- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ July 09 2010,02:49) Geological evidence of the “Grand Canon” in the USA
suggests a washout of epic proportions, compare
with the washout of a large ice dam breakage,
which is small compared to the Grand Canon.
No one would deny the Grand Canyon was “washed out”. It took a bit longer than a few months though, and it didn't happen within the last few thousand years.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon#Geology
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 09 2010,07:16) Quote (Ed J @ July 09 2010,02:49) Geological evidence of the “Grand Canon” in the USA
suggests a washout of epic proportions, compare
with the washout of a large ice dam breakage,
which is small compared to the Grand Canon.
No one would deny the Grand Canyon was “washed out”. It took a bit longer than a few months though, and it didn't happen within the last few thousand years.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon#Geology
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Noah's flood is purported to have occurred 4,000 to 4,500 years ago,
so of course it didn't occur in the last 'few' thousand years!Since that other article was too long for you here is a much smaller one.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ July 09 2010,10:27) Noah's flood is purported to have occurred 4,000 to 4,500 years ago,
so of course it didn't occur in the last 'few' thousand years!Since that other article was too long for you here is a much smaller one.
For a person obsessed with numbers you don't have much feel for mathematics, do you Ed. I would happily accept anything up to 10,000 years as being within the last “few thousand”.Your linked webpage says this:
Additionally, in contrast to all other rivers, we do not find a delta (a place where washed-out mud is deposited).
Which makes one wonder then why there is a Wikipedia page about the Colorado River Delta!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Delta
I suppose we could ask Kent Hovind for clarification of what he means by all this on his website. Uh, actually we can't, because he is in prison for lying about his taxes.
Do you normally trust websites written by legally proven liars?
Stuart
I don't watch them Ed, save your energy.
Make ONE point at a time. Choose the most convincing one from your video, then make your case.
Stuart
Stu,
you know that God does exist even though you have the atheist disease now STOP PLAYING. God is The Supreme being
you are a conscious being and you know that your consciousness is not supreme but yet how do you rely on your knowledge
and reason at all unless Consciousness and logic are inherent in conscious beings that were created biogetically?I really waited and waited to respond on this thread but to my disappointment others thought it was okay to play along with you(I have no such patience in this particular matter) You are not an Idiot and you do realize you did not invent conscious activity therefore you would have to admit that the source of conscious activity would be supreme and being that Conscious activity is living activity you would have to admit it as the SUPREME BEING
Quote (bodhitharta @ July 09 2010,13:57) Stu, you know that God does exist even though you have the atheist disease now STOP PLAYING. God is The Supreme being
you are a conscious being and you know that your consciousness is not supreme but yet how do you rely on your knowledge
and reason at all unless Consciousness and logic are inherent in conscious beings that were created biogetically?I really waited and waited to respond on this thread but to my disappointment others thought it was okay to play along with you(I have no such patience in this particular matter) You are not an Idiot and you do realize you did not invent conscious activity therefore you would have to admit that the source of conscious activity would be supreme and being that Conscious activity is living activity you would have to admit it as the SUPREME BEING
Asana Asana Asana!All hail to thee, thou art so much better than Mohammad, no question about it.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 01 2010,14:20) I also laugh at what evolves. Such as the evolution of the Internet, or the evolution of the mobile phone etc.
http://www.networkworld.com/slidesh….et.htmlUmm. Weren't they created?
Greetings t8….cell phones were manufactured,the media by which they work has evolved….The airways have existed since the beginning of time,as we all know there is a being who uses this medium….He is the spirit of the air ways…With each technological breakthrough in multiplexing the evolutionary process advances..Hello theodorej!
Long time no see.
I note you are exercising some expertise in your use of religious platitudes there!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 09 2010,12:47) I don't watch them Ed, save your energy. Make ONE point at a time. Choose the most convincing one from your video, then make your case.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,The main points are Here.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ July 10 2010,05:30) Quote (Stu @ July 09 2010,12:47) I don't watch them Ed, save your energy. Make ONE point at a time. Choose the most convincing one from your video, then make your case.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,The main points are Here.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
What about my point about Kent Hovind? He is a whopper-telling porky spinner of the pants-on-fire variety.I note you used the plural POINTS, when I asked for a singular POINT.
Actually you don't understand any of this, do you. You are just on a fishing expedition without being able even to name any of the fish you are not hooking.
Stuart
Stuart,
My apologies on a delayed response, you seemed to be busy with ed j, I do not like to interrupt such things, shall we continue
Quote What if their children don’t share their christian fantasy beliefs? Why should they have to? As would be the case of a child raised by free thinkers, may turn to the christian belief, would the parents act the same as your hypothetical scenario.
Quote Ignorance demands learning, but nasty beliefs need challenging. I guess the word nasty implies a personal value judgment. My value judgment is that Christianity fails on many points of universally-held ethics. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water Stuart, truth can be found most anywhere, if you believe a passage to be true from a text, does not mean you must believe the whole text, to think like this is where religious platitude comes from. Don't be a chameleon.
Quote I’m sure honesty is one of the most significant qualities children will admire in their parents later in life. I think that includes admitting when an answer is unknown. I wonder how it plays out in regards to religious belief. How many parents or caregivers have the integrity to say “I believe Jesus died for my sins, but the evidence for this is poor and I believe it mainly on faith”? Once again dear Stuart, what would a free thinker say to their child that ask our origins, how we were created, would they be honest in their answer or would they give some imaginary theory of what they believe.
Quote I think there are two opinions: the one that says you must use magic to explain things because there is one or other religious mythology that will be redundant if you don’t, and the second that is science, with its minor variations on the same ideas, all of which live or die on evidence. Stuart, I do not want to live or die by evidence, if this be the case, I should have died long ago, the odds were stacked against me. Science can explain how it works, they cannot explain how it came to be, I hold no grudges against science, I do however feel that the ones who cannot accept creation use the same tactics as ones that do not accept evolution.
Quote If I am to accept the claims of others without evidence then I am open to any old claim made by any old crackpot. For example, the miserable view that all humans are sinners is made without reference to what humans actually do on a daily basis. It is compounded by the fact that “sin” is so poorly defined in the NT as to be an unjust concept anyway. So when I am called a “sinner” I ask for the definition of that word, and the evidence that supports the accusation. It usually turns out to be a nonsense generalization about me “not being godly”. That same accuser is never able to define even the “god” part of that word. In your view, using another's words your universal ethics are god and anything that goes against these would be a sin, so basically there is a parallel/comparison.
Quote And you to my rambling also! The concept of a creator seems to be a human need for some people. It does not appear to have any use in explaining the operation of the universe though. Many people claim they discover this god thing, whatever it is, at times of desperation. I assume you are not wishing desperate times on me, princess! Stuart, I only hope for the best for you and the ones you love, and when you do find your truth, may it be when you are at peace dear friend.
Take care.
Quote You are just on a fishing expedition without being able even to name any of the fish you are not hooking. Go for the walleye, or perch.
Hello P of the K!
Quote As would be the case of a child raised by free thinkers, may turn to the christian belief, would the parents act the same as your hypothetical scenario.
A good question: it would be hypocritical to disapprove of any worldview that a child had come to having considered it dispassionately. It remains true that you must make untestable assumptions to come to the christian worldview, and the central feature of most freethinkers is to go by the evidence, not by invented assumptions. The human brain is notorious for its susceptibility to see patterns where none exist and its poor ability to assess probability and coincidence. So a child should be brought up to be aware of all these factors and be critical in their consideration of anything, to think skeptically although not necessarily cynically.If christianity is the conclusion that is drawn then so be it, but hopefully that person is up for a robust discussion on why they believe, and my experience is that most christians cannot really sustain such a conversation. One exception to that is when a religious person really believes that the bible is right and what we think of as reality is actually an illusion. That is a position that cannot be argued against, because it starts with a different version of the same assumption that the freethinker is stuck with: they all must assume that the material world is not a deception. Those who do believe all the evidence that contradicts the bible is an illusion must have a pretty bizarre theology of the Judeo-christian god though.
I guess most parents would reasonably draw a line at their children’s involvement in cults that involve brainwashing, because hijacking of the ability to think critically is a form of imprisonment.
Quote Don't throw out the baby with the bath water Stuart, truth can be found most anywhere, if you believe a passage to be true from a text, does not mean you must believe the whole text, to think like this is where religious platitude comes from. Don't be a chameleon.
Sure, but while you can agree and disagree with Richard Dawkins on alternate pages while reading the God Delusion, you cannot do that when reading the Judeo-christian book of mythology. You would have to be deciding which bits are divinely inspired and which bits aren’t. Is that a decision you should be making? Should you trust the council of Nicaea to decide for you? The pope? It’s all very shabbly when you consider how truly human an invention christianity is.Religious platitudes are meaningless statements written to appear deep and trap the gullible. Indeed the bible is full of them, and many believers read them wide-eyed, unwilling to admit that they are “Barnum” statements just like you read in horoscopes. They could mean anything to anyone, and therefore mean nothing in particular.
Quote Once again dear Stuart, what would a free thinker say to their child that ask our origins, how we were created, would they be honest in their answer or would they give some imaginary theory of what they believe.
They should say “here is what the evidence says:…” and “the current theory that explains this evidence is…, which could be wrong but no one has been able to disprove it for the last…years” . I’m just not sure what reasonable alternative there is that does not undermine the significant achievements of science.Would you advocate “don’t worry about the evidence and a reasonable interpretation, all you need to do is believe in this book”? That would be mindless, don’t you think? It would ignore all the things that we reasonably believe to be factually true, it would deny the self-correcting nature of discovery and would be a hypocritical abuse of the scientific process that really has worked to entirely transform the human condition for the better over the last few hundred years.
Quote Stuart, I do not want to live or die by evidence, if this be the case, I should have died long ago, the odds were stacked against me. Science can explain how it works, they cannot explain how it came to be, I hold no grudges against science, I do however feel that the ones who cannot accept creation use the same tactics as ones that do not accept evolution.
Science does explain how things came to be. There is certainly no religious book that does a better job, and in fact no religious book explains anything if you really think about it. All scriptures do is describe stuff, they never actually explain in the sense of B because of A. You might be thinking of the religious platitude that says “science explains how and religion explains why” . Well, no religion actually does explain why. For example, what is the meaning of your life according to christianity? There is no actual official answer to that, is there. All you find is platitudes and fantasy descriptions that do not actually address the question.I would suggest that almost all of what you do is done on evidence, and everything I do can be traced back to the use of evidence. Love is the usual counter to that, but of course you would have to define the word, and even then most people base that on the evidence that supports the trust involved.
As for “the ones that accept evolution”, they do not use creationist tactics. There is no one of either position who would not be happy for evolution by natural selection to be disproved: science lives and dies on evidence and that is what those “who believe in evolution” actually believe. They really believe in the explanation for the evidence that makes the fewest untestable assumptions, whatever it is. That is not true for creationism, though. Creationism HAS been disproved, and yet creationists carry on lying about the evidence. Not sure what kind of christian or muslim that makes them.
Quote In your view, using another's words your universal ethics are god and anything that goes against these would be a sin, so basically there is a parallel/comparison.
So why are there ethical disagreements? Who is the arbiter of what is your god’s ethics and what is not?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 11 2010,11:47) Hello P of the K! Who is the arbiter of what is your God’s ethics and what is not?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,1Tm.2:5: For there is one God, and one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ July 11 2010,13:33) Quote (Stu @ July 11 2010,11:47) Hello P of the K! Who is the arbiter of what is your God’s ethics and what is not?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,1Tm.2:5: For there is one God, and one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
How is that an answer?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 11 2010,18:36) Quote (Ed J @ July 11 2010,13:33) Quote (Stu @ July 11 2010,11:47) Hello P of the K! Who is the arbiter of what is your God’s ethics and what is not?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,1Tm.2:5: For there is one God, and one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
How is that an answer?Stuart
Hi Stuart,You said (in essence) the Judah-Christian God was barbaric; did you not?
Well Jesus clarified many things concerning YHVH; making him our mediator.Are you going to deny Jesus existed as well?
Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים(JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd
No, I think it is more likely that Jesus existed. But you cannot know with any confidence anything he actually said. That means you cannot know what bits Jesus told people were right and which were not, and even if you do accept the gospels as a transcript of the utterings of Jesus you cannot know whether Jesus was just making it up anyway.
It is all shabby nonsense, and it makes a mockery of our real heritage and the ethical thinking we developed as a species for the 175,000 years before even the Judeo part of Judeo-christianity was invented.
Stuart
Stuart,
Thought of your words most this morning while walking the pup. Then they day went into appeasing others, and now tonight here I am thinking on your words again. Pondering on how to respond, so you may understand what I believe and feel.
Please be patient with my response, for all the words have not come together yet, but I have not forgotten our conversation.
Take care dear friend.
Quote (Stu @ July 12 2010,01:41) Ed No, I think it is more likely that Jesus existed. But you cannot know with any confidence anything he actually said. That means you cannot know what bits Jesus told people were right and which were not, and even if you do accept the gospels as a transcript of the utterings of Jesus you cannot know whether Jesus was just making it up anyway.
It is all shabby nonsense, and it makes a mockery of our real heritage and the ethical thinking we developed as a species for the 175,000 years before even the Judeo part of Judeo-christianity was invented.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,There is no such thing as no faith!
You either have faith in YHVH or something else.
I have a personal relationship with YHVH, his Spirit on the inside.You put your faith in Darwinian evolution and
nothing blowing up (big bang) to become everything in order.
But this theory (big bang) flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
