Darwin did not write a book called "origin of life" but "origin of species"... Why does Berlinski (and I've seen him state this before) insist upon that evolution has a say on origin of life. Rather inaccurate for a mathematician. He has to review the premises...
“Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers; almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons."
Here we are at last, Mr Berlinski is proving himself to be one of two things:
1. He is either a liar (since we know that von Neumann did support and respect evolution) OR:
2. He is such a poor thinker, that he didn't even check if this is true or not -- which makes him a person who has an agenda that not even reality can alter.
I wonder which is worse? Willful deceiver of people or ignorant moron with delusions of intellect...
Yeah, Darwinian theory on how species develop is just not scientific. But Intelligent Design, which is thinly-veiled creationist theory, yeah, that makes 100% sense and requires no evidence whatsoever.
Berlinski does not believe that intelligent design is a scientific theory either. Why the heck is almost every critic of Berlinki on these videos completely clueless about what he is even arguing, not to mention what he believes.. I wonder whether most of you people even care about science that isn't related to an attempts to "argue down God", or are you all just zombie followers of Chris Hichens and Richard Dawkins..
@Califacience Excuse me, this same asshole argued that "Darwinism" helped influence the Holocaust in Germany during World War 2 in the conservative porn documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."
@TaimaDjinn Hitler believed in evolution and also in the Arian race as the superior race, and that Jews were inferior. This mentality was in fact one that led to the holocaust.
@water2gashawaii First off, by saying that Hitler "believed" in evolution is one sign he didn't have a fucking clue about it. Secondly, as with a lot of Germans as well, Hitler's Anti-Semitism ultimately came from the paeloconservative brand of Christianity that preached the Jews were bad because they killed Jesus, and that concept predates Charles Darwin himself by centuries. The fact that people would resort to using the Holocaust to discredit Charles Darwin is just bullshit.
@Califacience we are right to be clueless about berlinskis views since all he does is sneer from the sidelines- he has no positive views about anything. he's made no contribution of any kind to any branch of any science and does nothing more waffle vacuously while lying about his areas of expertise, lying about non existent work with great mathematicians and lying about the views of other mathematicians etc. when asked a question about his own views by hitchins his evasion was pathetic. zombie??
@heloWelo Uggg DFO = Domain of Females Only. Don't tell me there is a fashion sale. I only went there once and I couldn't find anything worth buying apart from that one miniskirt that looked good on me. Maybe not the best look with the goaty and bald head but at least it made my bum look small.
@bryven76 - DFO = ;-). No fashion sale but lots off Royal Doulton e.g. Pans, Crystal etc. so my wife was happy! I didn't see any mini skirts that would suit you so I left them alone. There was a sale on lipstick - if you rush down there you may catch it.
Anyway, I made it back in one piece. It's all about survival of the fittest...
@heloWelo Lipstick huh. Okay I might look into that. I'm always after some ;-) I wouldn't say fittest since I don't count but I would say that it is a case of the one suited to the environment. So how many men did you see there? I bet they were very much outweighed by the women. Hence women are more suited to the environment of DFO but then you are suited to the environment of being with your partner. So I would have expected the chances of you surviving the excursion would be high ;-)
@bryven76 - Accordance is the name of one software package which you can get add-on's for. But of course, all of this is if you want to dig into every detail. For the layman, a good translation is suffice to understand the major doctrines.
@bryven76 - As for a lexicon, why not use software from a variety of publishers e.g. Strongs (for KJV), Vines, Youngs etc. You'll find Hebrew/Greek references for whatever you need.
@bryven76 - If you're really interested in answers and want to consider the already answered objections to the Bible and science issues, try creation com.
There's 1000's of articles written by Ph D scientists who gained their credentials at secular universities.
You might also want to read the rebuttals to TalkOrigins on the TrueOrigin org site. This answers the many fallacious or inaccurate arguments raised.
Which is, incidentally, the site that promotes the "15 Questions for Evolutionists", a list that consists mostly of straw men arguments and appeals to personal incredulity. It's the same kind of trite, tired, old creationist nonsense that has been addressed so many times already it's really not funny anymore. Just watch /watch?v=6ModNCJLZ3E for the answers to those "unanswerable questions".
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Elephant hurling. I may just as well say, those 15 alleged rebuttals have long since been debunked, it's not even funny. etc Yawn
"those 15 alleged rebuttals have long since been debunked"
All you have to do to rebut those "questions" is show how completely dishonest they are. A lot of them have been answered DECADES ago, like for instance the question how sex evolved, but creationists act as if scientists are completely in the dark about it. All creationists ever do to "debunk" the answers is to repeat themselves over and over. They might fool their sheeple, but they won't fool anybody who is willing to learn.
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Once again, your point can simply be turned around at aimed at atheist drones. Particularly about repetition. Your description is a far better fit of your own views.
The rest is more elephant hurling on your part and carries no weight here.
Probably best if you learn to think for yourself rather than quote from the atheist hymn book. Yawn. Zzzz....
@MomoTheBellyDancer - This has to do with your worldview. You exhibit hostility to someone with opposing views, which are science based. You also exhibit ignorance on the subject matter in which you choose to comment e.g. Textual Criticism and Information Theory. Both science based.
2+2 = 4. Do you expect someone to say anything else because of your abuse? Using your logic, I guess you would!
Looks like I wont be learning anything from you then! LOL
Evolution is not a worldview. It's a scientific theory. If you have trouble understanding this simple fact, I don't think discussing its scientific merits with you is of much use, since your mind is obviously impermeable to reason.
"Information Theory."
Evolution has NOTHING to do with information theory. Berlinski is barking up the wrong tree. Heck, it's not even a tree.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Your interpretation of supposed evidence for evolution is subject to your worldview. You need to learn the difference between origins science and operational science. Sigh.
Evolution has everything to do with Information Theory. What have they been teaching you?! Do you think there's no Information in DNA?
On the other hand, evolution can't account for Information, so you're right in that respect!
"Your interpretation of supposed evidence for evolution is subject to your worldview. "
The evidence is the same for everybody, regardless of worldview. It's the only way science CAN work.
"Do you think there's no Information in DNA?"
DNA is a molecule with chemical properties. There's no more "information" in DNA than that water has information about freezing at 0 degrees centigrade. DNA simply interacts chemically with its environment, just like any other molecule out there.
@MomoTheBellyDancer - The evidence is the same yes, the interpretation is subject to worldviews as it pertains to origins science. You need to learn that. You bring a naturalist bias to the "scene", so you can only see through those tinted glasses. Oops.
You obviously have no understanding about the genetic "code" and natural laws.
Man, are you really this ignorant?
Tip: Read more than AaronRa, Dawkins, CDK007 etc. Their science and philosophy are infantile.
"the interpretation is subject to worldviews as it pertains to origins science."
No, you can't just interpret the evidence freely in any way you like. Your interpretation will have to fit with all the available data, from various disciplines. Evolutionary theory fits the data AND it can be used to make very accurate predictions. Creationism has none of these qualities.
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Not any way although some try. Hence your naturalistic bias. Inference to the best explanation is often used in science. Design infers a designer. Hence the conclusion. Design does not suggest random piecing together by miracles of chemical reactions, contrary to all experience. Hence the rejection of silly abiogenesis conjectures.
"Darwin used inference of the best explanation. By your account Darwin was wrong. Oops"
Even if that were true, what Darwin thought is irrelevant. Science has come a long way in the last 150 years. Besides, you could try to actually address my point instead of piling on the straw men.
"Oxidation reference. Strawman."
YOU claim that chemical processes are magical.
"Evolution requires abiogenesis."
So first you accuse ME of using straw men, and then you pull this one. Golden.
@MomoTheBellyDancer - "your mind is obviously impermeable to reason" - I would say this is more appropriate for you, since you seem happy to make inaccurate claims and rely on grandstanding to get your point across. I repeat, this carries no weight here.
You can't account for Information from your worldview and I suppose you can't account for "reason" either. Sigh...
@MomoTheBellyDancer - I've been your side of the fence, so I know the dead ends that are IMPOSSIBLE for you to deal with.
Creationist sites also tend to offer both sides as they debunk the original sloppy assertions of people like you.
You also reveal a bias by suggesting those sites are unscientific, even though the articles are written by scientists. You have fallen into the "No true scottsman fallacy". Oops
If you consider "We against the godless heathens" as "offering both sides". It might make sense from a religious perspective, but it's not a scientific stance.
"the articles are written by scientists. "
Irrelevant. Did they public their creationist findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals? If so, please point them out.
Peer review, sure, You can find a list on many of the sites with the articles. Find them yourself. I grow tired of educating people with the same old tripe which have been answered before.
Your irony meter obviously needs help as the word theory was added. Evidence suggests you can understand some information (coded language).
So, no answers from you then. Just more from your atheist hymn book? ZZ.zzzz....
@heloWelo "Strawman." Where? Do you even know what a straw man is? "You can find a list on many of the sites with the articles." But none of them have anything to do with creationism. "I grow tired of educating people" Dang it, there goes another irony meter. "coded language" DNA is not coded language, even by stretching the definition. It's a molecule with chemical properties. "atheist hymn book" Please point out where I said anything "atheistic".
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Twisting what I'm saying is another ploy by atheist drones like yourself, you have nothing to offer apart from creating strawman arguments.
Your worldview is atheistic/anti creationist, as established earlier, your worldview (which is self refuting) blinds you to the evidence. It dismisses anything not naturalistic. Oops.
Anti-creationism (also called "realism") is NOT atheistic per se. The vast majority of Christians don't care for the anti-scientific stance of creationists.
@MomoTheBellyDancer - No projection, Just facts. Equivocation fallacy on your part. You appeal to magic and special pleading for your chemical evolution scenarios, which is hardly realism.
Yet another No true Scottsman fallacy.
So far, your arguments have amounted to sheer elephant hurling, ignorance and self-refuting nonsense.
Is this it? You really need to put down your atheist hymn book and engage in reality. Sigh
@MomoTheBellyDancer - You'll find many articles by creation scientists who publish peer reviewed articles which establish proof for creation, whether the implications are seen as such by blinkered drones is irrelevant.
Your religious views blind you to many proofs as you are unwilling to see the evidence.
@MomoTheBellyDancer - You can do your own homework. Meanwhile, can you show me a peer reviewed article by an atheist about abiogenesis in a creationist journal? (You know, one that isn't being completely shredded for appealing to magic and just-so stories to prop up fairy tales)
@MomoTheBellyDancer - How do you account for Information in your naturalistic worldview? What is your theory of information?
How do you account for the Laws of Logic? You appeal to being "rational". On what basis do arrive at rationality? What standard do you adopt? How can it be trusted?
@MomoTheBellyDancer - "Information is a human construct, independent of worldview." ROFL. So, what do animals process with their brains? You're priceless!
Once again, this would mean the information in DNA was created by humans. Circular reasoning at it's best.
"Makes sense of the world we live in" - begging the question. OOps!
"verify their trustworthiness empirically" - presupposing a consistent worldview. Yours isn't. It's self refuting. Ouch!
@heloWelo Strawman - alleging scientists who disagree with you do on religious rather than scientific reasons. Science presupposes a consistent worldview. You don't have one as a naturalist.
DNA is a molecule and not information in itself, of course! It is a material means of carrying information, just like ink on paper conveys information. Man, you REALLY need to study the subject matter.
@MomoTheBellyDancer - ROFL. Seriosusly, you're so funny. But still ignorant. I'll just put your "water" example down to not understanding information theory, biology or physics.
You need to check your atheist manual for those silly errors, it makes you appear more ignorant than you might actually be if you took your blinkers off!
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Atheist drones always whine when science proves their silly conjectures for the nonsense they are.
You need to keep up with science, just like everyone else. There's no good complaining when all your favorite hocus pocus stories are shot down in flames e.g. Chemical evolution.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "nformation ... is of no importance for the working of reality. " You obviously have no understanding of information whatsoever. So, tell me, is the tripe you are writing about information or not?
I suggest you do some reading on Information. Using your logic, DNA was designed by humans!
@MomoTheBellyDancer - More twisting. There's no information (specified complexity) in a water molecule. As opposed to information carried on DNA which acts as a blueprint with an intended purpose.
Natural laws. Specified complexity. Two different things. Keep up.
"There's no information (specified complexity) in a water molecule"
And neither is there in DNA. We're getting somewhere.
"DNA which acts as a blueprint with an intended purpose."
No, it doesn't. It's a molecule which responds to its environment chemically, in the same vein a water molecule does. That it's more complex doesn't change that fact. Dembski is WRONG.
@heloWelo "Your materialist worldview is self refuting. " The world exists and is materialistic. It's all we ever observe. "textual criticism" Why would you need that for something that is supposedly divinely inspired? "historical evidence is shallow " Yet can be verified by anybody who looks into it. "You twist things into strawman arguments" Projecting much? "You have no account for REASON in your worldview" The human brain does fine, thank you.
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Immaterial entities also exist e.g. Laws of Logic, Information, Abstract ideas etc etc. Your materialistic worldview can't account for those. Ooops. ("Making sense of the world" hypthesis by you is begging the question... oops!)
Your historical claims are verified by the likes of Dan Brown... hmmm, good source! Not.
Can you trust your brain? On what authority? Are you predetermined to think the way you do? Do you have a choice? Is your choice a real choice?
@MomoTheBellyDancer - There is no parallel between the two issues at all e.g. water forming snowflakes is 'doing what comes naturally', given the properties of the system. There is no need for any external information or programming to be added to the system—the existing properties of the water molecule and the atmospheric conditions are enough to give rise inevitably to snowflake-type patterns.
@MomoTheBellyDancer - However, there is no tendency for simple organic molecules to form themselves into the precise sequences needed to form the long-chain information-bearing molecules found in living systems. That is because the properties of the 'finished product' are not programmed in the components of the system. It takes the addition of some extra information—either by an intelligent mind at work or a programmed machine.
“As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. It is this physical indeterminacy of the sequence that produces the improbability of occurrence of any particular sequence and thereby enables it to have a meaning—a meaning that has a mathematically determinate information content …”.
@bryven76 - The interesting thing about the copies of the New Testament (NT) is that there are so many thousands of copies - many, many times more than other ancient literature - put together!
The number of copies gives us a very high confidence in the accuracy of the materials.
@MomoTheBellyDancer You obviously don't know anything about textual criticism either.
Think about it. If you have 1000's of documents, some with possible typos, a missed word here or there in different places, by simple comparison you could be very confident that the final result matches the original text. (We use error correction all the time in everyday life).
@MomoTheBellyDancer - That's a different question altogether (if you're talking about the original author's credibility). Your first point still reveals your ignorance.
But an important one. You also have to realize that the Bible is basically assembled for political reasons. A lot of original texts have been left out since they didn't fit Church doctrine, and some texts have been altered for the same reason.
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Of course it's an important one. Having established your lack of knowledge in the areas you already make claims about, you go on to reveal more of your ignorance about compilation a la Dan Brown.
Those silly assertions have been debunked over the last centuries, so you should really do some further reading rather than just the junk produced by your rabid chums.
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Wrong again. (Dan Brown junkie) ‘You have to understand that the canon was not the result of a series of contests involving church politics. … . You see, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books. These documents didn't derive their authority from being selected; each one was authoritative before anyone gathered them together.’
What the heck does he have to do with anything? Brown only gave a twist to what is general knowledge among historians.
"These documents didn't derive their authority from being selected"
That would be the standard excuse to select one text over the other. Of course, some texts were simply chosen because of their popularity, but popularity says nothing about veracity.
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Your approach to not answering questions is standard practice for atheistic drones like yourself.
You only listen to the "evidence" from sources that support your view - as opposed to most New Testament historians who dismiss your views as totally misinformed.
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Oh sure, atheists like you are known for their lack of bias, Right.
Stop burying your head in the sand. Your worldview is bankrupt and twisting things to support your delusion wont bring you any closer to reality. Your religion has blinded you.
@bryven76 - Also, the books were written for the audience of the day (at the time of writing). Therefore, some things like idioms and colloquialisms need study, if they are not immediately apparent to the western reader. So anyone who wants more detail can find out with a little effort - and the Bible itself encourages us to study it.
@bryven76 - As for which translation, there are several. I personally like the NASB, NIV, NKJV and may try the ESV.
Bear in mind that no scholars claim that a translation is inerrant. They will normally say something like "The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs."
@bryven76 - If you're interested in Neuroscience, try closertotruth com. He (a PhD in brain science) often has interesting speakers on, on a number of subjects and whilst I don't agree with them all, it stimulates thinking.
@heloWelo The ABC produces a really good podcast called Ockham's Razor that you might just be interested in. It's deals with number of things. I have found the ones dealing with neuroscience to be some of the best. But they do talk about many other topics. If I'm not mistaken you are interested in science.
I also find series from learn out loud dot com to be good as well. There is philosophy stuff there as well. I do a really boring job so listening to this stuff passes the time away.
@heloWelo Since one of the issues here is the translation of your bible would you care to suggest a bible that I can refer to? This is so that when I do mention a contradiction in the bible I can check up a source that you rely on and see if it truly exists there.
Can you also suggest a Hebrew/Greek/Latin to English dictionary that you base your translations on?
@bryvn76 - The hate comes from you - not me. I just utterly reject your claims to truth when you so eagerly lie to cover up the facts.
Now, if you want to discuss the laws of logic, we can. If you want to move forward now that you clearly admit that you can't address the problem, we can explore why.
In the heat of the argument, you demonstrated that you wanted to carry on flinging mud. When I offered the olive branch, you presented the chalice.
@heloWelo You seem very sure that I don't answer your questions when I clearly do. I on the other hand do look at your comments and where I have in the heat of the argument missed something I will go back and say oops I missed this and here is my response.
You however can't seem to do the same. You appear blinded to the arguments that I put forward and are childish in your replies.
Sure there are some gems there but they are infrequent and often filled with hate.
@heloWelo "I asked you to account for the Laws of Logic and you couldn't. I asked you to account for the Laws of Information and you couldn't." and I agreed with you but I then said that neither can you or did you forget that part.
@heloWelo Then what is your argument? Did you get it from Matt Slick because if so then that's exactly the argument that he puts forward. If that isn't your argument then please state what your argument is?
@bryven76 - That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument!
@bryven76 - You have just wrongly stated my arguments for the laws of logic again (appearing as spam) once again underlining your intellectual dishonesty (or challenges).
@bryven76 - You have the option, you just refuse to stop twisting my responses.
You're also a HYPOCRITE of major proportions as it wasn't that many posts below where you were complaining about me cutting and pasting in response to yours!
This is more typical drone behavior - only wanting your view to be heard. Not wanting any to see how riddled with holes your worldview is!
@heloWelo "Calling my account for the laws of logic circular reasoning PROVES you don't understand the argument. You're either twisting it again or intellectually challenged." How is it not.
Here lets run through this. Your god gives you the "laws of logic". You can prove god by using this god given laws of logic. Therefore you prove god and that means that god has given you your laws of logic.
@bryven76 - You share your worldview with Hitler, you venerate Darwinism with Hitler, which was his inspiration for exterminating 7 million Jews and 6 million Christians.
Just because you don't like the association, that's tough.
You also said that morals are a result of social norms so it's ok to abuse children and rape where countries allow it. That's diabolical and they're your views.
Lamech kills a man and claims that since Cain's murderer would be punished sevenfold, whoever murders him will be punished seventy-seven fold. That sounds fair. 4:23-24
"And to Seth ... was born a son." Where'd he find his wife? 4:26
@heloWelo Oh well make to coping and pasting again. Until you get rid of that shit that you seem intent to spill on these pages you leave me no real option.
@heloWelo The fact that you can't seem to tell the difference between your fictitious and reality surprises me. Then again maybe it doesn't. Do you know who Kant was?
Grow up mate.
"And those laws were due to the growing mutations in the human population. This avoided problems associated in close relationship marriages known about today."
This just shows how little you know about genetics.
@bryven76 - Calling my account for the laws of logic circular reasoning PROVES you don't understand the argument. You're either twisting it again or intellectually challenged.
@heloWelo People can and have replaced your god with allah, FSM, Odin and any other fantasy of a god to prove that they are the one that can account for their so called logic and it is their god and not yours that is the right one.
This is why I think you are wrong. I don't mind what you believe provided that you don't force your beliefs onto others and keep your religious dogma away from real science. You know the science that makes a real life difference.
@bryven76 - I've told you before, your ignorance is staggering. You're like a spoiled brat who has a temper tantrum every time they didn't get their own way.
What's your problem? Poor potty training as a child? Would you let your kids act the way you do? do you really want them growing up with your attitude? Lying at every turn?
Do you think your kids would do well in life if they lie about everything they do? What if they falsified evidence to get ahead? Is this what you want for them?
@heloWelo You're the one equating my worldview to that of Hitler when the evidence clearly shows otherwise.
You also are responding to my comment that you yourself can't account for your own world view or your so called "laws of logic" (I think they should be called "Laws of absolute insanity). Your so called argument for this is one that is entirely circular.
@bryven76 - And those laws were due to the growing mutations in the human population. This avoided problems associated in close relationship marriages known about today.
@bryven76 - So, before you walk into yet another embarrassment due to ignorance on your part, you need to realize that the laws to prevent close relationship marriage wasn't till hundreds of years later.
@bryven76 - Cains wife?! Where do you think? He married his sister... you would have known that but of course, being ignorant you quote from your Hitler youth book again!
Cain is worried after killing Abel and says, "Every one who finds me shall slay me." This is a strange concern since there were only two other humans alive at the time -- his parents! 4:14
@bryven76 - If you choose to act like an adult and not resort to distortion, this discussion might get somewhere but as we've discovered before, when you're offered an olive branch, you respond with a poisoned chalice.
Respect is earned and your actions have proved that you have no intention of adult discussion.
God says, "Let us go down ..." Maybe he hasn't been talking to himself; maybe there is more than one of them up there. Well, however many there may be, they all decide to come down to confuse the builders by confounding human language and scattering them [humans] abroad. 11:7
@bryven76 - Your continual twisting of my view just underlines the fact that you will do anything to force your opinion, whether you have to lie or not. That's not very inspiring is it?!
@bryven76 I can account for Laws of Logic, my worldview incorporates immaterial entities. Your materialistic worldview cannot, so your worldview is hopeless.
@heloWelo The fact is that your the one that needs to grow up and except that you can't account for your so called "laws of logic" because you can't prove that either your god exists or that he gave you those laws.
When you stop believing that I am less than you and accept me as your equal we will then be able to discuss the issue of ID as adults. But you have been acting like a child since we started.
@bryven76 - Once again crying foul when you get a dose of your own medicine. Rather hypocritical of you, isn't it!
What are you afraid of? Why do you continue to run away from answering the questions? Why bring up more red herrings? Because you can't answer any questions posed to you.
Your foul language speaks volumes about your lack of answers.
When you're not twisting science and distorting the truth, you end up being abusive.
"Now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."
God worries that the people will succeed in building a tower high enough to reach him (them?) in heaven, and that by so doing they will become omnipotent. 11:4-6
What is your god afraid of us? Why? Isn't he all powerful all knowing and all sadistic.
According to this verse, all animals fear humans. Although it is true that many do, it is also true that some do not. Sharks and grizzly bears, for example, are generally much less afraid of us than we are of them. 9:2
@heloWelo Back to insulting me and what you think are my beliefs when clearly you don't know me. Well lets now copy and paste from the Annotated Skeptics Bible again.
We should get to 3000 if help me. You seem really good at posting absolute fucken crap.
...because there is a booming business in church construction due to the fact that from 1917 to 1969, the atheist Soviets destroyed 41,000 of Russia’s 48,000 churches, including Christ the Savior Cathedral, a Moscow landmark that was built to
commemorate the defeat of Napoleon’s invasion. This massive destruction of religious art and
architecture was neither ideological nor political in nature, it was The God Delusion in action, a
material atheist argument for the non-existence of God.
@bryven76 - You bow down and worship Dawkins in your religion which is rather pitiable when you consider the ineptitude of his arguments and historical accuracy, I quote:
"I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca—or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame, the Shwe Dagon, the temples of Kyoto or, of course, the Buddhas of Bamiyan"
@bryven76 - As I've stated before and you obviously struggle to take things on board. Laws of Logic are universal, immaterial and invariant.
You don't have a hope of accounting for them in a material worldview so give up and try something else. Repeating your previously defeated arguments is a sure sign of your deteriorating mental health!
@bryven76 - So, I'm assuming your deliberately trying to twist my arguments to suit your own ends, otherwise I'd have to assume you are stupid. In which case, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
The argument from the Laws of Logic does not say you can't use those laws, it says a material worldview cannot account for it, so when you use them, you're not using your own worldview.
Your twisting of the argument is deliberate deception and is so common among your type. Sadly.
@heloWeloClassic Classic case at the Atheist conference in Ireland. Two Muslims told PZ Myers that in embryonic development bones came before flesh. When PZ said they develop together at the same time they then translated their own word to mean together rather than before. That was really funny watching them do this almost in mid sentence. It would appear that Mohammad knew only retrospectively after the real scientist worked it out. Yeah right.
This has been flagged as spam show
Dumbski is the most arrogant douchebag EVER.
odinata 17 minutes ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Berlinski is worthless....
odinata 2 weeks ago
''I am paid by the Discover Institure to make up shit about evolution''
gregrutz 4 months ago
Darwin did not write a book called "origin of life" but "origin of species"... Why does Berlinski (and I've seen him state this before) insist upon that evolution has a say on origin of life. Rather inaccurate for a mathematician. He has to review the premises...
ttcmp0 4 months ago
“Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers; almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons."
Markus77x7 5 months ago
@Markus77x7 Yes there were mammals living with the dinosaurs over 65 million years ago, what was your point.
gregrutz 4 months ago
Here we are at last, Mr Berlinski is proving himself to be one of two things:
1. He is either a liar (since we know that von Neumann did support and respect evolution) OR:
2. He is such a poor thinker, that he didn't even check if this is true or not -- which makes him a person who has an agenda that not even reality can alter.
I wonder which is worse? Willful deceiver of people or ignorant moron with delusions of intellect...
Ahabite 5 months ago in playlist Dr. David Berlinski
@Ahabite He may be a bit of both! Some ignorant morons suffer from delusions of intellect
Emaniac69 4 months ago
Yeah, Darwinian theory on how species develop is just not scientific. But Intelligent Design, which is thinly-veiled creationist theory, yeah, that makes 100% sense and requires no evidence whatsoever.
TaimaDjinn 6 months ago
@TaimaDjinn The darwin theory isnt adequate . It only explains variations with in species but not the development of new species
blaq7427 6 months ago
@blaq7427
you are wrong.
mcmanustony 3 months ago
Comment removed
TaimaDjinn 6 months ago
@TaimaDjinn
Berlinski does not believe that intelligent design is a scientific theory either. Why the heck is almost every critic of Berlinki on these videos completely clueless about what he is even arguing, not to mention what he believes.. I wonder whether most of you people even care about science that isn't related to an attempts to "argue down God", or are you all just zombie followers of Chris Hichens and Richard Dawkins..
Califacience 3 months ago
@Califacience Excuse me, this same asshole argued that "Darwinism" helped influence the Holocaust in Germany during World War 2 in the conservative porn documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."
TaimaDjinn 3 months ago 2
@TaimaDjinn Hitler believed in evolution and also in the Arian race as the superior race, and that Jews were inferior. This mentality was in fact one that led to the holocaust.
water2gashawaii 1 week ago
@water2gashawaii First off, by saying that Hitler "believed" in evolution is one sign he didn't have a fucking clue about it. Secondly, as with a lot of Germans as well, Hitler's Anti-Semitism ultimately came from the paeloconservative brand of Christianity that preached the Jews were bad because they killed Jesus, and that concept predates Charles Darwin himself by centuries. The fact that people would resort to using the Holocaust to discredit Charles Darwin is just bullshit.
TaimaDjinn 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@water2gashawaii
Hitler burned Darwins books, did not believe in evolution, and was a Christian in a nation of Christians:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."
--Adolph Hitler
odinata 16 minutes ago
@Califacience we are right to be clueless about berlinskis views since all he does is sneer from the sidelines- he has no positive views about anything. he's made no contribution of any kind to any branch of any science and does nothing more waffle vacuously while lying about his areas of expertise, lying about non existent work with great mathematicians and lying about the views of other mathematicians etc. when asked a question about his own views by hitchins his evasion was pathetic. zombie??
mcmanustony 3 months ago
@Califacience This happens every time a math teacher tries to do Biology.
Mr. Butinski is paid by the Discovery Institure to ''argue evololution down''
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heloWelo About morals. Would you agree with me that you have absolute morals?
bryven76 6 months ago
@heloWelo Hi How you going ;-)
bryven76 6 months ago
@bryven76 - Very well thanks but just popping out to DFO's. Catch ya later maybe?!
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo Uggg DFO = Domain of Females Only. Don't tell me there is a fashion sale. I only went there once and I couldn't find anything worth buying apart from that one miniskirt that looked good on me. Maybe not the best look with the goaty and bald head but at least it made my bum look small.
bryven76 6 months ago
@bryven76 - DFO = ;-). No fashion sale but lots off Royal Doulton e.g. Pans, Crystal etc. so my wife was happy! I didn't see any mini skirts that would suit you so I left them alone. There was a sale on lipstick - if you rush down there you may catch it.
Anyway, I made it back in one piece. It's all about survival of the fittest...
heloWelo 6 months ago
Comment removed
bryven76 6 months ago
@heloWelo Lipstick huh. Okay I might look into that. I'm always after some ;-) I wouldn't say fittest since I don't count but I would say that it is a case of the one suited to the environment. So how many men did you see there? I bet they were very much outweighed by the women. Hence women are more suited to the environment of DFO but then you are suited to the environment of being with your partner. So I would have expected the chances of you surviving the excursion would be high ;-)
bryven76 6 months ago
@bryven76 - Not at all. Just responding to more rabid drones like yourself. I see however that you have come back to TROLL.
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo Still trolling this vid I see. Nice to see also that you're keeping yourself entertained.
bryven76 6 months ago
that was long winded way to say a lot of words and not make any points.
qtzlctl2012 6 months ago
@heloWelo Thanks for that I'll look into it.
bryven76 7 months ago
@bryven76 - Accordance is the name of one software package which you can get add-on's for. But of course, all of this is if you want to dig into every detail. For the layman, a good translation is suffice to understand the major doctrines.
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76 - As for a lexicon, why not use software from a variety of publishers e.g. Strongs (for KJV), Vines, Youngs etc. You'll find Hebrew/Greek references for whatever you need.
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76 - If you're really interested in answers and want to consider the already answered objections to the Bible and science issues, try creation com.
There's 1000's of articles written by Ph D scientists who gained their credentials at secular universities.
You might also want to read the rebuttals to TalkOrigins on the TrueOrigin org site. This answers the many fallacious or inaccurate arguments raised.
heloWelo 7 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"creation com"
Which is, incidentally, the site that promotes the "15 Questions for Evolutionists", a list that consists mostly of straw men arguments and appeals to personal incredulity. It's the same kind of trite, tired, old creationist nonsense that has been addressed so many times already it's really not funny anymore. Just watch /watch?v=6ModNCJLZ3E for the answers to those "unanswerable questions".
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Elephant hurling. I may just as well say, those 15 alleged rebuttals have long since been debunked, it's not even funny. etc Yawn
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"those 15 alleged rebuttals have long since been debunked"
All you have to do to rebut those "questions" is show how completely dishonest they are. A lot of them have been answered DECADES ago, like for instance the question how sex evolved, but creationists act as if scientists are completely in the dark about it. All creationists ever do to "debunk" the answers is to repeat themselves over and over. They might fool their sheeple, but they won't fool anybody who is willing to learn.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Once again, your point can simply be turned around at aimed at atheist drones. Particularly about repetition. Your description is a far better fit of your own views.
The rest is more elephant hurling on your part and carries no weight here.
Probably best if you learn to think for yourself rather than quote from the atheist hymn book. Yawn. Zzzz....
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"atheist drones"
What the heck does any of this have to do with atheism? We're talking science here.
"Particularly about repetition."
When the same questions are asked over and over, all you can do is give the same answers, hoping they'll stick one day.
"elephant hurling"
Anybody who does some research can confirm the validity of scientific theories for him/herself.
"Yawn. Zzzz...."
Yes, go to sleep. That way you don't have to learn anything.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - This has to do with your worldview. You exhibit hostility to someone with opposing views, which are science based. You also exhibit ignorance on the subject matter in which you choose to comment e.g. Textual Criticism and Information Theory. Both science based.
2+2 = 4. Do you expect someone to say anything else because of your abuse? Using your logic, I guess you would!
Looks like I wont be learning anything from you then! LOL
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"This has to do with your worldview"
Evolution is not a worldview. It's a scientific theory. If you have trouble understanding this simple fact, I don't think discussing its scientific merits with you is of much use, since your mind is obviously impermeable to reason.
"Information Theory."
Evolution has NOTHING to do with information theory. Berlinski is barking up the wrong tree. Heck, it's not even a tree.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Your interpretation of supposed evidence for evolution is subject to your worldview. You need to learn the difference between origins science and operational science. Sigh.
Evolution has everything to do with Information Theory. What have they been teaching you?! Do you think there's no Information in DNA?
On the other hand, evolution can't account for Information, so you're right in that respect!
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"Your interpretation of supposed evidence for evolution is subject to your worldview. "
The evidence is the same for everybody, regardless of worldview. It's the only way science CAN work.
"Do you think there's no Information in DNA?"
DNA is a molecule with chemical properties. There's no more "information" in DNA than that water has information about freezing at 0 degrees centigrade. DNA simply interacts chemically with its environment, just like any other molecule out there.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - The evidence is the same yes, the interpretation is subject to worldviews as it pertains to origins science. You need to learn that. You bring a naturalist bias to the "scene", so you can only see through those tinted glasses. Oops.
You obviously have no understanding about the genetic "code" and natural laws.
Man, are you really this ignorant?
Tip: Read more than AaronRa, Dawkins, CDK007 etc. Their science and philosophy are infantile.
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"the interpretation is subject to worldviews as it pertains to origins science."
No, you can't just interpret the evidence freely in any way you like. Your interpretation will have to fit with all the available data, from various disciplines. Evolutionary theory fits the data AND it can be used to make very accurate predictions. Creationism has none of these qualities.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Not any way although some try. Hence your naturalistic bias. Inference to the best explanation is often used in science. Design infers a designer. Hence the conclusion. Design does not suggest random piecing together by miracles of chemical reactions, contrary to all experience. Hence the rejection of silly abiogenesis conjectures.
heloWelo 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heloWelo
"Design infers a designer."
Circular reasoning is circular.
"miracles of chemical reactions"
Yes, I am always in awe by the miracle of oxidation. Sheesh.
"abiogenesis "
Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Darwin used inference of the best explanation. By your account Darwin was wrong. Oops
Miracles of chemical reactions - protein arising by chance 1 x 10 to 60th etc etc.
Oxidation reference. Strawman.
Evolution requires abiogenesis. Your worldview requires it. All part of the conversation. Stop hiding. Your conjectures and worldview are futile.
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"Darwin used inference of the best explanation. By your account Darwin was wrong. Oops"
Even if that were true, what Darwin thought is irrelevant. Science has come a long way in the last 150 years. Besides, you could try to actually address my point instead of piling on the straw men.
"Oxidation reference. Strawman."
YOU claim that chemical processes are magical.
"Evolution requires abiogenesis."
So first you accuse ME of using straw men, and then you pull this one. Golden.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - It is true and it is used by many scientists, whether you like it or not.
Science has come a long way and the more we learn the more we debunk silly abiogenesis conjectures and evolutionary hocus pocus.
heloWelo 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - "your mind is obviously impermeable to reason" - I would say this is more appropriate for you, since you seem happy to make inaccurate claims and rely on grandstanding to get your point across. I repeat, this carries no weight here.
You can't account for Information from your worldview and I suppose you can't account for "reason" either. Sigh...
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"I would say this is more appropriate for you"
Then show me you have done the research. So far you give the impression you only read creationist websites.
"You can't account for Information from your worldview "
Information is a human construct. We need it to understand the world, but it is of no importance for the working of reality.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - I've been your side of the fence, so I know the dead ends that are IMPOSSIBLE for you to deal with.
Creationist sites also tend to offer both sides as they debunk the original sloppy assertions of people like you.
You also reveal a bias by suggesting those sites are unscientific, even though the articles are written by scientists. You have fallen into the "No true scottsman fallacy". Oops
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"Creationist sites also tend to offer both sides"
If you consider "We against the godless heathens" as "offering both sides". It might make sense from a religious perspective, but it's not a scientific stance.
"the articles are written by scientists. "
Irrelevant. Did they public their creationist findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals? If so, please point them out.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Strawman.
Peer review, sure, You can find a list on many of the sites with the articles. Find them yourself. I grow tired of educating people with the same old tripe which have been answered before.
Your irony meter obviously needs help as the word theory was added. Evidence suggests you can understand some information (coded language).
So, no answers from you then. Just more from your atheist hymn book? ZZ.zzzz....
heloWelo 6 months ago
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Twisting what I'm saying is another ploy by atheist drones like yourself, you have nothing to offer apart from creating strawman arguments.
Your worldview is atheistic/anti creationist, as established earlier, your worldview (which is self refuting) blinds you to the evidence. It dismisses anything not naturalistic. Oops.
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"Twisting what I'm saying "
Projecting much?
"Your worldview is atheistic/anti creationist,"
Anti-creationism (also called "realism") is NOT atheistic per se. The vast majority of Christians don't care for the anti-scientific stance of creationists.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - No projection, Just facts. Equivocation fallacy on your part. You appeal to magic and special pleading for your chemical evolution scenarios, which is hardly realism.
Yet another No true Scottsman fallacy.
So far, your arguments have amounted to sheer elephant hurling, ignorance and self-refuting nonsense.
Is this it? You really need to put down your atheist hymn book and engage in reality. Sigh
heloWelo 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - You'll find many articles by creation scientists who publish peer reviewed articles which establish proof for creation, whether the implications are seen as such by blinkered drones is irrelevant.
Your religious views blind you to many proofs as you are unwilling to see the evidence.
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"peer reviewed articles which establish proof for creation"
Name one. ONE. And make it good, so nothing that has later been thrashed OR retracted.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - You can do your own homework. Meanwhile, can you show me a peer reviewed article by an atheist about abiogenesis in a creationist journal? (You know, one that isn't being completely shredded for appealing to magic and just-so stories to prop up fairy tales)
heloWelo 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - How do you account for Information in your naturalistic worldview? What is your theory of information?
How do you account for the Laws of Logic? You appeal to being "rational". On what basis do arrive at rationality? What standard do you adopt? How can it be trusted?
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"How do you account for Information in your naturalistic worldview? "
Information is a human construct, independent of worldview.
"How do you account for the Laws of Logic? "
These and the others are ALL human constructs to make sense of a world we live in.
"How can it be trusted?"
You verify their trustworthiness empirically. In science this means that we bolster theories with evidence.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - "Information is a human construct, independent of worldview." ROFL. So, what do animals process with their brains? You're priceless!
Once again, this would mean the information in DNA was created by humans. Circular reasoning at it's best.
"Makes sense of the world we live in" - begging the question. OOps!
"verify their trustworthiness empirically" - presupposing a consistent worldview. Yours isn't. It's self refuting. Ouch!
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo Strawman - alleging scientists who disagree with you do on religious rather than scientific reasons. Science presupposes a consistent worldview. You don't have one as a naturalist.
DNA is a molecule and not information in itself, of course! It is a material means of carrying information, just like ink on paper conveys information. Man, you REALLY need to study the subject matter.
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"alleging scientists who disagree with you do on religious rather than scientific reasons."
Creationists always whine when their "theories" are shot down, instead of trying to come up with better ones like everybody else.
"It is a material means of carrying information, just like ink on paper conveys information."
No, it isn't, just like water doesn't carry information about changing into steam when it reaches a certain temperature.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - ROFL. Seriosusly, you're so funny. But still ignorant. I'll just put your "water" example down to not understanding information theory, biology or physics.
You need to check your atheist manual for those silly errors, it makes you appear more ignorant than you might actually be if you took your blinkers off!
heloWelo 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Atheist drones always whine when science proves their silly conjectures for the nonsense they are.
You need to keep up with science, just like everyone else. There's no good complaining when all your favorite hocus pocus stories are shot down in flames e.g. Chemical evolution.
heloWelo 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "nformation ... is of no importance for the working of reality. " You obviously have no understanding of information whatsoever. So, tell me, is the tripe you are writing about information or not?
I suggest you do some reading on Information. Using your logic, DNA was designed by humans!
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"You obviously have no understanding of information whatsoever"
Could you warn the next time you post something like this? My irony meter just blew sky high.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"Using your logic, DNA was designed by humans!"
Huh? That really does not follow from what I said. Was water designed by humans?
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - More twisting. There's no information (specified complexity) in a water molecule. As opposed to information carried on DNA which acts as a blueprint with an intended purpose.
Natural laws. Specified complexity. Two different things. Keep up.
heloWelo 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heloWelo
"There's no information (specified complexity) in a water molecule"
And neither is there in DNA. We're getting somewhere.
"DNA which acts as a blueprint with an intended purpose."
No, it doesn't. It's a molecule which responds to its environment chemically, in the same vein a water molecule does. That it's more complex doesn't change that fact. Dembski is WRONG.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - In summary
Your materialist worldview is self refuting. Ouch
Your knowledge of textual criticism is absent. Ooops
Your historical "evidence" is shallow and biased with no understanding of who the NT historians are.
You twist things into strawman arguments, so you are talking to yourself.
You have no account for REASON in your worldview, so it's ironic for you to appeal to reason. LOL.
heloWelo 6 months ago
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Immaterial entities also exist e.g. Laws of Logic, Information, Abstract ideas etc etc. Your materialistic worldview can't account for those. Ooops. ("Making sense of the world" hypthesis by you is begging the question... oops!)
Your historical claims are verified by the likes of Dan Brown... hmmm, good source! Not.
Can you trust your brain? On what authority? Are you predetermined to think the way you do? Do you have a choice? Is your choice a real choice?
heloWelo 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - There is no parallel between the two issues at all e.g. water forming snowflakes is 'doing what comes naturally', given the properties of the system. There is no need for any external information or programming to be added to the system—the existing properties of the water molecule and the atmospheric conditions are enough to give rise inevitably to snowflake-type patterns.
heloWelo 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - However, there is no tendency for simple organic molecules to form themselves into the precise sequences needed to form the long-chain information-bearing molecules found in living systems. That is because the properties of the 'finished product' are not programmed in the components of the system. It takes the addition of some extra information—either by an intelligent mind at work or a programmed machine.
heloWelo 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer -
Michael Polanyi:
“As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. It is this physical indeterminacy of the sequence that produces the improbability of occurrence of any particular sequence and thereby enables it to have a meaning—a meaning that has a mathematically determinate information content …”.
heloWelo 6 months ago
@bryven76 - The interesting thing about the copies of the New Testament (NT) is that there are so many thousands of copies - many, many times more than other ancient literature - put together!
The number of copies gives us a very high confidence in the accuracy of the materials.
heloWelo 7 months ago
@heloWelo
"The number of copies gives us a very high confidence in the accuracy of the materials."
Huh? That doesn't even make a lick of sense.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer You obviously don't know anything about textual criticism either.
Think about it. If you have 1000's of documents, some with possible typos, a missed word here or there in different places, by simple comparison you could be very confident that the final result matches the original text. (We use error correction all the time in everyday life).
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"you could be very confident that the final result matches the original text."
It still doesn't mean the text itself is accurate.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - That's a different question altogether (if you're talking about the original author's credibility). Your first point still reveals your ignorance.
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"That's a different question altogether"
But an important one. You also have to realize that the Bible is basically assembled for political reasons. A lot of original texts have been left out since they didn't fit Church doctrine, and some texts have been altered for the same reason.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Of course it's an important one. Having established your lack of knowledge in the areas you already make claims about, you go on to reveal more of your ignorance about compilation a la Dan Brown.
Those silly assertions have been debunked over the last centuries, so you should really do some further reading rather than just the junk produced by your rabid chums.
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"Those silly assertions have been debunked over the last centuries"
It's generally accepted that the Christian canon has developed over the years, a process which started at the First Council of Nicaea.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Wrong again. (Dan Brown junkie) ‘You have to understand that the canon was not the result of a series of contests involving church politics. … . You see, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books. These documents didn't derive their authority from being selected; each one was authoritative before anyone gathered them together.’
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"Dan Brown"
What the heck does he have to do with anything? Brown only gave a twist to what is general knowledge among historians.
"These documents didn't derive their authority from being selected"
That would be the standard excuse to select one text over the other. Of course, some texts were simply chosen because of their popularity, but popularity says nothing about veracity.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Your approach to not answering questions is standard practice for atheistic drones like yourself.
You only listen to the "evidence" from sources that support your view - as opposed to most New Testament historians who dismiss your views as totally misinformed.
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"Your approach to not answering questions "
What question did I not answer?
"atheistic drones "
Again, point out where I said anything atheistic.
"You only listen to the evidence from sources that support your view - as opposed to most New Testament historians"
Oh sure, and New testament historians are known for their lack of bias. Right.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Oh sure, atheists like you are known for their lack of bias, Right.
Stop burying your head in the sand. Your worldview is bankrupt and twisting things to support your delusion wont bring you any closer to reality. Your religion has blinded you.
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"Oh sure, atheists like you are known for their lack of bias"
Again: did say anything specifically atheistic? You keep evading that question
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer - Come back when you have something interesting and factual to say. I'm off out.
Sigh. Back to the school books for you ol' chum!
heloWelo 6 months ago
@heloWelo
"Come back when you have something interesting and factual to say. I'm off out."
And yet another creationist flees the stage with his tail between his legs. It's almost too easy.
"Back to the school books for you ol' chum!"
That's EXTREMELY ironic coming from someone whose only contribution to the discussion was hurling ad hominem attacks.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@bryven76 - Also, the books were written for the audience of the day (at the time of writing). Therefore, some things like idioms and colloquialisms need study, if they are not immediately apparent to the western reader. So anyone who wants more detail can find out with a little effort - and the Bible itself encourages us to study it.
heloWelo 7 months ago
@heloWelo
"the books were written for the audience of the day"
So why would they be relevant for today's audience?
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@bryven76 - As for which translation, there are several. I personally like the NASB, NIV, NKJV and may try the ESV.
Bear in mind that no scholars claim that a translation is inerrant. They will normally say something like "The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs."
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76 - If you're interested in Neuroscience, try closertotruth com. He (a PhD in brain science) often has interesting speakers on, on a number of subjects and whilst I don't agree with them all, it stimulates thinking.
heloWelo 7 months ago
@heloWelo The ABC produces a really good podcast called Ockham's Razor that you might just be interested in. It's deals with number of things. I have found the ones dealing with neuroscience to be some of the best. But they do talk about many other topics. If I'm not mistaken you are interested in science.
I also find series from learn out loud dot com to be good as well. There is philosophy stuff there as well. I do a really boring job so listening to this stuff passes the time away.
bryven76 7 months ago
@heloWelo Since one of the issues here is the translation of your bible would you care to suggest a bible that I can refer to? This is so that when I do mention a contradiction in the bible I can check up a source that you rely on and see if it truly exists there.
Can you also suggest a Hebrew/Greek/Latin to English dictionary that you base your translations on?
bryven76 7 months ago
@heloWelo Remember tonight is the big push for that elusive 3000 comment mark. I know you want it.
bryven76 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heloWelo and you need me to interpret it for you? Is that how you read your bible through other people interpreting your scripture?
bryven76 7 months ago
@bryven76 - Ok, I'll be back later
heloWelo 7 months ago
Comment removed
bryven76 7 months ago
@heloWelo "Gone back to sleep?" you have by the looks of things. Normally your a lot quicker on the draw.
I have an excuse. A certain Dinosaur keeps on attacking my fingers.
bryven76 7 months ago
@bryven76 - I know what it means, that's why I asked!
heloWelo 7 months ago
@helWelo Yep PEBKAC issues. Look it up.
bryven76 7 months ago
@bryven76 - I wont bother trawling the posts to paste your hate speech and foul language...
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76 - Gone back to sleep?
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76 - PEBKAC issues?
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryvn76 - The hate comes from you - not me. I just utterly reject your claims to truth when you so eagerly lie to cover up the facts.
Now, if you want to discuss the laws of logic, we can. If you want to move forward now that you clearly admit that you can't address the problem, we can explore why.
In the heat of the argument, you demonstrated that you wanted to carry on flinging mud. When I offered the olive branch, you presented the chalice.
Has your approach changed?
heloWelo 7 months ago
@heloWelo In other words read my comments before jumping to conclusions that I haven't bothered to answer you.
bryven76 7 months ago
@heloWeloYou appear to be having PEBKAC issues. Insert brain and continue.
bryven76 7 months ago
@heloWelo You seem very sure that I don't answer your questions when I clearly do. I on the other hand do look at your comments and where I have in the heat of the argument missed something I will go back and say oops I missed this and here is my response.
You however can't seem to do the same. You appear blinded to the arguments that I put forward and are childish in your replies.
Sure there are some gems there but they are infrequent and often filled with hate.
bryven76 7 months ago
@bryven76 - The question went to you first. The burden of proof lies with you as you have a materialistic worldview.
Give me your answer, let's discuss it, then we can see if mine stands up to examination...
heloWelo 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heloWelo "I asked you to account for the Laws of Logic and you couldn't. I asked you to account for the Laws of Information and you couldn't." and I agreed with you but I then said that neither can you or did you forget that part.
bryven76 7 months ago
@bryven76 - Depends if you fill up the screen with religious drivel and scientific nonsense.
heloWelo 7 months ago
@heloWelo Then what is your argument? Did you get it from Matt Slick because if so then that's exactly the argument that he puts forward. If that isn't your argument then please state what your argument is?
bryven76 7 months ago
@bryven76 - Why have you ignored all my questions? Why do you continue to twist my arguments?
I asked you to account for the Laws of Logic and you couldn't. I asked you to account for the Laws of Information and you couldn't.
I've asked you repeatedly and all you do is throw up smokescreens.
heloWelo 7 months ago
@heloWelo Well are you at least going to read one post or are you just going to keep on filling up the comments with creatard crap?
bryven76 7 months ago
@bryven76 - That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument! That's not the argument!
heloWelo 7 months ago
@heloWelo If I only wanted my point to be heard then why have I been asking you questions that you seem intent to ignore.
I asked you what did you recommend as a good dictionary for translating the hebrew of the bible? Does this seem unreasonable to you. If so how?
bryven76 7 months ago
@bryven76 - Wrong! Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76 - You have just wrongly stated my arguments for the laws of logic again (appearing as spam) once again underlining your intellectual dishonesty (or challenges).
heloWelo 7 months ago
@heloWelo You can prove god by using this god given laws of logic. Therefore you prove god and that means that god has given you your laws of logic.
You can prove god by using this god given laws of logic. Therefore you prove god and that means that god has given you your laws of logic.
You can prove god by using this god given laws of logic. Therefore you prove god and that means that god has given you your laws of logic.
bryven76 7 months ago
@bryven76 - You have the option, you just refuse to stop twisting my responses.
You're also a HYPOCRITE of major proportions as it wasn't that many posts below where you were complaining about me cutting and pasting in response to yours!
This is more typical drone behavior - only wanting your view to be heard. Not wanting any to see how riddled with holes your worldview is!
heloWelo 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heloWelo "Calling my account for the laws of logic circular reasoning PROVES you don't understand the argument. You're either twisting it again or intellectually challenged." How is it not.
Here lets run through this. Your god gives you the "laws of logic". You can prove god by using this god given laws of logic. Therefore you prove god and that means that god has given you your laws of logic.
bryven76 7 months ago
@bryven76 - You share your worldview with Hitler, you venerate Darwinism with Hitler, which was his inspiration for exterminating 7 million Jews and 6 million Christians.
Just because you don't like the association, that's tough.
You also said that morals are a result of social norms so it's ok to abuse children and rape where countries allow it. That's diabolical and they're your views.
If you don't like it, change your views.
heloWelo 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Genesis
Lamech kills a man and claims that since Cain's murderer would be punished sevenfold, whoever murders him will be punished seventy-seven fold. That sounds fair. 4:23-24
"And to Seth ... was born a son." Where'd he find his wife? 4:26
bryven76 7 months ago
@heloWelo Oh well make to coping and pasting again. Until you get rid of that shit that you seem intent to spill on these pages you leave me no real option.
bryven76 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heloWelo The fact that you can't seem to tell the difference between your fictitious and reality surprises me. Then again maybe it doesn't. Do you know who Kant was?
Grow up mate.
"And those laws were due to the growing mutations in the human population. This avoided problems associated in close relationship marriages known about today."
This just shows how little you know about genetics.
bryven76 7 months ago
@bryven76 - Calling my account for the laws of logic circular reasoning PROVES you don't understand the argument. You're either twisting it again or intellectually challenged.
heloWelo 7 months ago
@heloWelo People can and have replaced your god with allah, FSM, Odin and any other fantasy of a god to prove that they are the one that can account for their so called logic and it is their god and not yours that is the right one.
This is why I think you are wrong. I don't mind what you believe provided that you don't force your beliefs onto others and keep your religious dogma away from real science. You know the science that makes a real life difference.
bryven76 7 months ago
@bryven76 - I've told you before, your ignorance is staggering. You're like a spoiled brat who has a temper tantrum every time they didn't get their own way.
What's your problem? Poor potty training as a child? Would you let your kids act the way you do? do you really want them growing up with your attitude? Lying at every turn?
Do you think your kids would do well in life if they lie about everything they do? What if they falsified evidence to get ahead? Is this what you want for them?
heloWelo 7 months ago
@heloWelo You're the one equating my worldview to that of Hitler when the evidence clearly shows otherwise.
You also are responding to my comment that you yourself can't account for your own world view or your so called "laws of logic" (I think they should be called "Laws of absolute insanity). Your so called argument for this is one that is entirely circular.
bryven76 7 months ago
@bryven76 - And those laws were due to the growing mutations in the human population. This avoided problems associated in close relationship marriages known about today.
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76 - So, before you walk into yet another embarrassment due to ignorance on your part, you need to realize that the laws to prevent close relationship marriage wasn't till hundreds of years later.
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76 - Cains wife?! Where do you think? He married his sister... you would have known that but of course, being ignorant you quote from your Hitler youth book again!
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76 - Oh sure, you're cornered at every turn and all you can do is use foul language and offer no reasonable, respectful rebuttals.
heloWelo 7 months ago
Genesis
"And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD." 4:16
Genesis "And Cain knew his wife." That's nice, but where the hell did she come from? 4:17
bryven76 7 months ago
@heloWelo This is your holy book. I'm just reporting what it is saying.
bryven76 7 months ago
Genesis
Cain is worried after killing Abel and says, "Every one who finds me shall slay me." This is a strange concern since there were only two other humans alive at the time -- his parents! 4:14
bryven76 7 months ago
@bryven76 - If you choose to act like an adult and not resort to distortion, this discussion might get somewhere but as we've discovered before, when you're offered an olive branch, you respond with a poisoned chalice.
Respect is earned and your actions have proved that you have no intention of adult discussion.
heloWelo 7 months ago
Genesis
God says, "Let us go down ..." Maybe he hasn't been talking to himself; maybe there is more than one of them up there. Well, however many there may be, they all decide to come down to confuse the builders by confounding human language and scattering them [humans] abroad. 11:7
bryven76 7 months ago
@heloWelo Oh well is the worldview argument all that you got because lets be frank about this it's shit.
bryven76 7 months ago
@bryven76 - Your continual twisting of my view just underlines the fact that you will do anything to force your opinion, whether you have to lie or not. That's not very inspiring is it?!
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76 I can account for Laws of Logic, my worldview incorporates immaterial entities. Your materialistic worldview cannot, so your worldview is hopeless.
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76 - Absolute power obviously went to your hero Hitler's head. Never again bryven76. You may share his views but you can keep them to yourself.
You may share the view that things like rape and child abuse are ok in countries that allow it but most people will find your views diabolical.
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76 - But why would anyone be surprised that you resort to abusing science and lying to promote your worldview?
Hoaxes and frauds are typical of your type - Piltdown Man, Haeckels Embryos, Archaeoraptor to name just a few.
Not very inspiring that you resort to frauds for something allegedly so ubiquitous!
heloWelo 7 months ago
@heloWelo The fact is that your the one that needs to grow up and except that you can't account for your so called "laws of logic" because you can't prove that either your god exists or that he gave you those laws.
When you stop believing that I am less than you and accept me as your equal we will then be able to discuss the issue of ID as adults. But you have been acting like a child since we started.
bryven76 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bryven76 - Once again crying foul when you get a dose of your own medicine. Rather hypocritical of you, isn't it!
What are you afraid of? Why do you continue to run away from answering the questions? Why bring up more red herrings? Because you can't answer any questions posed to you.
Your foul language speaks volumes about your lack of answers.
When you're not twisting science and distorting the truth, you end up being abusive.
heloWelo 7 months ago
@heloWelo Complete this statement:
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts _____ .
So your god is a corrupt being. If not then why not. He certainly shows this in the bible. Killing people. Conning them. Asking for human sacrifice.
Have you given him any burnt offerings just lately or has he somehow become vegetarian of late?
bryven76 7 months ago
@heloWelo Genesis
"Now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."
God worries that the people will succeed in building a tower high enough to reach him (them?) in heaven, and that by so doing they will become omnipotent. 11:4-6
What is your god afraid of us? Why? Isn't he all powerful all knowing and all sadistic.
bryven76 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heloWelo Genesis
According to this verse, all animals fear humans. Although it is true that many do, it is also true that some do not. Sharks and grizzly bears, for example, are generally much less afraid of us than we are of them. 9:2
bryven76 7 months ago
@heloWelo Back to insulting me and what you think are my beliefs when clearly you don't know me. Well lets now copy and paste from the Annotated Skeptics Bible again.
We should get to 3000 if help me. You seem really good at posting absolute fucken crap.
bryven76 7 months ago
@bryven76 - It is you who has the most fundamental problems.
You cannot account for the Laws of Logic, the Laws of Information, Absolute Morality, Design and so many other
basic things.
Your response of sticking your tongue out and saying "nerh!" doesn't cut it in the adult world.
Grow up, get some guts and engage and stop peddling your twisted science and deliberate strawman arguments.
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76 - So you actually worship somebody who is bitter and twisted, like you, who cannot call rape wrong
according to a recent interview) and makes all kinds of historic and scientific faux pas!
All of your silly attempts at discrediting the Bible have been debunked by many people. Once again you prove that you
cannot think for yourself and have never considered the countless arguments.
All you really do is engage in a very unsophisticated level of propaganda and has nobody fooled.
heloWelo 7 months ago
During early Soviet times, thousands of churches, monasteries and convents across the country
were destroyed by the Bolsheviks in their drive to cleanse the Soviet Union of religion. . . .
Across the country, bells were pushed from their belfries and destroyed. Russian author Inna
Simonova calls it the “aggressive atheism” that was practiced by the Bolsheviks to sway
Russians.
heloWelo 7 months ago
...because there is a booming business in church construction due to the fact that from 1917 to 1969, the atheist Soviets destroyed 41,000 of Russia’s 48,000 churches, including Christ the Savior Cathedral, a Moscow landmark that was built to
commemorate the defeat of Napoleon’s invasion. This massive destruction of religious art and
architecture was neither ideological nor political in nature, it was The God Delusion in action, a
material atheist argument for the non-existence of God.
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76
Mr. Mikhail Mashin, the director of the ZIL, has built a thriving business on the refutation of
this particular Dawkinsian myth. Under Soviet rule, ZIL made cars, but the competition ZIL faced from
Western automotive manufacturers after the fall of the Soviet Union forced the company to creatively
explore other markets. ZIL now manufactures church bells...
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76 - You bow down and worship Dawkins in your religion which is rather pitiable when you consider the ineptitude of his arguments and historical accuracy, I quote:
"I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca—or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame, the Shwe Dagon, the temples of Kyoto or, of course, the Buddhas of Bamiyan"
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76 - As I've stated before and you obviously struggle to take things on board. Laws of Logic are universal, immaterial and invariant.
You don't have a hope of accounting for them in a material worldview so give up and try something else. Repeating your previously defeated arguments is a sure sign of your deteriorating mental health!
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76 - I don't argue for Mohammed et al so your point is totally irrelevant.
Your other theological problems can be answered in any basic theology class or home group level.
But anyway, you haven't answered any questions yet but you have proved that you can waffle a lot and lie and distort truth.
So, ask yourself why anyone should believe your worldview. You've proven yourself a liar and a coward.
Add abusing science to the mix and your worldview becomes particularly unattractive!
heloWelo 7 months ago
@bryven76 - So, I'm assuming your deliberately trying to twist my arguments to suit your own ends, otherwise I'd have to assume you are stupid. In which case, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
The argument from the Laws of Logic does not say you can't use those laws, it says a material worldview cannot account for it, so when you use them, you're not using your own worldview.
Your twisting of the argument is deliberate deception and is so common among your type. Sadly.
heloWelo 7 months ago
@heloWeloClassic Classic case at the Atheist conference in Ireland. Two Muslims told PZ Myers that in embryonic development bones came before flesh. When PZ said they develop together at the same time they then translated their own word to mean together rather than before. That was really funny watching them do this almost in mid sentence. It would appear that Mohammad knew only retrospectively after the real scientist worked it out. Yeah right.
bryven76 7 months ago