Christians must follow the old testament.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2014, 04:07 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 03:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 03:19 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Funny how you don't quote a scientist about science, but rather fundy christians with a vested interest in discrediting it in favor of their own a priori bullshit. Your ability to discern truth from falsehood is astonishingly nonexistent.

I quoted the following:

George Gaylord Simpson, the renowned evolutionist of Harvard
The Oxford Dictionary
Duane Gish, an American Biochemist
Enno Wolthius Professor Emeritus of Chemistry
Henry Morris author and apologist
John Whitcomb author.

In addition:

Frank Wolfs, Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, provides his undergraduate physics students with a good working definition of the scientific method: "the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world."1

Professor Wolfs, as a research scientist himself, points out some of its limitations: "Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, 'Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view.' In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing a hypothesis or a theory."1

Four Essentials of the Scientific Method

Just what are these "standard procedures and criteria" that scientists apply in their attempt to arrive at an accurate and reliable representation of the world in which we live? Most scientists, including Wolfs, boil them down to the four following essentials:1

Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. (In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a mathematical relationship.)
Use of the hypothesis to predict other phenomena or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis, it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If they do not, the hypothesis must be rejected or modified. As Wolfs explains, "No matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, 'experiment is supreme' and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary."1

Wolfs further notes that this necessity of experiment in the method is tantamount to requiring that a scientific hypothesis be testable. "Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."1 It is fairly obvious that if a hypothesis cannot be tested, it should more properly be called a conjecture or speculation, in which case the scientific method can say little about it.

Wolfs, F. 1996. Introduction to the scientific method. Physics Laboratory Experiments, Appendix E, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.
Baumgardner, J. 2008 (in press). Language, Complexity, and Design. In Seckback, J. and R. Gordon (eds.), God, Science and Intelligent Design. Singapore: World Scientific.
Sanford, J. 2005. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Lima, NY: Elim Publications.
Sanford, J., J. Baumgardner, et al. 2007. Using computer simulation to understand mutation accumulation dynamics and genetic load. In Shi, Y. et al. (eds.), ICCS 2007, Part II, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4488. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 386-392.
Sanford, J., J. Baumgardner, et al. 2008 (in press). Numerical simulation falsifies evolutionary genetic theory. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism. San Diego, CA: ICR.
Kimura, M. 1979. Model of effectively neutral mutations in which selective constraint is incorporated. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 76: 3440-3444.
Kondrashov, A. S. 1995. Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? Journal of Theoretical Biology. 175: 583-594.
Austin, S. A. 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Santee, CA: ICR.
Hawking, S. W. and G. F. R. Ellis. 1973. The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 134.




**********************************************************


It is clear to me that anything presented to you that does not agree with what you already presuppose to be true is simply brushed away, I will only be speaking with you if you agree to a debate.

Thank you. ThumbsupDrinking Beverage

Duane Gish? Yeah, everything he touches or is associated with is tainted by his mere presence. Did you know that he is such a retarded bullshit fundy dumbass that he has his own debate fallacy names after him?


The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."

The formal debating term for this is spreading. It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call bullshit on the practice (like the Internet) such techniques are remarkably common.
-RationalWiki


Not everyone with a doctorate degree is a good scientist, and the Discovery Institute proves that all the time. Go figure you'd find the most disingenuous 'scientists' (and I use the term in quotes because these men do not operate as scientists) to support your bullshit. If you're quoting Gish, you're a fucking retard and all you've done is another piss poor copy-paste job. Way to go dumbass, you suck so much at science you're not even wrong.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-03-2014, 04:11 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 03:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 03:24 PM)freetoreason Wrote:  So glad you posted this list. Is this apologist drivel really the best you have?
1. Number of copies of nonsensical fairy tale story means nothing. Not to mention the proliferation of versions that Christians obsess about. Oh, but almighty god has preserved his word.
2. Holy shit, please put down your Noah book and read this http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Unearthe...0684869136
3-7. To save space addressing these 'arguments', quoting Calvin, Nbd, Stott, Sproul and Carson really isn't helping your case. Objective sources?
8. Ok, I'll see your Lincoln, and raise a Jefferson. Means nothing of course.
"The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs".
"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him (i.e. Jesus) by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."
"In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

9. See 3-7. Belief in witches also had global influence. This too shall pass. Yes great influence, mostly resulting in torture of mind and body, and setting science back a millennium.
10. When 1-9 fail inevitably we get 10. Personal experience is all Christianity has and all any religion will ever have. Here's mine. I became a much more charitable, forgiving and patient human being when I became free of religious dogmatism, and it's attendant bigotry and divisiveness.

Your god is a nonexistent asshole. I hope you'll be free of him someday. Until then, please try your best not to indoctrinate innocents with your silly list.

If you want, you can get in line and wait to debate me. If not then toodles! Drinking Beverage

No one's going anywhere. You post your bullshit, it will get responded to.
So far, you've not demonstrated ONE reason why anyone would waste their time debating you.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-03-2014, 04:51 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
Follow me in the boxing ring. I will no longer be posting openly here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 04:55 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 05:10 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 04:51 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Follow me in the boxing ring. I will no longer be posting openly here.

No one cares. You revealed your utter ignorance by posting a link to the lying charlatan, WL Craig.

We may decide to post comments on what we see posted on the debate threads, in a (new-separate) debate commentary thread, if anything you say is found to be worth responding to.

"Openly here " ... so you will be posting "sneakily" here ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-03-2014, 05:08 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 03:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 03:19 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Funny how you don't quote a scientist about science, but rather fundy christians with a vested interest in discrediting it in favor of their own a priori bullshit. Your ability to discern truth from falsehood is astonishingly nonexistent.

I quoted the following:

George Gaylord Simpson, the renowned evolutionist of Harvard
The Oxford Dictionary
Duane Gish, an American Biochemist
Enno Wolthius Professor Emeritus of Chemistry
Henry Morris author and apologist
John Whitcomb author.

In addition:

Frank Wolfs, Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, provides his undergraduate physics students with a good working definition of the scientific method: "the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world."1

Professor Wolfs, as a research scientist himself, points out some of its limitations: "Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, 'Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view.' In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing a hypothesis or a theory."1

Four Essentials of the Scientific Method

Just what are these "standard procedures and criteria" that scientists apply in their attempt to arrive at an accurate and reliable representation of the world in which we live? Most scientists, including Wolfs, boil them down to the four following essentials:1

Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. (In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a mathematical relationship.)
Use of the hypothesis to predict other phenomena or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis, it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If they do not, the hypothesis must be rejected or modified. As Wolfs explains, "No matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, 'experiment is supreme' and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary."1

Wolfs further notes that this necessity of experiment in the method is tantamount to requiring that a scientific hypothesis be testable. "Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."1 It is fairly obvious that if a hypothesis cannot be tested, it should more properly be called a conjecture or speculation, in which case the scientific method can say little about it.

Wolfs, F. 1996. Introduction to the scientific method. Physics Laboratory Experiments, Appendix E, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.
Baumgardner, J. 2008 (in press). Language, Complexity, and Design. In Seckback, J. and R. Gordon (eds.), God, Science and Intelligent Design. Singapore: World Scientific.
Sanford, J. 2005. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Lima, NY: Elim Publications.
Sanford, J., J. Baumgardner, et al. 2007. Using computer simulation to understand mutation accumulation dynamics and genetic load. In Shi, Y. et al. (eds.), ICCS 2007, Part II, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4488. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 386-392.
Sanford, J., J. Baumgardner, et al. 2008 (in press). Numerical simulation falsifies evolutionary genetic theory. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism. San Diego, CA: ICR.
Kimura, M. 1979. Model of effectively neutral mutations in which selective constraint is incorporated. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 76: 3440-3444.
Kondrashov, A. S. 1995. Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? Journal of Theoretical Biology. 175: 583-594.
Austin, S. A. 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Santee, CA: ICR.
Hawking, S. W. and G. F. R. Ellis. 1973. The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 134.




**********************************************************


It is clear to me that anything presented to you that does not agree with what you already presuppose to be true is simply brushed away, I will only be speaking with you if you agree to a debate.

Thank you. ThumbsupDrinking Beverage

Again science was limited until we find an explanation. This argument from ignorance has a gap that is slowly shrinking.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
23-03-2014, 06:34 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 08:40 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 08:03 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  So how do you know the bible is true? What evidence do you have.

The following is not an exhaustive list but is a part of the cumulative case for demonstrating the reliability of the Bible. The most important piece of evidence I have that the Bible is true is that I did what it said and got what it promised i.e a relationship with God Himself.

1. Manuscript Evidence. There are way more copies of the biblical manuscripts, with remarkable consistency between them, than there are for any of the classics like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates. "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament." F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

2. Archaeological Evidence. Again and again archaeological discoveries have verified the accuracy of the historical and cultural references in the Bible. The more they dig, the more it confirms the Bible. “It is important to note that Near Eastern archaeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas.” E.M. Blaiklock, The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology.

3. Eyewitness Accounts. The Bible was written by people who witnessed the events it describes; many were persecuted or martyred but never changed their story. Would you die for something you knew was untrue? “It is no moderate approbation of Scripture that it has been sealed by the blood of so many witnesses, especially when we reflect that they died to render testimony to the faith …with a firm and constant, yet sober, zeal toward God.” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion.

4. Corroborating Accounts. There are plenty of references in non-biblical sources to the events described in the Bible. The Jewish historian Josephus, born in 37 AD, “provide(s) indispensable background material for the student of…New Testament history. In them, we meet many figures well known to us from the New Testament. Some of his writings provide direct commentary on New Testament references.” J.D. Douglas, ed., The New Bible Dictionary.

5. Literary Consistency. The Bible contains 66 books written over 1,500 years by 40 different writers but it tells one "big story" of God's plan of salvation that culminated in Jesus Christ. You can't even pass a secret around a circle of 12 people and get the same message at the end. “There is indeed a wide variety of human authors and themes (in the Bible). Yet behind these…there lies a single divine author with a single unifying theme.” John R.W. Stott, Understanding the Bible.

6. Prophetic Consistency. There are over 300 specific prophecies in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. “The very dimension of the sheer fulfillment of prophecy of the Old Testament Scriptures should be enough to convince anyone that we are dealing with a supernatural piece of literature….God has himself planted within the scriptures an internal consistency that bears witness that this is his Word.” R.C. Sproul, Now That’s a Good Question.

7. Expert Scrutiny. The early church had extremely high standards for what books were judged to be authentic and therefore included in the Bible. A book had to have been written by an Apostle or someone in their immediate circle, had to conform to basic Christian faith and had to be in widespread use among many churches. This was a careful process of “the people of God in many different places, coming to recognize what other believers elsewhere found to be true”; these writings were truly God’s word. G.J. Wenham, J.A. Motyer, D.A. Carson and R.T. France, The New Bible Commentary.

8. Leader Acceptance. A majority of the greatest leaders and thinkers in history have affirmed the truth and impact of the Bible. "I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given man. All the good from the Savior of the world is communicated to us through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong.” Abraham Lincoln.

9. Global Influence. The Bible has had a greater influence on the laws, art, ethics, music and literature of world civilization than any other book in history. Can you think of one that even comes close? “Christianity”, as set forth in the Bible “is responsible for a disproportionately large number of the humanitarian advances in the history of civilization—in education, medicine, law, the fine arts, working for human rights and even in the natural sciences….” Craig L. Blomberg, in Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.

10. Changed Lives. From St. Augustine to Martin Luther to Joni Eareckson Tada to countless everyday men, women and children, the words of the Bible have transformed lives unmistakably and forever. “As unnamed masses of Christians down through the ages have shown us, the Bible is the most reliable place to turn for finding the key to a life of love and good works.” T.M. Moore, The Case for the Bible.

http://www.essentialbibleblog.com/2013/0...-true.html

LOL the fucktard PLAGIARIZES some other moron's claims and presents them as HIS reasons for believing the babble.

Oh, the IRONY.


Thanks for demonstrating that you are incapable of thinking for yourself, idiot.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 06:39 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 10:01 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 09:15 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What happened to Drich?

He has...three other web sites he TROLLS IGNORANT BULLSHIT in.

[Image: fixed.gif]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 06:46 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 10:47 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  For example:

Either Christians are right when they maintain that Jesus died via crucifixion and Muslims are wrong, or Muslims are right and Christians are wrong.

Jesus either died via crucifixion, or He did not. He could not both have died and not died. It is either or. Muslims maintain that Jesus was indeed crucified but that He did not actually die. Christians claim that not only was He crucified, but that He actually died.

They are either both wrong, which history tells us is simply not plausible, or either Christians are right and Muslims are wrong or Muslims are right and Christians are wrong. Based on the evidence we have, Muslims are simply wrong on this issue. They are wrong even though they think they are right. They are wrong by virtue of the evidence, not my opinion.

Or neither jeebus nor HoMoHammed exosted, or one or the other never existed. But you fuckwits don't even bother to ponder THAT probability.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 06:53 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 12:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 12:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, how nice for you; unfalsifiable subjective personal experience.

I guess the null results are just not true Scotsmen?

The question was how do I know the Bible to be reliable?

The I refers to me and how I know something to be true.

If I were arguing the existence of God with someone, I would not use my personal experience as the sole line of evidence for my affirmation of His existence. I would use other, more objective forms of evidence in concert with my own personal experience to form a cumulative case.

So why don't you trot out your "personal experience": Bring your gawd out on Oprah, and have it do some parlour tricks. Have it conjure a fucking PLANET between here and the moon, so we can send a shuttle out to check it out, kick the tires, declare it the 51st US State, etc. Since you've met the sumbitch and all....

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 07:00 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 04:51 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Follow me in the boxing ring. I will no longer be posting openly here.

Good. We will hold you to your word. And have fun "debating" fucking crickets, asshole.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: