Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2013, 08:47 AM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2013 08:55 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 08:36 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  1. The dating is circular in nature. Assumptions are made about temperature and pressure not changing, even during the "Hadean period". Rates of decay are extrapolated to be X forever and etc.
2. There are no issues with only eight people and Noah and his spouse being of mixed parentage themselves. You're making an assumption that eight whites with blue eyes and blonde hair stepped of the boat, #1, and #2, that I hold to a date for the flood that recent. I don't.
3. I'm completely aware of the conservative and liberal theories alike for the formation of the OT canon. Go ahead and take the most liberal dating to 300 BCE and you still have all the prophecies fulfilled in the NT and the words of Jesus to review.
4. I don't understand why you and others have to use ad hom like SexuallyPleasing and Jebus. A) It discredits you as an intelligent and/or mature person and makes a Christian inclined not to respond to you at all. B) You don't know me personally and have no reason to disdain my character. C) You cannot be in any kind of helping or teaching profession and treat people who are ignorant of what you know like that. Please don't be a teacher, a cop, a judge, a minister, or anything else, ever, that requires classy and ad hom-free communication.

The dating is not circular. It's confirmative. You need to look up "circular'. They are independent. Where is the silt layer ? Answer the question. Every flood has a silt layer.
I am making NO such assumptions about "8" people. You have not answered the question, or explained the mutations rate, and explained the dating of mitochondrial DNA, etc etc.
We've already debunked the "prophesy" bullshit, and explained why that had no part in ancient Hebrew culture. You, and your ilk, just made up the prophesy crap, as any scholar knows. Don't tell me what to do, SexuallyPleasing Jebus. You have utterly failed here, as everyone can see. You have answered nothing.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ght?page=9
In order for your crap to be true ALL the dating methods have to be wrong, and wrong IN EXACTLY the same way. The probability of that is ZERO. As I have pointed out YOU are a hypocrite. DNA proves Evolution, and YOU would use it to get out of prison.
[url=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Branches_of_science_you_have_to_ignore_to_believe_in_young_Earth_creationism][/url]
Prophesy : The fallacy of prophecy as telling of future events.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid257278

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
26-02-2013, 08:55 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 08:45 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:No actual reply to anything I said [Image: coffeedrinker.gif] . My coffee just finished brewing, so I still have time.

I'll comment on the flaws in the blog post you pasted whenever you catch up to my replies. Let me just start by saying that there is nothing unusual about Mt. St. Helen's and whatever information this person thinks they have for pyritized fossils, is almost certainly incorrectly interpreted too.

TBD - You can't be knowledgeable in every area of science. No modern DaVinci could... Mt. St. Helens did things in days and weeks in recent years that scientists presumed took millennia or longer. And when PJ was under the Lincoln Memorial while they were reworking this great place's supports, PJ could see stalactites of great length
adjacent to photos from a century ago--just one example--there are many worldwide--of rapid stalactite and stalagmite formation--knocking down old canards about Carl Sagan's "millions and billions of years."

Here's the deal. Atheists accuse Christians of closing their mind to evidence, not using the scientific method, and believing what they want to believe. Okay, if I was to agree there is no God then I would have to affirm that fact. Now...

...We have hundreds of millions worldwide who are guilty of fallacious reasoning and continued obstinance in believing despite the facts. Okay, if that is possible, and we're all human, how come it's completely impossible for scientists to do the same? That's my point about the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud. The Belt has 100 objects we've found and 10,000 more are conjectured. The Oort Cloud is hypothetical also because without it, comets alone demonstrate a solar system that is on the order of hundreds of thousands or millions rather than billions of years and there is a lack of time for Evolution to exist. If so, we may even be space seed from ID--which means we have an accountability to a higher order of being, as a recent video posted on this forum by a freethinker suggests.

TBD, you can talk to cops, you can talk to attorneys, to judges, to wives, mistresses and especially, the government officials who dole billions out for climate change and other research--scientists are not on a higher order of skepticism or lack of bias then any other people. They may employ the scientific method to research or use controls in research of etc. but they are no less prone to believing myths than any other segment of the population (yes, I can sense the data coming on how all scientists believe Evolution and etc.). And how no legitimate, tenured person believes in Creation no matter how many "normal" captains of industry, presidents, etc. believe in Creation. Whatever.

My point is if you dare say all Theists are self-duped, you must allow for errors in the scientific community to be consistent. Consider this a rephrase of my syllogism that if most are Theists, you must be careful whom you trust. That is all.
Actually, you are wrong. 3% of the higher academy of sciences (whatever it's called) belief in some higher power... and you make constant weird assertions that show a bizarre mentality I am curious about.

And one of the positive aspects of the scientific field is it's willingness to admit it can be wrong. It's not asserting absolute truth but even if multiple people are in believe that a system works in a way, if others find new evidence to demonstrate it is false, there is the movement onward. It happens with little ideas and big famous ideas from even including Newton and Einstein.

Why do you assert that if we were created by an alien intelligent lifeform that we would be accountable to it? Okay, I could imagine that being the reality right now... that doesn't actually change anything overall about our actions, morals, or current daily life. How does that make someone accountable, and I recall seeing you jolt atheists for lacking accountability.. odd and other religious believers mock certain Christians for their beliefs that Jesus absolves one of sins.. which takes away some accountability as well.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
26-02-2013, 08:56 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Still no reply to this, PleaseJesus. Drinking Beverage

(25-02-2013 10:04 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Sure. How about we start with the visual and auditory evidence for the existence of your god that you claim to possess?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 09:09 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 08:45 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:No actual reply to anything I said [Image: coffeedrinker.gif] . My coffee just finished brewing, so I still have time.

I'll comment on the flaws in the blog post you pasted whenever you catch up to my replies. Let me just start by saying that there is nothing unusual about Mt. St. Helen's and whatever information this person thinks they have for pyritized fossils, is almost certainly incorrectly interpreted too.

TBD - You can't be knowledgeable in every area of science. No modern DaVinci could... Mt. St. Helens did things in days and weeks in recent years that scientists presumed took millennia or longer. And when PJ was under the Lincoln Memorial while they were reworking this great place's supports, PJ could see stalactites of great length
adjacent to photos from a century ago--just one example--there are many worldwide--of rapid stalactite and stalagmite formation--knocking down old canards about Carl Sagan's "millions and billions of years."

Here's the deal. Atheists accuse Christians of closing their mind to evidence, not using the scientific method, and believing what they want to believe. Okay, if I was to agree there is no God then I would have to affirm that fact. Now...

...We have hundreds of millions worldwide who are guilty of fallacious reasoning and continued obstinance in believing despite the facts. Okay, if that is possible, and we're all human, how come it's completely impossible for scientists to do the same? That's my point about the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud. The Belt has 100 objects we've found and 10,000 more are conjectured. The Oort Cloud is hypothetical also because without it, comets alone demonstrate a solar system that is on the order of hundreds of thousands or millions rather than billions of years and there is a lack of time for Evolution to exist. If so, we may even be space seed from ID--which means we have an accountability to a higher order of being, as a recent video posted on this forum by a freethinker suggests.

TBD, you can talk to cops, you can talk to attorneys, to judges, to wives, mistresses and especially, the government officials who dole billions out for climate change and other research--scientists are not on a higher order of skepticism or lack of bias then any other people. They may employ the scientific method to research or use controls in research of etc. but they are no less prone to believing myths than any other segment of the population (yes, I can sense the data coming on how all scientists believe Evolution and etc.). And how no legitimate, tenured person believes in Creation no matter how many "normal" captains of industry, presidents, etc. believe in Creation. Whatever.

My point is if you dare say all Theists are self-duped, you must allow for errors in the scientific community to be consistent. Consider this a rephrase of my syllogism that if most are Theists, you must be careful whom you trust. That is all.
Still avoiding everything I said prior to these last couple of posts, whatever. Guess you are just going to ignore them.

I can make a stalactite and stalagmite in a few short years too. Making them using modern construction materials would not be difficult. There is a reason why concrete is given time to cure, because it does not solidify all the way through all at once. So it is entirely plausible for it to escape and flow out and generate a stalactite or stalagmite in a short amount of time because it flows faster and has more material behind it than what forms natural stalactites and stalagmites.

The natural kind precipitate out of water that has much lower concentrations of dissolved Ca2+ and CO3- ions in it. They take much longer. We can verify that by using different dating techniques. And no, I don't just mean radiometric dating. We can recover annual cycles in the variability of the stable isotopes of C and O in them too to reconstruct rainfall variability annually.

And you are correct in saying that I can't be an expert on all things science, that is exactly what I said in my reply about PhDs. You are however stepping into my area of expertise when you step into geology, and anything evolution, fossil, or isotope related especially.

Your appeals to the fallacious nature of man's irrational mind is counterproductive. It serves your agenda for scientists to be just as irrational as you, but then you try to appeal to "captains of industry" who believe as some sort of authority on it.

The scientists who deal in climate research, are qualified to analyze and criticize that research. The scientists who do research in evolution, are qualified to critically evaluate it. Those that involve themselves in policy-making, are qualified to do that. Anyone who uses their station and area of expertise to jump into another field to critique, are wrong. Your "captains of industry" are ignorant of evolution. They are not individuals who have studied it or researched it, their opinion on anything science-related is negligible. As would be my opinion on industry.

Yes, there are stupid scientists out there, I already said that too. You keep saying these things that make it painfully obvious you did not read anything I have written in full. It is important to note that those who do research in their field are...still only qualified to give an expert opinion on their area of research and study. The scientist who believes in god, is no more qualified to say god exists than any other yahoo because there remains exactly the same amount of evidence for it, 0. The scientist who believes in Bigfoot, is not more qualified to say that than the amateur jackass that goes out looking for them.

What is your point you are trying to make that I have not already actually said?

You still have not provided anything more than anecdotal evidence and faith-based arguments for god.

And let's say that all the different radiometric clocks are wrong, let's say Mt. St. Helen's completely debunked what we know about geology. How does any of that point towards a god existing? Sounds like the argument from ignorance to try and draw an imaginary line from A to imaginary being B.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
26-02-2013, 09:46 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:The dating is not circular. It's confirmative. You need to look up "circular'. They are independent. Where is the silt layer ? Answer the question. Every flood has a silt layer.
This is the kind of nonsense that makes us go nowhere, TBD. The "flood" was a global catastrophe and the Earth was shaken off its axis. The teeming millions of fossils are explained by a catastrophic process, not "silt".
Quote:We've already debunked the "prophesy" bullshit, and explained why that had no part in ancient Hebrew culture.
I don't remember if I've bothered to cite any of the 300 prophecies of Jesus's first advent, but I did respond with the fact that prophets gave instances of things that occured in history (like the 70 years' captivity) and you know squat about Hebrew culture, clearly. There is also a modern history of prognisticators, revelators and prophecies--this is different than the mediums and witches of the Bible.
Quote:Actually, you are wrong. 3% of the higher academy of sciences (whatever it's called) belief in some higher power... and you make constant weird assertions that show a bizarre mentality I am curious about.
I'm interested and will apologize and change my position if you can cite your evidence for this. Thanks.
Quote:And one of the positive aspects of the scientific field is it's willingness to admit it can be wrong. It's not asserting absolute truth but even if multiple people are in believe that a system works in a way, if others find new evidence to demonstrate it is false, there is the movement onward. It happens with little ideas and big famous ideas from even including Newton and Einstein.
Uh-huh. Scientists were SO VERY WILLING to embrace Copericanism, Gallileo's theories, and later, your favorite, Evolution. Baloney!
Quote:Why do you assert that if we were created by an alien intelligent lifeform that we would be accountable to it? Okay, I could imagine that being the reality right now... that doesn't actually change anything overall about our actions, morals, or current daily life. How does that make someone accountable, and I recall seeing you jolt atheists for lacking accountability.. odd and other religious believers mock certain Christians for their beliefs that Jesus absolves one of sins.. which takes away some accountability as well.
Think superior intelligence, superior weapons.
Quote:Sure. How about we start with the visual and auditory evidence for the existence of your god that you claim to possess?
Not starting until you explain how it is that you or I exist. Or the monitor we "read". Or the computer "you type on". Until you admit you have FAITH THAT YOU EXIST. Whee!
Quote:Still avoiding everything I said prior to these last couple of posts, whatever. Guess you are just going to ignore them.
I made a lengthy reply. Sorry.
Quote:can make a stalactite and stalagmite in a few short years too. Making them using modern construction materials would not be difficult. There is a reason why concrete is given time to cure, because it does not solidify all the way through all at once. So it is entirely plausible for it to escape and flow out and generate a stalactite or stalagmite in a short amount of time because it flows faster and has more material behind it than what forms natural stalactites and stalagmites.
The natural kind precipitate out of water that has much lower concentrations of dissolved Ca2+ and CO3- ions in it. They take much longer. We can verify that by using different dating techniques. And no, I don't just mean radiometric dating. We can recover annual cycles in the variability of the stable isotopes of C and O in them too to reconstruct rainfall variability annually.

And you are correct in saying that I can't be an expert on all things science, that is exactly what I said in my reply about PhDs. You are however stepping into my area of expertise when you step into geology, and anything evolution, fossil, or isotope related especially.
Your appeals to the fallacious nature of man's irrational mind is counterproductive. It serves your agenda for scientists to be just as irrational as you, but then you try to appeal to "captains of industry" who believe as some sort of authority on it.

The scientists who deal in climate research, are qualified to analyze and criticize that research. The scientists who do research in evolution, are qualified to critically evaluate it. Those that involve themselves in policy-making, are qualified to do that. Anyone who uses their station and area of expertise to jump into another field to critique, are wrong. Your "captains of industry" are ignorant of evolution. They are not individuals who have studied it or researched it, their opinion on anything science-related is negligible. As would be my opinion on industry.

Yes, there are stupid scientists out there, I already said that too. You keep saying these things that make it painfully obvious you did not read anything I have written in full. It is important to note that those who do research in their field are...still only qualified to give an expert opinion on their area of research and study. The scientist who believes in god, is no more qualified to say god exists than any other yahoo because there remains exactly the same amount of evidence for it, 0. The scientist who believes in Bigfoot, is not more qualified to say that than the amateur jackass that goes out looking for them.

What is your point you are trying to make that I have not already actually said?

You still have not provided anything more than anecdotal evidence and faith-based arguments for god.

And let's say that all the different radiometric clocks are wrong, let's say Mt. St. Helen's completely debunked what we know about geology. How does any of that point towards a god existing? Sounds like the argument from ignorance to try and draw an imaginary line from A to imaginary being B.
The issue is you are ducking my accusations and you actually have the gumption to say that ALL Creationist and ALL people who are NOT Creationists but are troubled by IC in Evolution (like Behe) are idiots. AND THEN YOU SAY THERE'S NO DISCRIMINATORY BELIEF OR PRACTICES IN ACADEMIA. Nice.
Quote:And let's say that all the different radiometric clocks are wrong, let's say Mt. St. Helen's completely debunked what we know about geology. How does any of that point towards a god existing? Sounds like the argument from ignorance to try and draw an imaginary line from A to imaginary being B.
Straw man. It doesn't prove anything nor is that my proof that God exists. What it is was my (repeated) appeal to you to deal with the reality that science is EVOLVING.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 09:53 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Oh, yes, and the nonsense about "all factors are off to the same degree in dating," is just that. First, we are starting with false assumptions and driving to false conclusions. There is an incredible bias in dating geologic strata and in fossil dating. Second, we can show the dating factor as off by a factor in the thousands. Third, how old is the Earth?
Let's just go there... HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? 4 B? 6 Billion years? 7? OOPS, can't get it right by one-third or two billion years.... oops. Pathetic. But I hope that some of you will come to your senses and escape the snare of the devil.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 09:58 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 09:53 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Oh, yes, and the nonsense about "all factors are off to the same degree in dating," is just that. First, we are starting with false assumptions and driving to false conclusions. There is an incredible bias in dating geologic strata and in fossil dating. Second, we can show the dating factor as off by a factor in the thousands. Third, how old is the Earth?
Let's just go there... HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? 4 B? 6 Billion years? 7? OOPS, can't get it right by one-third or two billion years.... oops. Pathetic. But I hope that some of you will come to your senses and escape the snare of the devil.
4.56 billion years old. Just slightly younger than our solar system.

And the dating techniques are off by around 1% or less (depends on the technique) and that is primarily based on instrumental limitations. We can measure ratios of isotopes pretty well, but not abundances. Abundances would be substantially easier and more precise, but we don't have the technology to develop these systems with any degree of accuracy at this point in time.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
26-02-2013, 10:10 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 09:53 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Oh, yes, and the nonsense about "all factors are off to the same degree in dating," is just that. First, we are starting with false assumptions and driving to false conclusions. There is an incredible bias in dating geologic strata and in fossil dating. Second, we can show the dating factor as off by a factor in the thousands. Third, how old is the Earth?
Let's just go there... HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? 4 B? 6 Billion years? 7? OOPS, can't get it right by one-third or two billion years.... oops. Pathetic. But I hope that some of you will come to your senses and escape the snare of the devil.
Oh what a tangled web you weave. So the Scientific process of research/peer review/publish findings (lather rinse repeat) is insufficient to you. yet you appear to have complete reliance on something written thousands of years ago by certainly biased authors, written hundreds of years after the events, written during a period where the scientific method was not yet devised, with very little (if any at all) corroborating evidence and in many cases contradictory contemporaneous evidence? Am I summing up your position correctly, PJ?

And now you accuse others of being ensnared by the Devil? Great googly moogly. You need to go back to your cave where you can huddle by the campfire praying to the god to make the scary thunder go away.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like devilsadvoc8's post
26-02-2013, 10:14 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 09:46 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Not starting until you explain how it is that you or I exist. Or the monitor we "read". Or the computer "you type on". Until you admit you have FAITH THAT YOU EXIST. Whee!
I do not need to have faith, because I possess plenty of evidence. I even went as far as providing you with some of it. I have shown you both a picture and a video of myself and I have proven that the person depicted in these two mediums happens to have control over this account. You, on the other hand, have yet to bring up even one shred of evidence for your existence apart from registering and participating on this forum. Where is an image or a video of yourself to prove your existence? You are unable to bring forth empirical evidence for your own existence and yet you expect us to believe that you can provide such evidence for the existence of your god?

That aside, nobody on here or anywhere else has to do anything before you have met your burden of proof.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 10:25 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
No one here has to do anything, Vos, but we will, cause we love to hear ourselves talk. Big Grin

It's the same question, the existence of god, the existence of I. Who created the universe? Why, I did; through logic, and reasoning, and education. And when did I do it? Just now, as required. The only place that god exists is in the hearts and minds of men. George (monster dog) has no need of god, he has need of food. Men have need of philosophy, but the necessity of dogmatic devotion has passed. Does anybody here suspect PJ of having motivations that are pure? Or are we convinced that his desires are motivated by fear?

Unfortunately theists often validate this cynical position. God does not exist as god is not required by my worldview. And besides, Gwyneth Paltrow is god enough. I love my Gwynnies! Heart

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: