernatural action. For one thing, there is always the possibility that a supernatural agent was involved but made it look natural. You would probably say that you wouldn't want to worship an agent like that. Fine. Neither would I. But the point remains. When you start from the evidence, there is no guarantee that you will like what you find. My next post might be awhile, but I'm going to go back to the beginning of the thread and start responding to all your claims about facts and evidence. I'm going to have some free time here in the next few months so I should be able to do it. It might even be fun . Thanks for kicking me in the butt, fellow rationalist . |
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on May 28, 2007 21:57:41 GMT -5
Wow! The cat is out of the bag. The truth is on the table. This has got to be, by far, your best post yet Carnage. This says so much about what God is doing with you that it's not even funny. Now I know that there is hope for you. This is awesome dude! When God does come down and touch your corner of the world what an awesome witness you will be to people. You have studied science and looked over the 4 corners of the truth. I can't even express into words what a cool post this really is. I truly look forward to seeing you in heaven. I have no doubt in my mind that God has a plan for you after this last post of yours. Um, wtf? Dude, I wish I didn't have to royally tear you a new one like this, but your post left me no choice. FUCKING READ MY POSTS. If you did that, then you wouldn't embarrass yourself like you just did. I was giving a line of reasoning for the purely hypothetical case of a god actually existing. I guess you missed the memo when I proclaimed (over and over again) that there is no god. I was explaining to the others here that seemed to need me to give a hypothetical situation like that. There is no hope for you to convert me, ok? It's wasted effort on your part. I'm not sure why you don't comprehend this. Nothing you or anyone/anything else can say or do would make me believe in a god. In fact, the only "witness" I will be is a witness against god and christianity. I have no problem with going into a church and "spreading my lies" about science and evolution, and persuading people to turn against god. You might even say I'm truly a child of satan, now, and am fully committed to doing his work. Since you're still holding out hope (for some strange reason), let me for a moment make use of a bible passage, in the hopes that this familiar thing would make you really grasp the situation. First, note that not for a moment do I believe any of this to be true; but you believe it is, so I must cater to your beliefs. Now, there's a passage in the new testament where christ says that he who blasphemes the holy spirit is guilty of an unforgivable sin - i.e., he is condemned to hell no matter what. So, here goes: I, theBrokenCarnage, hereby blaspheme the holy spirit and willfully condemn myself to hell. I deny the existence of said holy spirit and hereby make a mockery of it and all it stands for. There, does that satisfy you? I am now, according to christianity, going to burn in hell forever, and there is no escape for me. Yays all around! (actually, that was quite fun) |
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on May 28, 2007 22:06:34 GMT -5
I see that the devil is in the details for you, as it should be for any scientist Actually, that's as it should be for any person, not just a scientist. It's just that scientists are more likely to actually look at the details and not just look for a big happy picture. So all of the commands in the bible are merely suggestions? I just have trouble with the fact that you can accept the book of Job as a fictional story but not the rest. Why can't more of it just be stories/embellishments? What logic do you use to classify Job as fiction and Jonah as reality (when Jonah is more likely to be fiction. Swallowed by a whale? Come on)? I know you weren't. I was just attempting to head off any lecture that may have come in a follow up post. This is true. But remember that these "others" are active in this post. And for some reason, I'm left to try to phrase every reply of mine to every person here, or else someone will take something out of context (see interzone's last post) If it has a natural explanation that is plausible, then why would a supernatural action be required? And if said supernatural action occurred, then why is there no evidence for it? I can't say that I'll be able to respond to everything like that. I for one dont' have that much free time anymore. For some of us that are non-students, the summer is just as busy as the rest of the year. |
|
|
|
Post by interzone on May 29, 2007 15:09:21 GMT -5
Dude! You so came up short from blaspheme of the Holy Spirit, that it's not even funny. The only people that can blaspheme the Holy Spirit, is people who have known the Spirit of God personally. The reason for this is because we cannot put God on the cross twice, and as far as me trying to convert you. That's even funnier bro... I already know it's not gonna be my words that convert you. Simply put, your life isn't over yet. And sense you can't see into time, you cannot see what is coming your way. This is one of my gifts bro... I have no doubt in my mind that before your life is over, you will have an unbelievable encounter with God.
What I like is you don't have to believe me in order for this to happen. This event goes beyond faith for me. It's simple knowledge. Rest assured you will remember this post when it happens. Granite, I'm sure that me and you will have long sense stop talking, so I'll keep this short.
See you in heaven bro..... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on May 30, 2007 19:09:44 GMT -5
The only people that can blaspheme the Holy Spirit, is people who have known the Spirit of God personally. So you're saying that all my years of christian service wasn't real? Damn, and here when I had preached those sermons and given the sacrament of holy communion, I thought that I was following god's will. (Yep, I was majorly ignorant back then, as I thought the god thing was real) Then I'd say you'd better rethink your gift, cuz it's feeding you a line right now. See dude, this proves to me that you're totally misled on the whole god thing. You consider me "eventual conversion" to be knowledge, just the same as you consider god's existence to be knowledge. Since I'm never, never going to give up my free life to be shackled to a non-existing god, your knowledge of that is flawed. Thus, it is now highly possible that your "knowledge of god's existence" is also flawed. More or less I leave you with this: I would rather die than follow your fake religion. If I ever seriously consider it, I will remember this post, and promptly put a bullet in my head. Hell, maybe I'll just go and do that very thing tomorrow, just to prove your gift wrong. Maybe that would make you realize that this god thing is all in your head. |
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on May 30, 2007 21:51:34 GMT -5
Carnage, I don't expect you to respond to everything. I myself am gearing up to apply to grad school after about a year break from school. I know when I get there my online hobbies will go down the drain. But right now I have probably at least 6 months of nothing unless I get another job in that time, since my temporary contract for a year at a pharmaceutical company just expired. I have known from the beginning how unlikely it is either of us will change our minds about this, so this will be more for me than for you. And it's really only because I have the free time and I happen to enjoy arguing . |
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Jun 1, 2007 14:25:51 GMT -5
I myself am gearing up to apply to grad school after about a year break from school. I know when I get there my online hobbies will go down the drain. But right now I have probably at least 6 months of nothing unless I get another job in that time, since my temporary contract for a year at a pharmaceutical company just expired. Bit of advice from someone that's been in that exact position (i.e., taking a year off between undergrad and grad): -start your grad school search ASAP. Many have application deadlines of mid-January, with some earlier than that. -get a job of some sort for the next 6 months. You'll likely have an assistantship of some sort in grad school, but it's always nice to have a bit of money in the bank for those unexpected things, or just for "spending money." -when you do apply to/visit grad schools, talk to as many people as you can (students, professors, office staff), and find out as much as you can, both about the university and the community (like cost of living, where good apartments are, etc) -don't "put aside" your academic interests over the next year. It can sometimes be VERY difficult to get back in the academic mindset if you're out of it for an extended period of time. -related, I would recommend doing some reading around and try to figure out what you want to do your thesis/dissertation on. If you have some vague idea of this ahead of time, it can make things MUCH easier in grad school. |
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on Jun 3, 2007 12:46:27 GMT -5
Thanks dude. I'm thinking about applying for the spring semester. They do admit people in the spring correct? I'm also applying for some jobs although I have a decent amount saved up right now. And yeah, I know I'm out of the mindset so I need to start doing some reading.
|
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Jun 4, 2007 17:51:13 GMT -5
Thanks dude. I'm thinking about applying for the spring semester. They do admit people in the spring correct? I'm also applying for some jobs although I have a decent amount saved up right now. And yeah, I know I'm out of the mindset so I need to start doing some reading. Most places do accept students for the spring semester. Typically the deadline for those apps is in like August or September. The downside to this is that most assistantships (both research and teaching) are for 9 months - 4.5 in fall and 4.5 in spring. There are not nearly as many assistantships for one semester. Check with the schools to find out for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on Jun 7, 2007 2:35:38 GMT -5
1) Many, many types of evidence from a myriad of fields supports a universe older than the bible predicts. Such evidence includes radiometric dating, molecular methods, red-shift analysis, and residual background radiation analysis. This is in response to the "red-shift analysis" you mentioned. Also in the linked articles there is brief mention of the background radiation, although I intend to treat that seperately. When talking about natural history, everything is speculative, whether it's creationism or whatever. You cannot reproduce events like the formation of the galaxy or life and observe them to check your theories against the evidence. So what does that leave us? Only theories. Yes we can use some evidence, but when making assertions about the past scientific observations can only ever play a secondary role. The first role belongs to the imagination. This is why virtually every theory of the beginning of the cosmos based on empirical observations, again creationist or otherwise, has severe problems. The creationist idea that the speed of light is actually slowing down was discussed. What wasn't discussed is that there is actually empirical evidence for that. The problem is that the earlier measurements of the speed of light have a higher margin of error and are thus less reliable than more recent measurements. But accuracy aside, the precision of those early measurements compared with the measurements today betray a slight decrease in the speed of light. Now, does this prove that the speed of light is even decreasing? No. Who's to say that since the speed of light is decreasing now means that it always has been? I'm the first to argue that global warming isn't all it's cracked up to be because you can't just say that since the earth is warming up now ever so slightly means it will indefinitely. So I'm not one to hang my hat on the decreasing speed of light deal, particularly because Einstein's theory says the speed of light is constant. However, Russell Humphrey's theory as outlined in his book and video, "Starlight and Time," is much more convincing. I do not have the training in physics and math to investigate his claims for myself, but essentially what he's saying looks a lot like the Big Bang theory except that the fast period of expansion (a more recent addition to the Big Bang theory called "inflation") happened at a different time. According to relativity, speed and time are related. The faster you are moving, the faster your clock goes. It is generally accepted now that the earth is near the center of the universe, so during the inflation period the earth would be moving very slowly compared to the stars farther out. So a clock on earth would be moving slow, while the clocks at the farthest reaches of the expanding universe would be moving extremely fast, with the full range of speeds in between. This means that the light and the distant stars which generated it actually are billions of years old, but the earth doesn't have to be as old as the light is in order for us to see it. In this model, it is not the speed of light which changes but instead time is changing. I find this view much better as it doesn't conflict with Einstein but actually uses his theory. Here is a short article highlighting several problems with the current Big Bang cosmology: www.icr.org/article/3343/Scroll down this article to the section about light from distant stars: www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_jb_debatehighlights/ |
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Jun 7, 2007 18:24:49 GMT -5
When talking about natural history, everything is speculative, whether it's creationism or whatever. You cannot reproduce events like the formation of the galaxy or life and observe them to check your theories against the evidence. So what does that leave us? Only theories. Yes we can use some evidence, but when making assertions about the past scientific observations can only ever play a secondary role. The first role belongs to the imagination. When investigating the past, one finds evidence that strongly points to a particular event (or a few equally plausible events). This is similar to what is done with modern forensic investigations. They gather evidence, then determine the most likely outcome. In a way (unless it's caught on tape), the outcome of any criminal investigation is the same type of "theory". Even if the perpetrator admits guilt, since we can't exactly reproduce it, we can't know for sure that it actually happened. Hence the "beyond a reasonable doubt" clause in the justice system. Well, if CO2 levels rise to a certain point, then yes, it will warm up indefinitely. There is a "point of no return", as it were, where we will enter a cycle of rising temps, which melts more ice, which releases more CO2 which raises temps, which melts more ice, etc etc. Next, the earth hasn't warmed "ever so slightly." The rise in global average temps over the past 100 years is quite a bit. There wasn't this kind of rise in the thousands of years prior. Humphrey is strongly criticized by other scientists (both creationists and non-creationists) for using methods that aren't scientifically sound and are horribly out of date. I wouldn't take anything he says to heart. Who says this? The "generally accepted" idea now is that the earth is not at the center, because the universe actually has no proper center (due to the curvature of spacetime). Sorry, but I can't accept anything published by ICR or AiG or TDI as being legitimate science. Those people have a definite agenda, and tend to twist science to their own ends. |
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on Jun 11, 2007 17:20:31 GMT -5
When investigating the past, one finds evidence that strongly points to a particular event (or a few equally plausible events). This is similar to what is done with modern forensic investigations. They gather evidence, then determine the most likely outcome. In a way (unless it's caught on tape), the outcome of any criminal investigation is the same type of "theory". Even if the perpetrator admits guilt, since we can't exactly reproduce it, we can't know for sure that it actually happened. Hence the "beyond a reasonable doubt" clause in the justice system. Forensic scientists are investigating natural phenomena which are caused by intelligent agents. Your example demonstrates that yes, we do in fact investigate the past using science, and our society accepts those investigations as valid. But it also suggests the same for investigations into intelligent causes. Besides, if you asked a forensic scientist to solve a 3,000 year old murder, he might look at you with a fair amount of skepticism. Ask him to solve a 3 billion year old one and he'd walk out of the room. A lot more can happen to the preserved evidence in 3 billion years than in 3 or even 30 years. Everyone has an agenda. If you don't have an agenda you don't get funded. Some just hide it better. And some hide it just as badly. For instance: www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/2007/jun/statement.shtmlThis was written by Gonzalez almost two years ago: telicthoughts.com/gonzalez-the-controversy-over-id-at-isu/For a description of Gonzalez's academic achievements and scholarship, listen the podcasts about him here: www.idthefuture.com/In short, Gonzalez has been on the cover of Scientific American, his papers have been published in the two top science journals, Nature and Science, he has published 68 peer reviewed articles, helped to discover two new planets and most ironically, co-authored the astronomy textbook currently used at ISU. Now you tell me there isn't something weird going on here. |
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Jun 12, 2007 15:53:24 GMT -5
Forensic scientists are investigating natural phenomena which are caused by intelligent agents. Your example demonstrates that yes, we do in fact investigate the past using science, and our society accepts those investigations as valid. But it also suggests the same for investigations into intelligent causes. They are investigating events that transpired in the past. The agents that caused the events are irrelevant. We're not talking about motives here; we're talking about the physical elements that comprised a certain event. Your injection of intelligent causes is flawed, and does not apply to events of the ancient past. The only reason you can inject the word "intelligent" into my analogy is that modern forensics deals with Homo sapien, something that is assumed to be intelligent. Is this why some forensic scientists are studying the mummies, icemen, peatbog-men, etc, to determine their cause of death? Good thing we don't ask forensic scientists to do this. Ancient life is NOT the area of their training, and paleontologists do NOT look for trivial events, such as an ancient murder. We look for trends exhibited by large numbers of individuals. BUT, as an aside, we actually do sometimes find evidence of "murder" from as old as 500 mya. I've seen a fossil of one bryozoa overgrowing and killing another one. We can look at the fossils, determine where the organisms started growing and in which direction they grew. We can recreate those events with fairly good accuracy and detail. So maybe we're just better than forensic scientists? Or maybe your statements are just flawed. What is the "something weird" that you're implying is "going on here"? And what does it have to do with any of the institutions I listed? If ISU wants to deny tenure to someone, that's their right. I have no problem with it. The guy's work was reviewed multiple times. He wasn't the only guy that's been rejected for tenure in the past 10 years. I think that the ID folks are just trying to turn him into a martyr to somehow benefit their cause. |
|
. There are many of them and there is a clear division within Christianity on that point. Most intelligent design theorists are some brand of theistic evolutionist. Fully half of them accept common descent and an old earth, maybe more. If you want an explanation on that point you will have to ask one of them. 
