A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2012, 09:38 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Offtopic
I'm amazed that this thread, which was started by someone who left the forum in December, directed toward a theist knucklehead, is on the 35th page and still going strong. Offtopic

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 11:00 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
S.T is exactly is exactly like his prefered version of the bible: Well written on the surface, Full of shit when you look deeper into the writings.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Atothetheist's post
16-06-2012, 09:47 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 08:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:Okay, Chas, you will need to be patient with me, as I do not profess to
know too much about this, so, my challenge to you is twofold: if you are
convinced that I am gullible and believe without any kind of evidence, I
am more than glad to hear you teach me that which is supposed to be so
evident; you will need to present the basis of your belief, even as when
I discuss doctrine with someone I present the scriptural evidence for
examination.
The basis is a belief in evidence. Scripture is testimony, stories, tales - not evidence.
Quote:In response to this, I will just say that if replicable results are a
good indication of the veracity of a belief, could we not say that the
claims of scripture, which constantly, from generation to generation,
produce changed lives...be a good indication that what is taught in
scripture is true? And be fair about this.
No. It only says that following or believing scripture can have that effect on people.

Quote:Also, in line with previous discussion, if there are multiple accounts
of existance after the pronouncement of death, to the point where
scientific process is forced to make this conclusion, might there not be
something in that as well? To indicate life after death?
If we are talking about near-death experience, those are explained neurologically and psychologically. There is no evidence of life after death.
Quote:Have you yourself done the research? And if you have,
would ou say that before hands on experience occurred, the teaching you
received before that research played absolutely no factor in how you
interpreted the results. I ask this because there are two sides here.
Are the scientists that view the evidence, the results, as indicating
creation rather than evolution (and I am not referring to all aspects or
conclusions in the field of study), all just stupid? Without integrity?
Part of a grand conspiracy to propogate religion?
That's not how science works. The experiment is designed to test a hypothesis.
Creationists, by and large, are ignorant and/or deluded. Most do not understand the enormous amount of evidence for evolution.

Quote:So again, is it hands on? Or are you just certain that the men that have
come to these conclusions are above reproach? As for me, while I expect
or hope for the best with all those I deal with, I do not underestimate
man's potential for dishonesty, especially when it comes to a subject
that has ramifications such as this one has.
Science is an open endeavor. It's not that I trust the conclusions of one person or another; I trust the evidence found by someone, checked and re-checked, verified and re-verified by still others. The fact that a set of results is consistent with other results that have been verified.
Quote:You say I believe without evidence, but have you done research on this?
And it is not a matter of "We can't do research on something that
doesn't exist," for, if that were the case, we would still be ignorant
of atomic structure, right?
No, not right - atomic structure exists.

Quote:So we have brand new matter in this world when this occurs? That is what
I am talking about. We (and I should probably say I) believe that God
created the universe...out of nothing. It is one thing for a species to
adapt such as our family living in the trees, but I would expect to see a
physical change without them actually becoming a new species. Again,
bear with me, I look forward to your replies, and have no problem
admitting ignorance.
No new matter. It is not matter that mutates - it is a structure (the DNA) that changes. DNA is a complex molecule and some parts of it can change structure at the molecular level.
Quote:If a previously existing material mutates,
does this really constitute a belief that mutations will lead to the
creation of a new species, as is proposed by evolution? Will man
eventually evolve again, and become a different species? Is it possible
that given enough time and the right conditions, could he grow wings?
Might he grow a tail again?
Most mutations don't result in any visible changes - they are neutral. Speciation requires reproductive isolation so that mutations can accumulate in one population separately from another population with its own accumulating collection of mutation and selection.
Homo sapiens is currently evolving; all species are currently evolving. It is extremely unlikely that humankind would evolve wings naturally. Some human babies are born with short tails.

Quote:If you could, present mutation for my consideration. I would be glad to look at it.
I don't understand your request.

Quote:When you say "may" does that mean it is theoretical? Just asking, trying to be as least a jerk as I can...lol.
A mutation is a change in the DNA code. Some mutations are changes that have occurred, some have never before existed.
Quote:But the mutation is not? Please explain.
Simply that a baby is a combination of parental DNA; a mutation may be a DNA code that has never before existed.
Quote:By
"potentially" is this, again, theoretical? If this is something that
has shaped our existance, would we not have evidence of this?
No, this is not theoretical, it is probabilistic. We have plenty of evidence of mutation and can compare DNA within and between populations. A mutation may have no effect - most of the DNA in our cells has no effect so a change in that DNA doesn't do anything.

Quote:So do we look at mutation as evidence for evolution, rather than
view it as a changing of existing material? I mean, last I heard, life
evolved from single cell creatures (you see I told you I was
ignorant...lol, I guess I put about as much into this as some put into
bible study), and we would expect that if this is even remotely true, we
have to to embrace the idea that one creature becomes an entirely
different creature. And if this is true, we should see this still
happening. That is what I would like to see.
No; mutation is one of the sources for evolution. It provides new genetic possibilities. Selection drives evolution. Individuals that survive to reproduce contribute their DNA to the gene pool. Genes that didn't work out so well don't get passed on frequently.

We see evolution in action all the time. That is what resistance to antibiotics is. An antibiotic will kill most of the bacteria in a population, but some are able to survive. The next generation is now more resistant than the previous, and so on.
Quote:This I know. I don't criticize, ridicule, or dismiss your beliefs, Chas,
it is just a matter of every time I do look at the evidence, it is like
hitting a brick wall. I see nothing that would lead me to view the
changes we see in nature to be anything other than a species adapting to
its environment. We can see this is just a few generations in people,
and in less time with animals or reptiles. I saw a show where a guy said
we were seeing evolution in progress because a snake on an island was a
different color than the one on the mainland. Stuff like that seems as
silly to me as the flood may seem to you.
You are not understanding the evidence. Science takes mental effort. Read books by reputable scientists - they are reputable because their ideas and evidence have been proven to be right.


Hello Chas, ran across something that I found both fascinating as well as...extremely boring, lol. A little tedious, perhaps, but you may give it a read: junk DNA.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2012, 09:49 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(16-06-2012 09:47 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Hello Chas, ran across something that I found both fascinating as well as...extremely boring, lol. A little tedious, perhaps, but you may give it a read: junk DNA.

GTY
Sorry to say, that is junk science.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2012, 10:06 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(16-06-2012 09:47 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Hello Chas, ran across something that I found both fascinating as well as...extremely boring, lol. A little tedious, perhaps, but you may give it a read: junk DNA.

GTY
You can't be serious. You're using a site called "godandscience" that says "Evidence for God" on it's banner to backup your belief? Why don't you use unbiased sources to validate what you believe in?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2012, 10:12 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Fucking ST with the link to the "evidence for god" page... Big Grin

Got me laughing. That guy... quantum mechanics only applies to humans.


[Image: 6a8c3bddd93208235864b7c4a4af7045.wix_mp]

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2012, 10:14 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 09:38 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Offtopic
I'm amazed that this thread, which was started by someone who left the forum in December, directed toward a theist knucklehead, is on the 35th page and still going strong. Offtopic

Yeah...ain't it great? Wink

(15-06-2012 11:00 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  S.T is exactly is exactly like his prefered version of the bible: Well written on the surface, Full of shit when you look deeper into the writings.

And you know this...how?

I am amazed at how this particular issue has such significance to many here. You are just one of several that have commented on it.

Okay, let me explain my "preferred choice a little: while those that understand that translations are just that, translations, and that the serious student does not stop at a translation, but seeks to understand the intent of God's word as it was originally given, which is only possible by an examination of the original languages as well as many other factors...it is not an issue. And to say this one is the best, or worse...this one is the only one, flies in the face of what those men that brought us these translations believed. If those men were consulted, they would admit that even the product of their own work is not complete, or the best, and, they would if they honest, be able to point to passages and say, "We could improve on this."

That is why the work still goes on.

Now, understand this: when you are dealing with people that do say this translation or that is the only one...what translation do you suppose they are going to want to compare scripture from? Will they accept the assertion, "You are an idiot for using that translation?"

I can tell you from experience, they will not. So, what do you do? Will you have aworking familiarlity with that translation? You will if you are dealing with people that believe that the KJV is THE divinely inspired translation which takes precedence even over that which is found in the original languages. Meaning, if there is a discrepancy between the current (or for some it is the 1611, there are different groups even in this debate) form of the KJV, the KJV is right, and the original has been divinely improved.

And while we can very easily teach from the KJV and interpret not only the scripture but the King's english as well, for those that are used to the vernacular of the KJV, there is a difficulty that arises in the mind, similar to someone from an older generation listening to teenagers and not being able to understand.

Much could be said on this topic, but, suffice it to say that I find it easier to just work out of the KJV, and do what anyone would do, address the text and try to place the content and intent in a manner that is understandable.

I happen to like the King's english, but this does not interfere with efforts to understand God's word which I hope would convey the intent of a particular passage correctly. And usually, the difficulties that the KJV present have no bearing in a way that the intent of God's word is altered or gives rise or justification for conclusions that would seem to make God's word contradictory, at least, not concerning primary doctrinal issues. There are certain passages and verses that could stand a more critical look, but, the fact is, those that are looking only for contradictions and excuses to reject God are usually the only ones that focus their attention exclusively in this manner. This is, even using the KJV, usually a fairly simple problem to deal with, if the antagonist is honest and willing to look at the context.

Lastly, because the KJV is such a popular translation, and controversy surrounding translations has helped to keep people from utilizing another translation, I believe that there are many people out there that have for the most part been exposed to the KJV, rather than another translation. So it only makes sense to use the translation that has for some been the very translation which led them to be confused in the first place...

Right?

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2012, 10:14 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(16-06-2012 10:06 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(16-06-2012 09:47 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Hello Chas, ran across something that I found both fascinating as well as...extremely boring, lol. A little tedious, perhaps, but you may give it a read: junk DNA.

GTY
You can't be serious. You're using a site called "godandscience" that says "Evidence for God" on it's banner to backup your belief? Why don't you use unbiased sources to validate what you believe in?
not only that, but use unbiased resources as well. it's like saying you can prove Dragons by Eragon, and then citing a site that Only has Eragon as a source. Complete bullshit.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
16-06-2012, 10:21 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 07:50 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Have to get going, but will just say that the traditional role of the (OT) prophet was to "speak to man for God."

And that's what I do. I use the format "Gwyneth Paltrow is god," because once you get past the words, the message is love. Wink

I once had this girl tell me, you can't be an atheist! and I was like. Sure I can. Can we agree the god is love? Then we don't need to say nuttin' else. Big Grin

I mean, it's that dang Gwynnies, why I keep flapping my gums. She gets in my head and makes me all silly/happy and stuff, and I just gotta share my exuberance or my head will explode. Girl is god like that - if I meet her, exploding head. If I don't meet her, exploding head. You know, just a matter of time, and..

[Image: head-exploding.jpg]

Blammo! God ain't nice to his prophets, I tell you whut. Wink

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2012, 10:21 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(16-06-2012 10:14 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 09:38 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Offtopic
I'm amazed that this thread, which was started by someone who left the forum in December, directed toward a theist knucklehead, is on the 35th page and still going strong. Offtopic

Yeah...ain't it great? Wink

(15-06-2012 11:00 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  S.T is exactly is exactly like his prefered version of the bible: Well written on the surface, Full of shit when you look deeper into the writings.

And you know this...how?

I am amazed at how this particular issue has such significance to many here. You are just one of several that have commented on it.

Okay, let me explain my "preferred choice a little: while those that understand that translations are just that, translations, and that the serious student does not stop at a translation, but seeks to understand the intent of God's word as it was originally given, which is only possible by an examination of the original languages as well as many other factors...it is not an issue. And to say this one is the best, or worse...this one is the only one, flies in the face of what those men that brought us these translations believed. If those men were consulted, they would admit that even the product of their own work is not complete, or the best, and, they would if they honest, be able to point to passages and say, "We could improve on this."

That is why the work still goes on.

Now, understand this: when you are dealing with people that do say this translation or that is the only one...what translation do you suppose they are going to want to compare scripture from? Will they accept the assertion, "You are an idiot for using that translation?"

I can tell you from experience, they will not. So, what do you do? Will you have aworking familiarlity with that translation? You will if you are dealing with people that believe that the KJV is THE divinely inspired translation which takes precedence even over that which is found in the original languages. Meaning, if there is a discrepancy between the current (or for some it is the 1611, there are different groups even in this debate) form of the KJV, the KJV is right, and the original has been divinely improved.

And while we can very easily teach from the KJV and interpret not only the scripture but the King's english as well, for those that are used to the vernacular of the KJV, there is a difficulty that arises in the mind, similar to someone from an older generation listening to teenagers and not being able to understand.

Much could be said on this topic, but, suffice it to say that I find it easier to just work out of the KJV, and do what anyone would do, address the text and try to place the content and intent in a manner that is understandable.

I happen to like the King's english, but this does not interfere with efforts to understand God's word which I hope would convey the intent of a particular passage correctly. And usually, the difficulties that the KJV present have no bearing in a way that the intent of God's word is altered or gives rise or justification for conclusions that would seem to make God's word contradictory, at least, not concerning primary doctrinal issues. There are certain passages and verses that could stand a more critical look, but, the fact is, those that are looking only for contradictions and excuses to reject God are usually the only ones that focus their attention exclusively in this manner. This is, even using the KJV, usually a fairly simple problem to deal with, if the antagonist is honest and willing to look at the context.

Lastly, because the KJV is such a popular translation, and controversy surrounding translations has helped to keep people from utilizing another translation, I believe that there are many people out there that have for the most part been exposed to the KJV, rather than another translation. So it only makes sense to use the translation that has for some been the very translation which led them to be confused in the first place...

Right?

GTY
so... God improved his " infallible" word... By using the King James bible..... Sources please. I can't take your bullshit seriously, without the incentive to know you are actually trying to spout off verifiable fact.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: