Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Thread Closed 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-08-2015, 10:19 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(02-08-2015 09:58 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  The theory of Abiogensis is not complete, and in no way does it violate any natural laws, you are making an argument from incredulity.

No, I am saying that since you cannot go in a lab and demonstrate how life can come from nonlife, then you have no scientific reasons for believing that it can happen, and that it DID happen. Therefore, you are relying on faith.

And you're alternative without evidence is God did it the classical god of the gaps argument. We may not be able to go into a lab and demonstrate life coming from non-life yet, but we are getting ever closer, getting amino acids was a big step, getting RNA was an even bigger step. Its only a matter of time before another gap in our knowledge is closed.

And if the evidence takes us away from abiogensis into another possibility then, regardless of how I feel about it, I have to follow what the evidence points to. But for now it is the best explanation we have.

(02-08-2015 09:58 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  We have the miller-urea experminent that showed we can get ammino acids out of non-organic materials, which is what the experiment was designed to do, it was not designed to get all the way up to self replicating molecules. And further refinements to the experiment have yielded better results.

Right, he got a few amino acids, but he didn't get a LIVING CELL. Its been over 50 years since that experiment, and we are still no close to getting an actual living cell. Not to mention the fact that you still have to explain where did the DNA come from in the first place. Where did the information within the DNA come from?? A mindless and blind process??

And even if we did go in a lab and create a living cell (which is a very big "if"), that still doesn't explain the origin of consciousness...how can matter get to the point of formulating thoughts.

This is an uphill battle, and it sounds like the subject of our next debate Laugh out load

Miller-urea wasn't meant to get a living cell out of the experiment it was just to find out if we could get something out of non-living matter and we did. Further refinements to the experiment have yielded even better results. And other experiments have resulted in very simple self replicating RNA strands. And as far as information in DNA this is a limitation in our language, its not like a computer program, dna is nothing but a sequence of different acids.

Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.

"Nothing needs to assemble itself. Evolution and abiogenesis do not exclude outside influences; on the contrary, such outside influences are essential. In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth's interior. In evolution, information from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly via natural selection against varieties that do not do well in that environment. " http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html

(02-08-2015 09:58 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  And I just told you why abiogensis doesn't violate crap.

Ok, please tell me what is the law which states that life can originate from nonliving material. Amino acids are NOT living cells. And you are actually right, abiogenesis doesn't violate anything, because there isn't a law yet for it to be violated.

Now, you can believe it all you want to, but there is no scientific evidence supporting the theory...so again, you are relying on faith, my friend.

There is plenty of scientific evidence supporting the theory, its just not complete yet.

(02-08-2015 09:58 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  Really? Who then? I have to see anyone make let alone prove that claim.

Look up Julius Africanus mention of the historian Thallus, who mentioned a darkness that covered the land during the crucifixion. A lot of historians have weighed in on this, and if what Julius Africanus said is true, Thallus may be the earliest mention of the crucifixion that we have...even earlier than Paul.

Look it up, will ya Big Grin

Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

(02-08-2015 09:58 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  Again do some reaserch into abiogensis and evolutionary theory, the timeframe requried to get from non-organic to organic compounds to life, to what we see today is immenense.

Yeah, that is the god that naturalists worship..the god of "time"...they reason "well, it takes 100,000 million years for it to happen"...in other words, given enough time, ANYTHING can happen. Yeah, sure.

Basically, a con game.

Hardly, and time is not a god. And no not anything can happen with large amounts of time, whatever happens is still bound by physical laws.

(02-08-2015 09:58 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  Something going from living, to dead(as in no doubts about being fully brain dead), back to life has never happened.

Have you ever observed life coming from nonlife? You mentioned the Miller-Urey experiment, which did not produce such a result. So what do you have? You have NOTHING.

So I ask again, did you (or ANYONE) ever observe inanimate matter coming to life from nonliving material? The answer is a big, fat, NO.

Not yet, but that is only a matter of time, we already have organic amino acids and RNA strands.

(02-08-2015 09:58 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So for you to make it seem as if someone dying and coming back to life is so extraordinary, but at the same time having no problem with the concept of inanimate matter coming to life...that just strikes me as disingenuous.

At least believers admit that on our view, divine intervention is necessary. On your view, divine intervention isn't necessary, yet you can't go in a lab and demonstrate it. So you can't even demonstrate the "easy" naturalistic stuff, but you have the nerve to just bypass what you CAN'T prove and attack other belief systems??


Its hardly foolishness, as I've repeatedly admitted, the theory isn't complete and scientists are working to figure it out, and we have never observed a once living thing die and then come back as that same living thing, and the bible supposedly has this one exception and yet provides no proof of it?. And your view is that god did it end of argument, stop even trying to explain it.

I would call your viewpoint very foolish, and mine as the search for answers

(02-08-2015 09:58 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  Your point? And yet again it was still a jewish sect, the split didn't happen until much later.

Irrelevant. Regardless of what sect it was, it was a set of beliefs that originated shortly after the events that are in question.

(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  If you want to wait several years for me to reaserch lingusitc methods and learn greek and do the linguistic analysis

Jesus would have returned by then..

Pfft, believers have been saying that for centuries, and still a no show.

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Worom's post
03-08-2015, 10:27 AM (This post was last modified: 03-08-2015 10:14 PM by Worom.)
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(02-08-2015 09:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 02:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  This is some serious mental gymnastics here, so if I told you there were 20 apples, but someone else said there were actually 10 apples, and then another person said there were no apples, and one other said there was 1 apple. Then how many apples are there? By your logic there was 20, 10, none, and 1 all at the same time.

I see your point, but it isn't that cut and dry. To make my point, I will give some real life examples...I work for A-DoT, at the A-DoT warehouse which stores all of the traffic signs, signals, poles, lights, etc...statewide. A-DoT personnel from all across the state come to the warehouse to pick up supplies for the various cities (Lake Havasu, Snowflake, Tucson, Flagstaff, etc).

Now, just last week, a couple of the guys from Flagstaff came to the warehouse to pick up some stuff, and we talked for a minute and of course the subject of the weather came up. I told them I was thinking about moving to Flagstaff to escape the hot scorching summers here in Phoenix. Since they live in Flagstaff, they were telling me about life up north. Now, both of them spoke about it, but one guy was more outspoken than the other guy. He spoke louder, he was more animated, etc.

Now, if I went home that day and I spoke to the wife about moving the Flagstaff, and she ask "How do you know what it is like up there", and I say "I spoke to a guy at work and he told me it is nice".

Ahhh, you see what happened there? Now, I could have either said "I spoke to a couple guys at work and they said it is lovely up there", or I could have said "I spoke to a guy at work and he told me it is lovely up there."

Either way, what I said is accurate. Maybe I would subconsciously just go the singular route, since one guy was more outspoken than the other one..his message came across more. Or, if I knew that I had to be 100% as detailed as I possibly can due to a cross examination at a later date (hehehe), I would have went the plural route. But either way, it is accurate.

But getting back to the Gospels, it all goes back to how the story was passed down. Maybe it started out as two, but it ended up as just one, because as the story was told it was focused on the "main" person that was talking to the women. I don't know.

But either way, I don't find anything wrong with the Gospels giving different accounts of the same events, as long as it can all be reconciled with critical thinking and a little bit of common sense.

Critical thinking? Common Sense? If that was used you would see the gospels for what they really are, and that is just stories. What you described was an omission but the overall information remained intact.

But what would have happened if I decided to write about the same conversation, and I said that there were two people there and they both described the weather in flagstaff, and that I was standing outside the warehouse area and I saw you also standing outside the supply area talking to you about the weather.

Then another person says you weren't at the warehouse at all and were actually in the front office talking to one of the people you mentioned about the weather.

Then what would you do? You have three different scenarios describing you talking about the weather all taking place at the exact same time?

Who do we believe is telling the truth? Who is lying?

(02-08-2015 09:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 02:31 PM)Worom Wrote:  Except he didn't actually appear, all he saw was a blinding light and heard a voice.

Maybe the blinding light WAS Jesus. Hmmm Consider

Except that's all he saw was the blinding light, and heard a voice claiming to be jesus, sounds like a hallucination to me hmmmm

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Worom's post
13-08-2015, 07:44 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Well its been 10 days since my response, and nothing from Call of the Wild, does that mean I win? Or does he still have more time to respond?

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
13-08-2015, 04:38 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(13-08-2015 07:44 AM)Worom Wrote:  Well its been 10 days since my response, and nothing from Call of the Wild, does that mean I win? Or does he still have more time to respond?

No, that's not what it means.
Find all posts by this user
14-08-2015, 07:15 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(13-08-2015 04:38 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 07:44 AM)Worom Wrote:  Well its been 10 days since my response, and nothing from Call of the Wild, does that mean I win? Or does he still have more time to respond?

No, that's not what it means.

I await your counter to my arguments that I posted 11 days ago then.

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
14-08-2015, 08:37 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(14-08-2015 07:15 AM)Worom Wrote:  I await your counter to my arguments that I posted 11 days ago then.

Yeah, you do that.
Find all posts by this user
14-08-2015, 08:41 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(14-08-2015 08:37 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 07:15 AM)Worom Wrote:  I await your counter to my arguments that I posted 11 days ago then.

Yeah, you do that.

Are you going to post a counter argument or not? If you are unwilling to post a counter argument then this debate is over is it not?

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
14-08-2015, 09:58 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(14-08-2015 08:41 AM)Worom Wrote:  Are you going to post a counter argument or not? If you are unwilling to post a counter argument then this debate is over is it not?

Easy, cupcake. My progress is small steps, not leaps and bounds.
Find all posts by this user
14-08-2015, 10:26 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  No it is not, there is significant evidence that Julius Caesar was stabbed, several non-conflicting independent accounts.

Well, if it was/is one big ass conspiracy/lie from day one, then it comes as no surprise that there aren't any conflicting accounts. If you get enough liars to tell the same lies, it will all sound like one big harmonizing account.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  As well as finding the location he was stabbed as it was described by those sources.

Sources? How do you know those sources weren't lying?

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  The gospels lack this evidence.

So basically you are telling me that you believe the Caesar thing because of sources which state that the assassination took place...well, I believe the Gospels because of the sources that tell me that the Resurrection took place. How is your sources more credible than mines?

Your sources could be lying just like you give forth the possibility that mines are lying.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  They could, however none of the ones that are historical have supernatural events in them. Facepalm

Whether or not the event is supernatural or natural, what matters is the TRUTH value of the claim.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  And on top of that we look for other evidence confirming the events happened such as multiple accounts form multiple sources that don't conflict with each other. As well as physical evidence, from archaeological digs.

Well, show me a body or any remains of a man that was stabbed 100 times (or however many times). And if you find one, I will move the goal posts and ask you how do you know that this is the actual body/remains of Julius Caesar.

Anyone can be skeptical.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  And yet we see no modern evidence that any of these miracles have occurred, funny it seems as soon as we could record video and photos of events all the "miracles" stopped. And things that used to be thought of as miracles ended up being explainable.

I don't see any modern evidence that reptiles evolved into birds, that life originated from nonlife, that the universe is static and eternal, and that consciousness can come from unconsciousness.

We have videos and photos now, and I STILL don't see any evidence for any of that stuff.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Lets see Abiogenesis the theory isn't complete

Neither is our knowledge of history. You patiently wait for new discoveries regarding science and naturalism, and while you are waiting on that, Christians are waiting on the return of Jesus.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  but we have far more evidence that we are on the right track at least, the miller-urea experiment never meant to show that we would get life but that we would at least get amino acids from non-living material which we did, and further refinements in the experiments over the years have lead to us getting even more amino acids out of the experiment. Also we have been able to create very simple forms of RNA, which would have proceeded DNA

Hold your breath while waiting on science to tell us how a living cell originated, and where did the information that is contained in the DNA, where did that information come from?? A mindless and blind process is the source of all that information??? I see believers aren't the only ones playing the faith game.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  The chemical processes that took place on the early Earth are called chemical evolution. Both Manfred Eigen and Sol Spiegelman demonstrated that evolution, including replication, variation, and natural selection, can occur in populations of molecules as well as in organisms.

Before you get to the point of life evolving, you have to explain how life originated first. If you are going to take God out of the equation, then abiogenesis could be false, therefore, evolution can't be a brute fact.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Spiegelman took advantage of natural selection to synthesize the Spiegelman Monster, which had a genome with just 218 nucleotide bases. Eigen built on Spiegelman's work and produced a similar system with just 48 or 54 nucleotides.

"Took advantage of natural selection"....any work being done on what happened after life originated does nothing to explain how life originated naturally.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  And why do you think mind/body naturalism has never been observed? We know there is a link between the mind and consciousness, if that link didn't exist then drugs, and damage to the brain would have no effect on consciousness.

Then all we know is that there is a correlation between the mind and the brain, but I am talking about the ORIGINS of consciousness, not what happens after consciousness originates.

Hell, there is a correlation between my remote control and my television. But the origins of my television has nothing to do with the origins of the remote, and vice versa. To explain the origins of one is not to explain the origins of the other.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  While we don't know yet exactly what processes in the brain lead to consciousness we can say that they are linked based on observable effects.

Correlations and origins are not the same thing.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  If they were not linked then all therapeutic and "recreational" drugs would have absolutely no effect on you or could be completely dismissed with a thought. And since you have probably had alcohol before, or taken pain killers you are well aware of these effects yourself.

Correlations and origins are not the same thing.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  The theory as I've said is incomplete, however there is significant evidence that we are on the right track. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Hey, you can theorize all you want, but until you are able to perform an experiment, and get the desired result, then it is just a theory that you BELIEVE occurred, thus, utilizing your faith in science.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  And like I said that whole section is a forgery in total, the source you link to is an old apologetic website, the source I linked to is from an educational paper repository, hence the .edu in the web address.

My source highly cited. If you are that big on citations, then I would expect you to read the article and take a peek at the listed citations at the bottom. Second, since you posted your .edu link, I will assume your source is backing up YOUR position...which leads me to believe that your source may be just as biased as mines is.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  I wouldn't go that far, the way the passage is written seems that he is describing what he was told, by the early Christians.

The entire genre of history is based on things that were TOLD. Even if he was told this by early Christians, you shouldn't discount it just because it came from the mouths of Christians, as if there can never be any truth value to a Christian claim. At this point, we aren't even talking about a Resurrection, we are talking about the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, the MAN. Not the Deity, but the MAN.

Now, if you are not willing to grant that Jesus the MAN existed, then there is no point in even talking about the Resurrection, then.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  I'm sure you will contest this point but looking at the wording at least suggests it. Either way even if he did exist, he is not the person described in the gospels.

Based on what? Certainly not Josephus' account.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  You do realize if the discovery of the new world was all a big con game we wouldn't be sitting in the "new world" right?

Um, we could be sitting here because an Indian that was already living here could have traveled across the ocean and told people about it, and that sparked Columbus' interest for him to come and check things out. Columbus came here, and over time the lie spread that he "discovered" America, and now our history books are tainted.

That is a theory, too.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Yes, but Tactius was writing the annals after the split started taking place.

But the events which he is describing already shows that the split had already taken place...and this was DURING THE TIME OF NERO.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  The next section assumes if Jesus existed, but the story of Jesus could have been just thought up as well.

"The split of early Christianity and Judaism took place during the first centuries of the Common Era. It is commonly attributed to a number of events, including the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus (c. 33), the Council of Jerusalem (c. 50), the destruction of the Second Temple and institution of the Jewish tax in 70, the postulated Council of Jamnia c. 90, and the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–135. While it is commonly believed that Paul the Apostle established a primarily Gentile church within his lifetime, it took centuries for a complete break with Judaism to manifest, and the relationship between Paul and Judaism is still disputed.

The traditional view has been that Judaism existed before Christianity and that Christianity separated from Judaism some time after the destruction of the Second Temple. Recently, some scholars have argued that there were many competing Jewish sects in the Holy Land during the Second Temple period, and that those that became Rabbinic Judaism and Proto-orthodox Christianity were but two of these. Some of these scholars have proposed a model which envisions a twin birth of Proto-orthodox Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism rather than a separation of the former from the latter. For example, Robert Goldenberg asserts that it is increasingly accepted among scholars that "at the end of the 1st century AD there were not yet two separate religions called 'Judaism' and 'Christianity'"."

Well, I will have to disagree. Christianity had reached Corinth by the early 50's CE, and had reached Turkey by the early second century CE, according to Pliny the Younger's writings. So I don't know where people get this "centuries after" stuff. But this is the common theme, for people to paint the picture as if stuff happened so much later after the events, contrary to evidence that things happened much earlier.

Only someone that is at least half way knowledgeable on this stuff can point out the bullshit.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Alright so the Jewish people feel like they are being oppressed.
Someone comes along, could have been someone named Jesus could have been someone else and starts preaching about being the messiah that will deliver the Jews out of oppression and fulfill old testament prophecy.

It was more than just claims, it was claims, and certain "deeds". You know, like turning water into wine, walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead...you know, stuff like that.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  This person ends up getting executed, and makes it so the prophecy in the old testament cant be fulfilled.

Can't be fulfilled?

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Someone goes to the tomb and steals the body and starts saying he is resurrected, to restore the prophecy.

The problem is, the narrative states that there was a guard put at the tomb just so what you said above couldn't have happened. So not only do you have to explain that, but if the body was stolen, you would have to explain the origins of the disciples belief that Jesus has risen and appeared physically to them.

Now, if you are claiming that the disciples stole the body, then you have to explain why the narratives state that the disciples were ignorant regarding the Resurrection, if you are claiming that they stole the body and created the Resurrection story.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  They may be in the minority at this point, however they bring up some rather compelling arguments against the majority opinion.

Since we both agree that Carrier got spanked by Craig...check out WLC vs Robert Price in their debate. What do you think here?


(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Irrelevant, you can intend something to be taken as non-fiction all you want, but it doesn't make it non-fiction or vice versa.

So you telling me about Jean Luc Picard was irrelevant.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Except you don't understand what abiogensis is fully, it is getting life from non living materials, however there is an explained hypothetical process that doesn't violate the laws of physics on how we got from non-life to life.

Laugh out load Until you can go in a lab and conduct some kind of experiement and the end result is life, then you are in no position to say whether or not the theory violates natural law.

The only way you can determine if a law can/cannot be violated is if you first substaniate the law, which you haven't done yet.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  It hasn't been fully proven yet

Then you've acknowledged my only point in this regard. Everything else you say is faith based.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  We know that chemicals can form new chemicals, and under the right conditions could have formed life.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Go in a lab and simulate the "right conditions", and form life. Until then, let the speculating continue.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Except I was referring to the books and I would have hoped that you knew they were books well before they were movies, and the books came before the movies. How would you tell those are fiction or not by using the same logic you say the bible isn't fiction?

It all goes back to the authors intent. If the person that is writing the material doesn't view it as nonfiction, then why should I?

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  You still haven't resolved the argument though, why would someone making an eyewitness account need someone else work at all?

Because no human being is omniscient. Hell, I may have grown up with my sister, but does that mean that I know everything about her? No. My cousin (who is close to her) may be able to provide me information on her that I may not know. So if I was to write a biography of my sister, I would take the information that I witnessed first hand, but I would also rely on other testimony from other people that she knew.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  As for John he went flying off the wall compared to the other three gospels, and was written well after any eyewitnesses would have been dead.

Or he could have lived to be a very old man.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  He can say whatever he wants, it doesn't make it factual and we have nothing to corroborate what is said outside of the bible.

Ok, so based on that fallacious reasoning, since we have no records of King Tut that is outside of Egypt, therefore, the knowledge that we have of King Tut from within the realms of Egypt, we shouldn't rely on it, because "we have nothing to corroborate what is said about King Tut that is outside the realms of Egypt".

See how fallacious that reasoning is??

Every word in the the book of Luke COULD be true regardless of whether or not there are outside books to corroborate it. You seem to have this irrational mindset of "the Bible needs to be corroborated by external sources, otherwise, it isn't reliable"...well in that case, when I use a U.S. History book, the book isn't reliable unless I have external U.S sources.

Makes no sense.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  You're assuming that the interpretation is true, without evidence for it. In other words your taking it totally on faith.

I am assuming that the interpretation is true based on what I believe to be the propondence of evidence which favors it. Now, this may not do it for you, but it does for me.

Kind of the same way you believe that life naturally arose from nonlife, and that intelligence originated from a mindless and blind process..the difference is, there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever for your belief, yet you seem to have no problems believing it.

So you are the last person that should be talking about someone relying on faith Laugh out load

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  But in order for the prophecy to be true it has to fulfill every piece of it, and since there have been a ton of blood moons and a whole lot of no show then I'd say the prophecy is bunk.

It also stated that before the blood moons there will be blood and fire and clouds of smoke (Acts 2:20). Has that happened yet? No.

Trust me, when the time comes, no one will have to play the guessing game. It will be quite apparent.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Ahh the Ken Ham were you there argument, I was wondering when someone was going to try and use that on me. I'm glad it was you because I can easily turn that argument right around on you.

Were you there when the gospels were written?
Were you there when Jesus was crucified?
Were you there when the Bible was compiled?
Were you there when Jesus supposedly performed his Miracles?
Were you there when the Church was forming?
Were you there when the temple was destroyed?
How do you know that the bible wasn't forged?

The difference between us, I admit that I accept by faith...not blind faith, but reasonable faith. You, on the other hand, make it seem as if everything you were taught about history is 100% brute facts...but when it comes to the Bible, all of a sudden it is time to play the role of super duper skeptic.

The taxi cab fallacy at it finest.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Faith is not needed when I have evidence, we know it wasn't forged because of consistency in the writing, and the signatures that we can use as comparisons.

Yeah, ASSUMING that the comparisons are authentic themselves!!! See how much faith you are ultiizing?? You are using so much faith, and you don't even realize it.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  I could have sworn I built that case in the very first post I made? Hmm

Nonsense. I still don't know why you believe the Gospels couldn't have been written pre 70-AD.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  I wouldn't have described it so crudely, but essentially yes. Although it doesn't need to be slang it just has to be any type of wording that didn't exist up until that point.

Really? Words like what??

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Yes, read the damn arguments

I've been reading, and responding accordingly, sir.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  One passing mention in one document, a historical figure does not make.

Thats what makes it geniue, it was mentioned in passing. "James, brother of Jesus..." that is something that was mentioned in passing. If we are talking about ASU and I say "Oh, Kevin's brother Marvin went to ASU"....I am matter-of-factly acknowledging a person name Kevin who has a brother named Marvin. It was common then, and it is common now.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  No, it would make your argument even more laughable than it already is.

How so? Or are you just being a smart ass?

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  No, the authorship of the books is only a very very tiny piece of why I'm no longer a Christian. All it would have done is made our entire debate futile, and at least we would know, or at least have a strong claim on who wrote the gospels.

We do.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  And I go with they were lying option, based on what I've presented before.

Wait a minute, you presented something? Laugh out load

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  If I dug hard enough I'm sure I could find a few college papers that survived electronically.

Could your parents do the same thing? No, they couldn't. The point is, over time, shit like that gets lost. History isn't open and shut. New discoveries COULD be made, and even if they aren't, I am convinced with the evidence that we do have. Now, that may not be good enough for you and others, but hey, you can't please everyone.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  As for grade school, I was writing to satisfy the requirements the teach laid forth, not to keep a historical record to stand the test of time.

Well, if the ancient ones felt the same way you feel right now, then there is no wonder why we don't currently have other written accounts.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Do you think I really cared what happened to my crap as a teenager? Where as a historian would want thier works to survive the test of time.

Newsflash, buddy; You don't have to be a "historian" to write about events that happen during your lifetime. All it takes is a regular joe schmo to give enough of a damn about event x to write about it.

Having the "historian" label stapled on your forehead isn't required.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  The more something is copied the more prone it is to have transcribing errors, or alterations.

True, but that says nothing about the fact that the earliest manuscripts of the Bible were written a lot closer to the events than any other book in antiquity (relative to the events that the books are describing).

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  False equivalency here
Because a power outage is hardly unusual

The sky going black for hours is highly unusual

Well, if you have faith that life arose naturally from nonliving material despite the fact that as of right now, such an event is "highly unusual" to occur, then you shouldn't have any trouble accepting by faith that God caused the sky to go black for hours.

You will believe in anything, as long as it fits your worldview. Me, on the other hand, even if I weren't a Christian, I would still be a theist of some sort. Why? Because of the outrageous and "unusual" stuff that you believe occurred without divine intervention....I just can't get myself to believe in abiogenesis and mind/body naturalism.

To me, that is "highly unusual"...which is why it doesn't surprise me that no one has ever written about having witnessed any of that stuff that YOU believe.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  , well if you take the bible literally all the land would mean just that, all the land everywhere.

No, that is what it COULD mean, but that is not what it NECESSARILY mean. You understand the difference. If I say Barack Obama holds the highest office in the land, obviously I am not talking about including China in that "land".

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  That and you mentioning it here, just put it into the records as well Tongue

Yeah but if me mentioning it here was the only surviving mention of the incident, 3,000 years from now a skeptic would call into question the incident based on just my one account, wouldn't he?

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Except the bible says all the land.

All land where?

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  I would consider my balcony to be part of my apartment, and if my apartment was destroyed and the balcony was still there, I would say oh look at least I still have the balcony of my apartment left.

Talk about false equivalency. Last I checked, the balcony is part of the apartment.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  For just the biographies yes

Well, the biographies of Jesus were written much closer to his life than Alexander the Great's biographies Laugh out load

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Really now?

Forgot what this was in reference too.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  or for the love of.... a Creed by definition is a profession of faith, not fact.

It is a creed to those that it was passed on too, it was a fact to those that it was passed FROM. Verse 8 "and last of all, he appeared to me". Personal testimony.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Yes and they brought all 66 books together and they all contradict each other hard core.

To who? To you? All seems fine to me. I've already seen your "contradictions", which are not even contradictions by the mere definition of what a contradiction is.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Here is a nice visual representation for you of those contradictions. http://bibviz.com/#colorize:Crimson

Which is meaningless, since I can easily post a link that refutes those alleged "contradictions".

You set'em up, and I'll knock'em down.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  I never said our knowledge was complete, but someone not writing about how king tut died, is small potatoes compared to the claims the bible is making.

Not really. You are telling me what you would "expect" regarding which things should have been written down when it comes to Biblical claims. Well, I would "expect" certain things to be written down when it comes to natural claims. King Tut, head of state, Pharaoh of Egypt...his manner of death has never been recorded. The events of his reign has never been recorded, either. I would expect these things to have been written down. They were written down during the reigns of other Pharaohs, like Ramessess The Great, Thutmose, Akenaten. Why not King Tut?

So I guess King Tut never existed, then. All that we've found could be one big giant lie, because the events of his reign wasn't written down during his lifetime, or even after his lifetime.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Besides we found king tut's tomb which was well preserved and had a good chunk of information for archaeologists to drool over.

How do you know that is actually King Tut's body? Ahhhh are you playing the faith game, again? Without even realizing it. You are playing the faith game without even realizing that this is what you are doing...and it happened so fast, you didn't even see it.

While you were typing the above quote, did it ever occur to you that the tomb/body that was discovered may not be King Tut's? Are you just relying on what you've been told??? Are you accepting by faith that what you've been told is true? Huh?

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  My point, is they weren't making extraordinary claims, requiring extraordinary evidence.

Ok, and as far as I'm concerned, you are telling me that life arose naturally from nonliving material. You are also telling me that in the distant past, reptiles evolved into birds. You are also telling me that this inanimate matter that came to life somehow began to think as it arose consciousness.

To me, those are extraordinary claims, requiring extraordinary evidence...evidence that YOU cannot provide me at this time. So don't come to me with the played-out atheist quip "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence".

You provide me evidence for your extraordinary claim, and I'll provide you mines.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Again that is not the definition of a creed, by definition a creed is a profession of faith, either change the word your using. Or change the definition of the word.

It was a creed to future believers, it was personal testimony to the original disciples.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  How is this hard to understand? If I read a book and then write something about the book, I can make it sound like it matches up with the book without any issue.

So if you read a book, then write something about the book, you can "make it sound like it matches up with the book"...I am curious as to what the "it" is in this context. If you are writing about the book, of course you will make it sound like the book because that is what you are writing about!!!

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  As I've stated before in previous arguments they did not.

Laugh out load Man would you stop telling me when you did something hahahaha.
Find all posts by this user
14-08-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  No I haven't believed a lie that I told, but there are people that do, we call them pathological liars.

I think you need to do some research on pathological liars before you start giving out definitions.

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  That and by your logic anyone that has written a story book, or other work of fiction actually believes that thier story is true.

When someone writes a book, they either believe what they are writing, or they don't believe what they are writing. The Gospel authors believed what they were writing. Paul believed what he was writing.

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  You're making an assumption, and as I pointed out by your reasoning anyone writing any work of fiction would have reasons to believe that thier stories are true, experience is totally irrelevant, to someone making up a story.

I don't know who wrote anything in antiquity, as I wasn't there (and come to think of it, neither were you)....so I simply examine the evidence for and against, and I make a determination based on what direction I think the evidence is pointing.

You call it an assumption, I call it having good reasons to believe that the books in question were either written by eyewitnesses, or the story was derived from eyewitnesses.

Now with that being said, again, in his preface, Luke stated that the story he is about to tell originated from eyewitnesses. You call this hearsay, but that is like your mother telling you "Your father said he wants you to have your room clean by the time he gets home from work".

And you tell her "I can't believe what you are saying, mother, as what you told me is hearsay". Laugh out load

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  So they could have just made the whole thing up.

They could have done the same thing regarding any other person or event in history that you have no problems believing. Just take your above quote, and apply it to any other person or event in antiquity, if you want to be consistent in your logic.

Now, if you want to continue to be inconsistent in your logic, then just continue to believe everything else you were told regarding historical events and people, but once it comes to Gospels, just continue to put on your Super Skeptic costume, and go out and fight crime (fight against believers).

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  And the way the stories are written make them sound just like that, stories.

To the billions of Christians in the world, we believe the stories are true stories.

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  You assume that the body wasn't just snatched away

The body being snatched away doesn't explain the post mortem appearances.

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  , and that the tomb actually existed. We have never found the tomb.

Even if we did find it, then you would be saying "how do we know that is the actual tomb". Again, those goal posts would be in motion.

Now unless God personally came down from heaven and smacked unbelievers across their faces, there really is no single best way for the Resurrection account to have taken place, or for the story to be told...because at the end of the day it isn't about believing, because some people don't want or like the idea of there being a God.

The fact of the matter is, the stories are what they are...either accept it, or reject it. You've obviously made your choice, correct? Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: