|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 14, 2020 13:20:25 GMT
I've said this several time before, but some people are still not recognizing it, so I created this special thread in the hope more will join the discussion in a mature and schooled manner. I'll float this when it seems the problem recurs. One of the saddest things to watch is people trying to "debate" something without having a clear definition of what it is they are debating. They proceed as if they are debating the existence of a god when they are actually haranguing the definition of one. The atheists are often using a definition of a god no one else would, except perhaps some "crazy" fundamentalists. So let's get some definitions that religious people actually use. - The abstract or indirectly identified forces in nature and society that assist society in developing ethical codes.
- A benevolent director of spiritual or "extrasensory" phenomena such as clairvoyance, premonition, and other knowledge by revelation.
- The answer to the question how life originated on a previously molten planet, which rather obviously is not found in lifeless nature, thus "supernatural," or the preferred modern terminology, intelligent.
Notice I did not list an any anthropomorphic god. Few people accept any anthropomorphic god in the modern world. Even Christians have no anthropomorphic god except for a very short 30 year stint two thousand years ago when people were finally learning about abstractions. One gentleman here seems to believe that there is some "traditional" view of the god of the Bible that must be anthropomorphic even now by some rules he made up, and that many people today agree with him. Of course all of that is because he cannot read abstractions either in the Bible or from people using the Bible. I have the three main definitions, but there can be more for various reasons, however ill designed. When atheists claim there is "no evidence" for any god they clearly have omitted at least two of those three. There actually is, more or less, evidence for all three. - To argue that there is "no evidence" for an abstract god is ridiculous because it is as evident as baseball. You can see the people going into and coming out of the buildings. It is important to understand that most people who attend religious services use this definition far above all others.
- Arguments for extrasensory perception are problematic in that it is so easily faked. However there tests and evidence where first hand witnesses can see proof. If a child suddenly speaks a language never experienced or studied the mother will know it was a special revelation because she knows exactly where the child has been and with whom the child's entire life, the rest of the world will just assume the child did have exposure to the language or studied it from books. Various denominations have various attitudes to spiritual phenomena. Some recognize it being possible in the modern world ("Pentecostals" for example) and some do not.
- The intelligent designer is now a fact. Thus it is science not religion. The tornado-in-a-junkyard argument against assembly is well established. To claim there is a "false equivalence" between the biological construction and the tornado is that "backlash" against the obvious truth. The only people who assert a false equivalence are people who never use words as long as "equivalence" otherwise and think they sound intelligent.
Some people are blaming the increase in covid-19 cases on some failure to follow science because they consider crazy fundamentalism and "science" the only two choices. They also think science is more "cautious" than religion simply because of the few crazy people who are not cautious. Religious people, with the exception of the very few crazy ones, are in fact more cautious than people who "believe" in science. They always have been. Religious people happen to know quite much about disease, and how limited fossil fuels are, and what tornadoes might assemble. Most of them do not exaggerate as much as people with faith in science, or bother anyone with flawed arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 14, 2020 13:45:18 GMT
Arlon, please stop haranguing yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 14, 2020 13:58:49 GMT
Arlon, please stop haranguing yourself. I'm sorry, I'm missing your point. I also left out #5, the malevolent director of spiritual phenomena. Some Christians consider all spiritual phenomena today the work of the devil.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 14, 2020 14:02:23 GMT
Hands up those here who are not familiar with the Christian God being described variously as a 'father', a 'Him' who is 'loving', 'jealous', 'angry', 'forgiving' and 'personal' (or even 'benevolent' says Arlon here) etc? Or, come to that, don't recall Ganesh, the elephant god of the Hindus, seated, dressed and wearing jewellery? We've been over this before.
Not a 'fact' big or obvious enough to be declared a matter of science by the Federal Judge at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial one notes - for which we still await Arlon's patented appeal LOL. And since Arlon is repeating his claims about this matter so soon, here is the note of mine from when it was last raised by him: that in regards to the Argument from Design, some may not know that Darwin himself had a reply to this. Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations. So the question is: does God really 'design' each little change, over and over, to move things along? There was no real answer when he asked this of the proponents of Paley's views back in the day, and no doubt one will be hard to find here, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 14, 2020 14:52:14 GMT
"1. To argue that there is "no evidence" for an abstract god is ridiculous because it is as evident as baseball. You can see the people going into and coming out of the buildings. It is important to understand that most people who attend religious services use this definition far above all others."
So basically an appeal to popularity fallacy and false equivalence. Gotcha. If large masses of people started congregating buildings because they believed the earth was created by outer space leprechauns does that add validity to their beliefs?
1. "Arguments for extrasensory perception are problematic in that it is so easily faked. However there tests and evidence where first hand witnesses can see proof. If a child suddenly speaks a language never experienced or studied the mother will know it was a special revelation because she knows exactly where the child has been and with whom the child's entire life, the rest of the world will just assume the child did have exposure to the language or studied it from books. Various denominations have various attitudes to spiritual phenomena. Some recognize it being possible in the modern world ("Pentecostals" for example) and some do not."
"Anecdotal evidence" is not the same thing as actual empirical evidence. Give me one confirmed example of anything like this ever happened. Wouldn't someone have passed the James Randi challenge by now if their was any truth to these claims?
"The intelligent designer is now a fact."
Uh no, no credible scientist anywhere acknowledges it. When pushed on the topic ID "experts" can't produce any actual evidence, all they can produce is half assed theories (life is complicated and therefore requires and intelligent designer) and flimsy attempts at "debunking" evolution (if humans evolved from monkeys, the why do monkeys still exist? Checkmate atheist!)
"Thus it is science not religion."
Then why are pretty much all the big name ID proponents (Ham, Hovind, Comfort) devout Christians?
I'm starting to suspect you're secretly an atheist trolling as Creationist, that would explain these smooth brain arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 14, 2020 19:38:05 GMT
"1. To argue that there is "no evidence" for an abstract god is ridiculous because it is as evident as baseball. You can see the people going into and coming out of the buildings. It is important to understand that most people who attend religious services use this definition far above all others." So basically an appeal to popularity fallacy and false equivalence. Gotcha. If large masses of people started congregating buildings because they believed the earth was created by outer space leprechauns does that add validity to their beliefs? 1. "Arguments for extrasensory perception are problematic in that it is so easily faked. However there tests and evidence where first hand witnesses can see proof. If a child suddenly speaks a language never experienced or studied the mother will know it was a special revelation because she knows exactly where the child has been and with whom the child's entire life, the rest of the world will just assume the child did have exposure to the language or studied it from books. Various denominations have various attitudes to spiritual phenomena. Some recognize it being possible in the modern world ("Pentecostals" for example) and some do not." "Anecdotal evidence" is not the same thing as actual empirical evidence. Give me one confirmed example of anything like this ever happened. Wouldn't someone have passed the James Randi challenge by now if their was any truth to these claims? "The intelligent designer is now a fact." Uh no, no credible scientist anywhere acknowledges it. When pushed on the topic ID "experts" can't produce any actual evidence, all they can produce is half assed theories (life is complicated and therefore requires and intelligent designer) and flimsy attempts at "debunking" evolution (if humans evolved from monkeys, the why do monkeys still exist? Checkmate atheist!) "Thus it is science not religion." Then why are pretty much all the big name ID proponents (Ham, Hovind, Comfort) devout Christians? I'm starting to suspect you're secretly an atheist trolling as Creationist, that would explain these smooth brain arguments. How many "credible scientists" do you know? Zero? That's what I thought. Oh wait, I'm here. If all you do is copy you might as well copy me. My charge in US Dollars is $0.00 or as it is also known "free." I might even pay you to use correct terminology. You won't find a better deal than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 14, 2020 23:35:22 GMT
"1. To argue that there is "no evidence" for an abstract god is ridiculous because it is as evident as baseball. You can see the people going into and coming out of the buildings. It is important to understand that most people who attend religious services use this definition far above all others." So basically an appeal to popularity fallacy and false equivalence. Gotcha. If large masses of people started congregating buildings because they believed the earth was created by outer space leprechauns does that add validity to their beliefs? 1. "Arguments for extrasensory perception are problematic in that it is so easily faked. However there tests and evidence where first hand witnesses can see proof. If a child suddenly speaks a language never experienced or studied the mother will know it was a special revelation because she knows exactly where the child has been and with whom the child's entire life, the rest of the world will just assume the child did have exposure to the language or studied it from books. Various denominations have various attitudes to spiritual phenomena. Some recognize it being possible in the modern world ("Pentecostals" for example) and some do not." "Anecdotal evidence" is not the same thing as actual empirical evidence. Give me one confirmed example of anything like this ever happened. Wouldn't someone have passed the James Randi challenge by now if their was any truth to these claims? "The intelligent designer is now a fact." Uh no, no credible scientist anywhere acknowledges it. When pushed on the topic ID "experts" can't produce any actual evidence, all they can produce is half assed theories (life is complicated and therefore requires and intelligent designer) and flimsy attempts at "debunking" evolution (if humans evolved from monkeys, the why do monkeys still exist? Checkmate atheist!) "Thus it is science not religion." Then why are pretty much all the big name ID proponents (Ham, Hovind, Comfort) devout Christians? I'm starting to suspect you're secretly an atheist trolling as Creationist, that would explain these smooth brain arguments. How many "credible scientists" do you know? Zero? That's what I thought. Oh wait, I'm here. If all you do is copy you might as well copy me. My charge in US Dollars is $0.00 or as it is also known "free." I might even pay you to use correct terminology. You won't find a better deal than that. "How many "credible scientists" do you know? Zero? That's what I thought. " From wikipedia: "Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents" "Oh wait, I'm here. " Uh no, the fact that you push ID means you're not a credible scientist, at least for biology, That would be like saying a flat earther is credible geographer. "My charge in US Dollars is $0.00 or as it is also known "free." That's because no one would pay you, it would be like Stevie Wonder charging for haircuts, not a whole lot of takers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Nov 15, 2020 0:24:21 GMT
Blah, blah, blah
1. To argue that there is "no evidence" for an abstract Santa Claus is ridiculous because it is as evident as baseball. You can see the people imitating him and buying presents every December. It is important to understand that most people who open presents on December 25th use this definition far above all others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 15, 2020 10:53:19 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] < clips >
- From wikipedia: "Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents"
- Uh no, the fact that you push ID means you're not a credible scientist
- no one would pay you, it would be like Stevie Wonder charging for haircuts, not a whole lot of takers.
- You're doing it again. I show you proper methods and you ignore them and make the same mistakes. I ask you to please put things in your own words. That's how teachers can tell you understand the lessons. All you do is post links to things you obviously do not understand. My argument is for the origin of life on a previously molten planet or as you might have called it in your school, "abiogenesis." Your link does not address that at all. I already noted "evolution" is described in the Bible, and thus "fixity of species" is a misreading of the Bible. Repeat it again as you memorized it, "evolution is not abiogenesis."
- If your mind is already made up, there is no point to you being here.
- It must be charity then, but I am doing fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 15, 2020 10:56:33 GMT
Blah, blah, blah
1. To argue that there is "no evidence" for an abstract Santa Claus is ridiculous because it is as evident as baseball. You can see the people imitating him and buying presents every December. It is important to understand that most people who open presents on December 25th use this definition far above all others. 6/100
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 15, 2020 13:30:25 GMT
I already noted "evolution" is described in the Bible, and thus "fixity of species" is a misreading of the Bible. Chapter and verse please.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Nov 15, 2020 14:13:47 GMT
If i had used the same for of argument that you use to argue that Krishna was real, would you accept that as an argument or would you call it a bad argument?, or is it only a good argument if its about a God you belive in ?
God can not be proven either way. anybody who claims that they can prove God are frankly lying.
But personally i think its a far bigger change that God does not exist than that God exist. And also if God does exist there is no proof that it is the God you belive in. I know you will disagree with this, but it can just as well be the twelve Gods of Olympus that are real as the God of Abraham,
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Nov 15, 2020 14:17:57 GMT
I already noted "evolution" is described in the Bible, and thus "fixity of species" is a misreading of the Bible. Chapter and verse please. Not me you asked, but according to this page these are verse on evolution i don`t think those can qualify as verse on evolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 15, 2020 14:52:43 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] < clips >
- From wikipedia: "Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents"
- Uh no, the fact that you push ID means you're not a credible scientist
- no one would pay you, it would be like Stevie Wonder charging for haircuts, not a whole lot of takers.
- You're doing it again. I show you proper methods and you ignore them and make the same mistakes. I ask you to please put things in your own words. That's how teachers can tell you understand the lessons. All you do is post links to things you obviously do not understand. My argument is for the origin of life on a previously molten planet or as you might have called it in your school, "abiogenesis." Your link does not address that at all. I already noted "evolution" is described in the Bible, and thus "fixity of species" is a misreading of the Bible. Repeat it again as you memorized it, "evolution is not abiogenesis."
- If your mind is already made up, there is no point to you being here.
- It must be charity then, but I am doing fine.
"You're doing it again." You mean citing sources? I'm sorry I'm not content with just making baseless claims like you. You do realize research and citing sources is an integral part of academia right? "I show you proper methods and you ignore them and make the same mistakes." You show me pseudoscience that has already been discredited countless times. "I already noted "evolution" is described in the Bible" Selective breeding is not "evolution" "evolution is not abiogenesis." It's not. Find me one credible scientist that would say it is. And no, you don't count. "If your mind is already made up, there is no point to you being here." Do you believe a flat earther can be a credible geographer, yes or no? "It must be charity then, but I am doing fine." Recycling garbage ID arguments and writing a shitty conservative blog no one reads is really streatching the term "fine"
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 15, 2020 15:00:42 GMT
Chapter and verse please. Not me you asked, but according to this page these are verse on evolution i don`t think those can qualify as verse on evolution. After a read through I must agree, they are more about confirming God as creator. Some Christians, it can be said flat out deny the connection at all, such as here from the Institution of Creation Research: or the JW's: The issue often boils down (at least in Jewish and Christian fundamentalism) to the verse in Genesis that God supposedly created living things “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) also known in modern days in a equally pseudo-scientific term, as 'baramins' representing, for some creationists at least, a finite number of discrete forms. Did he then stop, letting 'processes' trundle on, or was that it? Moreover it is not commonly held by creationists that 'kinds' are species, while the debates I have been in disputations which often focus more on the claimed impossibility of 'macro-evolution', as per the JWs above (while conveniently forgetting that evolution nearly always works through a series of tiny, micro incremental steps making up any eventual larger effect). At most many creationist will admit 'adaption' - an inevitable compromise, given the evidence - rather than 'proper evolution', a leeway which is still just a fudge. Whatever, by denying general common descent, Creationism tends to produce inconsistent results that also conflict with evidence discovered by biology. All this aside though, one still waits to be shown the part of the Bible which "describes evolution". It might be said to feature genetics, yes - or what is supposed to be such, in the verses about striped bark allegedly causing a change in the colour of cattle (Gen 30:37). But that story bears no resemblance to what we understand as evolutionary theory. Some have argued that the Bible itself 'shows evolution' by the moving of the values and mores of the OT to changes of the New; but that really is a bit desperate and not what is asked for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 15, 2020 15:33:25 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] - You're doing it again. I show you proper methods and you ignore them and make the same mistakes. I ask you to please put things in your own words. That's how teachers can tell you understand the lessons. All you do is post links to things you obviously do not understand. My argument is for the origin of life on a previously molten planet or as you might have called it in your school, "abiogenesis." Your link does not address that at all. I already noted "evolution" is described in the Bible, and thus "fixity of species" is a misreading of the Bible. Repeat it again as you memorized it, "evolution is not abiogenesis."
- If your mind is already made up, there is no point to you being here.
- It must be charity then, but I am doing fine.
"You're doing it again." You mean citing sources? I'm sorry I'm not content with just making baseless claims like you. You do realize research and citing sources is an integral part of academia right? "I show you proper methods and you ignore them and make the same mistakes." You show me pseudoscience that has already been discredited countless times. "I already noted "evolution" is described in the Bible" Selective breeding is not "evolution" "evolution is not abiogenesis." It's not. Find me one credible scientist that would say it is. And no, you don't count. "If your mind is already made up, there is no point to you being here." Do you believe a flat earther can be a credible geographer, yes or no? "It must be charity then, but I am doing fine." Recycling garbage ID arguments and writing a shitty conservative blog no one reads is really streatching the term "fine" I mean failing to understand sources. If you are not able to articulate anything scientific yourself then you are not able to select any sources. So no, you don't count.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 15, 2020 15:35:41 GMT
I already noted "evolution" is described in the Bible, and thus "fixity of species" is a misreading of the Bible. Chapter and verse please. I've only cited it at least fifteen times on this board, but here it is again, Genesis 30:31 to 31:13, the story of Jacob tending Laban's flocks.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 15, 2020 15:46:56 GMT
Chapter and verse please. I've only cited it at least fifteen times on this board, but here it is again, Genesis 30:31 to 31:13, the story of Jacob tending Laban's flocks. Perhaps you missed what I said about this before above: it might be said to feature an odd version of genetics, or selective breeding,** yes or what is supposed to be such, in the verses about striped bark allegedly causing a change in the colour of cattle (Gen 30:37). But that story bears no resemblance to what we understand through evolutionary theory. There is no survival of the fittest, natural selection. No incremental change upon change, no new species. And, oddly enough, after a search for 'evolution in the bible' even from those desperate to see scientific proofs demonstrated in scripture, I cannot find a list anywhere taking these events as an example, which I guess makes you the only authority. Do you have anything else? ** In fact even the Christian site Enduring Word admits in its exegesis to this that " We don’t know exactly how this method worked. It is possible Jacob knew more about animal husbandry than we do today" which is weak and certainly makes no claim for evolution. enduringword.com/bible-commentary/genesis-30/
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 15, 2020 17:39:18 GMT
"You're doing it again." You mean citing sources? I'm sorry I'm not content with just making baseless claims like you. You do realize research and citing sources is an integral part of academia right? "I show you proper methods and you ignore them and make the same mistakes." You show me pseudoscience that has already been discredited countless times. "I already noted "evolution" is described in the Bible" Selective breeding is not "evolution" "evolution is not abiogenesis." It's not. Find me one credible scientist that would say it is. And no, you don't count. "If your mind is already made up, there is no point to you being here." Do you believe a flat earther can be a credible geographer, yes or no? "It must be charity then, but I am doing fine." Recycling garbage ID arguments and writing a shitty conservative blog no one reads is really streatching the term "fine" I mean failing to understand sources. If you are not able to articulate anything scientific yourself then you are not able to select any sources. So no, you don't count. Petty insults don't count as an argument, notice how you didn't actually address the source I cited. Evasion noted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 15, 2020 20:23:55 GMT
I mean failing to understand sources. If you are not able to articulate anything scientific yourself then you are not able to select any sources. So no, you don't count. Petty insults don't count as an argument, notice how you didn't actually address the source I cited. Evasion noted. Arguments for evolution don't count as arguments for abiogenesis. You said so yourself. Evolution is not abiogenesis. Remember now?
|
|