- NEW!
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on July 10th, 2009
No, there is not.
Evidence would negate "faith" which is currently the only thing that the UberChristians are currently grasping hold of.
by Evanfris25 on July 11th, 2009
As Steven Hawking, one of the three authors, boasted many years thereafter, we proved that time was created. We proved that time has a beginning.
Of all world religions, only Judeo-Christian theology says Time has a beginning
Why? Because if you were to open up the Holy books of the religions of the world, only one of them would describe God as a being that creates the universe independent of time, space, matter and energy.
The other Holy books describe God as creating within time. The Bible states that God creates independent of time. That's the difference.
Some verses that you might be familiar with: The first verse which states, “In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth…” The Hebrew words for heavens and Earth literally refer to the entire physical cosmos of matter, energy space and time. The universe.
Hebrews 11:3 makes it more specific stating, “The universe that we detect was made from that which we cannot detect.” We can make detections within matter, energy, length, width, height and time, but not beyond.
Eight places in the Bible tell us that God created time. I'll give you two examples: 2 Timothy 1:9 which states, “The Grace of God that we now experience was put into effect before the beginning of time” and Titus 1:2 which states, “The hope that we have in Jesus Christ was given to us before the beginning of time.”
Einstein was well aware that the term for pressure (P) in the universe is rather tiny compared to the term for mass density (represented by the Greek letter Rho ). It's divided by a huge number - the velocity of light squared. You've got this extremely small number divided by a huge number. This means that for all intents and purposes, we can ignore that “3P/C²” relative to the density. We can drop that term out, and then we have something much simpler to solve.
It's still a non-linear differential equation, so it's not all that easy. But Einstein was able to perceive and demonstrate that, according to this equation, the universe not only decelerates, it positively expands. Hence, the Big Bang. How so? pretend that I've got a grenade here in front of me. If I were to pull the pin from the grenade, you'd feel a few effects. One being that the pieces of the grenade would expand outward from the pin. That's positive expansion.
Those outwardly expanding pieces of the grenade would inevitably bump into obstacles into this room. When they collide with those obstacles, they slow down. That's deceleration. After a grenade has exploded, a physicist could make measurements of the positions and the velocities of the pieces of shrapnel, and through the equation Velocity = Distance/Time, he could calculate the moment that the pin was pulled on the grenade.
We can do the same thing with the galaxies in the universe. We can measure their positions and their velocities and calculate the moment that the “pin” was pulled on the entire universe.
As Einstein pointed out, the significance is that the universe has this moment of pin pulling. It has a beginning. Through the principle of positive fact, if the universe has a beginning, it must have a beginner, hence the existence of God.
To his dying day, Einstein held to his belief that as the result of the verification of his theory of General Relativity, God exists. (Good book on Einstein's extensive discussions of religion and theology: Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology by Max Jammer -Ed ) God created the universe and God is intelligent. Today, we don't deny that God is personal. Einstein died too soon.
Ours is a privileged generation because we have seen the measuring of the universe. The theological significance is that if you can measure the universe, you are measuring the creation. If you can measure the creation, you are measuring the Creator himself. Not all of his characteristics, of course, but many that are theologically significant.
What we've discovered in measuring the universe is that the third assumption of Emanuel Kant; that we have infinite time, the universe is static and that we have an infinite supply of building blocks for life isn't true.
We proved that the universe isn't static, that time isn't infinite. It's finite. The age of the universe is only 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 seconds (10 to the 18th power).
We also discovered that we do not have an infinite supply of building blocks. In fact, we discovered that it takes exquisite design to get any building blocks at all. Molecules, without which, life is impossible.
Atoms must be able to assemble in the molecules in order to gain sufficient complexity for life chemistry to proceed. That applies to any conceivable kind of life.
Unless the force electromagnetism takes on a particular value, molecules won't happen. Take the nucleus of an atom. There's an electron orbiting that nucleus. If the force electromagnetism is too weak, the electron will not orbit the nucleus.
Electromagnetism
There won't be sufficient electromagnetic pull to keep that electron orbiting the nucleus. If electrons cannot orbit nuclei, then electrons cannot be shared so that nuclei can come together to form molecules. Without molecules, we have no life.
If the force electromagnetism is too strong, the nuclei will hang onto their electrons with such strength that the electrons will not be shared with adjoining nuclei and again, molecules will never form. Unless the force electromagnetism is fine-tuned to a particular value, the universe will have no molecules and no life.
Strong Nuclear Force
We also have a problem in getting the right atoms. Now take a neutron and a proton. Protons and neutrons are held together in the nucleus of an atom by the strong nuclear force, which is the strongest of the four forces of physics.
If the nuclear force is too strong, the protons and neutrons in the universe will find themselves stuck to other protons and neutrons, which means we have a universe devoid of Hydrogen.
Hydrogen is the element composed of the bachelor proton. Without Hydrogen, there's no life chemistry. It's impossible to conceive of life chemistry without Hydrogen.
On the other hand, if we make the nuclear force slightly weaker, none of the protons and neutrons will stick together. All of the protons and neutrons will be bachelors, in which case the only element that would exist in the universe would be Hydrogen, and it's impossible to make life if all we've got is Hydrogen.
How sensitive must this strong nuclear force be designed for life to exist? It's so sensitive that if we were to make this force 3/10 of 1% stronger or 2% weaker, life would be impossible at any time in the universe.
Mass of the Proton and Neutron
We also have a problem with the protons and the neutrons themselves. The neutron is 0.138% more massive than the proton. Because of this, it takes a little more energy for the universe to make neutrons, as compared to protons. That's why in the universe of today we have seven times as many protons as neutrons.
If the neutron were 1/10th of 1% less massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so many neutrons that all of the matter in the universe would very quickly collapse into neutron stars and black holes, and life would be impossible.
If we made the neutron 1/10th of 1% more massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so few neutrons, that there wouldn't be enough neutrons to make Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, etc. These are the elements that are essential for life. So, we must delicately balance that mass to within 1/10 th of 1%, or life is impossible.
Electrons
With electrons we see an even more sense of the balance. In order for life to exist in the universe, the force of gravity must be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 40th power) times weaker than the force of electromagnetism. It's essential that the force of gravity be incredibly weak compared to the other three forces of physics.
Gravity
Yet planets, stars and galaxies will not form unless gravity is dominant in the universe, so the universe must be set up in such a way that the other forces of physics cancel out and leave gravity, the weakest of the forces, dominant.
It's necessary for the universe to be electrically neutral. The numbers of the positively charged particles must be equivalent to the numbers of negatively charged particles or else electromagnetism will dominate gravity, and stars, galaxies and planets will never form. If they don't form, then clearly life is impossible.
The numbers of electrons must equal the numbers of protons to better than one part of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 37 th power).
Another way of looking at this incredible fine-tuning of the universe in this one characteristic is to compare it with the very best that we humans have achieved. It's not built yet, but towards the end of this year, a machine will come online at Cal Tech. This machine will have the capacity to make measurements to within one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 23rd power). The best machine man has ever designed.
But the very best machine that man has ever designed, with all of our money, technology and education, falls one hundred trillion times short of the level of fine-tuning that we see in just this one characteristic of the universe.
Astronomers have discovered that the total mass of the universe acts as a catalyst for nuclear fusion and the more massive the universe is, the more efficiently nuclear fusion operates in the cosmos. If the universe is too massive, the mass density too great, then very quickly all the matter in the universe is converted from Hydrogen into elements heavier than iron, which would render life impossible because the universe would be devoid of Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.
If the universe has too little mass, then fusion would work so inefficiently that all that the universe would ever produce would be Hydrogen, or Hydrogen plus a small amount of Helium. But there again, the Carbon and Oxygen we need for life would be missing.
We can extend this argument of design from the universe to the solar system itself. When we look at the solar system, we discover that we have a heavenly body problem. It's not that easy to get the right galaxy.
Life can only happen on late born stars. If it's a first or second-generation star, then life is impossible because you don't yet have the heavy elements necessary for life chemistry. There's a narrow window of time in the history of the universe when life can happen.
If the universe is too old or too young, life is impossible. Only spiral galaxies produce stars late enough in their history that they can take advantage of the elements that are essential for life history, and only 6% of the galaxies in our universe are spiral galaxies. Of those 6%, you must go with galaxies that produce all of the elements that are essential for life. It's not that easy.
Besides Hydrogen and Helium, the other elements are made in the cores of super giant stars. Super giant stars burn up quickly; they're gone in a just a few million years. When they go through the final stages of burning up their fuel, they explode ashes into outer space, and future generations of stars will absorb those ashes.
When those stars go through their burning phase, they will take that heavy element ash material. This time when they explode, they make a whole bunch of material, capable of forming rocky planets and supporting life chemistry.
But we want these supernovae exploding early in the history of the galaxy. We don't want them going off now. If the star Cereus goes Super Nova, we're in serious trouble because it's only eight light years away. It would exterminate life on our planet.
We observe in our galaxy that there was a burst of Super Nova explosions early in its history, but it tapered off to where it isn't a threat to life that is now in existence. The Super Nova explosions took place in the right quantity and in the right locations so that life could happen here on Earth.
What does location have to do with it? Life is impossible in the center of our galaxy, or in the heel of our galaxy. It's only possible at a distance 2/3 from the center of our galaxy.
The stars at the center of our galaxy are jammed so tightly together that the mutual gravity would destroy the planetary orbits. Moreover, their synchrotron radiation would be destructive to life molecules. But we don't want to be too far away from the center, either. If we get too far away, then there aren't enough heavy elements from the exploded remains of supernovae to enable life chemistry to proceed.
There's one life essential element that the supernovae do not make, however, and that's Fluorine. Fluorine is made only on the surfaces of white dwarf binaries. A white dwarf is a burned out star. It's like a cinder in a fireplace, just glowing.
Orbiting this white dwarf is a star that hasn't yet exhausted its nuclear fuel. It's an ordinary star, like our Sun. The white dwarf has enough mass relative to the ordinary star orbiting around it that it is capable of pulling mass off of the surface of the ordinary star and dragging it down so that it falls on its surface. When that material falls on the surface of the while dwarf, it ignites some very interesting nuclear reactions that produce Fluorine.
We need a white dwarf binary whose gravitational interactions between the white dwarf and the ordinary star are such that a strong enough stellar wind is sent from the white dwarf to blast the Fluorine beyond the gravitational pull of both stars, putting it into outer space, so that future generations of stars can absorb it. Then we have enough Fluorine for life chemistry.
A Seminal Presentation by Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, given in South Barrington, Illinois, April 16, 1994
by kiwi on July 11th, 2009
you probably do not read the bible, or care for any of the passages. But the bible states that he once said "blessed are those who believe without seeing." ofcoarse your gonna believe if you see him. its obvious.but yeah i really dont wanna get into it. Just hope one day, you'd be more open minded towards god.I hope one day you'll meet someone with a lot more knoledge of him in your life, hopefully one day you'll feel the love we feel towards god I may not be able to show you exact proof of his existance...but i know that its impossible to love something or someone that isnt truly there. i hope this makes sense to you.
This is a really sensitve subject for me beacause it brakes my heart to know someone who doesnt believe, so if you do not agree with what im saying please dont be mean. X-)
by ...... on July 10th, 2009
Not that I am aware of. But if you were the almighty God creator of everything. Would you allow mere humans the ability to figure you out? Before you answer keep in mind your wanting people to believe and worship you with faith not out of fear because they know for a fact your real. Without that our free will would be meaningless because we be like the angels who spend their existence doing nothing but serving God. Life would be meaningless as we would do nothing but please God. As it is we have a choice to believe or not but what if you knew where would your choice be?
by Blackberry. on July 10th, 2009
Nnnnnnope lol.
by Legend In Your Own Mind on July 12th, 2009
There is none, never will be either. Faith proves nothing, never has and never will. The bible proves absolutely nothing and the only thing proven about the bible is it was written.
You want god? Be your own god and believe in yourself because believing in imaginary gods is a waste of time as is praying.
"Eat a big plate of jambalya, head off to the can, and meditate on this, "defecating is more productive than praying."
[Todd Adamson]
.
by Bull wears a COAT of many colours on July 12th, 2009
Yes. All that you have to do is die. If you are still around, God did it. If not, darn.
by Robbiedale on July 12th, 2009
I gave you a smidgeon of the innumerable proofs that He exists and I was shot down with the comment that the proofs I gave were not valid. I'll ask again, what do YOU say is the definition of a "valid proof" of something? If you're not willing to answer that, we can't go any further. I for one, am willing to pursue this to a logical conclusion.
by Stormarm on July 11th, 2009
Is there one single piece of testable evidence that you are a self-aware, conscious entity with free will, rather than just a very complex collection of programmed subroutines that simulate the same?
Is there one single piece of testable evidence that beauty (in the philosohic sense) exists? Or elegance? Or love? Or for that matter even, REASON?
The answer to all of these depends on what you are willing to consider as evidence and what axioms you are willing to accept and work from. I find the evidence for a creator God overwhelming - so overwhelming as to be self-evident. If you don't find it so, that can only be because you don't recognize the evidence as evidence and don't intuitively accept the fundamental axioms.
The fact is that no worldview or philosophy can ever be substantiated on the basis of evidence alone. Even "scientific materialism" and secular humanism are utterly unprovable/unverifiable/unfalsifiable. All are beliefs derived from unprovable presuppositions.
by shrinkess on July 11th, 2009
Not to my knowledge - and I've looked HARD!
by George R. McCasland on July 12th, 2009
The Human Brain
Science knows that the human brain has the capacity for storing memories that will take at least 10,000 years to fill. What evolutionary pressure could result in the capability, or need, to have that much storage capacity to far exceeds the ability of the human body? Did human once live that long, but no longer? Why doesn't our supposed closest relative, in the theory of evolution, the apes have a capability even close to that, with only the capacity to last their normal lifetimes?
According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, the human brain “is endowed with considerably more potential than is realizable in the course of one person’s lifetime.” (1976 Edition, Volume 12, page 998) The book How the Brain Learns, by David A. Sousa, states: “For all practical purposes, the capacity of the brain to store information is unlimited.”—Page 78, Second Edition, copyright 2001.
The Human Body
Science knows that there is no medical reason why humans age and die. Once a person reaches full maturity, age 24 for females, and age 30 for males, every cell in the human body replaces itself over a seven year time period. Some much faster, such as skin cells, while others are slower, such as the brain. On a cellular level, we never get older than 7 years of age.
In his book The Dream of Eternal Life, Mark Benecke notes: “Nearly all of the body is renewed several times during the course of a life. . . . After about seven years, we are new people in the truest sense of the word.”
At one time, did humans live forever, but now don't?
by schmee2369 on July 10th, 2009
If there were proof there would be no point. Life on earth is a trial, with much tribulation...a test of knowledge, wisdom, perspective, love, and faith, and dedication. If it were as easy to PROVE it...there would be no FREE will.
But I think each and every person granted with the capability to love is enough. The soul.
Theres much more to the bein then the body, for the body is only a tool, the mind memory and function, language and how to figure out things. The soul is actually what is BEHIND all of that, what can SEE beauty...what can SEE the goodness of things, that can UNDERSTAND forgiveness...that can HEAR THE music and the fingers can play it...Its the absolute yin yang inside of you. But it was designed that way. We are NOT an accident, it was INTENTIONAL. we were not random, we were created. This isnt all there is...for this is a small part, there is MUCH more. There is much inside of a person as there is in the universe. Every person has a different world inside of them. its all about their perspective. The soul...the Soul, is something great. A gift. What seperates us from a functioning robot.
by Anonymous on July 10th, 2009
Is there one, single piece of testable evidence that clearly points that there isn't a creator god?
by Robert on July 10th, 2009
Yes, we at present do not have the technology, data base or mind set for it but things are moving forward.
In Genesis "god" infused it's essence with the clay of the earth. To me "essence" in 21st century terms means DNA, which should be different from earth origin DNA. God or Alien is another debate.
by Darth NANAME on July 25th, 2009
Is there a sing piece of testable evidence that points to God's absense? No.
by Franklin on July 12th, 2009
Yes, many tests have shown that the basic mechanism of biological evolution (mutation) does not have the ability to have produced 100 million species, with billions of vastly different complex subsystems from a single cell, or (which admittedly is a whole other subject) that that single cell living could have become animated by natural causes.
Many test have revealed that mutations only cause relatively minor changes, within a *somehow* defined limit. The unintended and unexpected results of these tests show a consistency with a creator God making separate "kinds" of creatures, which the ability to produce other varieties of those "kinds", but without the ability to create other "kinds."
by Robbiedale on July 11th, 2009
Does anyone have any real proof that there is no God?
by LarryH54 on July 10th, 2009
Testable... maybe not. But just for the record, the lunar astronauts all had a change of heart on their way home from the moon. Example:
"Boy we're lucky to be here, why do people complain about the earth? We are living in the Garden of Eden!" --Capt. Alan Bean, USN Ret.
by Nice Guy In Bay Area on July 10th, 2009
I like to think that the planet we are standing on is pretty good proof.
by myopinion on July 10th, 2009
EASY Question, and simple answer.
When you look at a car, you ask, "who is the maker?" When you see a painting, you ask, "who is the painter?"
and it would be absolutely crazy or rediculious to claim a car does NOT have a maker and it just arrived able to drive with it't technichal qualitities. If you see a beautiful painting, you would never believe it just was painted without anyone painting it!
What if someone said the car and painting JUST HAPPENED or over time was make, or it was a Big Bang!
Crazy right?
PROOF OF THESE THINGS HAVING A MAKER IS THE PRODUCT THEMSELVES. So, look into the mirror, and then say there is NO MAKER! Sound silly doesn't it?
by Riding the last galaxy on September 3rd, 2009
If you mean scientifically, not that I'm aware of. But, I do need to say this...If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.
On the other hand, for those who want to know God, if he is there, He says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."
Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him?
by Lancelot Du Lac on September 1st, 2009
Yes, Every time you look in the mirror. You form was given to you by God's image. You very next breath is a gift from God. And then there's the Universe. The kind of grandeur that only God can create.
Just take a look at Canis Majoris in relation to the size of our earth.
by Franklin on August 3rd, 2009
Scientific discovery is not sufficiently advanced to create such a test.
by Cladvulk on July 26th, 2009
What sort of tests do you have in mind? And by whom? If you are only willing to accept criteria and methods that preclude supernatural causes a priori, then you are simply begging the question.
The facts are: “the universe” is the sum total of all matter-energy, space-time, and the patterns of all material processes and phenomena; the universe exists; the universe did not always exist: space-time, matter-energy, and “nature” all came into existence together; scientific instruments and methods can only study “the universe”; therefore, scientific instruments and methods are ipso-facto blind to anything and everything that might have caused the beginning of the universe or continue to affect it from outside of itself. Consequently, there can be no testable (by which I presume you mean scientific) evidence of anything before that point, nor can there be any scientific evidence of anything outside of “the universe”. As a creator God, if such exists, is by definition external and prior to the physical universe, the techniques, devices, and methods of the material sciences are therefore incapable of detecting God, at least directly.
But furthermore, also by definition, God (if He exists) is the governing force/principle behind all natural phenomena. (That these typically follow mathematically elegant patterns is an aesthetic argument for the existence of God, rather than an argument that God is unnecessary.) But if Nature/natural law is just the manifestation of God’s general will, His standing orders so to speak, then there is no way of isolating a God-caused phenomena from a non-God-caused phenomena, since – by definition – all phenomena are God-caused. Consequently, the techniques, devices, and methods of the material sciences are also incapable of detecting (or rather distinguishing) God indirectly.
So, if the only tests you are willing to accept are ones out of the material sciences, then you have begged the question. You might as well challenge people to prove Lincoln existed using only a weathervane and a stopwatch.
by anonymous on July 13th, 2009
Creation. Nature, the universe. Without a Creator there can be no creation.
by 444 on July 12th, 2009
Everything, and the knowing is a gift from God.
by CaRbOnPrOdUcK is Baccuss on July 12th, 2009
This...
by HoboJoe on July 10th, 2009
Yes. A slice of toasted bread with the image of Jesus on one side and peanut butter and jelly on the other.
by guardian on September 23rd, 2009
Time:
time is testable in reverse engineering and in decay(reverse decay...)"if its this yesterday and it is reduced this much now and then graphing backwards it was this before....
thus at one time it could not be more than X number (100%) anything before that was pre time. like a line segment *--------> of time whatever was before the 100% beggining was pretime thus creator.
(hey skiddo I could only give 1 more point cause my level increase hope it helps)
by Razzle-Fratchit on July 25th, 2009
A man flips a fair coin 100 times in succession and all 100 come up heads.
The determinist says, "It's fate!"
The nihilist says, "It's chance!"
The humanist says, "It's skill!"
The solopsist says, "It's an illusion!"
And the Theist says, "It's Providence!"
No power or science on Earth can prove which one is right -- though the man's inability to repeat it would rule out humanism as an explanation.
For me, I'd say the evidence points towards an artist and not mere blind naturalistic processes. The fact that for the whole of human history the moon has been just far enough from the Earth that it has the same angular diameter as the Sun (in truth, both vary ever so slightly, but not enough to be visible to the naked eye) to me speaks of the clear handiwork of an Artist as there's absolutely no natural correlation between an equally sized sun and moon (as viewed by men on the surface of the Earth) and the existance of intelligent life capable of pondering and being awed by the heavens, and the odds of the two happening together by chance are utterly preposterous.
by Will on July 13th, 2009
The bacterial Flagella motor - works exactly like an outboard, could not have evolved as each piece is useless without the others. I feel I shot myself om the foot, there :(
by guardian on July 12th, 2009
test: this is a test on the "geologic table" and what it is.
test, take a giant swimming pool (big) and put all different kinds of rocks (small and big) gravels dirt and anyother kind of material found on earths near surface. Then take a bunch of animals (reptiles fish amphibians birds mammals,molusks plants)etc.
now take that giant swimming pool and let it rain on it for 40 days and 40 nights dont stop just keep on raining (im sure a good terenchal rain not a little sprinkls) and make sure to rock the swimming pool back and forth (the word "aswage" is used in the bible there) and let it rock for 1 yearish then take a core sampling or start to cut away the layers and report the findings.
verdict you will find everything assorted from top to bottom according to density (if more dense at bottom if lesser dense closer to top) if this is rocks or soil or animals or plants they will be assorted all by density.
findings you will find that all the minerals will be formed into perfect layers and layers inbetween those layers (go to grand canyon and youll see them on the walls or go to any mountain where it is cut out a grove through the limestone and you will see layers of layers of limestone and layers of limestone inbetween them. you will also notice that all the animals will be asorted according to density (especially bone density dinosaurs are still alive so you can use the crocodiles and other "non evolved dinos". you will find mollusks near the bottom with fish above them and reptiles and amphibians above them, you will find that mammals are above them and birds above that...(before you say anything) their also will be soeme animals that will be mixed in amongst other layers. some mammals and birds near the reptile layers and some reptiles near the mammalian and avian sections, but for the most part they will be sorted out by layers.
.
this is just as the geologic table is formed with the most dense material on the bottom and the least dense material on top...
now does this say that it was done like this...NO it says that an observation to a question (why are their certain layers and animals in layers) and gives a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis to see if it would work out that way...
this is just like the hypothesis of the "evolutionary geologic table" stating that as animals died off they would be in that layer and as time went by more "dust from meteorites" and such would start to fill in around that creature and this would make layers of similar sediment. until we get what we see now. their is no problem seeing the world that way if you want but realize that they are both testable and provable and retestable(thats real science) but they can not answer how it happened because no one has a videocamera from there 6000 or 60,000,000 years ago and thus they can only stay as theories that seem to fit the bill.
this is why it is difficult for either side to "PROVE" their side but we can have millions of "proofs" that seem to fit the bill, especially when we realize our biasists of were we raised with "millions and millions of years ago..." or were we raised with "In the begging GOD created..." we all have biasists. and thats ok just as scientists we need to seperate out theory vs fact. theory is this is here now ?how did it get that way...well this could have happened and then try to replicate that (evolution or creationism...vs fact 2 apples put into a basket with three more apples gives me 5 apples 2+3=5 or I add Oxygen and Hydrogen and have an electric spark between them they burn (rocket fuel) or I drop a ball, I drop a ball, I drop a ball, yep I can test gravity. thats science even if we dont have all the resources or right answers. evolution or creationism is based on prior beliefs of how the world existed or became...
hope that makes sense.
by guardian on July 11th, 2009
yes::: the eyeball. an eyeball is of no use if it is not 100% created, it is of no use without the lense or retina or cones or rods or electricity or the brain interperting what is there. an eyeball that is extremely good at dealing with just the amount of light we deal with here on earth. it opens on que and closes on que it washes out potential impurities, it has the ability to be soft as to not be damaged when you hit your head (fist fight...). it has muscles attached that work to move the eyes not just in one direction but two and allow a third for perspective. it gives attraction with various color schemes, it tells us if we have an allergic reaction (red itchy eyes) or if our kids are high on drugs(yellow eye). it can see under water and in air and up on a mountain without damage. it gives us the ability to read and understand others expressions and move from major danger. it gives us pleasure and the ability to learn 1,000,000,000(guestamate) things in a single glance by telling us what is around and what color and shades if minorly damaged it can fix itself, can give us a release of pain or joy (cry) it gives others a way to see emotions in our "eyes"/
the eye lash is to stop larger items from falling into our eye as well to be minor sensors (like a cat whiskers) and it gives a darker area like simple screen sunglasses. and if you loose an eyelash it will regrow. and you can squint (mechanical choice) to let less light in but it has its own automatic device to let more or less light in.
See this is a part of us that was designed, built in with all of its features. an eye that only has .01% of its workability is of no use. it is systems built with other systems built with other systems all encompased with itself. (ask evolutionists) if we have ever seen a "simple eye" or an eye evolving into stage two of 10,000. it doesnt exist. there are eyes that are degressing and some animals even dont need them but this is a taking away of an item not bringing one on. or evolving into an eye.
whether its a fisheye or a kangaroo eye, an elephants eye or a squid, or a penguine or a shrimps eye. they are all extremely complicated, and well suited for their enviroment (having double lenses or continual 360deg view or extremely large for seeing in extreme depths or seeing in infrared or whatever it is continually we see that just as "we" create robots with extreme intracacies and abilities for doing the jobs at hand their needed to be a creator to create a designed system a system that was complex and with goals in mind and purpose for the item(eye, liver, backbone, mind, lungs, etc.. alright thats my soapbox. hope you enjoyed.
ps THIS IS NOT FACT THAT GOD MADE US THIS IS PROOF THAT GOD MADE US (proof is something that is combined with other continual proof to finally come up with an outcome a belief (evolution or creationism) is "seen proofs and other proofs then put those proofs together to make a("this is how it happened")"
by tapatio on July 10th, 2009
No, there isn't. What kind of faith do you need to believe in something proven to you???
by Robbiedale on July 10th, 2009
No, there isn’t just one, there are thousands of pieces of testable evidence that clearly point to a creator God. Ariel Roth said: “God never performed a miracle to convince an atheist, because His ordinary works provide sufficient evidence.”
Is life itself merely a product of mindless, natural laws? It would take more faith for me to believe that than it does to believe that all life comes from a supreme being with intellect far beyond my own (or yours).
When naturalistic biologists assert that life generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals by natural laws without any intelligent intervention, it should only have been believed by eighteenth century scientist who didn’t have the technology to investigate the cell and discover its amazing complexity. Today, this naturalistic theory flies in the face of everything we know about natural laws and biological systems.
One example of this was when, in 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick discovered DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the chemical that encodes instructions for building and replicating all living things. We’ve all seen illustrations of its twisted ladder structure. Anyway, the information found in the DNA of a one-celled amoeba is more than the data found in 1,000 complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica. All that assembled or created itself just by chance without the aid of a Creator? I don’t think so.
That’s one. There are thousands more in this category alone.
What about the geological formation: Mount Rushmore. What caused it? Were the presidential faces the result of the natural laws of erosion? Nonsense, the faces were the result of years of planning, carving, blasting, sanding and so forth. There was obviously a plan and a creator. Just as its obvious, this is true with the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. There was a Creator involved and He had a plan.
Consider this, if we were to put all the individual parts of a 2009 Cadillac, every nut, bolt, piece of glass and plastic into a gigantic plastic bag and then vigorously shake the bag for say, 10,000 years, would a smooth running car be the result? Of course not. The concept of the world or the universe coming into being without an external influence is just as silly.
Problems of origin arise only when we have preconceived ideas that don’t fit into a logical equation and we refuse to let go of these ideas.
The idea of a Creator is very logical.
by ILL-INI on July 10th, 2009
There is alot of evidence of life after death, including videos of "ghosts". I know alot of them are fake, but some are genuine.
by Bob_Saget on July 10th, 2009
No, but look at the design of plants. They are seemingly designed to take the death of space and turn it into life giving oxygen. They run on the energy from the sun which must be designed to warm the coldness of dead space so life can grow.
Plants must have been created so they can produce the oxygen so protein based creatures can breathe and feed.
Having this thought sells me on the fact that the design of birth of stars to the formation of planets to the creation of suitable life planets to animals up to intelligent life-all of it is probably done over and over all throughout the galaxies which comes to my conclusion that- SOMETHING designed the way the universe creates life.
God, buddah, allah, probably non existant. But perhaps there is something that perhaps wanted an animal that can take care of the planet it was created on. Perhaps earth had enough life form evolving skills to create an animal that could understand how 'it' created everything. I'd still call it god, but hell. I'm just a gay Ex-TV star
by Truth Seeker on November 9th, 2009
I heard this reasoning from a college campus preacher and it has stayed with me throughout my studies:
Please read the entire section before forming an opinion.
Suppose I took an infant and slit his throat in front of millions. The OVERWHELMING majority (99.9%) of people would feel something wrong deep inside them. Just writing it or reading it causes a stir deep within us. Harming an infant who did not and could not have done anything to deserve this treatment is wrong. This would be true regardless of the people having different religions or laws. This basic moral in all of us proves we are connected and have a purpose.
If life started as an accident (no intelligent design), there would be no morals because we should not even be here. Life would have no meaning, so the loss of life would have no meaning.
Science and religion are not at odds. They are answering different questions on the same issue. Science deals more with how. Religion deals more with who. Both deal with our existence. Both are incomplete and cannot be entirely understood until we are able to raise our level of thinking.
by merle234 on October 1st, 2009
Of course not, the way to test evidence is to repeat it.
Why can't do anything along the lines of recreating to test if a god would work.
by TomFluflu on September 30th, 2009
There is, I believe, one piece of testicle evidence...
by jshm22 on September 4th, 2009
Absence of proof does not mean proof of absence. Evidence means different things. A prosecution lawyer presents strong evidence but it can still be refuted in court even if the man is guilty usually through deceit and lies, the proof is usually by the offender re-offending. Similarly religion ha always been with us as has a small amount of atheism it’s the second religion of the world but where religion has always been at the forefront of any system of government atheism only ever was once in Babel and that came to an abrupt end when the people revolted. Will it happen again?
Atheists seem to think so but then we’d still be in caves arguing about religion if it was up to them procrastinators. Science is finding out new things everyday and new things are being invented everyday and people are being born and dying everyday despite there being no scientific logic of why we reproduce sexually and why the body dies.
To a hamster in a cage it's existence can only fathom what it can perceive and humans are no different we live in a cage called earth and are trying to say the whole universe owes itself to us and we understand it…
by Texasescimo on August 11th, 2009
I don't guess it is really testable, but what about life coming from non-life. Some say that man has been aroud for millians of years. Has anyone ever observed life coming from non-life yet? I dont remember the specifics, but it seems that I had read somewhere a while back that scientist at one time thought they had observed that in a petri dish but later found out that something already had to be present for that to happen in whatever that test was. I am thinking some kind of flies or something, but really just don't remember what it was.
by MrJosh on July 27th, 2009
No, there is not.
by Tallyman on July 25th, 2009
If anything at exists, then therefore there must have been a Creator.
"Through the microscope, we observe the E. coli bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is what propels E. coli bacteria through its microscopic world. It consists of about 40 individual protein parts including a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It's a microscopic outboard motor! The individual parts come into focus when magnified 50,000 times (using electron micrographs). And even though these microscopic outboard motors run at an incredible 100,000 rpm, they can stop on a microscopic dime. It takes only a quarter turn for them to stop, shift directions and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the opposite direction! The flagellar motor has two gears (forward and reverse), is water-cooled, and is hardwired into a signal transduction (sensory mechanism) so that it receives feedback from its environment. ("Unlocking the Mystery of Life," video documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.") ~ http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/
"1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it? The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior. Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it
5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.
Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father.
What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.17
Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us."
~ http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
by tapatio on July 12th, 2009
No, there is not. He leaves it up to us to use our intelligence to figure this out. Figuring everything out is not always the best thing to do. Faith is sometimes better. Do you want to know your spouse is faithful to you by having her/him tailed 24/7 by a PI? God is known by faith, and there is not one single piece of testable evidence that clearly points to Him. Many believe that when a human looks at the earth he sees the wonders of creation that lead to a conclusion it must have been made by God. But testable evidence, no. Sorry.
by Woodii on July 12th, 2009
I read many of the answers, but am amazed at how anyone really believes that mere words can prove the unknown.
by Nightwatchdog on July 10th, 2009
Some say there is - but I haven't found it myself yet.
Sorry.
by khaleddd on October 1st, 2009
Absolutely, not only one evidence but thousands and thousands of clear evidences that prove the creator GOD. One of them is the nature & environment surrounding us from trees, mountains, animals...etc, who created them in this wounderful beuty & appearance?
Each creature has his own characteristic, secrets & role in this earth, and all are well-created by our creator GOD.
Dont go too far, look at yourself, how you were created in your mother's body?
Who formed you? Who created you & gave you two hands not three? Why 2 eyes not one? Why 5 fingers not 3,4 or 6?
Why? Why?why?... These kind of questions will not end & you will not find any answer except that YES, there should be a creator,God, who created us & every thing in this universe.
The question you might ask is that how do I know my creator,my GOD?
The answer can be found easily & clearly in Islam, the true religion that GOD's only accept. How did I knew that? The answer is that you should now search & discover Islam.
The following are 3 useful authentic websites which introduce & explain Islam in english & other languages:
www.islam-guide.com
www.islamway.com
www.islamqa.com
Finally, before entering to these websites I want to present this saying "If our minds are captive to prejudice, preconception or prejudgment, we will never see the beauty or truth of anything". And always ask GOD to help you find the truth and guidance. Wish to all guidance and real happiness.
by jls on September 4th, 2009
Ah, this again...religion is faith based. When I see people post questions like this I wonder what it's like to live life without having faith, to have to questions things that don't hurt them or just don't effect them because they don't believe. I wonder if they have faith in their loved ones because who knows what plans they have for you. Then maybe they will understand it's the same concept.
by ScienceSwamy on September 4th, 2009
Yes, only if you call that unknown
and now UN-KNOWABLE causative force*,
which set off the 'Big Bang'
as ‘the creator-god’.
*
Prof. Richard Dawkins calls it* “Einstein's God”.
*
All known universe is ‘the creation’, it surely came into existence somehow. [The proof is in the pudding!]
*
But creation doesn’t prove existence of ‘creator’.
It could have been ‘spontaneous’, like an eruption of a volcano (for want of better analogy).
Also a ‘cause’ is not the same as ‘creator’.
Or else Influenza virus would take the credit as ‘the creator of flu’!
*
According to present state of knowledge BIG BANG is the starting point of universe,
and EVOLUTION explains all then-after. Earth, surface water, DNA and so on.
*
The unknown and now UN-KNOWABLE causative force*
that set off the 'Big Bang'
left it to evolve without ANY further interference.
*
If one called that ‘now UN-KNOWABLE causative force’ as ‘the creator-god’, it must be extinct
by definition, as the force was ‘spent’
in the ‘creation’ of this universe.
Thus ‘the creator-god’ must also be an atheist entity, which set off the ‘Big Bang’ and disappeared,
leaving it to evolve naturally
without any further ‘interference’.
*
When early man,
--just one of the billion ‘products of evolution’-- had spare time to think about
'why day-night, why seasons, why rain-drought', 'what’s origin of universe’, etc.,
originally all gaps in man's knowledge were plugged
by a superpower: ‘god’.
*
People searching for god[s] don’t know
that the ‘player’ has left.
They believe the ‘creator god’ is hiding somewhere
and the game is still on!
*
Soon the lazy-wicked latched onto the profitability
of the idea of ‘continued existence of such power’
and they invented greedy game of ‘hide-and-seek’
with ‘god’ and ‘constructed’ incredulous mythology around the concept [of 'god'].
*
It’s all make-believe.
That’s why absolute faith and blind belief is essential for ‘membership’ of any religion!
*
Both God & ‘soul’ are human concepts,
which are not essential to live an ethical-moral life …and enjoy it!
The presence of ‘more than one’ gods
and/or just one atheist is enough to destroy the god-myth-superstition-delusion.
*
So stop worrying and enjoy a guilt-free life!
And marvel the world around you,
without naming it 'miracle', or 'god'.
Watch for FREE!
“Evolution, the greatest show on earth!”
Is the only scientific explanation for Jesus hypothetically rising from the dead Erotic Asphyxiation?
by MyUsernameIsNotLongEnough(lolPenaltyBox) on June 3rd, 2011
| 3 people like this
Believers: My Muslim friend thinks God taking Adam's rib to make Eve was actually stem cell surgery. What do you think?
by athrú beag on May 2nd, 2011
| 3 people like this
husband wants to know where dinosaurs fit in our history in relation to the Catholic Religion
by carrye66@yahoo.com on March 31st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Has time travel already happened?
by William_J5551 on June 24th, 2011
| 3 people like this
Is it reasonable to believe that the universe and intelligent life
came about from chance events, from mindless chance?
by TrueSeeker on July 19th, 2011
| 5 people like this
You're reading Is there one, single piece of testable evidence that clearly points to a creator god?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Thanks
+6
by 23Skidoo on July 10th, 2009
nicely said.
by sousakuryoku on July 10th, 2009
this word faith that you talk of is a not like "i believe in fairies" but in a knowing and doing faith, like "I did what the Bible said 'dont steal' and I decided not to thus I am not paying an extensive fine and I feel better about my self and others trust me more. hmmm seems like the bible was right on that.. lets check it out in other places".
by guardian on July 12th, 2009
the continual evidence is in the pudding. that as you follow what it says "love GOD with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself" that if you do these you will realize how much better your life is. that is faith it is a growing thing like a seed that is watered (spiritually) and given sun and good nutrients and soil and let to weather and strengthen from trials and tribulations... now that is true faith not faith that is "just believe" those are seeds that fall on rock pathways that grow quick but have no roots...
by guardian on July 12th, 2009
"I believe in God"
"I believe in fairies"
~same thing. No proof they exist, plenty of logical reasons to reason that they don't.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on July 12th, 2009
Also, if you do many things the Bible discusses, i.e., selling all your property, maintaining celibacy, and walling yourself up in secrecy for seven days every time you menstruate - you will notice just how horrendously sucky your life can be as well.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on July 12th, 2009
? do you believe in air, do you believe in gravity or magnetism, do you believe in outer space. do you believe in time do you believe that your great great great grandmother passed her genes on to you.
see you cannot see the air (you see the effects of the air) a filled lung a cloud stroll by an emense huricane.
you cannot see gravity you fall but you dont know why you fall except some physics person said...GRAVITY...
you cannot see magnetism you can push a magnet or have them repell but no visible reason
by guardian on July 12th, 2009
youve never been to space or understand its really a void yet it exists
and time yes slow it down...or speed it up. very difficult
or how bout you never seeing your great great great grandma... but you believe she existed...
see you believe in these things because you have seen their effects I believe in GOD for those same reasons (read below)
by guardian on July 12th, 2009
selling your property...
he didnt say that he said "it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. (the eye of a needle was a second gate that was about 5.5 ft tall that if a merchant wanted to get in he would have to unsaddle ALL his camels take the items in himself and then the camel would neal through and then reload...thus being extremely difficult not IMPOSSIBLE and he was also showing that man (and us) that we care more for gold (money)than him...
by guardian on July 12th, 2009
maintaining celebacy...was until marriage so that the two would become one...(it was also to point to the spiritual "us" to be pure for Christ) this was a symalee or symoblism...
by guardian on July 12th, 2009
if you go back to "seven days until clean" for a female it was to show how perfect we would have to be to be perfect and that if we even messed up a little it would be difficult reprecutions,,,however the whole old testament (before jesus) is how to be perfect, this is the reason that JESUS had to come is to show us that we just cant do it that way however he instead paid for all of us with his PERFECT sacrafice of himself to pay the debt...
by guardian on July 12th, 2009
its not that GOD doesn't want us to do right its that he knows us to have falacies thus we still had to know all the problems and reasons for it but that is why GOD had to come to earth to show us that HE is the only way, and that his mercy is extreme.
by guardian on July 12th, 2009
"for GOD so loved the WHOLE WORLD that he gave his one and only son. that WHOSOEVER believes in him shall not parrish but have everlasting life. for GOD did NOT send his son into the world to CONDEMN the world but that the world through him might be saved...." John 3:16
by guardian on July 12th, 2009
I'm not even going to waste my time.
Your entire argument is, frankly, bullshit.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on July 12th, 2009
pretty easy copout
by guardian on July 12th, 2009
Jeez is there a spam report?
@guardian, thank you for your sunday afternoon speech, however you did not make any point at all. The question is about evidence, not faith.
by sousakuryoku on July 12th, 2009
@guardian> All those things you list are empirically measurable, unlike faith. I mean, for your imaginary friends sake, do honestly think that if you stopped believing in gravity you would fly off into space? What Alathia did was not a cop out, it was a reasonable thing to do in the face of a barrage of pure shite.
Remember that everytime you pray to god, jesus, or your left testicle, that somewhere someone dies. Ain't that a miracle!
by Life Not Faith on July 12th, 2009
LAofV, your answer is exactly what I wanted to say. Will you split the 52 points with me?
by tapatio on July 12th, 2009
Sure, Pokeypup - Here's 26 InvisiPoints. ^_^
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on July 12th, 2009
the first question was about evidence the reply was about faith, and my retort was to her statement that faith was only blind, secondly she then stated about money celibacy and menstral cycles... and i gave the answers to each one. just because she or you dont want to hear my side does not make my side any less valuable.
by guardian on July 12th, 2009
life not faith no if i stopped believing in gravity i would not fly off the face of the earth nor by believing or not believing in GOD does it make him any more or less real.
and what she did was throw a bunch of questions my way that she wanted to throw many wrenches in the works and i went and answered them all... then i asked her my questions which she didn't answer.
by guardian on July 12th, 2009
Yes but everyone of those wrenches breaks the cogs of god. And your answers are only answers if you believe the word of god as written by man and corrected several times since. For man own sake.
by Life Not Faith on July 12th, 2009
No, the fact that your arguments have no merit makes them less valuable.
Each and every "point" you made futile effort to show has been hashed, rehashed, and disproven more times than one could count ON THIS SITE, much less in the last 2000 years of scientific discovery. Forgive me if I'm a little bored with the same old thing.
If you care to enlighten yourself on the matter, feel free to visit http://godisimaginary.com and click on whichever of the 50 reasons closest matches your argument.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on July 12th, 2009
guardian -
One thing I find in many Christians is that they feel they (and other Christians) do good, live well and all because of the Bible. In some cases this may be true, I can't say. But - it certainly is not the only source or way to live well.
.
I don't steal for several reasons, among them:
because I might get caught by the police and/or owner
because I don't like having stuff stolen and...
I would feel bad about myself if I did
It goes against my personal code of values.
.
So your faith - from our point of view - has questionable "results". Many philosophies teach living in well and balanced ways. Some involve gods, prayer, meditation... and some don't.
.
Lady's original point is quite valid - without any objective evidence or rational reason to believe in something - it IS like believing in fairies. Just like it in fact. I have a friends who's religion involves just that. And he cites those same reasons as you0 did. And he is a happy, successful man. Fairies...
by 23Skidoo on July 13th, 2009
you can call the entity anything you want but the question is "does it work". you have accepted your "morals" because you have seen them work or not work or are affraid of the consequences. But the BIBLE has continually stood for itself showing that not what not to do but what is good to do. however if the points on these pages whenever someone brings up other "old" arguments people just say "you have been disproven". and yet we all know that it is extremely difficult to disprove anything but proving it is possible. 2ndly this is a q and a area, but if its no just tell me so. I want to have conversations.
by guardian on July 13th, 2009
The Bible tells what to do or not to do - on pain of hellfire. How is that not "being afraid of the consequences"?
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on July 13th, 2009
God gave each person the ability to choose what they would like.
Hell is a place that is completely devoid of HIMSELF, it is a place that was made that anyone who does not want to be with him can go and never see or hear him or feel him. it is devoid of every bit of himself, thus it is anger and hate and wrath and no love and no light and no compassion, it is a place that any may choose themselves or GOD, it is completely up to you. and speaking of to get to heaven... it has nothing to do with being good or bad.
by guardian on July 13th, 2009
it has to do with "john 3:16" and other verses like that,(yes i know i already told you that), GOOD OR BAD has to do with your relationship with him. just like if your a jerk to your parents soon they will stop being so happy with you, and hanging out or calling except when they need you to do your chores. however your life with (say mom or dad) can never change, you will always be their child and love you no matter what you do. this is what most of the world does not understand they think GOD is DO THIS DONT DO THAT but those are because he knows that murder lies hate adultry...are only going to wreck our lives.
by guardian on July 13th, 2009
thus he trys to steer us in the right direction. and more show us the right things to do.
by guardian on July 13th, 2009
There is no entity I need to name. That's my point :-) I do what I do because I have chosen based on what I've learned in my life. If there does happen to be a god up there who wrote these rules, he's doing an extremely good job of acting like he's not there.
.
After all, it's part of my set of values to not have slaves, kill my enemies, stone my son to death or offer my daughter to a gang of rapists - all those things are not only permissible but actually laudable according to the Bible.
.
This IS a place for converzsation. I haven't seen anyone try to stop you from conversing. And I, for one, have not said anything was disproved - nor have I seen it said in this thread.
.
I do say that if someone comes out with an argument that was shown false 100 years ago and presents it as new - well... I can only repeat why it was bad then and still is today - so many times. :-)
by 23Skidoo on July 13th, 2009
I am a mortal with mere mortal means. I can do my best to teach my kids the right and the wrong (according to how I've learned in my life) ways to do things. However, I know that my son will need to learn those lessons on his own. Being 14, he can be very difficult to deal with at times. But, barring extremes - maybe, there's nothing he can do that will make me stop loving him.
.
One whould think that god, having a bit more power than I, could manage to teach better than a mortal. But it doesn't seem he does so. Again - he does an exemplary job of acting like he's not there. So good a one, in fact, that the only rational conclusion is that he isn't.
by 23Skidoo on July 13th, 2009
And given that a great many mortal have and continue to make an enviable living by promoting this belief, I think the reason for his continued following is clear.
by 23Skidoo on July 13th, 2009
Wow, 23. People follow Christ because pastors/preachers make an enviable living??? Surely you weren't thinking clearly when you wrote that.
Did you ever consider that you have inside you a conscience that tells you not to steal or lie or kill because your creator put it in you when he made you in his image? There is no tangible evidence, but the testimony of millions of believers is meaningful.
How do you think you got a sense of right and wrong if you are an accident of evolution?
Neither I nor guardian nor anyone else will convince you. You have examined both sides and made your choice. Many of us believe you made the wrong one.
by tapatio on August 6th, 2009
Evolution is quite adequate to explain morality.
.
Ants, for instance, seem to work for their common good. Dung beetles for the good of all land animals. Did god put that sense of right and wrong into them?
.
Our ancient ancestors were already communal creatures, similar to chimps today. They evolved the ability to recognize other individuals and remember how those other treated them in the past. This allowed for the beginnings of trust and distrust - and broader mortality.
.
What did god instill? The feeling that it's OK to rape, enslave or slaughter those not of "our" faith (in the Bible and other holy books)? That it's OK to murder the entire world except for a single family?
.
I didn't say all priests do it for money. I know some who are very deeply committed to their communities and churches. That doesn't dismiss the fact that vast amounts of money are being made in that industry and that priests of any religion have always enjoyed unearned influence and status.
by 23Skidoo on August 7th, 2009
Certain attrbutes of animals be it the ant or any other is instinctive wisdom put there by a creator for a purpose.The interaction between the great varieties of animals again attests to an intelligent creator.
In all civilizations there are law codes forbidding murder, rape, stealing etc and this also is put in us by a creator and it is for our own good.We all have a god given conscience which can be hardened so as to be ineffective in us. Did evolution put in us the feeling that it is OK to rape, enslave, and slaughter? What you say about our ancient ancestors is based on speculation rather than true scientific proof.
by Anonymous on August 12th, 2009
"Did evolution put in us the feeling that it is OK to rape, enslave, and slaughter? "
~ No, that was the Bible.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on August 12th, 2009
If god gave us the feeling that it's not ok to hurt people, why do all civilazations have to pass laws to keep people from doing so? Did got get stingy with some?
.
And before you whip out your free will, consider that we don't really have any free will. We have freedom to act as we wish in only a very limited range. It's a bit like goldfish having freedom of motion - within their bowl.
by 23Skidoo on August 12th, 2009
Im not getting involved where anonymous got himself into,,, too many sides to protect for that but,
as for the freewill skidoo talked about, it is true that your limitations are there, not just physical limit (earth, teleportation, time, cannot live without o2 food water) so yes somewhat their is an amount of "free will" that we cannot do however we do have an almost infinite number of things that we can do (even if it is in our mind) ps. free will means more the ability to choose and try vs not having a free will but like a modern robot a limited will.
by guardian on August 12th, 2009
@Lady A. What an illogical conclusion.
Quote, "Did evolution put in us the feeling that it is OK to rape, enslave, and slaughter? "
If we go with evolution, then at one point man had no bible. And if before this instance, the production of the bible, rape, enslave and slaughter occurred, it was not the bible but evolution that allows for this.
by no_one_special on September 24th, 2009
Rape, slavery, and slaughter have never been acceptable in civilised societies. However, the Bible mentions several different occasions in which the Christian God specifically orders his followers to perform all of those tasks.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 24th, 2009
You said quote, ""Did evolution put in us the feeling that it is OK to rape, enslave, and slaughter?
~ No, that was the Bible."
You said the feelings. All those feeling must have predated the bible since the bible is relatively new if one accepts evolution.
by no_one_special on September 24th, 2009
where does it say that its ok to rape...I could be wrong but please show me.
by guardian on September 24th, 2009
I believe she is referring to a time when some Benjaminites raped a Levites concubine and she died as a result of that. Then the other tribes took revenge for this gross act and nearly wiped out the tribe of Benjamin.
However once they realized that one of the 12 tribes was on the brink of extinction somehow (I forgot the details) they kill another group of people so that the men of Benjamin could have offspring and the tribe not be totally eliminated.
However this only show what they did. Not that God approved of it.
I could be wrong I'll have to research it.
by no_one_special on September 24th, 2009
I agree. and Im pretty sure that it was not something GOD wanted.
by guardian on September 24th, 2009
Notice that the question is in quotation marks. Someone else asked "Did evolution put in us the feeling..." - My "No, that was the Bible" was my answer to the question.
.
Also, please read the story of Joshua. God expressly orders Joshua to murder and/or enslave entire civilisations, sparing only their virgins. God's orders expressly state they are to slay any woman who had ever known a man (thus, there would be a possibility the woman was carrying a child). So much for God being pro-life.
.
Also, David was the "man after (God's) own heart" - David raped Bathsheba, then had her husband murdered.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 24th, 2009
Gotta go so I cant give a detailed answer on the Joshua. But the jist is these nations were destroyed for standing in opposition to God kingdom.
David was punished for what he did so God did not condone it.
I see what the question asked but I am pointing to your response and the reasoning you have give. If one accepts evolution, which you do, it cancels your statements.
by no_one_special on September 24th, 2009
Alathia: as stated before no one wants to make a sunday out of my blogs, so I am not going to retort all of your arguments, it would take a month. but I just want to know "when did GOD say it is ok to rape someone or take them against their will". its not a retort I just want to know. their are plenty of places where people did rape in the BIBLE but I don't recall any that GOD was pro it. (just rape)
by guardian on September 24th, 2009
Evolution exists. There is no "accepting" evolution - it is scientific fact that evolution occurs on a daily basis.
.
The Bible is the only written work I have ever seen that justifies rape, murder, and slavery. Thus, my statement stands.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 24th, 2009
OK fine,,, please just give me a place that it says "rape is ok" or "GOD told them to rape this person". just anything to back up your statement. if not just change your statement to murder and slavery then we could deal with that but I still have not seen it in the BIBLE, so to me right now it is just something that someone told to you or you learned in a religions class, that the professor said but did not back up.
by guardian on September 25th, 2009
The book of numbers:
God (through Moses) avocates the rape of the virgins of the Midianites.
31:15
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16
Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 25th, 2009
Duterotomy 21:11
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
21:12
Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
21:13
And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
21:14
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell
her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
Hmm, apparently according to Deuteronomy, one has to shave her head and allow her a period of mourning.
Of course, Deuteronomy 22:28-30 is much more sensible, regulating the rape of an unbetrothed virgin. 50 shekels and a marriage, problem solved.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 25th, 2009
Judges 21:6
And the children of Israel repented them for Benjamin their brother, and said, There is one tribe cut off from Israel this day.
21:7
How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing we have sworn by the LORD that we will not
give them of our daughters to wives?
21:8
And they said, What one is there of the tribes of Israel that came not up to Mizpeh to the LORD? And, behold, there
came none to the camp from Jabeshgilead to the assembly.
21:9
For the people were numbered, and, behold, there were none of the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead there.
21:10
And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children.
21:11
And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.
21:12
And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 25th, 2009
that had known no
man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 25th, 2009
@Lsay A. OK if evolution exist it cancels your argument. So do you concede?
by no_one_special on September 25th, 2009
It does not at all. My only statement was that the Bible attempts to justify rape, slavery, and slaughter.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 25th, 2009
Lady A look at your comment on Aug, 12 2009 at 06:29 AM
Here let me quote again for you.
Quote, ""Did evolution put in us the feeling that it is OK to rape, enslave, and slaughter? "
~ No, that was the Bible."
by no_one_special on September 25th, 2009
Yes.
In that statement, I say "no, evolution did not instill a desire to rape, enslave and slaughter. Since the beginning of civilisation, rape, slavery and slaughter have been considered undesirable. However, the Christian Bible does justify those things".
You really need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 25th, 2009
Thanks Alathia I will look into this...deut 21:11-14
by guardian on September 25th, 2009
Sorry Lady A. If you say that rape, slavery, and slaughter have been considered undesirable from the beginning of civilization you would have to identify when it began and what standards were in place and as a result of what.
If we go with evolution, we find that these things are neither acceptable nor unacceptable from a moral stand point.
Since it is merely an act of genes, organism cannot be faulted for what genes were left over from evolution.
Perhaps you should reword you sentence. No matter how you read it, if we accept evolution, it doesn't make sense.
by no_one_special on September 25th, 2009
Lady A what translation did you use to quote those verses?
by no_one_special on September 25th, 2009
I've done the research on the bible quotes you have given. This is what usually happens when one takes things out of context or one chooses a "straw man" argument.
I am sure you are saying in "what possible context could this make sense?"
But before I respond please let me know which version you used. Perhaps I will respond later tonight or tomorrow.
Thanks. :-)
by no_one_special on September 25th, 2009
I'm not going to argue biblical translations with you. It's pointless and irrelevant. I'm also not going to argue the definition of civilisation.
The world's first known written law was the Code of Hammurabi. That code defines punishments for wrongful murder and rape. That is sufficient evidence to state that rape and murder were undesirable at that time.
Evolution itself - that is, biogenetics - does not determine morals and ethics at all, save the desire to perform for the greater good of the gene pool.
The Christian bible serves for its followers as the "word of god" that is considered an example of god's will, and an example of desirable activity. Your 'god's word' displays examples of physical and sexual violence. It is therefore determinable that these are desirable activities among followers of the bible.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 25th, 2009
Quote, "I'm not going to argue biblical translations with you. It's pointless and irrelevant."
My intention was not to argue translations. That would be irrelevant. Only wanting to make sure before I present my counters. At times words may be rendered in more than one way according to the Hebrew. So please, translation? If not I will still respond. Don't worry.
Quote, "I'm also not going to argue the definition of civilisation."
I didn't ask for your definition. I asked for when you believe it started so that we may look at that time period and see what, why, and where all this took place that you posit.
Quote, "The world's first known written law was the Code of Hammurabi. That code defines punishments for wrongful murder and rape. That is sufficient evidence to state that rape and murder were undesirable at that time."
That time is not in question and irrelevant. Unless you are saying this is the beginning of civilization? Time line please?
Quote, "Evolution itself - that is, biogenetics - does not determine morals and ethics at all, save the desire to perform for the greater good of the gene pool."
Right. Nothing does. And if we posit evolution, nothing can.
Quote, "The Christian bible serves for its followers as the "word of god" that is considered an example of god's will, and an example of desirable activity."
Incorrect. It is for us to know his will. However, not that every act committed is his will. What you propose is a non sequitur.
Quote, "Your 'god's word' displays examples of physical and sexual violence"
Yes.
Quote, "It is therefore determinable that these are desirable activities among followers of the bible."
Non sequitur.
by no_one_special on September 25th, 2009
I feel as though we're having two arguments simultaneously.
.
In the first - you are claiming that I am claiming that humans have evolved with morals intact. I am not. There. That's over.
.
In the second - you claimed that the Bible does not justify rape, murder, and slavery. It does. I showed where it does. Then you agreed that it does. There, THAT's over.
.
This conversation is finished.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 25th, 2009
where did (noonespecial)agree with you on that, he simply said that rape murder and slavery were in the BIBLE not were ok in the BIBLE.
we simply asked that you give your reference points...second if your going to get mad at this conversation then why be on this website to begin with...people either agree or argue...
by guardian on September 25th, 2009
Quote, "In the first - you are claiming that I am claiming that humans have evolved with morals intact. I am not. There. That's over."
Not my claim. My issue is with your comment which I have reposted twice and will do it again if you do not understand it this time.
I have an issue with your comment followed after your question saying the bible was the one to accepts this. Why do I have a problem?
Still with me?
OK now if you take that position and yet believe evolution, then it cancels your statement and make its illogical.
Quote, "In the second - you claimed that the Bible does not justify rape, murder, and slavery. It does. I showed where it does. Then you agreed that it does. There, THAT's over."
I have not even presented my counter yet. And you want to claim victory? I hope that not how you really think things work. Do you understand what fallacies are?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Lets try again shall we?
Please do not run away yet.
by no_one_special on September 25th, 2009
This is what usually happens when atheist don't have a point to make. I learned to anticipate their so called evidence and counters.
It usually consist of Ad Homs and straw mans.
Or they are tired of discussing this and want to move on. :-) But they are ready and willing at the beginning. Until they find evidence or lines of reason that challenge them to much.
But we will give her the benefit of the doubt. :-)
by no_one_special on September 25th, 2009
@Lady A You are not a coward and you do favor civil dialogue, do you not?
I am eager for your logical response.
by no_one_special on September 25th, 2009
My problem is not with debate - it is with pointless debate.
.
The question you have a problem with was not MY question. It was asked by someone else. I answered with "No, that was the Bible". That was my only statement. Do you follow me?
.
The rest of this is absurd. I have made a statement, then backed it up with scripture. You even agreed that the scripture I presented ratified my claim. Thus, the discussion is over.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 25th, 2009
Its funny how people who claim to follow the word of scripture like to argue against its meaning. Its like watching a debate where the two main proponents have an attention and memory span that would put goldfish to shame.
Besides, its all a null argument. If there was just one iota of evidence the church would be smearing it all over the world like there was no tomorrow. Which there wouldn't be.
Reason flies men to the stars, religion flies men into buildings.
by Life Not Faith on September 25th, 2009
@LadyA.
Quote, "My problem is not with debate - it is with pointless debate."
Or perhaps you mean when you run into trouble making a point that is not Ad hom or straw man in nature. HMM?
Quote, "The question you have a problem with was not MY question. It was asked by someone else. I answered with "No, that was the Bible". That was my only statement. Do you follow me?"
Oh good now we are on the same page. OK so you admit you say it was the bible. Excellent. Now supposing we posit evolution, does that not cancel your statement? This should be easy
Quote, "The rest of this is absurd. I have made a statement, then backed it up with scripture."
I haven't even countered yet. What are you talking about? Seriously, you can't see that?
Quote, "You even agreed that the scripture I presented ratified my claim. Thus, the discussion is over."
No I agreed with part of you statement. Then pointed out its a non sequitur.
Are you that scared of engaging me that you would resort to a non sequitur to pretend you have won something?
by no_one_special on September 25th, 2009
@Life not faith.
Quote, "Its funny how people who claim to follow the word of scripture like to argue against its meaning."
If you mean we don't take things out of context to support an illogical conclusion because we are desperate to end a thread we have no logical counter for and are afraid of looking silly? Then OK. :-)
Quote, "Its like watching a debate where the two main proponents have an attention and memory span that would put goldfish to shame."
Maybe you'd like to put your money where you mouth is. Or would you like to make lame claims as well?
Quote, "If there was just one iota of evidence the church would be smearing it all over the world like there was no tomorrow."
The churches are interested in money. And they themselves do not even know the bible. So if they don't even know that, why look to them. I have found much more logic on this site about scripture than almost all churches.
Quote, "Reason flies men to the stars, religion flies men into buildings."
The validity of a conclusion should follow from the line of reason one presents. Thus far you have presented none. That statement is absurd. Do you want to reason? Then please let us do so.
by no_one_special on September 25th, 2009
@Lady A. OK found the version you are using, American King James. Relax I just wanted to be on the same page as you. Its a lot easier when we are looking at the same information. Besides in a discussion you have to provide a source. You should know that already. In any event, moving on.
OK we need to see the context so that we can see why these people were killed. Not just that they were killed. That would be dishonest and directly taking things out of context to suit one's argument. Let's not go there.
I will address them in order. If time runs short I will respond to the Deuteronomy verses tomorrow.
by no_one_special on September 25th, 2009
In Numbers 21:21-24 we see the nation of Israel wanting to pass through the Amorites territory peacefully. The king of the Amorites, Sihon refuse to let them in peace and proceed to attack them. In verse 34 God says do not worry He will deliver them into Israels hand. http://kjv.us/numbers/21.htm
In chapter 22:1-5 we see Israel camping in the plains of Moab. The Moabites are frightened having heard of Israels victory. Instead of trying to make peace with them, they attempt to hire Balaam to curse Israel in verse 6 of that chapter.
In verse 12 God is not having that. http://kjv.us/numbers/22.htm
In the following chapter we see Balaam trying to look for loop holes to get around that.
Now in chapter 25:1-3 we see that the men of Israel got to having relations with the women of Moab and began to serve their God. God did not approve. But why is that relevant, you say? Lets continue and we will come back to that in a sec.
Now in verse 5 God commands every man who committed these sinful acts to be put to death. http://kjv.us/numbers/25.htm
In verse 6-9 we see a man brings in a Midianite woman into Israels camp itself, the high priest Phinehas kills them both, thus turning Gods wrath back.
So this act of unfaithfulness was a result of the men of Israel having immoral sex with the women of Moab. Keep that in mind for a sec.
Now we go to chapter 31:15 "And Moses said to them, Have you saved all the women alive?"
So whats the big deal?
Verse 16 "Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD." http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/7068544
Ah now we see Balaam found a loophole. He knew he could not cures Israel. He knew God was protecting them. He knew the only way to get at them was to turn them against God himself by committing immorality with the women of Moab.
Hence these women along with all the men deserved to die for planning and participating against Gods chosen people.
The women who had not known the act of lying down with a man were spared. The male children were killed possibly to prevent the offspring from taking revenge for their fathers deaths.
by no_one_special on September 25th, 2009
I'll do the others tomorrow if time permits.
by no_one_special on September 25th, 2009
So, you agree that the bible justifies, and thus condones, the slaughter, slavery and rape of entire civilisations?
The reason "god's people" slaughtered, raped, and enslaved the Midianites and others is a moot point - the fact of the matter is it was done, and to this day is being JUSTIFIED as "well, they got in the way of Isreal taking the Promised Land. God told them the land was theirs, so those entire civilisations deserved to die."
.
"Now we go to chapter 31:15 "And Moses said to them, Have you saved all the women alive?"
So whats the big deal?"
~The big deal is, those women were left alive, then taken in captivity and forced to marry Isrealites. I'd consider that rape, on the grounds that no one on the planet would look at their city destroyed and all their relatives murdered, and say "Take me! I'm yours, my beloved!!"
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 26th, 2009
@noonespecial -
'If you mean we don't take things out of context to support an illogical conclusion because we are desperate to end a thread we have no logical counter for and are afraid of looking silly? Then OK. :-)'
.
You believe in the bible and you're using words like logic? Logic and reason are oxymoron's when discussing religious myth.
You are arguing from the stance that god exists and the bible is an accurate record.
.
You have no evidence, only the circular reference of quoting the bible to justify its own validity. Its the weakest point to argue from ever. And the unbridled tenacity with which the faithful try to argue a valid point from an invalid base is amazing!
by Life Not Faith on September 26th, 2009
Quote, "So, you agree that the bible justifies, and thus condones, the slaughter, slavery and rape of entire civilisations?
The reason "god's people" slaughtered, raped, and enslaved the Midianites and others is a moot point.
Moot point? One cannot see what things happened in the past and call the "reasons" moot. That is exactly taking things out of context. Do you understand what you are doing? By the way, this cannot be done for any subject.
If I was saying, "in the bible no life was ever taken" or things like that, then you would be correct on calling the reason moot and presenting your evidence. However this is not the case. So please adjust you counters to follow logically, try to stay relevant.
Quote, "- the fact of the matter is it was done"
My above cancels this statement.
Quote, "and to this day is being JUSTIFIED as "well, they got in the way of Israel taking the Promised Land."
The fact that Israel is taking things out of context to this day is irrelevant to what the bible actually permits them to do.
Quote, "~The big deal is, those women were left alive, then taken in captivity and forced to marry Isrealites."
Wow blatant straw man! Now you took me out of context. Did you not see my response as to why Moses thought it was a big deal? Its not a "moot" point. The women that help cause a rebellion against God were killed, the innocent women were spared.
Initially the army wanted to preserve all the women alive. But this is what lead them directly into sinning against God.
by no_one_special on September 26th, 2009
http://bible.cc/numbers/31-18.htm
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
"31:13-18 The sword of war should spare women and children; but the sword of justice should know no distinction, but that of guilty or not guilty. This war was the execution of a righteous sentence upon a guilty nation, in which the women were the worst criminals. The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry. The whole history shows the hatefulness of sin, and the guilt of tempting others; it teaches us to avoid all occasions of evil, and to give no quarter to inward lusts. The women and children were not kept for sinful purposes, but for slaves, a custom every where practised in former times, as to captives. In the course of providence, when famine and plagues visit a nation for sin, children suffer in the common calamity. In this case parents are punished in their children; and for children dying before actual sin, full provision is made as to their eternal happiness, by the mercy of God in Christ."
by no_one_special on September 26th, 2009
@Life Not Faith.
Quote, "You believe in the bible and you're using words like logic? Logic and reason are oxymoron's when discussing religious myth.
Incorrect. We could be talking about Shakespeare and make comments on the logic in a particular story. Take for example Juliet, someone says, "Juliet died in a car accident." It would be illogical to suggest that since the story does not permit that.
Hence using the "logic" or available information from the story we can make our case for or against. If we deviate we are either not familiar with the story and its time line or are launching comments for no purpose.
Quote "You are arguing from the stance that god exists and the bible is an accurate record."
Yes in this discussion that is the assumption. If it were not then it wouldn't make for a relevant discussion given the context.
Quote, "You have no evidence, only the circular reference of quoting the bible to justify its own validity"
Again its the context we are speaking in. Like if we assume Superman exist and talk about his powers and limitations.
Well if one person comes along and says, "Superman is not real and using comic books as a reference is circular."
That would not be admissible as a counter since the assumption or lines of reason are used as if the story is real.
Quote, "And the unbridled tenacity with which the faithful try to argue a valid point from an invalid base is amazing!"
If this is your approach to other arguments or the best you got, then you are in for a surprise. Some people actually understand how a discussion operates. I suggest you familiarize yourself with how simple communication and logic flow in debates/discussions.
by no_one_special on September 26th, 2009
@Lady A
"Deuteronomy 21:10-11
When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God
hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
Treatment of a Wife who had been a Prisoner of War. - If an Israelite saw among
the captives, who had been brought away in a war against foreign nations, a
woman of beautiful figure, and loved her, and took her as his wife, he was to allow
her a month's time in his house, to bewail her separation from her home and
kindred, and accustom herself to her new condition of life, before he married her.
What is said here does not apply to the wars with the Canaanites, who were to be
cut off (vid., Deut 7:3), but, as a comparison of the introductory words in v. 1 with
ch. 20:1 clearly shows, to the wars which Israel would carry on with surrounding
nations after the conquest of Canaan. shªbiy (OT:3427) and shibªyaah (OT:7633),
the captivity, for the captives." http://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/K/Keil%20&%20Delitzsch%20-%20Commentary%20on%20Deuteronomy%20(b).pdf
by no_one_special on September 26th, 2009
http://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/K/Keil%20&%20Delitzsch%20-%20Commentary%20on%20Deuteronomy%20(b).pdf
The link is not working. Sorry.
by no_one_special on September 26th, 2009
Gotta go. But I'll try to find a similar link. Hey Lady A and Not by Faith, please lets try to stay on topic and not resort to fallacies. I like to discuss stuff like this among others but please, there is no place for fallacies.
We are adults here lets stay relevant and think before we reply. At times we are going to make a mistake. One pointing it out should suffice for the behavior to cease and desist.
by no_one_special on September 26th, 2009
We're discussing the absolute lack of evidence for the existence of god. It is a fallacy to discuss god as though it exists.
.
The only evidence you are bringing forward are quotes from the bible, which is well known to be contradictory in many places. It also depends on which version of the bible you want to use.
.
You'd be better off using the Qur'an for evidence. It makes more sense than the bible ever will.
by Life Not Faith on September 26th, 2009
Noone - you are the one getting off topic.
Again, and for the LAST time, the entire point of this discussion was my stating that the Bible justifies rape, slaughter and slavery. All you are doing is further prove my point, and stating "Yes, God's chosen people did slaughter entire civilisations, then take captive and rape the virgins that they felt like sparing, but they are justified because reasons X, Y, and Z."
.
Thank you. We have now completely established the fact that the Judeo-Christian god feels that rape, slaughter, and slavery are justifiable actions for his people to commit.
.
Now, since I do blatantly stand against Christianity, should I keep myself far away from you, lest you murder me, my son, my husband, my sister in law, my brother in law, and my nephew, burn down our homes and places of business, and rape my 12 year old neice? Because, I do stand in the way of God's will, and we would deserve it.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 26th, 2009
You know, I wish all my debates would go like this one. I make a simple statement, someone decides to turn it into an argument, then my opponent spends all his time and energy proving my original statement, all the while becoming more and more irate.
.
Oh, and if living to see all of my relatives slaughtered, then being raped and enslaved into marriage to the murderers is being "spared", I'll take death, personally. There's no Stockholm's Syndrome in the world strong enough to make that life palatable.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 26th, 2009
@Life.
Quote, "We're discussing the absolute lack of evidence for the existence of god. It is a fallacy to discuss god as though it exists."
No we are not. We could if you'd like.
Notice how you just made statements.
The subject Lady A and I are discussing stemmed from a statement she made about a question.
I am merely saying that if we go with evolution as the result of life on this planet, it is illogical to make the statement that the bible is what has made slaughter ans such acceptable.
That behavior has to be a result of evolution, that which has made it acceptable if it even is, must be evolution because this behavior predates the bibles existence. Its a pretty simple point and follows logically and cancels her original statement.
I am merely asking if she concedes her original point.
Instead she proceeds with more irrelevant data for the subject, because what the bible says is not in question, but what has made slaughter and all that acceptable. This is very simple.
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2009
Life.
Quote, "The only evidence you are bringing forward are quotes from the bible, which is well known to be contradictory in many places. It also depends on which version of the bible you want to use."
To counter her points, new points she has brought in is the reason I have quoted scripture.
Though I see my mistake. I should have pointed this out earlier and perhaps she would not be as confused and continue to cite irrelevant date that does not support her statement, the one that started this and the only relevant point.
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2009
Lady A.
Quote, "Noone - you are the one getting off topic."
Incorrect. I merely am using belief in evolution to counter your statement. The two cannot exist. They contradict each other if we follow one or the other to their logical conclusions.
Quote, "Again, and for the LAST time, the entire point of this discussion was my stating that the Bible justifies rape, slaughter and slavery."
Not if we take the question and the comment you made after.
This is what I am asking you to concede. You must adjust that statement if you wish to remain consistent with logic.
Here it is again, " Aug, 12 2009 at 06:29 AM
"Did evolution put in us the feeling that it is OK to rape, enslave, and slaughter?"
~ No, that was the Bible."
Its nice how we can paste and post verbatim. I hope you don't deny this again and again.
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2009
Lady A.
Quote, " All you are doing is further prove my point, and stating "Yes, God's chosen people did slaughter entire civilisations, then take captive and rape the virgins that they felt like sparing, but they are justified because reasons X, Y, and Z.""
I suppose if ignoring the reasons makes you feel that you have proven something.
Its like if one writes a diary and in it they record a death or other action of some people or persons. One cannot logically conclude that because one recorded it, this one must agree or condone a certain action.
We also cannot conclude that persons feelings without taking into consideration the context. Do you truly not understand context?
I suppose it would damage your position and this is why you are ignoring it.
But you can't really think I can't see that. Or anyone else reading this thread. You are only fooling yourself.
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2009
Concede WHAT? There's no argument!
The statement I made was that the Bible justifies rape, slavery and slaughter. And it does. Period. End of discussion. Evolution has nothing to do with it.
.
And you can't have a "belief" in scientific fact. Evolution is fact and present even if you cover your head with a towel. The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, Evolution is not.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 28th, 2009
Lady A.
Quote, "Now, since I do blatantly stand against Christianity, should I keep myself far away from you, lest you murder me, my son, my husband, my sister in law, my brother in law, and my nephew, burn down our homes and places of business, and rape my 12 year old neice? Because, I do stand in the way of God's will, and we would deserve it."
Straight to the Ad Hom. Sad, very sad.
Quote, "You know, I wish all my debates would go like this one. I make a simple statement, someone decides to turn it into an argument, then my opponent spends all his time and energy proving my original statement, all the while becoming more and more irate."
Irate? I am having fun. And the more fallacies you include the more its funny to me. I merely have to point them out and I have a blast. I love it when my opponents can only resort to this type of argument. It only proves my point further, that you are not capable of a real debate.
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2009
NoOne - Are the people any less dead because Moses had a "really good reason" for doing it? No. It's still slaughter. A pile of crap is still a pile of crap, even if you wrap it in really pretty paper.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 28th, 2009
Lady A
Quote, "Concede WHAT? There's no argument!
The statement I made was that the Bible justifies rape, slavery and slaughter. And it does. Period. End of discussion. Evolution has nothing to do with it."
I see you are having difficultly. Here let me post it again.
Quote, "" Aug, 12 2009 at 06:29 AM
"Did evolution put in us the feeling that it is OK to rape, enslave, and slaughter?"
~ No, that was the Bible."
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2009
There is no debate if you have not yet made a point. I have made a statement that is incapable of argument.
Now, if my original statement had been "The Bible shows God's people running around killing people for no reason!" we might have an argument. But I didn't. I expressly stated that the bible JUSTIFIES slaughter, slavery and rape.
The fact that you could discuss the REASONS is the proof that I am correct - there is "moral justification" for murder, slavery, and rape.
I'm sorry, but in the real world, murder is murder, and there's no "good reason" to kill someone. There is no "good reason" to rape someone after killing their family, and there's no "good reason" to enslave them and force them into marriage.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 28th, 2009
This discussion could be made by an atheist or agnostic. It require no belief in God at all.
Its merely following a statement to its logical conclusion.
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2009
It apparently doesn't even need a topic, since we have none, other than you feel like arguing nothingness.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 28th, 2009
You made a statement. all I have done is follow it to its logical conclusion.
If we accept this statement and yet do not posit God it becomes contradictory.
Either the bible introduced these things you mention or it was a result of man's evolutionary left overs dating back before the bible even came into existence.
This is not too hard.
I am honestly not irate as you are assuming. And the only reason I am debating you is so that there are no fallacies allowed in the discussion.
So many people resort to that type of argument when they have no real counter.
I am sure you are a smart person and can grasp what I am saying. I know at times it is hard to accept when we have made a mistake. But admitting mistakes helps us grow toward the real truth that is out there.
We must always try to harmonize our thoughts. And when someone points out a disharmony it is only an opportunity to grow.
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2009
Of course the Bible did not introduce rape, slavery and slaughter. Unless, of course, you believe in the story of Cain and Abel. It does, however, justify them.
That was my statement. That is what you and I both have proven. That is the end of the discussion.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 28th, 2009
Finally you concede on this point.
Quote, "" Aug, 12 2009 at 06:29 AM
"Did evolution put in us the feeling that it is OK to rape, enslave, and slaughter?"
~ No, that was the Bible."
Quote, "Of course the Bible did not introduce rape, slavery and slaughter."
Was it that hard?
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2009
Quote, " Unless, of course, you believe in the story of Cain and Abel. It does, however, justify them."
Separate and irrelevant.
Quote, "That is what you and I both have proven."
One is not allowed to make claims without a counter. Which I have made. And you have ignored.
It is fine if you do not like my counter, but ignoring and taking things out of context proves nothing.
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2009
Lady A
Quote, "And you can't have a "belief" in scientific fact. Evolution is fact and present even if you cover your head with a towel."
You cannot call something a fact without backing your claim up with evidence. You have not shown any evidence to suggest this.
I almost missed that opinion you made. Just saw it when I read this thread over.
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2009
My statement was referring to the original question.
.
In terms of everything else you have, supposedly, debated with the Lady A, it's pretty obvious your rosy tinted glasses of god love have blinded you to what is a logical argument.
.
I would suggest you don't actually bring evolution into the argument. That it firmly based in fact and you obviously don't have the tools to deal with that. If you want evidence look in the mirror and say hi.
.
You have already agreed several time that the bible gave free reign to the acts of 'rape, slavery, and slaughter'. To say that evolution produced the thoughts that created these concepts is abstraction in the extreme.
.
You either agree the bible is correct and gave credence to such things or you accept that Evolution is fact and blame that. Which do you choose?
by Life Not Faith on September 28th, 2009
LIfe
Quote, "I would suggest you don't actually bring evolution into the argument."
It was relevant and logical given the statements.
Quote, "That it firmly based in fact and you obviously don't have the tools to deal with that."
Try me. Of do you just like to spout off opinions without being challenged?
Quote, " If you want evidence look in the mirror and say hi."
Ad Hom. Please prove you have the tools to engage me. Thus far your best is Ad Hom. Try again.
Quote, "You have already agreed several time that the bible gave free reign to the acts of 'rape, slavery, and slaughter'. "
I have not even presented my evidence to counter that. In fact I said it was irrelevant given the topic. It was introduced to counter and I proceed to defend, however, this was, as I stated my mistake since that has no bearing on the subject given Lady A's comments.
Its an attempt to deviate from topic and straw man.
Quote, "To say that evolution produced the thoughts that created these concepts is abstraction in the extreme."
If one posits evolution what else could have cause this behavior? It could not be the bible since civilization precedes the bible. How do you come to this conclusion?
Try giving facts instead of opinions to support your position. It works out better that way.
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2009
Quote, "You either agree the bible is correct and gave credence to such things or you accept that Evolution is fact and blame that. Which do you choose?"
That is a "either or fallacy." You must consider the alternative which I presented. You cannot ignore it and claim victory. Nice try though.
The alternative is the context you conveniently keep leaving out.
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2009
I don't think I've ever had such a vacuous discussion as this. You haven't actually once stated your case or your argument.
.
You are sounding just like a boringly ordinary creationist - ID proponent spouting the normal behehehehe and the other ones, I can never remember his name, ICR rhetoric.
.
Arguments from ignorance are never a way forward. Why not state what your actual opposition to the original question is. Or are you just going to continue to take this down the tiresome route of a semantic argument?
by Life Not Faith on September 28th, 2009
Quote, "I don't think I've ever had such a vacuous discussion as this. You haven't actually once stated your case or your argument."
My point was on Lady As comment. It has already been resolved.
Quote, "You are sounding just like a boringly ordinary creationist - ID proponent spouting the normal behehehehe and the other ones, I can never remember his name, ICR rhetoric."
More babbling. Make a point already.
Quote, "Arguments from ignorance are never a way forward."
Neither are augments from Ad Hom and straw mans. Can you say anything with some substance or are fallacies your only angle?
Quote, "Why not state what your actual opposition to the original question is."
As I stated already, I did and posted and repeated. Please read the post slowly and focus. Then come back when you have grasped my opposition. If you still have difficulty I will repost what I have already said just a few comments ago that was already resolved.
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2009
So you agreed with Lady A. You could have made that bit clearer.
.
Still very vacuous but I guess if the shoe fits and all that.
by Life Not Faith on September 28th, 2009
Wow I agreed with Lady A. I see I must posst this again.
Quote, "" Aug, 12 2009 at 06:29 AM
"Did evolution put in us the feeling that it is OK to rape, enslave, and slaughter?"
~ No, that was the Bible."
Quote, Sep, 28 2009 at 11:05 AM "Of course the Bible did not introduce rape, slavery and slaughter."
Do I have to break that down for ya Life? Or would ya like another shot at trying to reason? Lady A got it and conceded. It seems you are the only one on this thread still having difficulty.
Remember anything you say or I say or she said cannot be taken out of context. We can quote verbatim on here. You can run but you can't hide.
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2009
I am now concerned. At first I thought you seriously were just trying to play a game and I was having fun. But now I am not sure. Perhaps you really are lost.
Do you understand how to read? Is there someone helping you comprehend?
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2009
I conceded NOTHING.
I never claimed in the first place that the Bible introduced the concepts of rape, slavery and slaughter to the world, thus that was not the point in the discussion in the first place.
The entire claim I made was referencing the "feeling that it is OK to rape, enslave and slaughter", as mentioned in the original question. None of these things are "OK" to the civilised human, and all of them are justified actions according to Judeo-Christian scripture.
Done.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 28th, 2009
noonespecial, you're not the brightest light bulb in the room are you? You buried yourself many comments ago but refuse to see it.
.
Anyway, I feel for you I really do. Good luck. You need it.
by Life Not Faith on September 29th, 2009
Alathia: you cannot say "DONE" if you dont want to argue anymore you must just stop or conceede. you cannot have an argument point and then not let the other person rebuttle you. thats what bad parents do.
lifenotfaith: this place is for arguments and certainly you can say someones dumb but this is a place where we fine tune our knowledge via others, but for yourself you should give where and why (reread your statement)I dont know where or why he burried himself so I could say the same for anybody and it not be true.
by guardian on September 29th, 2009
I am sure that noonespecial is extremely bullheaded but to be sharp you have to be. I am still doing my research on the quote and until I do and can make an argument I'm holding my tongue on the presaid.
by guardian on September 29th, 2009
Guardian - This "argument" (I can't REALLY call it an argument, because there's no topic of debate) went circular a long time ago. I'm just trying to stop the ring from rolling any further downhill.
.
I believe this entire discussion is springing from a misunderstanding on the part of NoOne, in which he believes I intended to claim that the Bible is the sole source of the actions of "rape, slavery and slaughter" in the world. I never made any such claim, and to believe so is to take one (intendedly snarky) remark completely out of context - ironically, the same thing that NoOne has accused me of doing in the scriptures in which I proved that his Bible CONDONES the actions of rape, slavery and slaughter.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 29th, 2009
@guardian: All arguments like this end the same way. The rational, logical, common sense people put their point of view forward in the, usually, vain hope they can get a good discussion going.
.
Sadly, people like noonespecial haven't actually got a foundation for their argument so they just hope that eventually by bull headed they'll win because everybody else will give up.
.
It's a very common tactic amongst those that argue faith not reality. Anyone can make stuff up and argue it's real.
by Life Not Faith on September 29th, 2009
Lady A
Quote, " I never made any such claim, and to believe so is to take one (intendedly snarky) remark completely out of context - ironically, the same thing that NoOne has accused me of doing in the scriptures"
Ironic indeed.
If I have misunderstood how do you explain your comment? Here let me post it, AGAIN.
Quote, "" Aug, 12 2009 at 06:29 AM
"Did evolution put in us the feeling that it is OK to rape, enslave, and slaughter?"
~ No, that was the Bible."
Now if there is no God and the feelings have been present prior to the bible, i.e, prehistoric man behaving in this manner to propagate is genes, then it was not the bible. Was it?
Here Lady A, I'll make this easy for you. I'll even show you the way out since you can't do it yourself. Pretend you thought of this yourself. OK? Here we go.
"The bible did not create those feelings in us. However, from what I understand, it condones it."
See that? Easy. Of course that would be subject to my rebuttal. And you know I got one but you would at least save a little more face than you have thus far.
by no_one_special on September 29th, 2009
Life.
Quote, "Sadly, people like noonespecial haven't actually got a foundation for their argument so they just hope that eventually by bull headed they'll win because everybody else will give up."
OH I got a foundation. Pick a subject that is even semi relevant.
Quote, "It's a very common tactic amongst those that argue faith not reality. Anyone can make stuff up and argue it's real."
I argue reality. It all must harmonize with logic.
Lets try this, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? HMM...
by no_one_special on September 29th, 2009
Guardian.
I have come to expect this in discussions like this. Most use Ad Homs and straw mans as the bulk of their argument. Then when you call them on it, they either attempt to sneak out of it like Lady A is doing or pretend they are above their opponent and thereby justify not responding with a relevant rebuttal.
Its pretty sad but I love it. It only proves they can't counter. :D
by no_one_special on September 29th, 2009
This is the bit I don't get.
.
You sound like you, in your mind, want to believe the process of Evolution. Mainly so you can blame it for all the bad things we have been told are OK.
.
But at the same time you want the bible to be right but without the bits that don't make sense or are offensive. In which case you'll have the thinnest bible ever.
.
We are evolved creatures, we have some responses that are the same as all animals. But we have a higher cognition that allows us to choose what is right and what is wrong. The bible, supposedly, teaches us the higher values. But at the same time it condones and promotes the most violent and vicious aspects of our nature.
.
The book that god wrote to prove it exists. Duh...
by Life Not Faith on September 29th, 2009
Jesus fucking christ. I'm talking to a wall.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 29th, 2009
Sorry Lady A, based on your comment that I keep reposting you either have to concede or you have to harmonize.
No way around it.
by no_one_special on September 29th, 2009
@life
Stop assuming what I believe and take a position already so we can commence.
by no_one_special on September 29th, 2009
I will not concede to losing an argument I never made. You are misinterpreting my original statement.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 29th, 2009
Lady A.
.
I would suggest that talking to noonespecial is a dead end. Its train of thought is a prime example of thinking in a box. It has no objectives, no position, and no argument.
.
I would consider this a dead topic, life is too short to waste on such low brow matters.
by Life Not Faith on September 29th, 2009
@Lady A
Then harmonize.
by no_one_special on September 29th, 2009
@Life
Are you scared too?
by no_one_special on September 29th, 2009
I agree, Life.
Once again I find myself disobeying my own advice: "Never enter a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent".
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 29th, 2009
Straight to the Ad Hom. Nice. :D
by no_one_special on September 29th, 2009
You don't really believe anyone else can't see through what you guys are doing.
I mean you can run but the thread speaks for itself.
Can you imagine if I used the same cowardly tactics you are using?
Both of you would have called foul a long time ago.
But it appears you are afraid Lady A. I sense it.
You are trying to save face but cannot unless you concede. You have no other way of proving anything until you concede or harmonize your statements.
You seriously don't think you can just abandon rules of engagement by using Ad Homs do you? I know you must know better than that. Which is why I can tell you feel defeated. :D
by no_one_special on September 29th, 2009
Just give up.
The alternative is too difficult for you. You cannot possibly offer a counter. Or at least one without Ad Homs and straw mans.
Or can you?
by no_one_special on September 29th, 2009
I was going to go through the thread to find some choice quotes, but as I read it I realised what a weird person you really are. You actually think the bible is an accurate portrait of history.
.
Give me an argument, a single position, posit me a truth. Do something other than make out that you just can't compete.
by Life Not Faith on September 29th, 2009
Definition of "straw man argument": an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
Pot calling kettle black much?
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 29th, 2009
Life
Quote, "I was going to go through the thread to find some choice quotes, but as I read it I realised what a weird person you really are. You actually think the bible is an accurate portrait of history."
Irrelevant Ad Hom. Try again.
Quote, "Give me an argument, a single position, posit me a truth. Do something other than make out that you just can't compete."
I offered you first move on any topic semi related.
But very well, lets go with mutations. I will take the position that mutations providing the necessary variation in gene pools is an illogical and implausible position due to the nature of mutations.
Remember you can't call straw man since you offered me first pick after I offered it to you. So if you accept evolution it applies to you and counter. If you don't I had no way of knowing and merely accepted your invitation.
No Ad Homs please.
by no_one_special on September 30th, 2009
Lady A
Well lets see, you made a statement. I posted and reposted your argument. You have had ample time to clarify your position.
Instead of countering with a true rebutal you continue to evade like you are doing right now. :D
I have said repeatedly for you to harmonize your statement since it is an oxymoron unless you accept that the bible really introduced all those things you claim.
You made a statement saying, "Quote, Sep, 28 2009 at 11:05 AM "Of course the Bible did not introduce rape, slavery and slaughter."
Which contradicts your earlier " " Aug, 12 2009 at 06:29 AM
"Did evolution put in us the feeling that it is OK to rape, enslave, and slaughter?"
~ No, that was the Bible."
I have asked you to harmonize these two or concede.
Why is this difficult for you?
Instead you are evading again and again. :D
Do you have another angle? Because as much as you are trying to save face, its not working.
by no_one_special on September 30th, 2009
"Introduce"
"feeling it is OK"
.
These terms are not synonymous. This is where the misunderstanding has occurred, and why you are continuing this "straw man" argument.
.
This has crossed into annoying. I have said all I need to say.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 30th, 2009
If your position is that the bible "introduced" the "feeling it is OK" then these "feelings" must not have been present prior to the bible.
If so, then when the bible came into existence and what feelings existed prior to the bible are crucial.
by no_one_special on September 30th, 2009
Drop the straw man cop out already. This confusion, as you put it, would have never happened if you stopped trying to evade.
by no_one_special on September 30th, 2009
Which you are still doing by the way.
Give up, concede or counter.
by no_one_special on September 30th, 2009
Okay, let's settle this right here: Show me one historical document predating the book of Numbers that condones (meaning, justifies or otherwise deems acceptable) genocide of entire nations, and the rape and slavery of virgins.
When you do, I will concede.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on September 30th, 2009
.:But very well, lets go with mutations. I will take the position that mutations providing the necessary variation in gene pools is an illogical and implausible position due to the nature of mutations:.
.
How is it illogical or implausible? What is it about the nature of mutations that you don't understand?.
.
Also mutations aren't the only way in which variation is introduce into the gene pool.
.
But we'll stick with the easy bits first! So what don't you understand about mutation?
by Life Not Faith on October 1st, 2009
the Mahabharata (hindu holy text) at least 4500-5500 years ago.
by guardian on October 1st, 2009
Guardian - you must provide the text in which genocide, slavery, and rape are expressly condoned. Otherwise, you're just name-dropping.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on October 1st, 2009
Lady A
Quote, " Show me one historical document predating the book of Numbers that condones (meaning, justifies or otherwise deems acceptable) genocide of entire nations, and the rape and slavery of virgins."
Irrelevant. Your claim is the the bible was the first to introduce the "feelings" of this behavior as being acceptable or as you put it "OK."
If this is the case you would have to show this was unacceptable prior to the bible being recorded, which you can't if one posits evolution.
In addition to that you would have to show that the bible condones this feeling.
If you show these feelings were not present in the past and became acceptable after the completion of the book of Numbers you have the first part down.
The second part is that you would have to show the "feelings" of these acts are "OK."
Once you address that you must allow a rebuttal. Thats how this stuff works Lady A.
by no_one_special on October 1st, 2009
Life.
Quote, How is it illogical or implausible? What is it about the nature of mutations that you don't understand?.
I did not say I did not understand mutations. I said given the nature of mutations it is implausible that they were a key part of evolutionary progress.
"Also mutations aren't the only way in which variation is introduce into the gene pool."
I never said they were the only way.
by no_one_special on October 1st, 2009
Incorrect, NoOneSpecial -
It is impossible to prove a negative. That is illogical. Burden of evidence rests on the believer. I believe the Bible is the earliest known document that condones genocide and the rape and slavery of virgins. If you do not believe that, it is YOUR responsibility to prove me wrong.
THAT is how it works.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on October 1st, 2009
Lady A
Quote, "It is impossible to prove a negative."
Yeah, that why I didn't ask for proof. Only evidence and your line of reason. The conclusion must follow logically from the premise.
Quote, " Burden of evidence rests on the believer. I believe the Bible is the earliest known document that condones genocide and the rape and slavery of virgins."
Right you believe. And you made the statement. Secondly and more to the point, the question is not about a particular document since you mentioned the "feeling" not the "document." At one point there was no document but feelings were. Capiche?
Quote, "If you do not believe that, it is YOUR responsibility to prove me wrong."
I already covered that. If one posits evolution your argument is tossed out. And you do so its tossed out. Or do you not believe in EVO?
by no_one_special on October 1st, 2009
You are evading.
.
I made my claim. I provided evidence to back up that claim. You accepted that evidence.
.
As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence to suggest that the human brain evolved with the acceptance of genocide and rape intact. If you can prove otherwise, I'd love to see the documentation.
Also, I claimed that the Bible is the earliest known historical document that condones genocide and rape. If you can prove otherwise, I would love to see the documentation.
.
Since "feelings" that are not documented cannot be proven (i.e.: we cannot go back in time and ask CroMagnon man whether he thinks killing entire races in the name of God is a good idea) we are forced to rely on documentation. Thus, we return to my original statement: "I believe the Bible is the earliest known document to support genocide and the rape of virgins".
.
Please, rebut. With documentation.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on October 1st, 2009
Lady A
Quote, "I made my claim. I provided evidence to back up that claim. You accepted that evidence."
Accepted what evidence Lady A?
Quote, "Aug, 12 2009 at 06:29 AM
"Did evolution put in us the feeling that it is OK to rape, enslave, and slaughter? "
~ No, that was the Bible."
Claim with no documentation. :)
Quote, "Sep, 24 2009 at 10:14 AM
Rape, slavery, and slaughter have never been acceptable in civilised societies. However, the Bible mentions several different occasions in which the Christian God specifically orders his followers to perform all of those tasks."
Claim out of context. Rejected rebuttal without addressing evidence presented, i.e. the context that was given.
Quote, " Sep, 24 2009 at 11:22 AM
Evolution exists. There is no "accepting" evolution - it is scientific fact that evolution occurs on a daily basis."
Claim again.
Quote, " Sep, 25 2009 at 08:58 AM
Yes.
In that statement, I say "no, evolution did not instill a desire to rape, enslave and slaughter. Since the beginning of civilisation, rape, slavery and slaughter have been considered undesirable. However, the Christian Bible does justify those things".
You really need to brush up on your reading comprehension."
Claim with Ad Hom
Quote, "Sep, 25 2009 at 10:12 AM
I'm not going to argue biblical translations with you. It's pointless and irrelevant. I'm also not going to argue the definition of civilisation.
The world's first known written law was the Code of Hammurabi. That code defines punishments for wrongful murder and rape. That is sufficient evidence to state that rape and murder were undesirable at that time.
Evolution itself - that is, biogenetics - does not determine morals and ethics at all, save the desire to perform for the greater good of the gene pool."
Refusal to give translation for evidence presented. Refusal to give time of beginning of civilization in order to validate claim.
So this is your evidence? You can't even get your story straight.
Seems like you like to blow a lot of smoke and make a lot of noise but you have nothign to back your claims up.
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
I suggest you try really hard to understand what your own thoughts are. I know this must be difficult since you have already got yourself into a pretty big ditch and are trying to save face.
However, saving face comes with a cost. It is costing you credibility. The more you try the more you lose.
And you know, in the end, all the effort to try and save face gets you nothing.
You see when you try to save face you have already lost.
Lets see if you can turn this around and actually address the issues without trying to evade your own statements.
Good luck on all that. :)
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
Still evading.
.
It's very simple - prove to me that there is a document predating the Judeo-Christian Bible that condones genocide and the rape and slavery of virgins, and this discussion will be over.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on October 2nd, 2009
My guess is that you DON'T have evidence against my claim, and so are reducing yourself to trying to discredit me instead.
.
Of course, that's just a guess. You could try to prove me wrong on that, too.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on October 2nd, 2009
That would be irrelevant. Why would that be irrelevant you may ask?
Lets put on our thinking caps.
You made a claim that the "FEELINGS" of slaughter and such were "PUT" there by the bible. How does one come to that conclusion? Lets see what you said,
Quote, "Aug, 12 2009 at 06:29 AM
"Did evolution put in us the feeling that it is OK to rape, enslave, and slaughter? "
~ No, that was the Bible."
Notice in your response to the question you quoted. You response is totally refuting that evolution is responsible. It is saying the bible is.
Now lets go with you are right, that the bible did place those feelings in us. If so you would have show (back up your claim) that these "FEELINGS" were not there "BEFORE" the bible came into existence.
See how YOU made a claim and YOU must back it up. :D
Since you believe in evolution, this poses a problem for you though.
Quite a conundrum for you. Good luck at evading this, though I am certain you will. Since you have no other option.
Heaven forbid you actually try to make a relevant rebuttal. :(
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
Going with you are right, that the bible did place those feelings in us. You would have show (back up your claim) that these "FEELINGS" were not there "BEFORE" the bible came into existence.
Remember, documentation of any laws prior are irrelevant.
The feelings and how they got there are the only relevant issue. :D
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
You are asking me to prove a negative. That is illogical.
If you think those "feelings" were there pre-Bible, prove it. If not, leave me alone.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on October 2nd, 2009
I am sorry did you see the word "prove" in my response?
Perhaps you need to help in reading comprehension.
Asking for evidence is all either of us can do.
So provide it. Cry and quit. Or concede.
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
HMM I wonder how she will address this time.
Based on prior responses, EVADE.
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
I can't give evidence that the sky ISN'T red, only that it IS blue. It is impossible to give evidence of a negative. It is illogical to request such a thing. One can only prove something DOES exist. Thus, nothing exist until it is proven that it does. That's the way the world works, love.
Thus, I have given evidence that the Bible is an early historical document that condones genocide and the rape and slavery of virgins. That is the starting point of the argument. If you believe there is an earlier reference, burden is on YOU to supply it. Period.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on October 2nd, 2009
Ah yes, evade.
Quote, "I can't give evidence that the sky ISN'T red, only that it IS blue."
With enough sleep and a good breakfast, one can show the color red in different ways. That would be a start.
If you had your crayons around and you were asked to provide evidence that the sky is not red, all you would have to do is take all your crayons out, look for the red one and then look for the blue one.
Then put both up to the sky and see which one more closely matches the color of the sky. See how easy. Now don't get confused if your set of crayons has different shades of blue. Just have someone help you read the label. :D
For the more advanced folks though, one would show the different wave lengths between the two colors. Thats evidence as well.
You see how one can show how evidence suggest this or that, love?
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
You can only prove it "isn't red" by proving that it "IS blue". See what I mean? Unless I find evidence that there IS a document predating the Bible that condones genocide and the rape and slavery of virgins, my default belief is that there isn't one. Why would I search for something that I do not believe exists? It's the same reason I don't hunt for fairies around mushroom patches - I don't believe in fairies.
Now, do you plan on ever showing evidence for YOUR side of the argument, or are we going to continue trying to merely discredit me?
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on October 2nd, 2009
There is that silly word "prove" again.
That is showing evidence, dear. If the wave lengths are different it also suggest its not red.
Of course reading the labels on your crayons works as well.
Quote, "Now, do you plan on ever showing evidence for YOUR side of the argument, or are we going to continue trying to merely discredit me?"
Me discredit you? No hun, you are doing a better job than I ever could by continuing to evade and attempting to save face. (psst, its not working by the way)
You make claim, you provide evidence. Simple.
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
Quote, "Unless I find evidence that there IS a document predating the Bible that condones genocide and the rape and slavery of virgins, my default belief is that there isn't one. Why would I search for something that I do not believe exists?"
Irrelevant. Remember the whole putting on of thinking caps?
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
Going with you are right, that the bible did place those feelings in us. You would have show (back up your claim) that these "FEELINGS" were not there "BEFORE" the bible came into existence.
Remember, documentation of any laws prior are irrelevant.
The feelings and how they got there are the only relevant issue. :D
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
The only evidence of "feelings" lies in documentation, since we cannot go back in time and ask Cro Magnon Man if he thinks wiping entire races off the face of the earth is a nice way to spend a Sunday afternoon. I explained that.
I have shown documentation, in the Bible, that condones genocide, rape, and slavery. It is my belief that this is the earliest instance of the condoning of rape, slavery, and genocide.
If it is your belief that this is NOT the earliest instance of the condoning of genocide, you must provide evidence of this supposed fact.
If, as I am inclined to guess, you believe the Bible to be an accurate record of history, and you don't believe anything at all precedes Biblical history, this entire argument has been a waste of time, as you will NEVER find evidence to the contrary that you yourself believe to be viable.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on October 2nd, 2009
TTYL gotta go. But oh how I can't wait for your response tomorrow! :D
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
Oopsy you did. Guess I got a sec.
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
Do you own a dictionary? Perhaps to aid you in understanding, look up the word "prove" and "evidence" after that look at "suggest." I am sure you will find the definitions enlightening!
Then perhaps you will stop thinking I am asking you to "prove" anything but merely asking to show evidence that suggests your premise and conclusion logically follow. :D
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
I edited my response. Please read it.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on October 2nd, 2009
TTYL
If you still have difficulty with the dictionary I will post links to further aid you. :D
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
You know what, I am sorry for being condescending. I just caught myself. Sorry for all the crayon stuff. :(
I'll respond later or tomorrow with your above comment.
Sorry again, please accept my apology. If not though I do understand.
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
So you don't understand the nature of mutations, or can you not explain why you find it implausible? What is it about the nature of mutations that you find hard to understand?
.
I would also suggest that using such a demeaning attitude, whilst it may be condoned by the fable you live your life by, is not a strong position to take. Especially given the nature of the story you are trying to defend.
.
I understand what Lady A was trying to say. It's not rocket science. The bible condones rape, slavery, infanticide, and a number of other actions that are unacceptable in a civilised society. The evidence is in the story itself. I'm sure you should be able to find a copy.
.
Or are you saying you support these actions?
.
And are you now going to come back with the same tiring, ad hom... blah blah, irrelevant argument in an effort to evade actually giving a straight answer?.
.
I understand it must be hard to do that. Doing so exposes the fallacy you base your world view on. But you should try.
by Life Not Faith on October 2nd, 2009
Oh and by the way, noonespecial. It's such a ego boost to argue with a creationist, people like you are the reason that science is doing so well! Thank you!
by Life Not Faith on October 2nd, 2009
Quote, "So you don't understand the nature of mutations, or can you not explain why you find it implausible? What is it about the nature of mutations that you find hard to understand?"
I do understand mutations. The implausible part that it is not a good plausible argument when one considers there affect on organisms.
Try this link http://www.nature.com/.../Genetic-Mutation-441 sub heading "Mutations, DNA Repair, and Evolution" near the bottom. Quote, "Together, these different classes of mutations and their causes serve to place organisms at risk for disease and to provide the raw material for evolution. Thus, mutations are often detrimental to individuals, but they serve to diversify the overall population."
Here we see it is admitted it is detrimental to individuals yet vital to evolution. Yet if the individual is at greater risk, detrimental risk, how does this benefit the organism since it must prove to be beneficial and not detrimental in order for it to be defined as a "beneficial mutation?"
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
Quote, "I would also suggest that using such a demeaning attitude, whilst it may be condoned by the fable you live your life by, is not a strong position to take. Especially given the nature of the story you are trying to defend."
Good so neither of us is going to use it right? :) Oh and by the way the book matters not. It is irrelevant to out discussion. I could be Hindu and make the same arguments.
Quote, "The bible condones rape, slavery, infanticide, and a number of other actions that are unacceptable in a civilised society. The evidence is in the story itself. I'm sure you should be able to find a copy."
It does not. It was taken out of context and you can't make that claim until I rebuttal. Also what the bible says is irrelevant. She could have said the Vedas said the same. Its the claim in time line that is in question.
Quote, "Or are you saying you support these actions?"
You gotta wait til my rebuttal. :)
Quote, "And are you now going to come back with the same tiring, ad hom... blah blah, irrelevant argument in an effort to evade actually giving a straight answer?."
I admitted to being condescending and have apologized. But I have never entered fallacies into the discussion. I have not evaded and the thread speaks for itself. :)
Quote, "I understand it must be hard to do that. Doing so exposes the fallacy you base your world view on. But you should try."
I am going to have quoting you verbatim on this quote. :D
Quote, "Oh and by the way, noonespecial. It's such a ego boost to argue with a creationist, people like you are the reason that science is doing so well! Thank you!"
Excellent! Yes creationist discoveries are the reason science is doing so well. You are welcome. Though I wouldn't take credit for all the IDers out there who have been doing science better than most atheist.
Now that we got all that squared away this should be entertaining.
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
Lady A.
Quote, "The only evidence of "feelings" lies in documentation, since we cannot go back in time and ask Cro Magnon Man if he thinks wiping entire races off the face of the earth is a nice way to spend a Sunday afternoon. I explained that."
Before I explain this, are you familiar with evolutionary psychology? I'll allow a response before going in to detail.
Quote, "I have shown documentation, in the Bible, that condones genocide, rape, and slavery. It is my belief that this is the earliest instance of the condoning of rape, slavery, and genocide.
If it is your belief that this is NOT the earliest instance of the condoning of genocide, you must provide evidence of this supposed fact."
Sorry but that is irrelevant. Why? You could have made the same accusations against any book and would still miss the point of your comment. You said it was a book, regardless of which one, that made these things OK. But you accept evolution, so you cannot posit this.
Even if the bible commanded people to do those things or worse now and for a billion years, it would not be relevant because what the bible says and when "feelings" became acceptable are two totally separate arguments. In fact I could even be a atheist and see how the premise does not follow the conclusion.
Quote, "If, as I am inclined to guess, you believe the Bible to be an accurate record of history, and you don't believe anything at all precedes Biblical history, this entire argument has been a waste of time, as you will NEVER find evidence to the contrary that you yourself believe to be viable."
Not the case Lady A. If the premise is not logical, the conclusion is invalid. In fact I will take the position of an atheist so that you may see how this is not even a theological issue but one of logic and the validity of ones conclusion.
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
Argumentum ad hominem (Abusive: attacking the person)
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.
The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:
"You claim that atheists can be moral--yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."
This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:
"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."
A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example:
"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes."
This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:
"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."
This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well."
It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.
Just so we are all clear. Thank you.
by no_one_special on October 2nd, 2009
.:The implausible part that it is not a good plausible argument when one considers there affect on organisms:.
.
So the majority of mutations are detrimental. And some are not, the beneficial mutations give some form of advantage to an organism, say the ability to detect photons. These beneficial mutations are then selected out, some deleterious mutations are also selected out e.g. sickle cell anaemia. As these confer a deleterious effect one way and a beneficial effect another way.
.
Thus mutation brings diversity into a gene pool. Add to that gene recombination and a generous helping of time and you have a pretty good mechanism evolution.
.
The nature article sums that up quite well. I can see where you could misunderstand it though.
by Life Not Faith on October 3rd, 2009
.:I could be Hindu and make the same arguments:.
.
Sadly not. I would suggest taking that with a Hindu.
.
So you support the writings of the bible that condone rape, slavery, infanticide, and all the other very suspect actions? Your rebuttal in this case is irrelevant. The statements are written in the bible for all to see. Or are you saying the authors of the bible got it wrong?
.
.:I have not evaded and the thread speaks for itself. :):.
.
That is if you count the inability to actually answer a question. Or by shifting the onus of the question without delivering a reply answering. And in that you're right. The thread speaks for itself. :)
by Life Not Faith on October 3rd, 2009
.:Excellent! Yes creationist discoveries are the reason science is doing so well. You are welcome. Though I wouldn't take credit for all the IDers out there who have been doing science better than most atheist.:.
.
If you mean Behe, Dedemsky, et al. Then you have a very, very poor definition of good science. I'd like to know what 'creationist discoveries' you are alluding to. Have you got any examples?
.
And since ID isn't actually a science it is hard to do science with it. Behe wrote one book that turned out to be based on evidence that had been proven wrong 60 years before he wrote the first word of his argument. He should re-write the bible. He may make more sense!!
by Life Not Faith on October 3rd, 2009
Okay. It's official -
We have no debate. I have clearly set my terms, and you continue to evade them.
On the grounds that you refuse to acknowledge my points or provide any conceivable evidence to the contrary, I consider this matter dismissed.
I am unsubscribing from comments now. You need not bother responding to me.
by Lady Alathia of Vulcan on October 3rd, 2009
Wow. She just ran. She knew where I was going so she left.
I don't blame her though. Her position was indefensible since she accepts evolutionary theory and saw that when I brought evolutionary psychology into the argument, she ran.
As anyone can tell she was looking for an opportunity to run. She consistently tried to say the conversation was over without allowing a rebuttal.
An ostrich approach is one commonly used by people that are dogmatic. I am not going to say this is strictly an atheist problem but a flaw we all have at times.
It takes courage to look at reason when it does not favor our position. And more courage to concede.
She took the cowards way out. What a shame. Running from a theist has got to be a difficult step. I guess, for some, saving face is more important than being able to look at yourself in the mirror knowing we taken the cowards route.
Perhaps she will recover from her fear of exchanging thoughts with me.
by no_one_special on October 3rd, 2009
Life
Quote, "So the majority of mutations are detrimental. And some are not, the beneficial mutations give some form of advantage to an organism, say the ability to detect photons. These beneficial mutations are then selected out, some deleterious mutations are also selected out e.g. sickle cell anaemia. As these confer a deleterious effect one way and a beneficial effect another way.
.
Thus mutation brings diversity into a gene pool. Add to that gene recombination and a generous helping of time and you have a pretty good mechanism evolution."
Yes I understand the theory. However a theory must be plausible. This is where it fails.
Quote, "So you support the writings of the bible that condone rape, slavery, infanticide, and all the other very suspect actions? Your rebuttal in this case is irrelevant.
It is premature to say it is irrelevant if you have not even heard it. Secondly unless we are talking about what the bible says, then you might be able to say the rebuttal is irrelevant.
However that was not the point. It is who/when/why the "FEELINGS" were put in us. This is why Lady A ran.
Quote, "The statements are written in the bible for all to see. Or are you saying the authors of the bible got it wrong?"
This is why a rebuttal would be helpful if we are talking about the context in which these things were said. Context if ignored is dishonest. This is why a rebuttal is crucial and continuing to say the bible says this or that is easy without context. A fact that can be done with any book.
by no_one_special on October 3rd, 2009
Quote, "If you mean Behe, Dedemsky, et al. Then you have a very, very poor definition of good science. I'd like to know what 'creationist discoveries' you are alluding to. Have you got any examples?"
Newton, Godel. But lets not get off subject.
Lets stay on topic. :)
by no_one_special on October 3rd, 2009
.:Yes I understand the theory. However a theory must be plausible. This is where it fails:.
.
Again. No answer. I must concede you don't actually have one. Besides, a hypothesis must be plausible, a theory already consists of facts. You need to read up a bit more.
.
.:However that was not the point. It is who/when/why the "FEELINGS" were put in us:.
.
So which was it? Evolution or god?
.
.:This is why a ... talking the bible says this or that is easy without context. A fact that can be done with any book:.
.
That's kind of the point. It is just any book. And those things are written in it. Refusing to acknowledge them is the failing of faith. To paraphrase no one special: -- An ostrich approach is one commonly used by people that are dogmatic. I am going to say this is strictly a theist problem ... ---
.
.:
Newton, Godel. But lets not get off subject.:.
.
None answer. So that'll be a no then. As for getting off topic, you're way too late for that.
by Life Not Faith on October 3rd, 2009
.:Wow. She just ran. She knew where I was going so she left.:.
.
She didn't exactly run. She made her point fair and square. You failed on every level to respond in any meaningful way, as only a creationist can. So she left. In the same way the faithful are leaving their religions in droves, she realised the futility of following the equivalent of a mental train wreck.
.
As for where you were going? That was pretty up in the air. It was pretty obvious you hadn't got a clue. Why expect the rest of us to even be bothered?
by Life Not Faith on October 3rd, 2009
WHOO HOO! I can rebuttal!!!
by no_one_special on October 4th, 2009
Quote, " Besides, a hypothesis must be plausible, a theory already consists of facts."
Fact in a theory do not automatically make the conclusion factual. That is a fallacy. You should know that already.
Quote, "So which was it? Evolution or god?"
Thats what I was waiting for Lady A to choose. I can argue from either angle. Her statement is still invalid. Why don't you pick one and then defend her statement? :D
Quote, " I am going to say this is strictly a theist problem ... ---"
Without evidence you have just joined the club. I'll get your jacket. :D
Quote, " She made her point fair and square."
Aren't we broadening the how we define "fair and square" to include ignoring a rebuttal and not allowing a final rebuttal, just a little? Of course.
Quote, "So she left. In the same way the faithful are leaving their religions in droves, she realised the futility of following the equivalent of a mental train wreck."
I actually agree with you on that one. :D
Quote, "As for where you were going? That was pretty up in the air. It was pretty obvious you hadn't got a clue."
I was not the one who kept evading.
Quote, "Why expect the rest of us to even be bothered?"
I expect anyone who claims not to have faith to counter with evidence. If you are not capable just say so. If you can, do so please.
by no_one_special on October 4th, 2009
Either take her position and defend it or go ahead and modify it to fit you views, but do it already and stop evading.
If you want to talk about mutations then lets do that. But you can't just ignore evidence.
To be blunt, put up or shut up.
by no_one_special on October 4th, 2009
Still waiting for an answer to several questions.
.
I've put up. You just don't know when to shut up.
by Life Not Faith on October 5th, 2009
Evading doesn't help your position. And changing positions doesn't either. I already addressed the mutations and you didn't rebuttal.
Now you are bringing what me and Lady A went through. Which is fine, take her position. But let me know if you FULLY subscribe to her position.
That is why I offered you to either take hers or modify it so that I don't straw man you.
I can't introduce the evolutionary psychology of my argument because if you do not FULLY accept Lady A's argument it would be a straw man.
Clarify and stop doing a dance around the issues. I am giving you first choice. The floor is yours. You can set any topic you want under your own views.
by no_one_special on October 5th, 2009
No matter what you many think of me, be assured that unfair I am not. I do not want to straw man you. Yes I am persistent but to win by a straw man is to win nothing and is low, very low.
We all straw man at times. Usually I see it is by mistake, a misunderstanding of the others position. At times it is intentional as well. To avoid any of that, the floor is yours.
by no_one_special on October 5th, 2009
Still waiting...
.
Examples of creationist discoveries? Explanations of why implausible? Facts are facts, what don't you reconcile with? Do you own a camera?
.
The floor is most assuredly yours. Answer the questions.
by Life Not Faith on October 5th, 2009
Quote, "Examples of creationist discoveries?"
"Nicolaus Copernicus (Polish: Mikołaj Kopernik; 19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was the first astronomer to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology, which displaced the Earth from the center of the universe." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
Quote, "Explanations of why implausible?"
Due to mutations effects on organism, usually neutral, then harmful. Beneficial ones come with a price, hence truly not beneficial.
Disagree? Rebuttal.
by no_one_special on October 5th, 2009
Quote, "Facts are facts, what don't you reconcile with?"
Read the above. Facts are facts.
"Do you own a camera?"
Yes.
by no_one_special on October 5th, 2009
.:Due to mutations effects on organism, usually neutral, then harmful. Beneficial ones come with a price, hence truly not beneficial.:.
.
What is the price? A mutation can be beneficial or deleterious. If it remains neutral it isn't really a mutation, which implies sudden change, is it?
.
Copernicus - 'His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and Copernicus was urged to publish around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution'.
.
Now read the last sentence and think, really think, about what that meant.Look at the dates. Believe or die.Think inquisition, and then think bible that condones murder, slavery, infanticide ... and so on and son on. Is that the only none creationist discovery you can think of? That's poor. I thought you'd at least go for the irreducible complexity argument.
.
Do you believe in the ten or more commandments?
by Life Not Faith on October 5th, 2009
Quote, "What is the price?"
I should have said burden. The price or cost is the burden.
"In population genetics, genetic load or genetic burden is a measure of the cost of lost alleles due to selection (selectional load) or mutation (mutational load)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_load
Quote, " A mutation can be beneficial or deleterious."
Which is more likely, please address this?
Quote, "If it remains neutral it isn't really a mutation, which implies sudden change, is it?"
A mutation is a copy error. By definition it is a change as a result of a copy error.
Quote, "Copernicus - 'His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and Copernicus was urged to publish around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution'."
OK and who said he was being persecuted?
Quote, "Now read the last sentence and think, really think, about what that meant.Look at the dates. Believe or die.Think inquisition, and then think bible that condones murder, slavery, infanticide ... and so on and son on."
Irrelevant to our discussion. Please stay on topic.
Quote, "Is that the only none creationist discovery you can think of? That's poor. I thought you'd at least go for the irreducible complexity argument."
You asked and I answered. I am sorry you were expecting Behe and I disappointed you. Try not to guess what I am going to do. :D
Quote, "Do you believe in the ten or more commandments?"
As in do I follow them? Not all the commandments. Not all ten are applicable after Christ death.
What was the purpose of that? You are attempting a straw. Resist the temptation and do try to stay on topic.
by no_one_special on October 5th, 2009
.:I should have said burden. The price or cost is the burden:.
.
It affects the K value in that it produces a down turn in the viability of offspring A, but that is balanced by the up turn in offspring B which carries a beneficial gene. The burden being that the deleterious gene has just removed itself from the gene pool. Letting the good one survive. Get it yet?
.
.:Which is more likely, please address this?:.
.
What between two choices? Wouldn't that be 50 50?...
.
.:A mutation is a copy error. By definition it is a change as a result of a copy error:.
.
It is an error in the transcription mechanism yes. But it results in an abrupt change from what should result. That's not neutral.
.
.:OK and who said he was being persecuted?:.
.
Urm. the pope, that why he got to publish it in the first place. Are you really so shallow in reading things?
.
If it so transpires that not all the commandments are applicable after his death, then why is any of the bible relevant?
by Life Not Faith on October 5th, 2009