Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2013, 11:07 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Okay PJ, I was a bit off on the numbers, and the actual name is, the National Academy of Science.

The last minute of this clip Tyson talks about the poll and says it was 85% proffess no belief in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl...i3mtDC2fQo

Why I thought it was around 3 % comes from info from the sources this article references.
http://news.discovery.com/tech/are-scien...heists.htm
It's not all scientists, but 93% of the national academy of science's physicists/Astronomers (Which Tyson is and I recall he mentioned that bit in some other video) and only 5% of their Biologists belief in a deity/god.

And you're proclaiming that one being mightier than you is what makes you accountable... then how do atheists not simply have accountability to law enforcement if they behave to a harsh extreme if we all could to aliens?

Odd note... I watched Iron Man 2 last week and Shallow Hal this past weekend, and HOC comes back? Coincidence or did Comedy Central reshowing Shallow Hal put him in the mood to return. Drinking Beverage The world may never know...

"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
26-02-2013, 11:10 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote: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.
LOL. You can read off Wikipedia. This is the date that is presently in vogue. However, I am willing to accept that date without it having bearing on believing either the Bible or Evolution.
Quote: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.
Your source, please, for your assertions. Most of the NT verses were repeated in letters between church fathers before the close fo the second century. The corroborating evidence includes the Talmud, which points to Jesus as who He claimed to be though it says to NOT believe in Him, and the multiple authors, the prophecies, the accuracies and the Bible codes, etc. What is your "contradictory contemporaneous evidence," please?
No, you aren't summing my position correctly. NOR my PROOF for God's existence.
Quote: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.
I'm unsure why you're reluctant to define terms. However, if you don't mind a pointer to the thread where you lay down your terms or if you don't mind repeating yourself, I'll gladly proceed. I'm not pleased with the delay either.
Quote:Okay PJ, I was a bit off on the numbers, and the actual name is, the National Academy of Science.

The last minute of this clip Tyson talks about the poll and says it was 85% proffess no belief in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl...i3mtDC2fQo

Why I thought it was around 3 % comes from info from the sources this article references.
http://news.discovery.com/tech/are-scien...heists.htm
It's not all scientists, but 93% of the national academy of science's physicists/Astronomers (Which Tyson is and I recall he mentioned that bit in some other video) and only 5% of their Biologists belief in a deity/god.

And you're proclaiming that one being mightier than you is what makes you accountable... then how do atheists not simply have accountability to law enforcement if they behave to a harsh extreme if we all could to aliens?

Odd note... I watched Iron Man 2 last week and Shallow Hal this past weekend, and HOC comes back? Coincidence or did Comedy Central reshowing Shallow Hal put him in the mood to return. The world may never know...
I'm sorry to hear that. Your positions would stand better if they were more representative of the average person. If Tyson is true, there is a LOT of bias there. Atheists do have accountability to law enforcement. I'm sorry, please restate your point.
I couldn't follow it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 11:18 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 11:10 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'm unsure why you're reluctant to define terms. However, if you don't mind a pointer to the thread where you lay down your terms or if you don't mind repeating yourself, I'll gladly proceed. I'm not pleased with the delay either.
What "terms" are you talking about?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 11:39 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
The notion that you would cling to the the accuracy of the bible (e.g. the exodus, the flood, genealogy, genesis etc.) in spite of the contradictory evidence confirms that you are a clown. Big red shoes, orange receding hair, pasty complexion, big red nose and polka dot pants all right there in my mind's image of you. You can find links/sources to all the inaccuracies / contradictions in the bible on this site and a multitude of others. Try here for a start http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/b...radictions

I am actually sorry that you have wasted your potential thusly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 11:41 AM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2013 09:22 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Most/many of the early "church fathers" were self admitted liars, including Paul.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly+Church
Try harder, SexuallyPleasingJebus

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, 11:44 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.

Wrong. You have explained nothing. ALl the dating methods point to approximately the same dates. You have FAILED to explain WHY, or HOW that is circular. Fail again SPJ. You have failed also to explain why the probability of the combination is so low. Fail again, SPJ.

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, 11:49 AM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2013 12:49 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 09:46 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
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.

In your first post here, (I think) we went through the "prophesy" thing. You have FAILED to respond to why we know that is nonsense. "Prophecy"is not about telling the future. Respond to the link provided. Fail again. You dance around the topics, yet specicically NEVER address specific FACTS presented. Fail again. I could care less what your "area of expertise" is. You are a deluded idiot, obviously.

WHERE IS THE SILT LAYER, and how exactly do you KNOW the "earth was tilted off it's axis" and where is the proof of that, oh laughable SexuallyPleasingJebus ? And why would a world-wide flood, on the entire earth, cause the entire earth to tilt, SPJ ? No astronomer ever talks about that crap. You are such a joke.

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, 12:09 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
There is a passage toward the end of the Great Gatsby which uses the word, "orgiastic". This word was settled on by Fitzgerald and his editor after much discussion. The original manuscript's passage had both the words orgasmic and orgiastic placed, replaced, and then both crossed out.

Copious letters were exchanged concerning this single word. Content of the passage worked either way but it altered the thought and content of the surrounding passages, somewhat. Nothing was changed too drastically and Fitzgerald finally settled, with his editor's urging, on "orgiastic".

A year after publication, Fitzgerald was having lunch with his editor and lamented that he was dismayed upon reading that passage; he felt the it altered the intimacy of the entire meaning of the work. His editor noticed this and advised that he was pleased with this fortuitous choice. He had wanted the overall content to garner a less intimate meaning in hopes of forming a more broad comment on society, rather than Fitzgerald's original intimate character study.
***

As for the Bible, the inadvertent alteration of intimate character studies regarding the phrases... in his own image and I am by the multitude of translators and rewriters of their respective passages, seems to me just as lamentable. Even more lamentable in light of any supposed historical significance of this work. Here, intimacy is cheapened and meaning completely perverted, rendering the entirety of this work nearly meaningless.

In a more broad sense, man is a creature of his own time and if he chooses to not be, he may doom himself to waste it.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 01:25 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:What "terms" are you talking about?
The defined terms and the boundaries you would place on evidence/proof for any fact. You had a short list somewhere but I couldn't find it.
God = Invisible being credited with natural phenomena
Oort Cloud, Punctuated Equilibrium, etc, etc, etc. = Invisible mechanisms credited with removing obstacles to disbelieving in God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 01:26 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:As for the Bible, the inadvertent alteration of intimate character studies regarding the phrases... in his own image and I am by the multitude of translators and rewriters of their respective passages, seems to me just as lamentable. Even more lamentable in light of any supposed historical significance of this work. Here, intimacy is cheapened and meaning completely perverted, rendering the entirety of this work nearly meaningless.

In a more broad sense, man is a creature of his own time and if he chooses to not be, he may doom himself to waste it.
I'm sorry, I don't understand but I'm intrigued, sincerely. How would you define "I am" and "in His own image". Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: