So some "creationists" no longer dare use certain arguments, because they routinely FAIL and are embarrassing. But other creationists haven't read the memos and still use the same old failed arguments - and those are the ones Don was arguing against.
"Creationists aren't real scientists because they don't ..."
It is only circular reasoning because you miss the point of peer reviewed scientific publishing: data. The reason creationists/ID scientists aren't publishing creation/ID "science" papers in peer reviewed journals is because there's nothing to publish(no data).
If such data existed, it would have been published; if it hasn't been found, why do you think you have a "theory" at all? Did god tell you you have a theory?
Just becaus we seemed to get off track, you still need to prove Rumplestiltskin did not spin straw into gold.
I would accept as a substitute, the reason why you think that someone should prove something doesn't exist or didn't happen, instead of someone needing to prove something does exist or did happen.
This has come full circle. I provided a line of reasoning that a demand for the proof of supernatural could equally be countered with a demand for a disproof. Like our other conversation about the supernatural, I said that neither proof would be a question SOLELY of science but of history as well. That is the nature of the debate on origins. You are demanding an empirical answer to a question has metaphysical, historical and scientific explanations.
@Atriviality Ok, so we shall go back to square one. I am going to ask you a question. Based on what man has studied in the history of science and all of the observations that we have thus made on Earth, Mars and the Moon, a purple-striped rock has never been found. Are you willing to say with certainty that there are no purple-striped rocks in the universe?
"a purple-striped rock has never been found. Are you willing to say with certainty that there are no purple-striped rocks in the universe?"
- Scientifically speaking, since there is no evidence that a purple-striped rock exists, then there is no reason to say one exists. You can BELIEVE one exists if you like, but if you claim as fact that one DOES exist, then we demand conclusive evidence to support your claim.
@wildbill1240 Science doesn't know everything , it openly admits it . But just because you do not know something yet, it is not a valid reason to jump to "magic" , aka "God did it" . For example ,someone( lets call him Bob) could come and tell you that he believes in supernatural being that created your (the christian) GOD . Are you willing to say with certainty that your god was not created by the supernatural being that Bob believes in ? That is why your way of looking at things is wrong .
CMI and AIG don't peer review. If the arguments withstand careful review and are logical, it will get published whether biased or not. Scientific journals simply don't last without this process.
This is more deception, outright lies and quote mining. Creation has been countered by far too much evidence. That there is contriversy among scientists is not an indication that the basics of evolution are wrong, just the specifics.
@drfoxcourt Please contribute to discussion by citing examples of deception, lies and quote mining in this video. Otherwise your comment is off topic and will be removed.
@wildbill1240 Deception: That there is a large percentage of scientists that dispute evolution. It is less than 5%.
Lies: That evolution theory cannot explain the evidence thus far gathered.
Quote mining: "God is the only reasonable explanation..." - R Dawkins (misses the remain part where Dawkins explains that if God exists, He too must be subjected to evolution and is therefore not an explanation.
@wildbill1240 <5% for the National Academy of Sciences (closer to 2% according to last year's NAS survey).
Maybe not quoting Dawkins, but certainly there is evasion and deception regarding what legitimate scientists say and what is reported by creationist propagandists.
@drfoxcourt Ok because I used vague and ambiguous terms such as "large percentage" I am now guilty of deception. Even if I conceded to the 5% figure, that would still be large compared to <1%. I don't claim to have omniscient knowledge of all of the scientists and I doubt you do either.
"Maybe not quoting Dawkins.." What? You mean you were falsely accusing me of quote mining? Now you're making more fuzzy accusations about evasion without any specifics. Who is being dishonest?
@wildbill1240 The claim is self supporting. Science is by definition a study dealing in material evidence. Creationism by definition deals with claims beyond the scope of material evidence. There's nothing unsupported about the statement and anyone claiming otherwise doesn't understand the terms being used.
Excellent response - apart from the fact that you never dealt with this blooper: "...for example, how do you explain Neanderthals? DNA confirms that they weren't human..."
Even in 2006, it was known that "The results from the new studies confirm the Neanderthal's humanity, and show that their genomes and ours are more than 99.5 percent identical, differing by only about 3 million bases."
(Live science Nov 15th 2006)
I'll recommend your video to the guy who recommended Dan's to me!
@peterquinn2 Hey Peter! Thanks for the comment and for recommending the video to your friend. I obviously don't get many positive comments like yours very often, so I do appreciate your input... And thanks for subscribing! God Bless.
Forensic science is defined as the application of science to the law. In criminal cases, forensic scientists are often involved in the search for and examination of physical traces which might be useful for establishing or excluding an association between someone suspected of committing a crime and the scene of the crime or victim.
"Operational science" and "origin science" appear to be apologetics terms, and don't seem to exist anywhere else.
"Nobody was there at the scene of the crime so we use the evidence to build a picture."
- You said before that "you were not present when any of the evolutionary events occurred (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, etc..) so you have faith (i.e. believe) that your model and interpretation of the evidence correctly describes what ACTUALLY happened".
If you have emperical evidence, you don't need to have faith because it really exists. Science rejects faith and requires results.
@Atriviality And are you ever going to KNOW what the earth's initial conditions were? Or how strong the earth's magnetic field was? Or how Uranus got its retrograde motion? The best you can do is make assumptions. That's what we call axioms or presuppositions. Stephen Hawking is very familiar with these, I would expect that you are, too.
"And are you ever going to KNOW what the earth's initial conditions were? Or how strong the earth's magnetic field was?"
- Yes. Geology is useful in answering those questions.
"Or how Uranus got its retrograde motion?"
- Having not actually landed on Uranus, evidence is a little scarce. However, we CAN examine the way it occurs in other objects (e.g. asteroids) and model ways that it CAN occur. Then when we can examine Uranus, we can eliminate the ones the evidence doesn't fit.
@Atriviality "we can eliminate the ones the evidence doesn't fit." Yep, it's a best-fit model, but the assumptions still stand because we were not there to positively say "it happened THIS way."
""we can eliminate the ones the evidence doesn't fit." Yep, it's a best-fit model, but the assumptions still stand because we were not there to positively say "it happened THIS way.""
- Like you said, it's like forensic science. It's the search for and examination of physical traces which might be useful for establishing or excluding an association between all the evidence. Would you say forensic science can't convict someone because the scientists weren't there?
@Atriviality "Would you say forensic science can't convict someone because the scientists weren't there?"
No, absolutely not. I'm not criticizing the method at all. I am simply exposing it for what it is - a form of science that relies heavily on assumptions. If your assumptions are wrong, your conclusions are wrong - and innocent people go to death row.
"If your assumptions are wrong, your conclusions are wrong - and innocent people go to death row."
- But because it's a science, and based on evidence, it also has the capacity to exonerate people and get innocent people OFF death row (especially DNA evidence). You don't have to take anyone's word for it because anyone can check it themselves.
@Atriviality "You don't have to take anyone's word for it because anyone can check it themselves." DNA evidence is present in approximately 10% of all crime scenes. Are you saying we should discard all of the eyewitness testimonies used to make convictions in our justice system? If you're up on the current events, we DO take people's word for it...quite frequently.
"Are you saying we should discard all of the eyewitness testimonies used to make convictions in our justice system? If you're up on the current events, we DO take people's word for it...quite frequently."
- Because of the way the way the human mind functions, eyewitnes testimony is one of the least reliable forms of evidence (David Frank Ross, J. Don Read & Michael P. Toglia, EDS., ADULT EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY (1994)). Humans can also lie. DNA can't lie, because it is empirical.
@Atriviality "Humans can also lie. DNA can't lie, because it is empirical." Sure, this is true, but like I said we rarely have DNA to go off of. A single eyewitness account can certainly be unreliable but when it is corroborated with other eyewitness accounts or other evidence, a credible scenario can be reconstructed.
The point of the argument was the explenation that best fits all of the emperical evidence. In science there is no book claiming with absolute certainty that THIS is the way X happened. There is nobody standing in front of a crowd, proclaiming the X is the absolute truth.
There is only the examination of physical evidence, and the critical analysis of the reasoning behind ideas, in an attempt to understand how things work. There is no faith allowed.
@Atriviality I don't mean to take the conversation in circles, but that's the way it seems to be going. Have you ever studied "the philosophy of science?" I keep pointing to the metaphysical assumptions and a priori commitments that scientists make BEFORE they enter the realm of empirical science. If you were to truly have "no faith," then you must provide a disproof of the supernatural, otherwise you "believe" there is no god and that is your metaphysical assumption that affects your science
"Have you ever studied "the philosophy of science?""
- Not in any depth.
"I keep pointing to the metaphysical assumptions and a priori commitments that scientists make BEFORE they enter the realm of empirical science."
- You mean like all claims must be based on accurate empirical evidence, where the conclusions are testible and potentially falsifiable, thereby excluding magic as an explanation?
@Atriviality I don't know of anyone who includes magic as an explanation, but you might want to check on the meaning of the word. I mean that a philosophical commitment to naturalism is a metaphysical assumption. My message should have cleared it up for you.
Magic. noun. The art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.
"I don't know of anyone who includes magic as an explanation"
- Genesis 1:3
"I mean that a philosophical commitment to naturalism is a metaphysical assumption."
- Because attributing anything to the supernatural has never improved scientific inquiry, only hindered it.
@Atriviality Made in 7 days by divine mandate or supernatural fiat, sure, guilty as charged. But magic? Seriously, do you even know a church that teaches that?
Calling supernatural events ‘magic’ is little more than a slur, and has no place in reasoned discussion. It demonstrates strong bias, not impartiality. Your definition fails because miracles are not caused by human control, but only by the chosen action of the supernatural being (god). I am not talking about events evoked by man.
"Calling supernatural events ‘magic’ is little more than a slur, and has no place in reasoned discussion."
- Here is a reasoned discussion.
2 men proclaim to be God in the flesh, but you know 1 is God and the other is a wizard. Both can perform any supernatural feats you ask them to perform to prove themselves. How do you tell the difference?
@Atriviality "Because attributing anything to the supernatural has never improved scientific inquiry, only hindered it."
Never? Now, that's a pretty bold claim. Guess you'd better go burn all the books Newton wrote (and if you want the list of many others I am happy to oblige). Seriously, though. Hopefully you can do better at providing examples than "hindering stem cell research."
"Never? Now, that's a pretty bold claim. Guess you'd better go burn all the books Newton wrote"
- Did Newton attribute the Laws of Motion to supernatural or natural explanations?
"Hopefully you can do better at providing examples than "hindering stem cell research.""
- Galileo Galilei was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life for saying the Earth revolved around the sun (heresy in the eyes of the church). His works were banned by the church.
@Atriviality "Did Newton attribute the Laws of Motion to supernatural or natural explanations?"
You've completely dodged the question. Did Newton's creationist beliefs hinder science? No. That is the only counterexample necessary to overturn your sweeping generalization.
"Galileo Galilei was sentenced..."
How many heliocentric astronomers backed Galileo? Galileo’s initial opposition came from his peers, not the church.
@Atriviality "Did Newton use creation beliefs or observed reality to support his work?"
Newton didn't check his creationist beliefs at the door. They were an integral part of his assumptions and how he formulated his worldview. I have yet to hear from you how creationist beliefs today are hindering progress. Is it just because Newton didn't say anything about dinosaurs that he was "good to go"?
"Newton didn't check his creationist beliefs at the door"
- No. Newton only fell back on them when there was something he couldn't explain. It's called "The God of the Gaps".
"I have yet to hear from you how creationist beliefs today are hindering progress"
- In the US, creationist groups hinder education in history and science, with campaigns to teach alternate versions that conform to their own religious views instead. Countries with fewer creationists don't have this problem.
Did he really? Please show me some of his work that says "God did it. QED." I've never heard this from a creationist. It's a straw man and demonstrates a total lack of understanding of creationism.
"creationist groups hinder education.."
Once again you have dodged the question with a vague answer. You are not demonstrating to me that progress is being hindered. At least humor me with the most oft-accused stem cell research protests or something tangible...
"Please show me some of his work that says "God did it. QED.""
- "The most beautiful system of the Sun, Planets and Comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God." Sir Isaac Newton.
@Atriviality Good find, Sir! You have correctly identified that Newton named Yahweh as the creator of the universe. Newton wasn't setting out to explain HOW God did it or build a model for the origin of the universe. This quote would be akin to an atheist saying that the system of the sun, planets and comets did NOT proceed from a supernatural being. So what?
- You wanted a quote of Newton saying "God did it. QED."", so I gave you one.
Newton didn't understand how the solar system could have formed, so he attributed it to God. This is the "God of the Gaps" argument.
Later scientists with the benefit of better understanding did not need to attribute these things to God because they worked out how they could form naturally through observation and testing their ideas.
@Atriviality "Newton didn't understand how the solar system could have formed,"
He understood it could not have come about from natural, unsupervised processes.
"A creationist would have stopped at "God did it."
Are you aware that there are PhD creation scientists building models for creation week? Are you aware that Russell Humphrey's model predicted that magnetic field of Uranus better than any secular models? I've never read a credible organization say "God did it." Please cite your claims.
"He understood it could not have come about from natural, unsupervised processes."
- No he BELIEVED it could not have come about from natural, unsupervised processes. It was beyond his understanding so "God did it" was his answer. As I said before, this is "God of the Gaps".
With the benefit of centuries of research, we now have a good idea how it could have come about from natural, unsupervised processes. The gap is filled, and the "God" answer is replaced by the natural one.
"I guess you BELIEVE your model to be true but you can't say with any degree of certainty that it is."
- We see it happening elsewhere. Take for example the T Tauri and Herbig Ae/Be stars that we are currently observing forming naturally into solar systems. Is there any reason to suspect that our own solar system formed differently?
We come back to the question of do YOU have any evidence that our solar system was formed unnaturally by God? It's your claim. You provide evidence.
@Atriviality As for the god of the gaps accusation, you should understand that creationists don't invoke God wherever it is convenient. God claims ownership for what he does and it is recorded in the Bible. The record of God interacting with his creation is our axiom to approaching the study of the universe. Conversely, asteroids and time seem to be the gods of the naturalists' gaps. Surely enough of each of them could explain anything...
@Atriviality They're both making assumptions about the past - neither of which are hindering scientific progress. I'm still just itching for a reason why my belief about the origin of the universe adversely affects humankind's ability to design a faster microprocessor or build a spaceship to get to Mars.
"I'm still just itching for a reason why my belief about the origin of the universe adversely affects humankind's ability to design a faster microprocessor or build a spaceship to get to Mars."
- The way science moves forward is by correcting what we know. This is something most creationist groups are opposed to because it tends to prove their "inerrant" holy books wrong. Science doesn't allow baseless assertions and is brutal to liars (another reason creationists don't like it).
@Atriviality "This is something most creationist groups are opposed to because it tends..."
Ah good. Finally you've brought something up that you should have plenty of examples for. Let's start with "most creationist groups." You can list the names and examples of baseless assertions that prevent science from moving forward. It sounds as though you are in no short supply of them (though you have yet to give one....). I've been patient, too.
- This one is very simple. It is exactly the same as the list of creationist organisations that have not tried to disprove their own holy books. If you can find a creationist group that has tried to disprove their own holy books, they are not on the list.
"I've been patient, too."
- Yet you still haven't answered my question. Can you disprove Rumplestiltskin spun straw into gold?
Once again you dodge the question. Not even one citation of a "baseless assertion" that hinders science. I have given you specific examples where the discussion required it. Why do you refuse to bolster your claims with supporting examples? That you do not have any is the only conclusion I can reach.
The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute. The strategy describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat scientific materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". The strategy also aims to "affirm the reality of God."
Now disprove Rumplestiltskin spun straw into gold.
@Atriviality "...authored by the Discovery Institute."
I can see you're new to this debate. The Discovery Institute is not creationism. Not even close. Here, let me help you. You can search the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International or Answers in Genesis and come back with some dishonesty and baseless assertions.
"I can see you're new to this debate. The Discovery Institute is not creationism. Not even close."
- I see you are new to the different denominations of creationists. The Discovery Institute's flagship argument "Intelligent Design" was deemed in a court of law to be “a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism," (Judge John E. Jones III, 2005). That would make members of the Discovery Institute cdesign proponentists.
Now disprove Rumplestiltskin spun straw into gold.
@Atriviality "a mere re-labeling of creationism,"
Good try. If you can find Discovery Institute proclaiming Jesus Christ as the Creator of the universe, then you will have proven that ID = biblical creationism. The difference is huge. If you watched any of my videos you would know that I am not a proponent of some vague "design" theory. I name the designer. It's getting old. Just do a word search on these comments to read all about it.
"If you can find Discovery Institute proclaiming Jesus Christ as the Creator of the universe, then you will have proven that ID = biblical creationism."
- The Center for Science and Culture (CSC), formerly known as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), is part of the Discovery Institute.
Check out their former logo at...
w w w (DOT) durangobill (DOT) com (SLASH) CreationismPics (SLASH) CreationismDI (DOT) j p g
@wildbill1240 "Did Newton's creationist beliefs hinder science?." Ah yes, the seventeenth century theist, scientist AND alchemist (Since Atriviality and you are also discussing Rumplestiltskin, add Newton to the list spontaneous makers of gold). Without a doubt, Newton contributed greatly to science.... BUT did he use the bible as a tool to solve problems or theorize motion and gravity? Again, there is a big difference between tools used to solve problems and belief systems.
@wildbill1240 "I mean that a philosophical commitment to naturalism is a metaphysical assumption." You continually reference reality as an assumption. Can you please provide an example of some assumptions that scientists make that you find to be disagreeable?
@Atriviality Even if you want to play math with words, the burden of proof also falls on the one making the more extraordinary claim - or that which is further from conventional. And given that the majority of our population has theistically-wired worldviews (i.e. belief in the supernatural), you are challenging the ruling paradigm. So I'll be waiting for your disproof as well.
@Atriviality And you disregard the fact that "positive" claims are only a FRACTION of the burden of proof. The conventional view is that Rumpelstiltskin is a fictional character.
@Atriviality "You still haven't disproved Rumplestiltskin spinning straw into gold."
Have you received the two messages I sent you? 2 out of 3 of your recent comments were answered by them, so I'm getting the impression you haven't read them....
"Essentially, if only scientific reasoning is permitted, then the demand for proof of supernatural entities or events may be fairly countered with a demand for disproof."
- Then I fairly demand you disprove Rumplestiltskin spun straw into gold. If you can fairly claim Rumplestiltskin is a fictional character, then I can fairly claim the Abrahamic God is a fictional character, since both demonstrated a "blatant violation or suspension of natural law".
@Atriviality "Then I fairly demand you disprove Rumplestiltskin spun straw into gold. ...since both demonstrated a "blatant violation or suspension of natural law"
Is there any historic claim or record that would lend any credibility to an endeavor to prove it? I've never met anyone claiming Rumpelstiltskin was real. History is full of the God of Abraham interacting with his creation.
"I've never met anyone claiming Rumpelstiltskin was real."
- People have claimed any number of things were "real", but that's beside the point. The objective here is to see if you can DISPROVE Rumplestiltskin spun straw into gold. Well can you?
"History is full of the God of Abraham interacting with his creation."
- History is also full of the Gods of every other religion interacting with their creation too. Often more so.
Since Rumpelstiltskin was based on slavic folklore, at some point they believed it was real. Probably based on several unrelated stories which would explain its inconsistancies. Similar to the Pentateuch.
Now, your turn.
"Which God passes the tests of truth?"
- None of them. "truth" requires they be verifiably accurate, an no Gods from any religions can meet that test. They are all based on the subjective interpretations of stories, which is why there are so many denominations.
@Atriviality Rumpelstiltskin was written as a fairy tale for children. The author had no intentions of convincing his audience of its veracity.
Stories have a tendency to stay in the fiction category if they don't manifest themselves in reality. The Bible has a wonderful track record of promises being made and promises being fulfilled (prophecy).
Denominations are hardly relevant. Most churches disagree on the peripheral issues but agree on the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
"Rumpelstiltskin was written as a fairy tale for children."
- You are referring to the Brothers Grimm book. However, their books were a collection of folk tales, just as the Pentateuch was.
"The Bible has a wonderful track record of promises being made and promises being fulfilled (prophecy)."
- It also has a lot of prophecies that did NOT happen as predicted, and it's grander claims of things that it claims have already happened have left no evidence of having happened at all.
@Atriviality "their books were a collection of folk tales, just as the Pentateuch was."
The Bible has given names, dates, places and genealogies for you to verify if it was true or not. If you would give it the time of day and read it, you'll find that they don't purport to be myths. The authors give you precise dates, number of people, blood lines and all sorts of details that modern archaeologists cherish as they dig through the sand of the middle east.
@Atriviality Yes, those are the passages. What are you disputing? That Joseph has a different father listed? If so,
Mary's father had 2 daughters - and if she had no sons, according to the Law of Moses in Numbers 27 and 36, Joseph would become the son of Heli upon his marriage to keep the family name/inheritance. So when Joseph married Mary, he became the son of Heli according to the Law of Moses and could legally be included in the genealogy.
"Mary's father had 2 daughters - and if she had no sons, according to the Law of Moses in Numbers 27 and 36, Joseph would become the son of Heli upon his marriage to keep the family name/inheritance."
- I read both passages in full and neither says anything about becoming anyone's son. Care to cite the exact verse where it says so?
@Atriviality Joseph is the son of Heli - it says that in the text. If you want the text to say "son-in-law" that's just not going to happen because there is no such Greek term. Our knowledge of the context and Israelite culture from elsewhere in the Bible (Law of Moses) explains why Luke recorded the genealogy that he did. Sorry if I was unclear. Hope that helps!
"If you want the text to say "son-in-law" that's just not going to happen because there is no such Greek term."
- Yes there is. It's γαμπρός συγγένεια.
Numbers 27 says the daughter will inherit the land if there are no sons. Numbers 36 says women that inherit land cannot marry outside of their family. Where does it say that the son-in-law would become the son of upon his marriage to keep the family name/inheritance? Cite the specific verse.
Yep, Greek is a language that is used today. Google translate will absolutely give you words that exist today that didn't exist 2,000 years ago and more importantly terms that were not used in a particular culture. You can read the original text in any number of online Greek Lexicons for the New Testament.
"Google translate will absolutely give you words that exist today that didn't exist 2,000 years ago and more importantly terms that were not used in a particular culture."
- Very well, all you need to show that Joseph could have been the son-in-law of Heli, and not son as the Bible says, is show the etymology of "γαμπρός συγγένεια". Where and when did it come into use. Because I'm using what is written, and you are making a claim based on what is not written, you have to prove it.
I wish I could read Greek, but unfortunately I'm taking the commentators' word for it who are able to read the original text. I just don't see it as such a big deal as you do because it is abundantly clear that Luke is providing the lineage of Mary's family.
Ok, sure. It's a reasonable conjecture, though, isn't it? The Israelites were incredibly meticulous in their record-keeping and genealogies were of the utmost importance to them. If Luke's record provided a false or contradictory lineage than what Matthew provided, it would have been perfect grounds for people to reject Jesus as the Son of David, but they didn't. The church was born out of the people's belief that Jesus was, in fact, the one prophesied about.
"If Luke's record provided a false or contradictory lineage than what Matthew provided,"
- It is probable both authors wrote separately, based on different tellings of the same stories, decades after the events (because they would have been children when they happened). Then their Gospels were selected for the Bible because they were popular.
As I demonstrated with the Elvis example, eyewitness reports can be unreliable, regardless of how many people make the claim.
@Atriviality "Then their Gospels were selected for the Bible because they were popular."
The idea of popularity and early Christianity is incongruous with history. The Gospels were presented to hostile audiences who wanted to kill the apostles for the blasphemy they spoke.
"eyewitness reports can be unreliable,"
And their claims could be verified to be false, but somehow the veracity of their claims gave rise to centuries of martyrs.
"The idea of popularity and early Christianity is incongruous with history."
- There were many different versions of the Gospels written (Luke 1:1-4), but 3 centuries later the most popular ones were selected to be put in the Bible.
"And their claims could be verified to be false"
- How? The Gospels were written when the eyewitnesses were old or dead.
"but somehow the veracity of their claims gave rise to centuries of martyrs"
@Atriviality The conclusion that Joseph is a son-in-law is a very strong inference - which is why I feel it is trivial. Though next time I talk to my friend who knows Greek, I will ask him about it and gladly get back to you, if that's an acceptable answer?
Luke is being very precise. Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was OF Heli. Luke never said that Joseph was the son of Heli in the Greek. This reduces the alleged contradiction to nothing and shows that Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s—with Joseph’s name listed due to inheritance laws. (hence the "so it was thought" comment in Luke 3:23)
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, (Luke 3:23)
Jesus was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the SON of Heli.
The word used is "τοῦ " which means "of the", but if "τοῦ " does not indicate "son of", then none of the other people in the list of Luke 3 are blood relatives either because they all use the word "τοῦ" to describe their relationships to each other.
@Atriviality "then none of the other people in the list of Luke 3 are blood relatives"
I understand your frustration with the text, but I don't know how could you reach any other conclusion than all of the people in the list were relatives of each other. Joseph was included for the sake of inheritance but the others were "of" each other. It'd be one thing if Luke provided a similar list as Matthew with names that completely contradicted each other, but he didn't.
@Atriviality He clearly provided a different list. Splitting hairs over why Joseph is included in the list seems like a waste of time. There is a good reason for it, but it seems as though you would rather Luke had elaborated on it....
@Atriviality You seem to have left a lot of comments that got flagged for spam and removed. I only noticed it because they showed up in your profile as "recent activity." So something about your case still standing for Elvis...
Yeah, and if anyone took the witness' claims seriously they just have to exhume his body and see that he is still dead (and they actually did do that - they moved his body from one graveyard to another a few years ago).
@Atriviality Another one I caught a glimpse of was that picture on a Discovery Institute affiliate's site...yeah, great, so what? Why do you want to try to force me into being an apologist for ID. It's a red herring as far as I'm concerned.
And I am well aware of Talk Origins. Your arguments sound just as recycled to me as mine probably do to you - though, I'm not sure how since it seems you've never visited the sites I reference (CMI, AIG, ICR, etc.)
- I could, but first in, first served. So answer my question first, then I'll answer yours.
"uh-huh, sure. But if it helps you sleep at night....."
- Hundreds of times more people have claimed to have seen Elvis after his death, compared to the dozen or so that claimed to have seen Jesus. So the eyewitness accounts of Elvis are even MORE credible than those of Jesus.
- My point is still valid. Hundreds of times more people have claimed to have seen Elvis after his death. So the eyewitness accounts of Elvis are still more credible than those of Jesus.
Now provide a Noah's Flood claim that has not been disproven (hint - go to Talk Origins and if your claim is there, it's been disproven).
You didn't ask for prophecies. You were commenting on "it's grander claims of things that it claims have already happened have left no evidence of having happened at all."
Now disprove Rumplestiltskin spinning straw into gold.
- It is in regards to "truth". Truth must be independantly verifiable, and if the various denominations cannot agree on the what the "truth" is, then it is not truth.
"Most churches disagree on the peripheral issues but agree on the Lordship of Jesus Christ."
- Mormons have their own view. Liberal christians don't necessarily. Muslim's don't. Jews don't at all. Most other religions don't even acknowledge it.
@Atriviality "if the various denominations cannot agree on the what the "truth" is, then it is not truth."
So you're saying that just because not everybody in the world can agree on what is true, there is no truth? That seems to be the big picture extrapolation of your truth test.
Jesus said that not everyone who called him Lord would enter heaven. There are false prophets, Jews who reject Christ, and Mormons who are in outer space. I wasn't talking about "churches" who deny Christ.
@Atriviality It seems curious to me that naturalists are so afraid of the word "faith." Your worldview relies heavily on the belief (reasonable or not) that future discoveries will confirm predictions. For example, proponents of the Big Bang have a semblance of belief (dare I say "faith?") that dark energy exists or that we will eventually find all of the anti-matter predicted by the model. If they don't believe in it...well, then I guess they need to scrap the model.
Faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof (proof being the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact ). Since my worldview relies heavily on evidence, I don't need faith. When I find out that I'm wrong, I learn, my knowledge increases, and I lose nothing.
How much "faith" do you have in empirical evidence for your "belief"? How would you feel if you found out you were wrong?
@Atriviality "Faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
So in the absence of proof for dark energy or any of the other 52 ad hoc assumptions that the Big Bang model is built on, your worldview has a strong element of faith to it. Or we could call it wishful thinking if you don't like the word "faith."
"So in the absence of proof for dark energy or any of the other 52 ad hoc assumptions that the Big Bang model is built on, your worldview has a strong element of faith to it."
- Fortunately "dark energy" is based on evidence. The evidence isn't as well supported as evolution or even atoms, but the idea has only been around since 1998, and is still being researched. If future evidence should disprove it, science improves.
@Atriviality "Fortunately "dark energy" is based on evidence" Really? We've observed it? Tested it? Measured it? It's a conjectured fudge factor to make equations work. That doesn't sound reliable to me.
"If future evidence should disprove it, science improves."
So if it's right, science improves - if it's wrong, science improves. Seems like you have set yourself up for success.
- Dark energy is supported by measurements of the cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing, and the large scale structure of the cosmos as well as measurements of supernovae. The two leading models are quintessence and the cosmological constant.
"So if it's right, science improves - if it's wrong, science improves."
Dark matter/energy is simply a name given to an admission of gross ignorance. The observations you mention only to serve to highlight the current model's (big bang) inability to explain what we see. Take Moshe Carmeli, for example. His 5D space/time/velocity model explains galactic rotation curves and the flatness of the universe without dark matter (or other fudge factors). Just as Einsteinian relativity did to Newtonian physics...
"The observations you mention only to serve to highlight the current model's (big bang) inability to explain what we see."
- But they do explain what we see to a greater or lesser extent. So it used until something better comes along.
"Take Moshe Carmeli, for example."
- Yes, it's a shame he died in 2007. Fortunately his co-worker Julia Goldbaum is continuing the research. If it turns out to be viable, it might overturn dark matter.
@wildbill1240 not observed, but tested and measured- "if X is present, it should have this affect on Y. if X is not present, there will be no such affect on Y." that's what science does. and we could list muslims who contributed to science, does that make islam as credible as christianity?
when i said "X" before, i should have said "X as currently understood"
thats the thing-- OF COURSE it can be something else, science always admits uncertainty (have you ever SEEN an atom?) but, if X can be accurately described by that affect on Y, thats still SOMETHING to go on. if it doesn't work, it's wrong and scrapped. people use "god" as a space-filler, which would be OK it just stops research/questions -- using an unknown as a filler still promotes research/discovery
@frustratedlogician Ok, I see what you're saying, and the wonderful thing is that we're on the same page. Creationists wonder what "X" is, too. You can go check it out on their websites for yourself and follow the current research. I honestly don't know of any legitimate creationist organization who uses "God" as a space filler.
@frustratedlogician@wildbill1240 Creationists build models to describe what we observe in the universe too. I reject the big bang model, and like I was telling Atrviality on here, other models (even non-creationist models!) do a better job of explaining the data. Take Moshe Carmeli, for example. His 5D space/time/velocity model explains galactic rotation curves and the flatness of the universe without dark matter (or other fudge factors). Just as Einsteinian relativity did to Newtonian physics
@Atriviality Can I say the same about my faith? Would you like me to quote you the list of Christian scientists who have made great contributions to science?
@Atriviality "If future evidence should disprove your faith, would your faith improve?" This question ignores the very methodology of science. Faith is an a priori axiom - it goes into starting assumptions. If future discoveries disprove current models, then yes, a better model will be constructed.
@Atriviality Models and faith are two different things. I will put my faith in the model that provides the best explanation of reality, and so far the biblical model has provided just that....not the only explanation, but the best.
@blaisingm It's also important to understand that you were not present when any of the evolutionary events occurred (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, etc..) so you have faith (i.e. believe) that your model and interpretation of the evidence correctly describes what ACTUALLY happened. It could be argued that naturalists need far greater faith to believe in the evolutionary origin of man because of all of the unlikelihoods that were allegedly overcome by chance...
It's also important to understand that you were not present when any of your grandparents met so you have faith (i.e. believe) that your interpretation of the evidence correctly describes what ACTUALLY happened. It could be argued that you need far greater faith to believe you great grandparents had children because of all of the unlikelihoods that were allegedly overcome by chance...
@wildbill1240 YOU ARE WRONG and this is where either creationists DON'T GET IT or ARE LYING. please, bear with me. FIRST, "big bang" and abiogenesis HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. secondly, for each of these (less so far with abiogenesis) you can make PREDICTIONS, then TEST whether those predictions hold. for example, the cosmic microwave background radiation. another example, emergence HOX genes in chordates. another? OK, inheritance pattern of endogenous retroviruses in primates.
@frustratedlogician Did wildbill1240 disappear from your debate/discussion? I had the same conversation with wildbill1240 about a week ago concerning the non-relatedness of the "big Bang", abiogenesis, etc. Wildbill1240 and I were having a nice little discussion/debate about a week ago before he bolted on me. Same for you too??
@blaisingm Andrew, I told you I'd be back. Sometimes work is very consuming and I don't choose to spend my limited free time holed up on the computer. I told frustratedlogician I'd be back to talk to him as well. I appreciate your patience and thank you for waiting. Take care.
@blaisingm no, that's not what happened, that just shifted to PMs. others though have ignored my questions, and i still haven't gotten anything good for human chromosome #2 except "that's how the designer designed it." although some creationist (ironically named GoodScienceForYou) recently told me it was because chimps were the result of human-ape interbreeding... which made me lawl quite a bit.
@frustratedlogician That's interesting, but I don't think chimps and people can successfully breed. WildBill was debating with me on another thread, but disappeared on me well over a week ago citing that he was too busy. Did you last leave off with him with your questions about Noah's ark 2 weeks ago?
@blaisingm i don't think he and i talked about that, but since you bring it up, that's something OTHER creationists use to show they don't understand genetics. if humans were reduced to 8 individuals (let alone the 2 of every other species), that's not enough genetic diversity to successfully re-populate the earth. like donexodus2's video on the cheetah (@wildbill1240 - this is the one i meant to link), they were reduced to ~10,000 individuals and still show above average relatedness
@wildbill1240 so my point is, NO faith is involved. maybe in 7th grade, when you just have to take it for granted to pass a test, but not in college level science classes. they teach you HOW TO DEVELOP experiments, how to make them meaningful. you don't "assume" anything, you learn how and why we know what we know, and if something isn't repeatable or consistent, we don't count it as "science." e.g., predictions of flood geology did not match real world, so it was scrapped, like 150 years ago.
@wildbill1240 you probably think i'm "attacking" you, i wish you wouldn't. i'm really trying to help you (and the AUDIENCE), because a medieval view on life is quite dangerous. when was the last time you went to have an exorcism, or had leeches put on you? chances are you haven't, bc the modern scientific method has provided us with the tools and insight to advance modern medicine. if you don't believe me, tell your PCP that the germ theory of infection is JUST A THEORY, and you want an exorcism
@GorgeGeorg I was merely attempting to illustrate that there are two sciences at work in this argument - that of operational science (empirical tests, etc) and that of origin science (much like forensic science). To deny this duality and claim that every interpretation of data is based on direct observation is to be untruthful.
our exchange clearly demonstrates your inability or unwillingness to understand what i'm saying (or most other responses, really).
you claim "evolutionists" and "atheists" are being dishonest in this area of discussion, yet when presented with clear points and facts, you dismiss them. you CLEARLY demonstrate your own childish antics, and i'm done trying to set you straight. you have the resources, use them, and grow up.
until you can explain human chromosome #2 in terms of ID, stop lying.
So some "creationists" no longer dare use certain arguments, because they routinely FAIL and are embarrassing. But other creationists haven't read the memos and still use the same old failed arguments - and those are the ones Don was arguing against.
hojoapp 5 months ago
"Creationists aren't real scientists because they don't ..."
It is only circular reasoning because you miss the point of peer reviewed scientific publishing: data. The reason creationists/ID scientists aren't publishing creation/ID "science" papers in peer reviewed journals is because there's nothing to publish(no data).
If such data existed, it would have been published; if it hasn't been found, why do you think you have a "theory" at all? Did god tell you you have a theory?
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
Just becaus we seemed to get off track, you still need to prove Rumplestiltskin did not spin straw into gold.
I would accept as a substitute, the reason why you think that someone should prove something doesn't exist or didn't happen, instead of someone needing to prove something does exist or did happen.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "I would accept as a substitute"
This has come full circle. I provided a line of reasoning that a demand for the proof of supernatural could equally be countered with a demand for a disproof. Like our other conversation about the supernatural, I said that neither proof would be a question SOLELY of science but of history as well. That is the nature of the debate on origins. You are demanding an empirical answer to a question has metaphysical, historical and scientific explanations.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"I provided a line of reasoning that a demand for the proof of supernatural could equally be countered with a demand for a disproof"
- Yet you were unable to disprove that Rumplestiltskin spun straw into gold, which was the entire reason I asked you to do it.
Positive claims require positive evidence.
Negative claims require no evidence at all.
If I said there is a God, I'd need to provide evidence.
If I said there isn't a God, those saying there is one need to provide evidence.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality Ok, so we shall go back to square one. I am going to ask you a question. Based on what man has studied in the history of science and all of the observations that we have thus made on Earth, Mars and the Moon, a purple-striped rock has never been found. Are you willing to say with certainty that there are no purple-striped rocks in the universe?
wildbill1240 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wildbill1240
"a purple-striped rock has never been found. Are you willing to say with certainty that there are no purple-striped rocks in the universe?"
- Scientifically speaking, since there is no evidence that a purple-striped rock exists, then there is no reason to say one exists. You can BELIEVE one exists if you like, but if you claim as fact that one DOES exist, then we demand conclusive evidence to support your claim.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@wildbill1240 Science doesn't know everything , it openly admits it . But just because you do not know something yet, it is not a valid reason to jump to "magic" , aka "God did it" . For example ,someone( lets call him Bob) could come and tell you that he believes in supernatural being that created your (the christian) GOD . Are you willing to say with certainty that your god was not created by the supernatural being that Bob believes in ? That is why your way of looking at things is wrong .
D1emon 1 year ago
CMI and AIG don't peer review. If the arguments withstand careful review and are logical, it will get published whether biased or not. Scientific journals simply don't last without this process.
This is more deception, outright lies and quote mining. Creation has been countered by far too much evidence. That there is contriversy among scientists is not an indication that the basics of evolution are wrong, just the specifics.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
@drfoxcourt Please contribute to discussion by citing examples of deception, lies and quote mining in this video. Otherwise your comment is off topic and will be removed.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240 Deception: That there is a large percentage of scientists that dispute evolution. It is less than 5%.
Lies: That evolution theory cannot explain the evidence thus far gathered.
Quote mining: "God is the only reasonable explanation..." - R Dawkins (misses the remain part where Dawkins explains that if God exists, He too must be subjected to evolution and is therefore not an explanation.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
@drfoxcourt Where did you get 5%? Do you have a source?
Where did I quote Dawkins in this video? Are you sure you watched it?
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240 <5% for the National Academy of Sciences (closer to 2% according to last year's NAS survey).
Maybe not quoting Dawkins, but certainly there is evasion and deception regarding what legitimate scientists say and what is reported by creationist propagandists.
I stand by my claims of deception on your part.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
@drfoxcourt Ok because I used vague and ambiguous terms such as "large percentage" I am now guilty of deception. Even if I conceded to the 5% figure, that would still be large compared to <1%. I don't claim to have omniscient knowledge of all of the scientists and I doubt you do either.
"Maybe not quoting Dawkins.." What? You mean you were falsely accusing me of quote mining? Now you're making more fuzzy accusations about evasion without any specifics. Who is being dishonest?
wildbill1240 1 year ago
Creationsits aren't real scientists because what they pursue has no basis in observable evidence ... period.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone Please abide by the comment policy and support your claims.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240 The claim is self supporting. Science is by definition a study dealing in material evidence. Creationism by definition deals with claims beyond the scope of material evidence. There's nothing unsupported about the statement and anyone claiming otherwise doesn't understand the terms being used.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
Excellent response - apart from the fact that you never dealt with this blooper: "...for example, how do you explain Neanderthals? DNA confirms that they weren't human..."
Even in 2006, it was known that "The results from the new studies confirm the Neanderthal's humanity, and show that their genomes and ours are more than 99.5 percent identical, differing by only about 3 million bases."
(Live science Nov 15th 2006)
I'll recommend your video to the guy who recommended Dan's to me!
peterquinn2 1 year ago
@peterquinn2 Hey Peter! Thanks for the comment and for recommending the video to your friend. I obviously don't get many positive comments like yours very often, so I do appreciate your input... And thanks for subscribing! God Bless.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
Comment removed
peterquinn2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wildbill1240 No probs - I'll look forward to any more videos on Creation.
peterquinn2 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
Forensic science is empirical too.
Forensic science is defined as the application of science to the law. In criminal cases, forensic scientists are often involved in the search for and examination of physical traces which might be useful for establishing or excluding an association between someone suspected of committing a crime and the scene of the crime or victim.
"Operational science" and "origin science" appear to be apologetics terms, and don't seem to exist anywhere else.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality Exactly my point. Nobody was there at the scene of the crime so we use the evidence to build a picture.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Nobody was there at the scene of the crime so we use the evidence to build a picture."
- You said before that "you were not present when any of the evolutionary events occurred (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, etc..) so you have faith (i.e. believe) that your model and interpretation of the evidence correctly describes what ACTUALLY happened".
If you have emperical evidence, you don't need to have faith because it really exists. Science rejects faith and requires results.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality And are you ever going to KNOW what the earth's initial conditions were? Or how strong the earth's magnetic field was? Or how Uranus got its retrograde motion? The best you can do is make assumptions. That's what we call axioms or presuppositions. Stephen Hawking is very familiar with these, I would expect that you are, too.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"And are you ever going to KNOW what the earth's initial conditions were? Or how strong the earth's magnetic field was?"
- Yes. Geology is useful in answering those questions.
"Or how Uranus got its retrograde motion?"
- Having not actually landed on Uranus, evidence is a little scarce. However, we CAN examine the way it occurs in other objects (e.g. asteroids) and model ways that it CAN occur. Then when we can examine Uranus, we can eliminate the ones the evidence doesn't fit.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "we can eliminate the ones the evidence doesn't fit." Yep, it's a best-fit model, but the assumptions still stand because we were not there to positively say "it happened THIS way."
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
""we can eliminate the ones the evidence doesn't fit." Yep, it's a best-fit model, but the assumptions still stand because we were not there to positively say "it happened THIS way.""
- Like you said, it's like forensic science. It's the search for and examination of physical traces which might be useful for establishing or excluding an association between all the evidence. Would you say forensic science can't convict someone because the scientists weren't there?
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "Would you say forensic science can't convict someone because the scientists weren't there?"
No, absolutely not. I'm not criticizing the method at all. I am simply exposing it for what it is - a form of science that relies heavily on assumptions. If your assumptions are wrong, your conclusions are wrong - and innocent people go to death row.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"If your assumptions are wrong, your conclusions are wrong - and innocent people go to death row."
- But because it's a science, and based on evidence, it also has the capacity to exonerate people and get innocent people OFF death row (especially DNA evidence). You don't have to take anyone's word for it because anyone can check it themselves.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "You don't have to take anyone's word for it because anyone can check it themselves." DNA evidence is present in approximately 10% of all crime scenes. Are you saying we should discard all of the eyewitness testimonies used to make convictions in our justice system? If you're up on the current events, we DO take people's word for it...quite frequently.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Are you saying we should discard all of the eyewitness testimonies used to make convictions in our justice system? If you're up on the current events, we DO take people's word for it...quite frequently."
- Because of the way the way the human mind functions, eyewitnes testimony is one of the least reliable forms of evidence (David Frank Ross, J. Don Read & Michael P. Toglia, EDS., ADULT EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY (1994)). Humans can also lie. DNA can't lie, because it is empirical.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "Humans can also lie. DNA can't lie, because it is empirical." Sure, this is true, but like I said we rarely have DNA to go off of. A single eyewitness account can certainly be unreliable but when it is corroborated with other eyewitness accounts or other evidence, a credible scenario can be reconstructed.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
The point of the argument was the explenation that best fits all of the emperical evidence. In science there is no book claiming with absolute certainty that THIS is the way X happened. There is nobody standing in front of a crowd, proclaiming the X is the absolute truth.
There is only the examination of physical evidence, and the critical analysis of the reasoning behind ideas, in an attempt to understand how things work. There is no faith allowed.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality I don't mean to take the conversation in circles, but that's the way it seems to be going. Have you ever studied "the philosophy of science?" I keep pointing to the metaphysical assumptions and a priori commitments that scientists make BEFORE they enter the realm of empirical science. If you were to truly have "no faith," then you must provide a disproof of the supernatural, otherwise you "believe" there is no god and that is your metaphysical assumption that affects your science
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Have you ever studied "the philosophy of science?""
- Not in any depth.
"I keep pointing to the metaphysical assumptions and a priori commitments that scientists make BEFORE they enter the realm of empirical science."
- You mean like all claims must be based on accurate empirical evidence, where the conclusions are testible and potentially falsifiable, thereby excluding magic as an explanation?
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality I don't know of anyone who includes magic as an explanation, but you might want to check on the meaning of the word. I mean that a philosophical commitment to naturalism is a metaphysical assumption. My message should have cleared it up for you.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
Magic. noun. The art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.
"I don't know of anyone who includes magic as an explanation"
- Genesis 1:3
"I mean that a philosophical commitment to naturalism is a metaphysical assumption."
- Because attributing anything to the supernatural has never improved scientific inquiry, only hindered it.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality Made in 7 days by divine mandate or supernatural fiat, sure, guilty as charged. But magic? Seriously, do you even know a church that teaches that?
Calling supernatural events ‘magic’ is little more than a slur, and has no place in reasoned discussion. It demonstrates strong bias, not impartiality. Your definition fails because miracles are not caused by human control, but only by the chosen action of the supernatural being (god). I am not talking about events evoked by man.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Calling supernatural events ‘magic’ is little more than a slur, and has no place in reasoned discussion."
- Here is a reasoned discussion.
2 men proclaim to be God in the flesh, but you know 1 is God and the other is a wizard. Both can perform any supernatural feats you ask them to perform to prove themselves. How do you tell the difference?
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "Because attributing anything to the supernatural has never improved scientific inquiry, only hindered it."
Never? Now, that's a pretty bold claim. Guess you'd better go burn all the books Newton wrote (and if you want the list of many others I am happy to oblige). Seriously, though. Hopefully you can do better at providing examples than "hindering stem cell research."
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Never? Now, that's a pretty bold claim. Guess you'd better go burn all the books Newton wrote"
- Did Newton attribute the Laws of Motion to supernatural or natural explanations?
"Hopefully you can do better at providing examples than "hindering stem cell research.""
- Galileo Galilei was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life for saying the Earth revolved around the sun (heresy in the eyes of the church). His works were banned by the church.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "Did Newton attribute the Laws of Motion to supernatural or natural explanations?"
You've completely dodged the question. Did Newton's creationist beliefs hinder science? No. That is the only counterexample necessary to overturn your sweeping generalization.
"Galileo Galilei was sentenced..."
How many heliocentric astronomers backed Galileo? Galileo’s initial opposition came from his peers, not the church.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Did Newton's creationist beliefs hinder science?"
- Did Newton use creation beliefs or observed reality to support his work?
"How many heliocentric astronomers backed Galileo?"
- Not many, but there weren't that many around. Most supported the Tychonic system.
"Galileo’s initial opposition came from his peers, not the church."
- But which of them debated him, and which of them gave him a life sentence and banned his work?
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "Did Newton use creation beliefs or observed reality to support his work?"
Newton didn't check his creationist beliefs at the door. They were an integral part of his assumptions and how he formulated his worldview. I have yet to hear from you how creationist beliefs today are hindering progress. Is it just because Newton didn't say anything about dinosaurs that he was "good to go"?
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Newton didn't check his creationist beliefs at the door"
- No. Newton only fell back on them when there was something he couldn't explain. It's called "The God of the Gaps".
"I have yet to hear from you how creationist beliefs today are hindering progress"
- In the US, creationist groups hinder education in history and science, with campaigns to teach alternate versions that conform to their own religious views instead. Countries with fewer creationists don't have this problem.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "The God of the Gaps"
Did he really? Please show me some of his work that says "God did it. QED." I've never heard this from a creationist. It's a straw man and demonstrates a total lack of understanding of creationism.
"creationist groups hinder education.."
Once again you have dodged the question with a vague answer. You are not demonstrating to me that progress is being hindered. At least humor me with the most oft-accused stem cell research protests or something tangible...
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Please show me some of his work that says "God did it. QED.""
- "The most beautiful system of the Sun, Planets and Comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God." Sir Isaac Newton.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality Good find, Sir! You have correctly identified that Newton named Yahweh as the creator of the universe. Newton wasn't setting out to explain HOW God did it or build a model for the origin of the universe. This quote would be akin to an atheist saying that the system of the sun, planets and comets did NOT proceed from a supernatural being. So what?
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"So what?"
- You wanted a quote of Newton saying "God did it. QED."", so I gave you one.
Newton didn't understand how the solar system could have formed, so he attributed it to God. This is the "God of the Gaps" argument.
Later scientists with the benefit of better understanding did not need to attribute these things to God because they worked out how they could form naturally through observation and testing their ideas.
A creationist would have stopped at "God did it."
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "Newton didn't understand how the solar system could have formed,"
He understood it could not have come about from natural, unsupervised processes.
"A creationist would have stopped at "God did it."
Are you aware that there are PhD creation scientists building models for creation week? Are you aware that Russell Humphrey's model predicted that magnetic field of Uranus better than any secular models? I've never read a credible organization say "God did it." Please cite your claims.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"He understood it could not have come about from natural, unsupervised processes."
- No he BELIEVED it could not have come about from natural, unsupervised processes. It was beyond his understanding so "God did it" was his answer. As I said before, this is "God of the Gaps".
With the benefit of centuries of research, we now have a good idea how it could have come about from natural, unsupervised processes. The gap is filled, and the "God" answer is replaced by the natural one.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "we now have a good idea how"
Oh, you mean you don't KNOW? I guess you BELIEVE your model to be true but you can't say with any degree of certainty that it is.
You talk as though it's proven that God did NOT do it. Can you show me that proof?
wildbill1240 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wildbill1240
"I guess you BELIEVE your model to be true but you can't say with any degree of certainty that it is."
- We see it happening elsewhere. Take for example the T Tauri and Herbig Ae/Be stars that we are currently observing forming naturally into solar systems. Is there any reason to suspect that our own solar system formed differently?
We come back to the question of do YOU have any evidence that our solar system was formed unnaturally by God? It's your claim. You provide evidence.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Russell Humphrey's model predicted that magnetic field of Uranus better than any secular models"
- Can you point me to a non-creationist reference to his predictions?
"I've never read a credible organization say "God did it." Please cite your claims."
- Define a "credible" creationist organization.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality This one also got flagged for spam. "Can you point me to a non-creationist reference to his predictions?"
Absolutely, but your Talk Origins are already all over it, so I'll save you the trouble of forming your own opinion.
"Define a "credible" creationist organization."
I gave you a list of organizations that I deemed to be credible. Yet you avoid them because you would rather demolish as many straw men as you can.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@Atriviality As for the god of the gaps accusation, you should understand that creationists don't invoke God wherever it is convenient. God claims ownership for what he does and it is recorded in the Bible. The record of God interacting with his creation is our axiom to approaching the study of the universe. Conversely, asteroids and time seem to be the gods of the naturalists' gaps. Surely enough of each of them could explain anything...
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@Atriviality They're both making assumptions about the past - neither of which are hindering scientific progress. I'm still just itching for a reason why my belief about the origin of the universe adversely affects humankind's ability to design a faster microprocessor or build a spaceship to get to Mars.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"I'm still just itching for a reason why my belief about the origin of the universe adversely affects humankind's ability to design a faster microprocessor or build a spaceship to get to Mars."
- The way science moves forward is by correcting what we know. This is something most creationist groups are opposed to because it tends to prove their "inerrant" holy books wrong. Science doesn't allow baseless assertions and is brutal to liars (another reason creationists don't like it).
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "This is something most creationist groups are opposed to because it tends..."
Ah good. Finally you've brought something up that you should have plenty of examples for. Let's start with "most creationist groups." You can list the names and examples of baseless assertions that prevent science from moving forward. It sounds as though you are in no short supply of them (though you have yet to give one....). I've been patient, too.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"You can list the names"
- This one is very simple. It is exactly the same as the list of creationist organisations that have not tried to disprove their own holy books. If you can find a creationist group that has tried to disprove their own holy books, they are not on the list.
"I've been patient, too."
- Yet you still haven't answered my question. Can you disprove Rumplestiltskin spun straw into gold?
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "This one is very simple."
Once again you dodge the question. Not even one citation of a "baseless assertion" that hinders science. I have given you specific examples where the discussion required it. Why do you refuse to bolster your claims with supporting examples? That you do not have any is the only conclusion I can reach.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute. The strategy describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat scientific materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". The strategy also aims to "affirm the reality of God."
Now disprove Rumplestiltskin spun straw into gold.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "...authored by the Discovery Institute."
I can see you're new to this debate. The Discovery Institute is not creationism. Not even close. Here, let me help you. You can search the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International or Answers in Genesis and come back with some dishonesty and baseless assertions.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"I can see you're new to this debate. The Discovery Institute is not creationism. Not even close."
- I see you are new to the different denominations of creationists. The Discovery Institute's flagship argument "Intelligent Design" was deemed in a court of law to be “a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism," (Judge John E. Jones III, 2005). That would make members of the Discovery Institute cdesign proponentists.
Now disprove Rumplestiltskin spun straw into gold.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "a mere re-labeling of creationism,"
Good try. If you can find Discovery Institute proclaiming Jesus Christ as the Creator of the universe, then you will have proven that ID = biblical creationism. The difference is huge. If you watched any of my videos you would know that I am not a proponent of some vague "design" theory. I name the designer. It's getting old. Just do a word search on these comments to read all about it.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wildbill1240
"If you can find Discovery Institute proclaiming Jesus Christ as the Creator of the universe, then you will have proven that ID = biblical creationism."
- The Center for Science and Culture (CSC), formerly known as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), is part of the Discovery Institute.
Check out their former logo at...
w w w (DOT) durangobill (DOT) com (SLASH) CreationismPics (SLASH) CreationismDI (DOT) j p g
Atriviality 1 year ago
@wildbill1240 "Did Newton's creationist beliefs hinder science?." Ah yes, the seventeenth century theist, scientist AND alchemist (Since Atriviality and you are also discussing Rumplestiltskin, add Newton to the list spontaneous makers of gold). Without a doubt, Newton contributed greatly to science.... BUT did he use the bible as a tool to solve problems or theorize motion and gravity? Again, there is a big difference between tools used to solve problems and belief systems.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@wildbill1240 "I mean that a philosophical commitment to naturalism is a metaphysical assumption." You continually reference reality as an assumption. Can you please provide an example of some assumptions that scientists make that you find to be disagreeable?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"If you were to truly have "no faith," then you must provide a disproof of the supernatural"
- The burden of proof is only on those making a positive claim.
For example if I were to claim there is an invisible man behind you, I would need to provide proof that there is.
If I claim there is NO invisible man behind you, yet you believe there is, YOU would have to provide proof there is.
So I don't have to disprove the supernatural. You need to prove it.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality If I had a dime for every time.... You're making a positive claim that there is no God. Details in the message.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
What do you get if you multiply a negitive by a positive? A negative.
"There is no God" is a negative claim.
If someone says "I am absolutely positive there is no God", it is still a NEGATIVE claim.
The burden of proof is on those making the POSITIVE claim.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality Even if you want to play math with words, the burden of proof also falls on the one making the more extraordinary claim - or that which is further from conventional. And given that the majority of our population has theistically-wired worldviews (i.e. belief in the supernatural), you are challenging the ruling paradigm. So I'll be waiting for your disproof as well.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
Time for you to learn through doing.
Please disprove that Rumpelstiltskin really did spin straw into gold.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality And you disregard the fact that "positive" claims are only a FRACTION of the burden of proof. The conventional view is that Rumpelstiltskin is a fictional character.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"And you disregard the fact that "positive" claims are only a FRACTION of the burden of proof."
- Exactly. If you have only have to support positive claims with evidence, then you cut out a lot of the nonsense.
"The conventional view is that Rumpelstiltskin is a fictional character."
- There are those that believe the Abrahamic God is a fictional character too.
You still haven't disproved Rumplestiltskin spinning straw into gold.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "You still haven't disproved Rumplestiltskin spinning straw into gold."
Have you received the two messages I sent you? 2 out of 3 of your recent comments were answered by them, so I'm getting the impression you haven't read them....
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Essentially, if only scientific reasoning is permitted, then the demand for proof of supernatural entities or events may be fairly countered with a demand for disproof."
- Then I fairly demand you disprove Rumplestiltskin spun straw into gold. If you can fairly claim Rumplestiltskin is a fictional character, then I can fairly claim the Abrahamic God is a fictional character, since both demonstrated a "blatant violation or suspension of natural law".
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "Then I fairly demand you disprove Rumplestiltskin spun straw into gold. ...since both demonstrated a "blatant violation or suspension of natural law"
Is there any historic claim or record that would lend any credibility to an endeavor to prove it? I've never met anyone claiming Rumpelstiltskin was real. History is full of the God of Abraham interacting with his creation.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"I've never met anyone claiming Rumpelstiltskin was real."
- People have claimed any number of things were "real", but that's beside the point. The objective here is to see if you can DISPROVE Rumplestiltskin spun straw into gold. Well can you?
"History is full of the God of Abraham interacting with his creation."
- History is also full of the Gods of every other religion interacting with their creation too. Often more so.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "Well can you?"
And by the logic I presented to you, a proof from you is similarly required. So by all means...
"History is also full of the Gods"
Which God passes the tests of truth?
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
Since Rumpelstiltskin was based on slavic folklore, at some point they believed it was real. Probably based on several unrelated stories which would explain its inconsistancies. Similar to the Pentateuch.
Now, your turn.
"Which God passes the tests of truth?"
- None of them. "truth" requires they be verifiably accurate, an no Gods from any religions can meet that test. They are all based on the subjective interpretations of stories, which is why there are so many denominations.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality Rumpelstiltskin was written as a fairy tale for children. The author had no intentions of convincing his audience of its veracity.
Stories have a tendency to stay in the fiction category if they don't manifest themselves in reality. The Bible has a wonderful track record of promises being made and promises being fulfilled (prophecy).
Denominations are hardly relevant. Most churches disagree on the peripheral issues but agree on the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Rumpelstiltskin was written as a fairy tale for children."
- You are referring to the Brothers Grimm book. However, their books were a collection of folk tales, just as the Pentateuch was.
"The Bible has a wonderful track record of promises being made and promises being fulfilled (prophecy)."
- It also has a lot of prophecies that did NOT happen as predicted, and it's grander claims of things that it claims have already happened have left no evidence of having happened at all.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "their books were a collection of folk tales, just as the Pentateuch was."
The Bible has given names, dates, places and genealogies for you to verify if it was true or not. If you would give it the time of day and read it, you'll find that they don't purport to be myths. The authors give you precise dates, number of people, blood lines and all sorts of details that modern archaeologists cherish as they dig through the sand of the middle east.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"The Bible has given names, dates, places and genealogies for you to verify if it was true or not."
- So does the Harry Potter series. However you'll find that some of the genealogies in the Bible contradict each other.
"you'll find that they don't purport to be myths."
- So talking reptiles, hair that grants superhuman strength, cataclysmic events that left no trace, ressurecting the dead...
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "So does the Harry Potter series."
And you could easily prove that it is fiction.
"you'll find that some of the genealogies in the Bible contradict each other."
Pray tell!
"cataclysmic events that left no trace, ressurecting the dead..."
Global flood left plenty of traces... And yes, the eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection purport the event to be true, not a myth.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"And you could easily prove that it is fiction."
- Yes, just as easily.
"Pray tell!"
- 1 Chronicles 6:3 and Ezra 7:1
- Matthew 1:1 and Luke 3:23
"Global flood left plenty of traces"
- Name 1 that hasn't been disproven.
"And yes, the eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection purport the event to be true, not a myth."
- Just as credible as the eyewitnesses of Elvis still being alive.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "Matthew 1:1 and Luke 3:23"
Matthew records the lineage of Joseph while Luke records the lineage of Mary. This makes us twice as sure that Jesus is the one!
"Name 1 that hasn't been disproven."
Name one that has.
"Just as credible as the eyewitnesses of Elvis still being alive."
uh-huh, sure. But if it helps you sleep at night.....
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Matthew records the lineage of Joseph while Luke records the lineage of Mary."
- Really? Prove it. I've reprinted the passages for convenience.
Matthew 1:16
and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke 3:23
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality Yes, those are the passages. What are you disputing? That Joseph has a different father listed? If so,
Mary's father had 2 daughters - and if she had no sons, according to the Law of Moses in Numbers 27 and 36, Joseph would become the son of Heli upon his marriage to keep the family name/inheritance. So when Joseph married Mary, he became the son of Heli according to the Law of Moses and could legally be included in the genealogy.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Mary's father had 2 daughters - and if she had no sons, according to the Law of Moses in Numbers 27 and 36, Joseph would become the son of Heli upon his marriage to keep the family name/inheritance."
- I read both passages in full and neither says anything about becoming anyone's son. Care to cite the exact verse where it says so?
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality Joseph is the son of Heli - it says that in the text. If you want the text to say "son-in-law" that's just not going to happen because there is no such Greek term. Our knowledge of the context and Israelite culture from elsewhere in the Bible (Law of Moses) explains why Luke recorded the genealogy that he did. Sorry if I was unclear. Hope that helps!
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"If you want the text to say "son-in-law" that's just not going to happen because there is no such Greek term."
- Yes there is. It's γαμπρός συγγένεια.
Numbers 27 says the daughter will inherit the land if there are no sons. Numbers 36 says women that inherit land cannot marry outside of their family. Where does it say that the son-in-law would become the son of upon his marriage to keep the family name/inheritance? Cite the specific verse.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "γαμπρός συγγένεια"
Yep, Greek is a language that is used today. Google translate will absolutely give you words that exist today that didn't exist 2,000 years ago and more importantly terms that were not used in a particular culture. You can read the original text in any number of online Greek Lexicons for the New Testament.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Google translate will absolutely give you words that exist today that didn't exist 2,000 years ago and more importantly terms that were not used in a particular culture."
- Very well, all you need to show that Joseph could have been the son-in-law of Heli, and not son as the Bible says, is show the etymology of "γαμπρός συγγένεια". Where and when did it come into use. Because I'm using what is written, and you are making a claim based on what is not written, you have to prove it.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "Where and when did it come into use."
Fair enough, and that would be a good exercise. Though it seems like it would be an exercise in triviality (oh wait a minute...hence your name!)
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@Atriviality
I wish I could read Greek, but unfortunately I'm taking the commentators' word for it who are able to read the original text. I just don't see it as such a big deal as you do because it is abundantly clear that Luke is providing the lineage of Mary's family.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"it is abundantly clear that Luke is providing the lineage of Mary's family."
- Yet you seem completely unable to provide any evidence for this. Only conjecture.
Talk to your friend if you must, but I still want you to cite sources for your claims.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "Only conjecture."
Ok, sure. It's a reasonable conjecture, though, isn't it? The Israelites were incredibly meticulous in their record-keeping and genealogies were of the utmost importance to them. If Luke's record provided a false or contradictory lineage than what Matthew provided, it would have been perfect grounds for people to reject Jesus as the Son of David, but they didn't. The church was born out of the people's belief that Jesus was, in fact, the one prophesied about.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"If Luke's record provided a false or contradictory lineage than what Matthew provided,"
- It is probable both authors wrote separately, based on different tellings of the same stories, decades after the events (because they would have been children when they happened). Then their Gospels were selected for the Bible because they were popular.
As I demonstrated with the Elvis example, eyewitness reports can be unreliable, regardless of how many people make the claim.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "Then their Gospels were selected for the Bible because they were popular."
The idea of popularity and early Christianity is incongruous with history. The Gospels were presented to hostile audiences who wanted to kill the apostles for the blasphemy they spoke.
"eyewitness reports can be unreliable,"
And their claims could be verified to be false, but somehow the veracity of their claims gave rise to centuries of martyrs.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"The idea of popularity and early Christianity is incongruous with history."
- There were many different versions of the Gospels written (Luke 1:1-4), but 3 centuries later the most popular ones were selected to be put in the Bible.
"And their claims could be verified to be false"
- How? The Gospels were written when the eyewitnesses were old or dead.
"but somehow the veracity of their claims gave rise to centuries of martyrs"
- Just like every other religion on the planet.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality The conclusion that Joseph is a son-in-law is a very strong inference - which is why I feel it is trivial. Though next time I talk to my friend who knows Greek, I will ask him about it and gladly get back to you, if that's an acceptable answer?
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@Atriviality "Cite the specific verse."
You were in the right place. 27:8 was correct.
Luke is being very precise. Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was OF Heli. Luke never said that Joseph was the son of Heli in the Greek. This reduces the alleged contradiction to nothing and shows that Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s—with Joseph’s name listed due to inheritance laws. (hence the "so it was thought" comment in Luke 3:23)
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
Read it again.
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, (Luke 3:23)
Jesus was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the SON of Heli.
The word used is "τοῦ " which means "of the", but if "τοῦ " does not indicate "son of", then none of the other people in the list of Luke 3 are blood relatives either because they all use the word "τοῦ" to describe their relationships to each other.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "then none of the other people in the list of Luke 3 are blood relatives"
I understand your frustration with the text, but I don't know how could you reach any other conclusion than all of the people in the list were relatives of each other. Joseph was included for the sake of inheritance but the others were "of" each other. It'd be one thing if Luke provided a similar list as Matthew with names that completely contradicted each other, but he didn't.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@Atriviality He clearly provided a different list. Splitting hairs over why Joseph is included in the list seems like a waste of time. There is a good reason for it, but it seems as though you would rather Luke had elaborated on it....
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@Atriviality You seem to have left a lot of comments that got flagged for spam and removed. I only noticed it because they showed up in your profile as "recent activity." So something about your case still standing for Elvis...
Yeah, and if anyone took the witness' claims seriously they just have to exhume his body and see that he is still dead (and they actually did do that - they moved his body from one graveyard to another a few years ago).
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@Atriviality Another one I caught a glimpse of was that picture on a Discovery Institute affiliate's site...yeah, great, so what? Why do you want to try to force me into being an apologist for ID. It's a red herring as far as I'm concerned.
And I am well aware of Talk Origins. Your arguments sound just as recycled to me as mine probably do to you - though, I'm not sure how since it seems you've never visited the sites I reference (CMI, AIG, ICR, etc.)
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Name one that has."
- I could, but first in, first served. So answer my question first, then I'll answer yours.
"uh-huh, sure. But if it helps you sleep at night....."
- Hundreds of times more people have claimed to have seen Elvis after his death, compared to the dozen or so that claimed to have seen Jesus. So the eyewitness accounts of Elvis are even MORE credible than those of Jesus.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "compared to the dozen or so"
Check again. 500+ (1 Corinthians 15)
wildbill1240 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wildbill1240
"Check again. 500+ (1 Corinthians 15)"
- My point is still valid. Hundreds of times more people have claimed to have seen Elvis after his death. So the eyewitness accounts of Elvis are still more credible than those of Jesus.
Now provide a Noah's Flood claim that has not been disproven (hint - go to Talk Origins and if your claim is there, it's been disproven).
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "It also has a lot of prophecies that did NOT happen as predicted,"
It is clear that God promised a second judgment and many of the prophecies associated with it have yet to be fulfilled. You are correct.
"it's grander claims of things that it claims have already happened have left no evidence of having happened at all."
Examples please. Generalizing doesn't do anybody any good.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Examples please."
- Light existing 3 days before any light source (Genesis 1: 3-19)
- Noah's flood (Genesis 6-9)
- Stopping the Sun and the Moon in the sky (Joshua 10:13)
- Throwing stars on the ground and trampling on them (Daniel 8:10)
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "It also has a lot of prophecies that did NOT happen as predicted,"
Yeah, those were not the examples I was asking for. Those were supernatural events, not prophecies.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wildbill1240
You didn't ask for prophecies. You were commenting on "it's grander claims of things that it claims have already happened have left no evidence of having happened at all."
Now disprove Rumplestiltskin spinning straw into gold.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Denominations are hardly relevant."
- It is in regards to "truth". Truth must be independantly verifiable, and if the various denominations cannot agree on the what the "truth" is, then it is not truth.
"Most churches disagree on the peripheral issues but agree on the Lordship of Jesus Christ."
- Mormons have their own view. Liberal christians don't necessarily. Muslim's don't. Jews don't at all. Most other religions don't even acknowledge it.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "if the various denominations cannot agree on the what the "truth" is, then it is not truth."
So you're saying that just because not everybody in the world can agree on what is true, there is no truth? That seems to be the big picture extrapolation of your truth test.
Jesus said that not everyone who called him Lord would enter heaven. There are false prophets, Jews who reject Christ, and Mormons who are in outer space. I wasn't talking about "churches" who deny Christ.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
I've been patient Bill.
Now, disprove Rumplestiltskin spun straw into gold.
Atriviality 1 year ago
Comment removed
xXxRetroSquirrelxXx 1 year ago
Comment removed
xXxRetroSquirrelxXx 1 year ago
@Atriviality It seems curious to me that naturalists are so afraid of the word "faith." Your worldview relies heavily on the belief (reasonable or not) that future discoveries will confirm predictions. For example, proponents of the Big Bang have a semblance of belief (dare I say "faith?") that dark energy exists or that we will eventually find all of the anti-matter predicted by the model. If they don't believe in it...well, then I guess they need to scrap the model.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
Faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof (proof being the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact ). Since my worldview relies heavily on evidence, I don't need faith. When I find out that I'm wrong, I learn, my knowledge increases, and I lose nothing.
How much "faith" do you have in empirical evidence for your "belief"? How would you feel if you found out you were wrong?
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "Faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
So in the absence of proof for dark energy or any of the other 52 ad hoc assumptions that the Big Bang model is built on, your worldview has a strong element of faith to it. Or we could call it wishful thinking if you don't like the word "faith."
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"So in the absence of proof for dark energy or any of the other 52 ad hoc assumptions that the Big Bang model is built on, your worldview has a strong element of faith to it."
- Fortunately "dark energy" is based on evidence. The evidence isn't as well supported as evolution or even atoms, but the idea has only been around since 1998, and is still being researched. If future evidence should disprove it, science improves.
Can you say the same about your "faith"?
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "Fortunately "dark energy" is based on evidence" Really? We've observed it? Tested it? Measured it? It's a conjectured fudge factor to make equations work. That doesn't sound reliable to me.
"If future evidence should disprove it, science improves."
So if it's right, science improves - if it's wrong, science improves. Seems like you have set yourself up for success.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"Really? We've observed it? Tested it? Measured it?"
- Dark energy is supported by measurements of the cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing, and the large scale structure of the cosmos as well as measurements of supernovae. The two leading models are quintessence and the cosmological constant.
"So if it's right, science improves - if it's wrong, science improves."
- Science only improves when correcting mistakes.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "Dark energy is supported by...."
Dark matter/energy is simply a name given to an admission of gross ignorance. The observations you mention only to serve to highlight the current model's (big bang) inability to explain what we see. Take Moshe Carmeli, for example. His 5D space/time/velocity model explains galactic rotation curves and the flatness of the universe without dark matter (or other fudge factors). Just as Einsteinian relativity did to Newtonian physics...
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"The observations you mention only to serve to highlight the current model's (big bang) inability to explain what we see."
- But they do explain what we see to a greater or lesser extent. So it used until something better comes along.
"Take Moshe Carmeli, for example."
- Yes, it's a shame he died in 2007. Fortunately his co-worker Julia Goldbaum is continuing the research. If it turns out to be viable, it might overturn dark matter.
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality I wasn't aware he died. That is really too bad.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240 not observed, but tested and measured- "if X is present, it should have this affect on Y. if X is not present, there will be no such affect on Y." that's what science does. and we could list muslims who contributed to science, does that make islam as credible as christianity?
frustratedlogician 1 year ago
@frustratedlogician Exactly, now you're seeing my point. Great scientific discoveries can be made regardless of one's faith background!
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@frustratedlogician
"if X is present, it should have this affect on Y. if X is not present, there will be no such affect on Y."
And X is still X - an unknown, not something we have proof of. X could be many things, there is no proof it is "dark matter."
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
when i said "X" before, i should have said "X as currently understood"
thats the thing-- OF COURSE it can be something else, science always admits uncertainty (have you ever SEEN an atom?) but, if X can be accurately described by that affect on Y, thats still SOMETHING to go on. if it doesn't work, it's wrong and scrapped. people use "god" as a space-filler, which would be OK it just stops research/questions -- using an unknown as a filler still promotes research/discovery
frustratedlogician 1 year ago
@frustratedlogician Ok, I see what you're saying, and the wonderful thing is that we're on the same page. Creationists wonder what "X" is, too. You can go check it out on their websites for yourself and follow the current research. I honestly don't know of any legitimate creationist organization who uses "God" as a space filler.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@frustratedlogician @wildbill1240 Creationists build models to describe what we observe in the universe too. I reject the big bang model, and like I was telling Atrviality on here, other models (even non-creationist models!) do a better job of explaining the data. Take Moshe Carmeli, for example. His 5D space/time/velocity model explains galactic rotation curves and the flatness of the universe without dark matter (or other fudge factors). Just as Einsteinian relativity did to Newtonian physics
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@Atriviality Can I say the same about my faith? Would you like me to quote you the list of Christian scientists who have made great contributions to science?
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
The question was if future evidence should disprove your faith, would your faith improve?
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality "If future evidence should disprove your faith, would your faith improve?" This question ignores the very methodology of science. Faith is an a priori axiom - it goes into starting assumptions. If future discoveries disprove current models, then yes, a better model will be constructed.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
"If future discoveries disprove current models, then yes, a better model will be constructed."
- So if your faith were disproved by future evidence, you'd just make a new faith?
Atriviality 1 year ago
@Atriviality Models and faith are two different things. I will put my faith in the model that provides the best explanation of reality, and so far the biblical model has provided just that....not the only explanation, but the best.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@Atriviality "How much "faith" do you have in empirical evidence for your "belief"?"
Plenty, I find the "no proof" areas in which I place my trust to be more reasonable than the naturalist's.
"How would you feel if you found out you were wrong?"
Bad. Who likes being wrong? How would you feel?
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@blaisingm It's also important to understand that you were not present when any of the evolutionary events occurred (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, etc..) so you have faith (i.e. believe) that your model and interpretation of the evidence correctly describes what ACTUALLY happened. It could be argued that naturalists need far greater faith to believe in the evolutionary origin of man because of all of the unlikelihoods that were allegedly overcome by chance...
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
It's also important to understand that you were not present when any of your grandparents met so you have faith (i.e. believe) that your interpretation of the evidence correctly describes what ACTUALLY happened. It could be argued that you need far greater faith to believe you great grandparents had children because of all of the unlikelihoods that were allegedly overcome by chance...
Atriviality 1 year ago
@wildbill1240 YOU ARE WRONG and this is where either creationists DON'T GET IT or ARE LYING. please, bear with me. FIRST, "big bang" and abiogenesis HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. secondly, for each of these (less so far with abiogenesis) you can make PREDICTIONS, then TEST whether those predictions hold. for example, the cosmic microwave background radiation. another example, emergence HOX genes in chordates. another? OK, inheritance pattern of endogenous retroviruses in primates.
frustratedlogician 1 year ago
@frustratedlogician Did wildbill1240 disappear from your debate/discussion? I had the same conversation with wildbill1240 about a week ago concerning the non-relatedness of the "big Bang", abiogenesis, etc. Wildbill1240 and I were having a nice little discussion/debate about a week ago before he bolted on me. Same for you too??
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm Andrew, I told you I'd be back. Sometimes work is very consuming and I don't choose to spend my limited free time holed up on the computer. I told frustratedlogician I'd be back to talk to him as well. I appreciate your patience and thank you for waiting. Take care.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
@blaisingm no, that's not what happened, that just shifted to PMs. others though have ignored my questions, and i still haven't gotten anything good for human chromosome #2 except "that's how the designer designed it." although some creationist (ironically named GoodScienceForYou) recently told me it was because chimps were the result of human-ape interbreeding... which made me lawl quite a bit.
frustratedlogician 1 year ago
@frustratedlogician That's interesting, but I don't think chimps and people can successfully breed. WildBill was debating with me on another thread, but disappeared on me well over a week ago citing that he was too busy. Did you last leave off with him with your questions about Noah's ark 2 weeks ago?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm i don't think he and i talked about that, but since you bring it up, that's something OTHER creationists use to show they don't understand genetics. if humans were reduced to 8 individuals (let alone the 2 of every other species), that's not enough genetic diversity to successfully re-populate the earth. like donexodus2's video on the cheetah (@wildbill1240 - this is the one i meant to link), they were reduced to ~10,000 individuals and still show above average relatedness
frustratedlogician 1 year ago
@wildbill1240 so my point is, NO faith is involved. maybe in 7th grade, when you just have to take it for granted to pass a test, but not in college level science classes. they teach you HOW TO DEVELOP experiments, how to make them meaningful. you don't "assume" anything, you learn how and why we know what we know, and if something isn't repeatable or consistent, we don't count it as "science." e.g., predictions of flood geology did not match real world, so it was scrapped, like 150 years ago.
frustratedlogician 1 year ago
@wildbill1240 you probably think i'm "attacking" you, i wish you wouldn't. i'm really trying to help you (and the AUDIENCE), because a medieval view on life is quite dangerous. when was the last time you went to have an exorcism, or had leeches put on you? chances are you haven't, bc the modern scientific method has provided us with the tools and insight to advance modern medicine. if you don't believe me, tell your PCP that the germ theory of infection is JUST A THEORY, and you want an exorcism
frustratedlogician 1 year ago
@wildbill1240
Actually, we were/are around for evolution. It's a continual process that's going on right now - all around us.
Were you around for the 'god' event of the creation of 'adam and eve'????
You're building your strawman again with the "unlikelihoods that were allegedly overcome by chance"
Evolution is not a 'by chance' system. This has been pointed out constantly.
GorgeGeorg 1 year ago
@GorgeGeorg I was merely attempting to illustrate that there are two sciences at work in this argument - that of operational science (empirical tests, etc) and that of origin science (much like forensic science). To deny this duality and claim that every interpretation of data is based on direct observation is to be untruthful.
wildbill1240 1 year ago
our exchange clearly demonstrates your inability or unwillingness to understand what i'm saying (or most other responses, really).
you claim "evolutionists" and "atheists" are being dishonest in this area of discussion, yet when presented with clear points and facts, you dismiss them. you CLEARLY demonstrate your own childish antics, and i'm done trying to set you straight. you have the resources, use them, and grow up.
until you can explain human chromosome #2 in terms of ID, stop lying.
frustratedlogician 1 year ago