An Exercise in Bad Logic and Arrogance

Posted: February 26, 2009 in Atheism, Evolution, Religion
Tags: , , ,

1204681593699Sometimes I like to simply take a wander through WordPress tags to see what is out there.  Good for the intellect to see other people’s points of view, as I am sure most people would agree.  Sadly, such ventures often lead you to blog entries which fly directly in the face of logic, evidence and rational thought.  One such entry I stumbled on today was some Jasmine 71’s Weblog.   Wondering what is so bad about the entry? Read on.

Atheism is defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary as, “1. the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist. 2. godlessness”. An atheist, therefore, is a person who believes that there is no God.

Starting off an entry (a common if rather cliché method when dealing with speeches and such things) with a dictionary definition. Probably not the best way but fair enough.

But what does the Bible say? The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. PSALMS XIV:I

Circular logic: a classic example

Circular logic: a classic example

And this is where we start down the rather murky road of circular logic.  If you can not see what I mean, I shall try to explain.  Obviously Jasmine71 is trying to establish that atheism is mistaken and that her particular deity does, in fact, exist.  To do so she attempts to set the Christian Bible as some sort of source for authoritative statements.  But, of course, the Christian Bible can only be correct if the Judeo-Christian deity exists and he can only exist if the Bible is correct … hence circular logic.

Atheism is a belief system that ardently denies the existence of God. God calls the atheist a FOOL. Many atheists spend much time and effort attempting to “disprove” that God exists.

The first sentence I have no argument against; there is simply no evidence for the existence of any sort of deity so you are left with the conclusion that the chances of one existing are effectively zero.  Just like Leprechauns, Unicorns and so on.

According to Romans chapter 1 they know that He exists, but they want to control their own lives and not submit to the Lord.

1199011143919

Optimus Prime

That is a silly argument to say the least.  Try applying the exact same argument to a different religion/belief/god;

Christians know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster/ Thor/ Zeus/ Optimus Prime exists but lie to themselves instead because they do not want to submit to him/it/them!

Starting to understand why it is a silly argument?

They are actually rather tragic figures just like any other unsaved individual. It is hard to live out their atheism–if they did, they’d actually be considered crazy like O’Hair was.

Again, try applying this reasoning to any other religious style belief you care to name.  Example: It is such a tragedy that you do not follow the glorious path of Optimus Prime, who died for your sins, and that you are unsaved.

The atheist’s RELIGION (which is simply a system of beliefs based on a philosophy) of atheism is simply a way to try to block out and override the truth–the ol’ ostrich-head-in-the-sand technique:

Really? And what evidence are Atheists ignoring, precisely?  The Bible? No, since it is not a reliable source of information and to rely on it (as previously noted) would be nothing more than an exercise in circular logic.

On the other hand, the ‘ostrich head’ routine could be truthfully attributed to people such as Creationists who routinely ignore independently verified evidence which does not match their particular world view.

And once again, your argument is shown to be silly if you apply it to any other religious belief (let’s stay with the Optimus Prime one, as I find it personally amusing); You keep denying the truth and wonder of Optimus Prime by sticking your head in the sand, sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALA!

Well, atheist reader, Somebody is there and His truth has stood from the beginning of time and will continue for all eternity.

Praise be to Optimus Prime! Or Odin! Or Mithras! Or Ra! Or Zeus! Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

God is not dependent on you in any way.

I would argue against that point given the depiction of said deity in the Old Testament.  He obviously is dependent on one remote desert tribe to some extent given the way he chucked a temper tantrum any time they stepped out of line.   If he was not dependent, he would not have cared in the least and gotten on with running the Universe.  But he did not so he must have cared and thus been dependent.

I guess God needed his ego stroked a bit more by messing with the helpless mortals.  Kind of like an ant farm, really.

Blasphemies, wars, famines, and political appointments come and go, but when the dust settles, there’s Jesus.

Really? He did not show his face, even given best depictions, for the first 14 billion years of the Universe’s existence.  Then he hung about for around thirty years, took a three day nap and went home.   And … oh, that is right … he has not been seen or heard from since.

And that is assuming he even existed in the first place as depicted in the New Testament … which is highly unlikely to say the least.

And there is nothing you can do about it but breathe out hot air. You will humble yourself before the Lord Jesus or you will be ground to powder.

And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. –Jesus Christ
Matthew 21:44

There you go again, trying to use the Bible as some sort of authority source.  Circular logic, remember?  It would be akin to some Viking trying to prove to you that Wotan made the world by reading to you old Norse stories.

Most atheists have what I call the Don Quixote Syndrome. Let me explain. Cervantes wrote a book about Don Quixote a long time ago. Don Quixote would attack windmills as if they were his enemies. Of course a windmill is nobody’s enemy. If what the atheist believes is REALLY his belief, then he would leave people like me alone.

Atheists normally do leave people alone, going by my experience.  But when religious type people starting trying to impose their beliefs on said Atheists or (as in this case) address a blog entry directly to Atheists … that’s when you start getting replies.  Some you may not particularly like.

In other words; Don’t go poking a wasp nest with a stick and then start crying that you happened to get stung.

After all, if God did not exist, He and His followers would be no enemy to the atheist. We’d just be deluded people. Therefore IF the atheist REALLY believes there is no God and the fool attacks a Christian, then he has the Don Quixote Syndrome because the Christian is not his enemy.

See above about right leaning Christians trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of western culture.  It does not matter if you are deluded or not, Christianity has no right at all to attempt such a thing.  Christians are more than welcome to their beliefs, I doubt anyone would argue against that.  Problems only arise when those beliefs start being imposed on the rest of society.  In short; if Christians knocked off trying to get creationism taught as science, stopping abortions, supporting blue laws, let homosexuals live a nice loving life and so on … they would not get any sort of trouble in return.

Nevertheless, God is real and THAT is why atheists have all these organizations and debates to “prove” that God does not exist. Atheist reader, if you would just be true to what you purport to believe, then you wouldn’t have the Don Quixote Syndrome.

This actually seems to be an indirect appeal to Pascal’s Wager.  Which, as anyone who has ever looked at it would know, is a really bad argument and holds no weight.

My old pastor once ministered to an old atheist who had been a card-carrying atheist for decades–but as he laid on his death bed, he wanted a pastor. I don’t know if he got saved or not. When it’s time to die, many atheists are understandably uneasy and those that aren’t should be terrified.

And your point is? People are scared of things they do not know about, generally speaking.  Death is one of those things we simply do not know that much about.  On the other hand, there is no evidence at all for the existence of eternal life or reincarnation or anything else of that ilk.

As for me, I have no particular fear of death and why should I?  There is nothing to say that it is dissimilar to simply going to sleep.  Does that mean I won’t avoid death? No, of course not.  Life is a grand thing and you only get one shot so make the most of it while you can and don’t miss out of opportunities.

There is hope for the atheist. He can be saved. In fact, there are plenty of atheists that have come to Jesus Christ.

Humans swap religions all the time.  Plenty, for example, have gone from Christianity to Agnosticism or Atheism (in today’s society, I’d hazard to guess a lot more than have gone from those two to Christianity).

I refuse to argue with them, but will answer honest questions.

What was that you said earlier about ostrich’s putting their heads in the sand?

Unfortunately, many atheists ignorantly say hard things against the Lord Jesus Christ and His people. Don’t let fancy titles and big words shake your faith in the One who holds your eternal destiny.

I’ll assume I could translate to being: Ignore the smart people in their white coats and scientific terms and observations.  Just keep on believing and … hold on, did I just see an Ostrich run by again?

Think about this: What does the atheist have to offer you? Eternal life? Spiritual comfort? Love? Kindness? Comfort in the midnight hour when no one is around? No, none of these.

Just because something is comforting, does not make it true.  That is really kind of sad when you think about it but it can not be helped.  Think about, for example, an elderly Alzheimer’s patient who honestly believes that her children will visit her that afternoon … not remembering they died four years earlier in a car crash.

Or, shifting to other religions, the brave Viking warrior who fights valiantly on in a suicidal fight knowing that when he dies he’ll be taken to the halls of Valhalla for eternity where he’ll be able to feast out infinity.  He honestly believes it and it bring him comfort but it is almost certainly not true.

He has nothing to offer you but blasphemy, hell fire and the wrath of God.

Let us assume you are right for that moment.  Wrath and Hell fire would therefore be solely the creations of god so he is the one offering them to you.  Guess that makes him a bit of a bastard.

The atheist will tell you fabulous fairy tales like

you were spontaneously generated from a rock,

Atheism has nothing to say on the matter.  Nor does Science actually have any substantiated or widely held theory which does other.  But you seem to be having fun making strawmen so let’s continue…

a monkey is your daddy,

Again, Atheism has no stance on that matter.  Neither does the Theory of Evolution state anything of the kind.  I guess your knowledge of science is as weak as your knowledge of logic and common sense.

a fish is your cousin,

Again, Atheism has no stance on that matter.  Science certainly does not say fish are a cousin to humanity.  I respectfully recommend you go back and study elementary level biology.

you have no hope,

Who says that. I am an Atheist (I assume you have figured that one out by now) and I have great hope for humanity in general.

you should just live for today,
when you’re dead, you’re dead.

‘Today’ is too limited a term but you certainly should not waste your life but doing such pointless things as praying.

If you follow their ignorant advice and die without Christ, you WILL forever regret it and you will remember that someone told you the truth and you scoffed.

If you follow their ignorant advice and die without Optimus Prime, you WILL forever regret it and you will remember that someone told you the truth and you scoffed.

Yeah, it’s an old tactic now but that does not mean it is any less true.

Atheists try their hardest to argue a fact that is firmly established–God is real.

And how is that an established, independently verified and supported by evidence fact? Guess it isn’t.

You cannot look on His creation and its ways and honestly deny it.

That line only works if you make the unwarranted assumption that it is his creation to begin with as opposed to being the product of entirely natural process, which is what all the available evidence currently points directly at.

I won’t argue that 2+2=4 and I won’t argue that God exists.

There goes that Ostrich again … persistant little bugger.

And I would end this simply but putting the statement out … no wonder a lot of people do not take christianity seriously.

And Ostrich’s a really rather funny creatures when you think about it.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Cubik's Rube says:

    Wow, I was just over there, and this was my very next stop on my tag-hopping journey. Small world. I was wondering if I was going to be compelled to write this exact article myself taking her post apart, but thanks for taking care of that for me! Now I’ll have to find something else to waste my time on this afternoon while I’m supposed to be working.

    She brings up the watchmaker thing in the comments thread, too. Think maybe she hasn’t been doing this for very long?

  2. sarahbereza says:

    As a devout Christian, I certainly don’t expect non-Christians to listen to “what the Bible says.” Why should they?

  3. Scott says:

    Matt says:
    “Science certainly does not say fish are a cousin to humanity.”

    Yes, it does and they are. A distant cousin, but still related.

    • stavros says:

      Technically, yes they are distant cousins, in the sense that they share genetic information. However, the vast majority of species are cousins in this sense!

      Therefore, in the everyday terminology and context, you wouldn’t really call them cousins as in “closely related species”.

  4. ophalm says:

    Interesting. As a person who has been a christian but is no longer, allow this valid criticism of your biblical/cyclical argument.

    The bible never makes that claim. The bible is a collection of 66 books. Some of those individual books themselves make that claim, but it’s not referencing the collection of scripture (the bible) just the individual book itself.
    It’s the church (organised christian religion) that tells us the bible is the word of God and asks us to believe in the canon (the organisation of the bible), which led me to the point where I actually felt the church was asking me to put more faith in the bible than God..

    Good post though

  5. Matt says:

    Just as an update:

    The people over on the entry linked to have failed to refute my argument, instead relying on repeating their same argument (despite it being fundamentally flawed) and bible verses (which in itself is circular logic).

    Then, of course, they have gone on to the time honoured tactic of simply deleting my comments without replying to them, despite the fact I was incredible civil and polite.

    I have no choice but to conclude that there were unable to refute my arguments/logic/reasoning and took the coward’s way out.

  6. ozatheist says:

    Circular logic – you’d think by now those Christians would have realised that. Then again there’s a lot they don’t realise, or they have their head buried in the sand to bother realising.

  7. Garrett Oden says:

    I would argue against that point given the depiction of said deity in the Old Testament. He obviously is dependent on one remote desert tribe to some extent given the way he chucked a temper tantrum any time they stepped out of line. If he was not dependent, he would not have cared in the least and gotten on with running the Universe. But he did not so he must have cared and thus been dependent.

    That just shows how much He really loves us.

    And how is that an established, independently verified and supported by evidence fact? Guess it isn’t.

    Would you scientifically prove this for me?
    I really want some ice cream! Now I do really want some ice cream, but you can’t scientifically prove that either, but it’s true.

  8. Matt says:

    Your first point ignores the existence of the rest of humanity at the supposed time. If god had cared for humanity as a whole, he would not have ordered one desert tribe to try to slaughter a whole bunch of other people. Instead he could have tried something a lot more humane like “Thou shalt sendeth a polite messenger or diplomat to start civil negotiations!”

    Your second point is false since wants and desires can be measured by science, specifically through brain scans which shows specific parts of the brain light up like a christmas tree when the body wants/desires something. It’s not an exact science yet but it’s getting a lot better all the time.

    Your reply to this point also indicates a fundamental lack of reading and comprehension skills. Please note that the original argument quoted in the original entry was in the form of a positive argument; it made a statement. However, it completely failed to bring any sort of evidence to the party to back up said statement – hence said statement was worthless as any sort of evidence/proof/statement.

    The existence of some sort of deity/supernatural figure is not an established fact. There is no evidence to support, for example, the existence of the judeo-christian deity.

  9. Garrett Oden says:

    Your second point is false since wants and desires can be measured by science, specifically through brain scans which shows specific parts of the brain light up like a christmas tree when the body wants/desires something. It’s not an exact science yet but it’s getting a lot better all the time.

    Then can you tell me the exact flavor and even brand of ice cream I was craving?

    The existence of some sort of deity/supernatural figure is not an established fact. There is no evidence to support, for example, the existence of the judeo-christian deity.

    There is no evidence to support, for example, the existence of my crave of ice cream, but it’s still there.

  10. AV says:

    Then can you tell me the exact flavor and even brand of ice cream I was craving?

    What would be the point?

    If you are claiming that you are craving an icecream right now, the burden of proof would be on you to provide evidence that your claim is true. Just asserting that is true does not make it true. And we are under no obligation whatsoever to disprove your claim, since we are not claiming that you aren’t craving an icecream. As far as the veracity of that claim goes, we are agnostic.

    More importantly, the nature of the claim “I am craving an icecream” right now is very different from the claim that “God exists.” With the exception of those people who don’t enjoy icecream, many people, including myself and I assume Matt as well, have craved icecream before. As Matt suggests, medical technology is such that it is possible to study how our brains and our biochemistry registers such cravings, just as it is possible to study how our neurochemistry registers emotions such as love. (For more information on the latter, listen to this episode of the Are We Alone podcast.)

    The craving of food items is a natural phenomenon, well attested and understood by science. There is no scientific evidence—none—in support of the claim “God exists.” So while Matt and I certainly have no evidence that your claim about craving icecream is true, the claim itself is plausible. The claim that “God exists,” on the other hand, is utterly implausible. No amount of Bible quoting is going to make that claim less implausible, since the veracity of the Bible—the “inspired word of God”—depends upon God actually existing, which is the very thing the theist is obliged to prove. (Hint: you’ll have Google “fallacy of begging the question” to understand why Bible quotations will cut no ice with those who haven’t already been convinced otherwise that God exists.)

  11. Garrett Oden says:

    If you are claiming that you are craving an icecream right now, the burden of proof would be on you to provide evidence that your claim is true.

    So basically: you can’t scientifically prove it?

    So while Matt and I certainly have no evidence that your claim about craving icecream is true, the claim itself is plausible.

    Then you are saying my crave doesn’t exist? Because if mine doesn’t exist because it hasn’t been proven in a lab, then no crave exists that isn’t proven in a lab. So all craves must happen in a lab! Is that what you are saying?

    The claim that “God exists,” on the other hand, is utterly implausible

    Not entirely. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.

  12. Matt says:

    The point is that one of the statements (I have a craving for ice cream) is measurable, it can be recorded and tested. There is also a lot of precedent for it happening previously in innumerable other people. Therefore, there is a lot of evidence to support the statement.

    The second statement (there is a god) has no evidence to support it and that the burden of proof is on those making the claim. No evidence means the claim is worthless.

  13. AV says:

    So basically: you can’t scientifically prove it?

    I personally can’t, for two very good reasons that will not help your apologetics one iota. (1) I lack expertise in the relevant scientific field (neurology, human biology) as well as access to the necessary equipment (among which would be included, I assume, something along the lines of an MRI). More importantly, (2) the two of us are on opposite sides of the planet.

    Nevertheless, if you make a claim, and you want others to accept your claim as true, the onus is on you to demonstrate that your claim is true by providing sufficient evidence. (And no, just saying so does not count as sufficient evidence.)

    Then you are saying my crave doesn’t exist?

    No. I’m saying that, right now, we don’t have sufficient evidence to accept with absolute certainty that your claim is true. All I said was that the nature of the particular claim you want us to accept—i.e. that you are craving icecream—is plausible.

    Not entirely. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.

    The God claim is plausible? That’s interesting. Right, let’s see the evidence you have for the existence of your God that (a) does not depend on the Bible or any other holy book (since that would amount to question-begging), (b) does not—in whatever form it takes—amount to an argument from ignorance (i.e. “I personally cannot imagine any other explanation, therefore God exists”), (c) does not involve any threats of “eternal damnation” (the existence of which is itself unproven), (d) does not involve emotional appeals along the lines of “God/Jesus loves you/will make you happy if you believe in him/yada yada yada”—which is redundant since it is only bound to convince those whom already believe in the first place, (e) does not involve appeals to thoroughly discredited pseudosciences such as creationism, and/or (f) does not involve any other logical fallacy.

    Over to you.

  14. AV says:

    I’m noticing something about Gareth. He seems to be very uncomfortable with the God character as he is depicted in the Bible—not unsurprisingly, as said character is depicted as an infantile, murderous, psychotic tyrant. A projection, perhaps, of the mindset of the Bronze-Age primitives who dreamed this character up, not to speak of the mindset of the primitives who inhabit the Bible Belt today. And it certainly is difficult to simultaneously cling to the belief that this is a “loving” character, lest the one holding to such a belief so redefines the word “love” that it is unrecognisable.

    No sane person would wish to be “loved” by such a despicable character as the God of the Bible, if such a character actually existed.

  15. Garrett Oden says:

    No evidence means the claim is worthless.

    I would agree.

    Gareth

    Garrett haha nice try.

    Nevertheless, if you make a claim, and you want others to accept your claim as true, the onus is on you to demonstrate that your claim is true by providing sufficient evidence. (And no, just saying so does not count as sufficient evidence.)
    Have you ever had a crave before AV?

    (a) does not depend on the Bible or any other holy book (since that would amount to question-begging)

    Actually I will use the Bible if you don’t mind.

    The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). This knowledge is way before its time!

    When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). Whoa even farther! We didn’t even know bacteria and viruses were the cause of diseases till somewhat recently.

    Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11). Still quite a ways ahead of its time.
    Now that’s something. You can read some more here:http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/scienceconfirmsthebible.shtml

    (b) does not—in whatever form it takes—amount to an argument from ignorance (i.e. “I personally cannot imagine any other explanation, therefore God exists”)

    Haha. That’s how some people rationalize Evolution.

    (c) does not involve any threats of “eternal damnation” (the existence of which is itself unproven),

    I don’t believe threatening is how we are supposed to witness.

    Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, “Why nature is mathematical is a mystery…The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle.”
    http://www.stumbleupon.com/toolbar/#topic=Christianity&url=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.everystudent.com%252Ffeatures%252Fisthere.html

    of the mindset of the Bronze-Age primitives who dreamed this character up, not to speak of the mindset of the primitives who inhabit the Bible Belt today.

    The Bible belt was written between 1.5-6,000 years ago. According to a Wikipedia article, “Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.” Now 6,000 years ago was definitely not 250,000 years ago. I wouldn’t call that primitive.

    Also the Bible was written in the Middle East and parts of Africa and Europe. Maybe even a little of Asia. Not the South Plains of Texas.

    No sane person would wish to be “loved” by such a despicable character as the God of the Bible, if such a character actually existed.

    Well sorry, but I along with many others are perfectly sane and know that God loves us!

  16. AV says:

    Have you ever had a crave before AV?

    Yes. Food cravings are a common and, as it turns out, explicable biological phenomenon.

    What exactly is your point?

    The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). This knowledge is way before its time!

    Fail. Isaiah 40.22 asserts that the earth is a circle. A circle is not a sphere. A circle is a 2-dimensional shape. A sphere is a 3-dimensional shape.

    As it happens, even though the writers of the passage you cite describe a flat earth (hint: 2-dimensional = flat), the sphericity of the earth was well-known to other peoples of antiquity, who reached such a conclusion via the application of evil atheist materialist principles of geometry.

    Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11). Still quite a ways ahead of its time.

    Do you really expect me to believe that, prior to the writing of Leviticus, people never associated death with the loss of blood. How stupid and ignorant would one have to be to need a divinity to point out the bleeding obvious?

    And does Leviticus, or any other book in the Bible, go into the specifics of why blood is essential to life? Any mention of oxygen, haemoglobin, white blood cells, waste removal, coagulation, regulation of body pH and temperature, or hormone and nutrient transfer? If not, why not? After all, this is a book that—as you claim—is way ahead of its time. If God knows all this, and if the Bible is the inspired Word of God, why isn’t all of this information available in the Bible?

    When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). Whoa even farther! We didn’t even know bacteria and viruses were the cause of diseases till somewhat recently.

    Nor does the passage make any mention whatsoever of bacteria or viruses, much less these being a reason to wash the hands. For such a “scientific” work, this is a glaring omission.

    In any case, you’re asking me to believe the utterly implausible: that no human culture prior to the writing of Leviticus ever practised the washing of hands, whether for sanitary purposes or otherwise.

    You’re also ignoring the fact that for the Jews of the time, as for other ancient peoples, the corpse was a taboo object, and coming into contact with it would, they believe, render one “impure.” (See the Wikipedia entry on “Ritual Washing in Judaism.”)

    Finally, you’re ignoring the fact that if you want to rid your hands of dangerous pathogens such as microorganisms, water alone is inefficient: you need some kind of detergent. Is this explained in Leviticus, or anywhere else in the Bible. Does the Leviticus passage you cite even mention detergent at all?

    Haha. That’s how some people rationalize Evolution.

    That’s a tu quoque, apart from being factually wrong. (Evolution is based on evidence—an abundance of evidence—not ignorance.)

    Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, “Why nature is mathematical is a mystery…The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle.”

    How is this relevant to point (c)?

    The Bible belt was written between 1.5-6,000 years ago. According to a Wikipedia article, “Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.” Now 6,000 years ago was definitely not 250,000 years ago. I wouldn’t call that primitive.

    I would, considering the advances humankind has made since then—however vehemently the pious and superstitious types have tried to prevent them.

    Also the Bible was written in the Middle East and parts of Africa and Europe. Maybe even a little of Asia. Not the South Plains of Texas.

    Never said otherwise. Learn to read for comprehension, Garrett.

    Well sorry, but I along with many others are perfectly sane and know that God loves us!

    Which is just plain frightening, and demonstrates that either you don’t know your Bible very well, or that you have a very strange definition of “love.”

  17. AV says:

    BTW: massive hat-tip to Ebon Musings for the excellent essay “The Pillars of the Earth: Is the Bible Scientifically Accurate?

  18. Garrett Oden says:

    What exactly is your point?

    I am saying you cannot prove every little thing with science.

    Do you really expect me to believe that, prior to the writing of Leviticus, people never associated death with the loss of blood. How stupid and ignorant would one have to be to need a divinity to point out the bleeding obvious?

    Then they used to be really stupid because they thought that blood did not give life back then.

    And does Leviticus, or any other book in the Bible, go into the specifics of why blood is essential to life? Any mention of oxygen, haemoglobin, white blood cells, waste removal, coagulation, regulation of body pH and temperature, or hormone and nutrient transfer? If not, why not? After all, this is a book that—as you claim—is way ahead of its time. If God knows all this, and if the Bible is the inspired Word of God, why isn’t all of this information available in the Bible?

    Well it talks about atoms. And if God included every single piece of information in the Bible, there would be nothing to try to learn.

    Nor does the passage make any mention whatsoever of bacteria or viruses, much less these being a reason to wash the hands. For such a “scientific” work, this is a glaring omission.

    Then why would anybody wash their hands after anything if there was no danger?

    In any case, you’re asking me to believe the utterly implausible: that no human culture prior to the writing of Leviticus ever practised the washing of hands, whether for sanitary purposes or otherwise.

    I did not say or imply that. I said apparently the author knew you had to wash your hands for health.

    Finally, you’re ignoring the fact that if you want to rid your hands of dangerous pathogens such as microorganisms, water alone is inefficient: you need some kind of detergent. Is this explained in Leviticus, or anywhere else in the Bible. Does the Leviticus passage you cite even mention detergent at all?

    Now why would God give us every single piece of knowledge available?

    That’s a tu quoque, apart from being factually wrong. (Evolution is based on evidence—an abundance of evidence—not ignorance.)

    I would say that Creation is based on evidence-an abundance of evidence-not ignorance.

    Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, “Why nature is mathematical is a mystery…The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle.”
    How is this relevant to point (c)?

    I am not sure what I was thinking when I copied that actually, but it’s still a good quote!

    Never said otherwise. Learn to read for comprehension, Garrett.

    You were implying when you said “mindset of the primitives who inhabit the Bible Belt today.” that first the humans that wrote the Bible are old (and based on your own beliefs they are definitely not), and that they now inhabit the Bible Belt, which is nowhere near where the Bible was written.

    Which is just plain frightening, and demonstrates that either you don’t know your Bible very well, or that you have a very strange definition of “love.”

    I don’t know the Bible very well. The loads of available information is astounding! But the reason I know God is because He has shown me what real love is. Our nature is to distort and corrupt love, and it has driven people from knowing what love really is.

  19. AV says:

    I am saying you cannot prove every little thing with science.

    But you were talking about craving food. Craving food is a biological phenomenon. Given the appropriate conditions and apparatus, it is within the remit of science to explain this phenomenon, and demonstrate that it is occurring. Even in the absence of such conditions, if you were to claim that you are craving some food item, I would say that your claim is plausible—even though you could be lying. I couldn’t have absolute certainty that your claim is true—I could never have such certainty anyway—but such a claim would be plausible because cravings have been known to happen before, and modern medical knowledge and technology is such that we can describe and explain the phenomenon of food-craving scientifically, and show that it is happening.

    Now, when you posit a deity as something that actually exists—as an actually existing phenomenon—and not just a fictive phenomenon like a thought experiment or a character in a novel, then the onus is on you to provide the evidence in support of the claim that your deity actually exists. Without this evidence, it is simply not possible to believe in the existence of your deity on any kind of rational basis. (Irrational, delusional, hallucinatory or insane are other matters.) The God of the Bible, much less any other deity, has never actually been shown to exist. Belief in God has been shown to exist, but you can’t say that something exists simply because a large number of people believe in its existence. (That is the argument from popular belief fallacy.) Otherwise, we could make any old shit up, and simply assert its existence, and expect everyone else to take our word for it. “I believe that there are little green men in orbit around Alpha Centauri. And angels dancing on the head of a pin. And fairies at the bottom of the garden. Prove me wrong.”

    Then they used to be really stupid because they thought that blood did not give life back then.

    You’ve made a positive assertion here: that human beings, prior to the publication of your Bible, never associated blood with life, or the loss of blood with the (eventual) loss of life. You are the one making this claim, therefore you are the one who must provide sufficient supporting evidence if you wish others to accept your claim as true. Unfortunately for you, this would require extensive anthropological and historical knowledge on your part—knowledge that you would also have to demonstrate that you possess—because you would have to know the histories not only of the Jewish peoples but of every other society that has ever existed on the face of the earth—given the global nature of your claim. Too hard? Too bad. You can always show a skerrick of humility and admit that you don’t possess this knowledge (because I seriously doubt that you do), and retract your claim.

    Well it talks about atoms.

    No, it doesn’t. Nowhere in the Bible is mentioned atoms, or molecules, or protons, or electrons, or quarks, or neutrinos. Nowhere.

    And if God included every single piece of information in the Bible, there would be nothing to try to learn.

    You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you’re going to insist that the Bible is a kind of scientific textbook, a repository of scientific knowledge, then it is reasonable for me to demand an explanation of why this so-called work of science is so vague and light on details. What you and the apologist site you’re parrotting are doing is retrospectively taking scientific knowledge that has been earned through research, experiment and field-work—and in the absence of superstition—and desperately trying to make it fit some vague verses in your holy book. People try to pull that same kind of crap with the doggerel of Nostradamus, too.

    Then why would anybody wash their hands after anything if there was no danger?

    I don’t understand the point of having a dialogue with you if you aren’t even going to bother reading what I have written. Read my previous comment again. I already answered this.

    Now why would God give us every single piece of knowledge available?

    See above (where I talk about you wanting to have your cake and eat it too).

    I am not sure what I was thinking when I copied that actually, but it’s still a good quote!

    And completely irrelevant, and therefore not worth addressing.

    I would say that Creation is based on evidence-an abundance of evidence-not ignorance.

    OK, Garrett. You can be juvenile about this if you want to, repeating my sentences back to me with the words changed around. It’s about as intelligent as saying “I know you are so what am I?” but you’ve never demonstrated a willingness to rise above this.

    But you know as well as I do the acceptance of creationism as a viable alternative explanation for natural phenomena is dependent on the existence of a creator in the first place. (As well as solid evidence—which the mainstream scientific community accepts as solid evidence—for specific claims such as a global flood, humans and dinosaurs co-existing, etc., of which there is none, but we’ll leave that aside.) If you assert that creationism is true, then you are asserting that a creator exists, and the onus is on you to provide sufficient and solid evidence that this creator actually exists. Nobody, including you, has ever succeeded in doing this. This is why many Christian apologists look for ways around having to provide this evidence.

    You were implying . . .

    Nope. I wasn’t implying that at all.

    I don’t know the Bible very well.

    That much is plain to see.

    But the reason I know God is because He has shown me what real love is.

    How, exactly?

    Our nature is to distort and corrupt love, and it has driven people from knowing what love really is.

    Of course. Real love is having she-bears rip children to pieces because they made fun of an old man’s beard (2 Kings 2:23-24). Real love is ordering the death of people who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15), who are gay (Romans 1:24-32, Leviticus 20:13), who curse their parents (Leviticus 20:9), who commit adultery (Leviticus 20:10), who are non-believers (2 Chronicles 15:12-13), who don’t listen to priests (Deuteronomy 17:12), who are witches (Exodus 22:17), who are fortunetellers (Leviticus 20:27), who—if they are women—are not virgins on their wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), who blasphemes (Leviticus 24:10-16), who are the first-born of Egypt (Exodus 12:29-30), who are the children of sinners (Leviticus 26:21-22). Real love is putting the inhabitants of a town to the sword—men, women and children—sparing only the four hundred women virgins of the town to be raped by the marauders (Judges 21:10-24). Real love is forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Real love is stoning a rape victim to death if she doesn’t cry out (Deuteronomy 22:23).

    For the Bible tells me so.

  20. Garrett Oden says:

    I could never have such certainty anyway

    Thank you!

    but you can’t say that something exists simply because a large number of people believe in its existence

    Exactly, like Evolution. I am told often that most recognized scientists accept Evolution. Is this the same thing? I don’t think we can judge things based on popularity, unless we are judging the popularity of something.

    because you would have to know the histories not only of the Jewish peoples but of every other society that has ever existed on the face of the earth—given the global nature of your claim. Too hard? Too bad. You can always show a skerrick of humility and admit that you don’t possess this knowledge (because I seriously doubt that you do), and retract your claim.

    To make claims like they did would require such knowledge too. Wouldn’t it?

  21. Garrett Oden says:

    Sorry accidentally clicked on the Submit Comment when I wasn’t through.

    No, it doesn’t. Nowhere in the Bible is mentioned atoms, or molecules, or protons, or electrons, or quarks, or neutrinos. Nowhere.

    It tells us about small unseable things that makes up creation. Sounds like atoms or cells to me!

    You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you’re going to insist that the Bible is a kind of scientific textbook, a repository of scientific knowledge, then it is reasonable for me to demand an explanation of why this so-called work of science is so vague and light on details.

    I don’t understand this argument. Based on your view, no science book is valid because they are all missing elements and are light on all subjects.

    I don’t understand the point of having a dialogue with you if you aren’t even going to bother reading what I have written. Read my previous comment again. I already answered this.

    Well you did tell me about washing after touching dead unpure bodies, but not about diseases.

    Now why would God give us every single piece of knowledge available?

    See above (where I talk about you wanting to have your cake and eat it too).

    Why doesn’t every book ever made have every key and secret and fact to life then?

    I am not sure what I was thinking when I copied that actually, but it’s still a good quote!

    And completely irrelevant, and therefore not worth addressing.

    Not quite irrelevant, it has not to do with any specific fact we are addressing, but it is about the entire general topic.

    OK, Garrett. You can be juvenile about this if you want to, repeating my sentences back to me with the words changed around. It’s about as intelligent as saying “I know you are so what am I?” but you’ve never demonstrated a willingness to rise above this.

    Inserting my substitute words is supposed to show you that I can say the same thing just as easily.

    Nobody, including you, has ever succeeded in doing this. This is why many Christian apologists look for ways around having to provide this evidence.

    I would disagree. I truely thing nobody has ever proved we all came from single celled organisms. It has yet to be done!

    You were implying . . .

    Nope. I wasn’t implying that at all.

    Then what was the purpose of the comment?

    I don’t know the Bible very well.

    That much is plain to see.

    I know it well enough to know what God has in store.

    But the reason I know God is because He has shown me what real love is.

    How, exactly?

    Through blessings and wisdom and peace and the people around me that love God just as much and even more than I do.

    For the Bible tells me so.

    Haha not bad, but if you look back, every single one of those verses is Old Testament. Now the Old Testament is definitely something to be taken seriously, Jesus hasn’t come along yet (obviously).

  22. AV says:

    I am told often that most recognized scientists accept Evolution. Is this the same thing?

    No. It is most definitely not the same thing. But let’s clear something up first. Evolution is not a fact because x amount of scientists believe it to be true; it is fact because of the overwhelming evidence that establishes to be a fact. And it is on that basis that the scientific community accepts evolution as a fact of nature and natural history.

    Let’s clear something else up. The scientific community is not a “hive mind,” nor is it a conspiracy. If something is accepted as factual in science, that is because it has survived the acid test of peer review—and this acid test is ongoing. Scientists make hypothesis, test them, make tentative conclusions, and present their findings to the critical scrutiny of other scientists. Their findings are scrutinised. Their methodology is scrutinised. And this scrutiny is ongoing. That is how science works, and that is why science is so different (and, in my view, superior) to religious faith. Religious dogmas are (arrogantly) asserted by their followers (though no rational or evidential basis is ever offered for these assertions) to be timelessly true. Scientific conclusions are only ever held to be tentatively true, always subject to being modified or even discarded upon the discovery of new evidence. Science, then, is a friend of human maturity and progress. Religion would have us in perennial, superstitious infancy, ever hiding behind the apron of our self-appointed masters and wise men.

    Getting back to your point. There is a difference between fallacious and non-fallacious appeals to authority that is relevant here. A fallacious appeal to authority would go something like this: “Here in my hand I hold a statement, signed by 100 doctors, engineers, and chemists, declaring doubt in biological evolution.” Why is that fallacious? Because the individuals who signed that statement may be experts in their own field, but they are not experts in the field of biological evolution. You might as well present a list of 100 mechanics, plumbers and bus drivers who doubt evolution—their opinion on the subject would be just as authoritative. For an appeal to authority to be non-fallacious, it would have to at least meet the following criteria:
    1. The authority must have sufficient expertise (hint: a certificate from a diploma mill doesn’t count) in the subject matter in question.
    2. The authority must be speaking within his or her area of expertise.
    3. There is adequate agreement among other experts about the subject matter in question.
    4. The authority must not be significantly biased or compromised.
    5. The area of expertise is a legitimate discipline (which, I’m afraid, rules out “creation science” as much as it rules out astrology or ear candling).
    6. The authority must be identified (and we should be able to readily ascertain his or her credentials—where are they working, what have they published, and so on).
    HT (and more information): The Nizkor Project (“Appeal to Authority”).

    To make claims like they did would require such knowledge too. Wouldn’t it?

    So, do you have any evidence to support your claim, or don’t you? Are you willing to retract the claim that no humans prior to the writing of the Bible associated blood with life, or aren’t you? If you aren’t, then I assume you have evidence to support your claim, and are not just talking out of your arsehole. What’s the evidence?

    It tells us about small unseable things that makes up creation.

    Where? What exactly does it say?

    Sounds like atoms or cells to me!

    It sounds like? What kind of evidence is that? Does this mean that the ancient Israelites were aware of atoms and cells? If so, why didn’t they write about them? Why did the Israelites not bequeath to posterity their knowledge of particle physics and cell biology? Why did they not develop technology, including medical technology, on the basis of such knowledge? And if they did, what evidence is there that they did?

    Based on your view, no science book is valid because they are all missing elements and are light on all subjects.

    Epic fail. Science books tend to be quite exhaustive on the details—they wouldn’t be of much use to us as science books otherwise. If in a pique of temporary insanity I were to grant your claim that the Bible is a science textbook, as far as science textbooks go it is so pathetically vague and light on detail that it doesn’t look like a science textbook at all.

    Whine about it all you like, but if you are going to claim that the Bible is scientifically accurate or anticipates later scientific discoveries—a claim for which there is absolutely no evidence—then I am well within my rights to scrutinise your claim.

    Well you did tell me about washing after touching dead unpure bodies, but not about diseases.

    I didn’t need to, because it wasn’t relevant. Unless, of course, you can point me to the Bible verse that claims that people should wash their hands to prevent the spread of disease, and explains why washing hands can prevent the spread of disease. Which, by the way, it can’t—not without detergent. I also seem to recall asking you where the Bible mentions that when you wash your hands, you should use some kind of soap or detergent. You never got back to me about this.

    Why doesn’t every book ever made have every key and secret and fact to life then?

    But this is . . . the Bible, Garrett. Isn’t it the perfect book, the inspired word of God? Shouldn’t it then have all the answers.

    I don’t expect a book written by Bronze Age tribesmen to be able to tell us much that is useful about modern science, let alone predict the discoveries of modern science. And what do you know? It doesn’t.

    Not quite irrelevant, it has not to do with any specific fact we are addressing, but it is about the entire general topic.

    In that case I’ll ignore it.

    Inserting my substitute words is supposed to show you that I can say the same thing just as easily.

    Ummm, no. All it shows is that while you can engage in immature rhetorical stunts quite easily, it is very difficult for you to defend an argument.

    I would disagree.

    That’s nice. Your disagreeing does not bring the whole edifice of evolutionary biology crashing down, however. Read Carl Zimmer’s Evolution: the Triumph of an Idea, and/or Richard Dawkins’ The Ancestor’s Tale You’ll find that the scientific evidence that life developed from single-celled organisms is compelling, and that this is well-accepted among biologists and scientists working in relevant fields.

    What is the evidence that God exists?

  23. AV says:

    Then what was the purpose of the comment?

    To suggest that Bible-Belt dwellers and other fundies have not, in terms of their cognitive maturity, progressed very far beyond the Bronze-Age primitives who wrote the Bible, and whose savage outlook is reflected in the savagery of Jehovah and other Biblical figures.

    Nothing personal.

    I know it well enough to know what God has in store.

    You don’t seem to know it well enough to recognise the depravity of the Jehovah character.

    Through blessings and wisdom and peace and the people around me that love God just as much and even more than I do.

    How does that demonstrate that God exists?

    How does that help you to understand what “real love” is?

    Haha not bad, but if you look back, every single one of those verses is Old Testament. Now the Old Testament is definitely something to be taken seriously, Jesus hasn’t come along yet (obviously).

    So tell me, then:

    Was the God of the Old Testament a loving God, or not?

    If so, could his actions and the actions he endorsed or commanded (some of which I listed in a previous comment) be described as acts of love? (Which would be a very strange notion of love.)

    If not, and if it is only the God of the New Testament that is “loving”, could the creation of Hell—where people are to be eternally punished for finite crimes, and even for the non-crimes of blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality, and so on (I call them non-crimes because they harm no-one)—be described as “loving?” (Again, strange notion of love.)

  24. Garrett Oden says:

    No. It is most definitely not the same thing. But let’s clear something up first. Evolution is not a fact because x amount of scientists believe it to be true; it is fact because of the overwhelming evidence that establishes to be a fact. And it is on that basis that the scientific community accepts evolution as a fact of nature and natural history.

    Well you are free to think that if you wish.

    If something is accepted as factual in science, that is because it has survived the acid test of peer review—and this acid test is ongoing

    Not always. Plenty of ideas are portrayed as facts in today’s world that have been disproved years ago!
    Like the Miller experiment or the fact that the eye is irreducibly complex.

    4. The authority must not be significantly biased or compromised.

    Everybody is bias in some way or another.

    For an appeal to authority to be non-fallacious, it would have to at least meet the following criteria:

    Now here is the only problem: neither you or I follow those very much. Are neither of us of any importance?

    Where? What exactly does it say?

    “things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
    Hebrews 11:3

    It sounds like? What kind of evidence is that?

    Do Evolutionists not make guesses based on sight? What kind of evidence is that?

    Whine about it all you like, but if you are going to claim that the Bible is scientifically accurate or anticipates later scientific discoveries—a claim for which there is absolutely no evidence—then I am well within my rights to scrutinise your claim.

    Oh but it does claim scientific facts discovered much later. I have already given you a few.

    I didn’t need to, because it wasn’t relevant. Unless, of course, you can point me to the Bible verse that claims that people should wash their hands to prevent the spread of disease, and explains why washing hands can prevent the spread of disease. Which, by the way, it can’t—not without detergent. I also seem to recall asking you where the Bible mentions that when you wash your hands, you should use some kind of soap or detergent. You never got back to me about this.

    I already gave you the verse:
    When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13).

    But this is . . . the Bible, Garrett. Isn’t it the perfect book, the inspired word of God? Shouldn’t it then have all the answers.

    It has everything we need.

    I don’t expect a book written by Bronze Age tribesmen to be able to tell us much that is useful about modern science, let alone predict the discoveries of modern science. And what do you know? It doesn’t.

    Why not? I was watching the history channel the other day and archeologists uncovered this crazy complex machine (don’t know the use) with other 170 different gears and knobs from even before Jesus’s time. Are you still telling me they weren’t smart enough to discover these things?

    Ummm, no. All it shows is that while you can engage in immature rhetorical stunts quite easily, it is very difficult for you to defend an argument.

    So we did the exact same thing, but I did it wrong?

    That’s nice. Your disagreeing does not bring the whole edifice of evolutionary biology crashing down, however. Read Carl Zimmer’s Evolution: the Triumph of an Idea, and/or Richard Dawkins’ The Ancestor’s Tale You’ll find that the scientific evidence that life developed from single-celled organisms is compelling, and that this is well-accepted among biologists and scientists working in relevant fields.

    Nope that’s not evidence, and yes those writing are compelling.

    What is the evidence that God exists?

    Why AV, It’s all around you!

    To suggest that Bible-Belt dwellers and other fundies have not, in terms of their cognitive maturity, progressed very far beyond the Bronze-Age primitives who wrote the Bible, and whose savage outlook is reflected in the savagery of Jehovah and other Biblical figures.

    My outlook is NOT based on savagery, but the love of Jesus Christ, who died for all of us. Even you!

    You don’t seem to know it well enough to recognise the depravity of the Jehovah character.

    Well I will look into it then.

    How does that demonstrate that God exists?

    If somebody walked up and gave you a $10 bill, would it be reasonable to question whether somebody really came and gave you that money? It’s not like it comes from nothing.

    Was the God of the Old Testament a loving God, or not?

    Definitely! But there is a verse that most people forget about: It’s in Deuteronomy and it says “God is just.”

  25. Matt says:

    “things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
    Hebrews 11:3

    Which could mean just about anything.
    This is a prime example of the problem with typical creationist thinking; instead of using the logical path of looking at the evidence and looking for possible conclusions, creationists tend to have their conclusions first and look for evidence to support it.

    Not always. Plenty of ideas are portrayed as facts in today’s world that have been disproved years ago!
    Like the Miller experiment or the fact that the eye is irreducibly complex.

    The Miller Experiment (I’m assuming you mean the one dealing with the formation of amino acids and the like, relating to the Theory of Abiogenesis) still stands up to prove a lot a things.

    The eye has almost never been thought to be irreducibly complex. Origin of the Species certainly presented a lot of sound models for how it developed from simpler forms, further research showed that the eye did indeed just that.

    Oh but it does claim scientific facts discovered much later. I have already given you a few.

    None of which stood up to any sort of criticism and fall down completely under the logic listed above.

    I already gave you the verse:
    When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13).

    Fail. AV asked you which verse advised the use of detergent to avoid disease, since merely using running water is not enough.

    Why AV, It’s all around you!

    Whenever someone says this, it becomes extremely clear that the speaker simply has no clue. Think about it, this exact same statement can be used to ‘prove’ the existence of any other deity from throughout human history … or even one you just make up on the spot.

  26. Garrett Oden says:

    Which could mean just about anything.

    Wow. So can fossils. I admit this is a broad term, not as broad as you trying to make it look, but still broad, but Evolutionists use things that are amazingly broad all the time!

    The Miller Experiment (I’m assuming you mean the one dealing with the formation of amino acids and the like, relating to the Theory of Abiogenesis) still stands up to prove a lot a things.

    Most modern scientists (who know everything) agree that the atmosphere that Miller used was nothing like the atmosphere really was.

    The eye has almost never been thought to be irreducibly complex. Origin of the Species certainly presented a lot of sound models for how it developed from simpler forms, further research showed that the eye did indeed just that.

    Well I’m thinking it right now! The Origin of Species is filled with a bunch of theories that according to you have no relevance since they are just randomly out there. I will have to look up about the eye, though chances are it’s a load of rubbish along with the rest of the book.

    None of which stood up to any sort of criticism and fall down completely under the logic listed above.

    I hate when people say something like that. You may have tore something down, but it doesn’t mean I built it back up again.

    Fail. AV asked you which verse advised the use of detergent to avoid disease, since merely using running water is not enough.

    Well not that know of with the detergent, but if God put every single scientific fact He ever made in the Bible, nobody would read it. Nobody could read it in their lifetime I am willing bet.

    Whenever someone says this, it becomes extremely clear that the speaker simply has no clue. Think about it, this exact same statement can be used to ‘prove’ the existence of any other deity from throughout human history … or even one you just make up on the spot.

    Well since it is logically, scientifically and logically impossible that the entire universe came from nothing, we have a good start that somebody had to of created it.

  27. Garrett Oden says:

    Well since it is logically, scientifically and logically impossible

    Haha sorry that was a silly mistake! Meant it to be:
    Logically, scientifically and mathematically.

  28. Matt says:

    Wow. So can fossils.

    How so? They’re fully dated via verified means. Morphological changes match up perfectly with the Theory of Evolution. Predictions made about the fossil record by the Theory all, thus far, have come up to be true.
    Guess you happen to be wrong on that count.

    I admit this is a broad term, not as broad as you trying to make it look

    Actually, it is. The passage you quote goes into no specific what-so-ever. For all you know, it could have been talking about magic, microscopic skittle or subscribed to the hypothesis of micro-sized universes.

    but Evolutionists use things that are amazingly broad all the time!

    You need to stop using such broad, sweeping statements without providing specifics and evidence. At the moment, you’re just making yourself seem like a paranoid and ignorant person.

    And no, that was not an insult. It’s an observation.

    Most modern scientists (who know everything) agree that the atmosphere that Miller used was nothing like the atmosphere really was.

    And that has nothing to do with the actual worth of the experiment, which was to prove that certain compounds could form in a certain set of circumstances. Which worked rather well, better than was expected.

    Well I’m thinking it right now!

    Your thoughts in no way, shape or form count as scientific evidence. As a man much smarter than me once said “Your ignorance is not evidence.” I think that can be applied here quite nicely.

    I hate when people say something like that. You may have tore something down, but it doesn’t mean I built it back up again.

    It seems your mastery of grammar and spelling is only marginally better than your understanding of science. Your reading comprehension, it seems, also needs considerable work based on your replies in this thread.
    Yes, that’s a professional opinion I can make since I actually teach English.

    Until you sort out the grammatical errors in the above nonsensical statement, your intent with it is unclear. Fix the errors and then get back to me.

    Well not that know of with the detergent, but if God put every single scientific fact He ever made in the Bible, nobody would read it. Nobody could read it in their lifetime I am willing bet.

    a) That means AV is right.
    b) Your interpretation means that god was actually dishing out really poor advice in regards to hygiene since running water is nowhere near enough to fight disease, infections or bacteria in regards to the washing of hands.

    Well since it is logically, scientifically and logically impossible that the entire universe came from nothing, we have a good start that somebody had to of created it.

    You obviously have not been listening to what people have been telling you. The Big Bang Theory does not state (and never has) that the Universe came from nothing. Again, your blatant ignorance of science is on display for everyone to see.

    Here’s a big clue for you: Singularity.

  29. Garrett Oden says:

    How so? They’re fully dated via verified means. Morphological changes match up perfectly with the Theory of Evolution. Predictions made about the fossil record by the Theory all, thus far, have come up to be true.
    Guess you happen to be wrong on that count.

    Here is a quote from http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html:
    “Dating methods are based on 3 unprovable and questionable assumptions:

    1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time.
    2). That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes
    3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material ”

    You need to stop using such broad, sweeping statements without providing specifics and evidence. At the moment, you’re just making yourself seem like a paranoid and ignorant person.

    Ok I have a specific for you:
    People say that all the elements came by natural occurrences. That is way so broad, and I have heard it multiple times, from multiple people. Exactly how I typed it.

    And that has nothing to do with the actual worth of the experiment, which was to prove that certain compounds could form in a certain set of circumstances. Which worked rather well, better than was expected.

    Though that may be true, those elements were not in the atmosphere like Miller said, and so the results can be discarded on that part of the matter.

    Your thoughts in no way, shape or form count as scientific evidence. As a man much smarter than me once said “Your ignorance is not evidence.” I think that can be applied here quite nicely.

    My thoughts are evidence that I am thinking. That is what I was getting at.

    Until you sort out the grammatical errors in the above nonsensical statement, your intent with it is unclear. Fix the errors and then get back to me.

    Ok I try to reword it.
    You may have been able to bring down my statements, but I have been able to back them up again. Sorry about the misunderstanding. That help?

    a) That means AV is right.

    Well AV is right that I don’t there is a verse about detergent in the Bible, but that still doesn’t mean the Bible talks about germs and such.

    b) Your interpretation means that god was actually dishing out really poor advice in regards to hygiene since running water is nowhere near enough to fight disease, infections or bacteria in regards to the washing of hands.

    God gave us everything we need.

    You obviously have not been listening to what people have been telling you. The Big Bang Theory does not state (and never has) that the Universe came from nothing. Again, your blatant ignorance of science is on display for everyone to see.

    Now this is just some miscommunication. I know about the singularity. When I say nothing, I mean no divine involvement.

  30. Matt says:

    Here is a quote from http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html:

    You’re trying to use a page (and a really badly made one, at that) from a free hosting site as some sort of scientific evidence?

    Congratulations, you’ve reached a new low.

    People say that all the elements came by natural occurrences. That is way so broad, and I have heard it multiple times, from multiple people. Exactly how I typed it.

    The formation of the elements on the periodic table is well known, having started with the most common element in the Universe; hydrogen. Hydrogen molecules collect up through mass and gravity (forming nebulas thus forming stars) and form other elements as time goes on.
    Failed argument based on your own ignorance.

    Though that may be true, those elements were not in the atmosphere like Miller said, and so the results can be discarded on that part of the matter.

    And once again you’ve missed the entire point of the experiment. You would be well served to do actually look up the things you want to talk about before you actually talk about them.

    My thoughts are evidence that I am thinking. That is what I was getting at.

    Evidence from personal experience is poor evidence indeed. On the other hand, the fact that you are making (barely) coherent statements is better evidence and an MRI scan (and other medical scanning systems) would prove it for sure.

    You may have been able to bring down my statements, but I have been able to back them up again. Sorry about the misunderstanding. That help?

    No, you have not. In all these comments you have not been able to provide any sort of evidence to back up your statements. All you have supplied thus far are arguments from incredulity.

    God gave us everything we need.

    So we don’t need basic levels of hygiene? I’ll call UniCEF and the Red Cross later today and tell them to stop trying to supply third world countries with it then, since obviously they don’t need it and God has already given them everything they need.

    In other words, your argument in this particular case is … well, laughable.

    Now this is just some miscommunication. I know about the singularity. When I say nothing, I mean no divine involvement.

    If you do not have a decent commend of the English language, then kindly do not attempt to use it like you are. You are only making yourself look foolish.

    And your statement displays gross ignorance of science. Yet again.

  31. Garrett Oden says:

    You’re trying to use a page (and a really badly made one, at that) from a free hosting site as some sort of scientific evidence?

    Congratulations, you’ve reached a new low.

    What does it matter what the site’s purpose is if it includes good material such as that with references?

    The formation of the elements on the periodic table is well known, having started with the most common element in the Universe; hydrogen. Hydrogen molecules collect up through mass and gravity (forming nebulas thus forming stars) and form other elements as time goes on.

    Now we were talking about broad arguments earlier. That would be one. Just like you said, no specifics.

    Evidence from personal experience is poor evidence indeed. On the other hand, the fact that you are making (barely) coherent statements is better evidence and an MRI scan (and other medical scanning systems) would prove it for sure.

    Oh come will you let it go? It was just a joke to begin with.

    No, you have not. In all these comments you have not been able to provide any sort of evidence to back up your statements. All you have supplied thus far are arguments from incredulity.

    If I haven’t given any scientific evidence, neither have you.

    So we don’t need basic levels of hygiene? I’ll call UniCEF and the Red Cross later today and tell them to stop trying to supply third world countries with it then, since obviously they don’t need it and God has already given them everything they need.

    In other words, your argument in this particular case is … well, laughable.

    Well ok so if I told you to go wash your hands, it is implied that I mean with water and soap. Is it impossible that it was the same case here?

    If you do not have a decent commend of the English language, then kindly do not attempt to use it like you are. You are only making yourself look foolish.

    And your statement displays gross ignorance of science. Yet again.

    Ok so where did I mess up in my English? And how did that statement show ignorance of science? That comment really had nothing to do with science. Are you just bashing me for no reason?

  32. Matt says:

    What does it matter what the site’s purpose is if it includes good material such as that with references?

    The site uses no references and makes claims which have long been debunked. Carbon dating does not work with everything, science knows that, due to the make up of certain substances. Mullascks, for example, can take on some of the attributes of certain rocks around it due to the composition of their shells.
    You need to try a lot harder next time. A site that references peer reviewed research would be a good place to start.

    Now we were talking about broad arguments earlier. That would be one. Just like you said, no specifics.

    All known elements are created, at least originally, through the process I described. Forgive me if the comments function of WordPress is not well suited to listing every element of the periodic table and listed how they are created and the experiments which verified it.

    If I haven’t given any scientific evidence, neither have you.

    According to the burden of proof, I don’t have to since you’re the one making the positive claim.
    Sucks to be you.

    Well ok so if I told you to go wash your hands, it is implied that I mean with water and soap. Is it impossible that it was the same case here?

    Yes, since if a supposedly all knowing god dictated words to a nomad tribe then he’d think to include all the necessary components for said procedure in case someone screwed it up and avoid any future confusion/omissions.
    Unless, of course, he didn’t see such confusions or omissions happening in which case he’s not omniscient and is therefore not god.

    Ok so where did I mess up in my English?

    You admitted that you did so yourself.

    And how did that statement show ignorance of science?

    Ignoring your complete posting history, which could be labeled ‘scientific ignorance 101’ if it were a college course, you note that if something does not come from your particular god then it ‘comes from nothing’.
    That’s about as ignorant about the Big Bang Theory as you can get.

    That comment really had nothing to do with science. Are you just bashing me for no reason?

    I was not bashing you. I was making observations based on evidence. That evidence, thus far, strongly indicates that you have little to no clue about science, only a marginally better grasp of the English language and … by far worst of all … you apparently have no desire to better yourself by taking onboard the knowledge that is being presented to you which is all fully scientifically established.

    In other words, not only are you ignorant but you are WILLFULLY ignorant.

    • Garrett Oden says:

      A site that references peer reviewed research would be a good place to start.

      Look again. They are at the very bottom.

      All known elements are created, at least originally, through the process I described. Forgive me if the comments function of WordPress is not well suited to listing every element of the periodic table and listed how they are created and the experiments which verified it.

      Could you link me to a place that could?

      According to the burden of proof, I don’t have to since you’re the one making the positive claim.

      So you are just automatically right unless proven wrong? Why aren’t I?

      Sucks to be you.
      Not really. I have Jesus.

      Yes, since if a supposedly all knowing god dictated words to a nomad tribe then he’d think to include all the necessary components for said procedure in case someone screwed it up and avoid any future confusion/omissions.
      Unless, of course, he didn’t see such confusions or omissions happening in which case he’s not omniscient and is therefore not god.

      Forgive me, I still do not understand how the idea that using soap is implied (just like it is today) is impossible.

      You admitted that you did so yourself.

      I am sure I have before, but not in that sentance.

      Ignoring your complete posting history, which could be labeled ’scientific ignorance 101′ if it were a college course, you note that if something does not come from your particular god then it ‘comes from nothing’.
      That’s about as ignorant about the Big Bang Theory as you can get.

      That would be called bashing.
      And you know what I mean when I say that. When people try to make other people look stupid over things like this, they only make themselves look cruel.

      you apparently have no desire to better yourself

      Whoa hold on there. That is definitely not true. I strive to increase my knowledge and wisdom.

      In other words, not only are you ignorant but you are WILLFULLY ignorant.

      If that is what you want to call it, then sure.

  33. Matt says:

    Look again. They are at the very bottom.

    I suggest you look again. What is listed is extremely far from peer reviewed research.

    “1) From a video Lecture by Dr. Kent Hovind ” … Seriously.

    Peer reviewed research tends to at least have the date it was published, who it was by, where it was published and so forth listed. Just as a small hint.

    Could you link me to a place that could?

    I’m not here to do your research for you. Do not be lazy. A quick google search should get you the information you want, it’s fairly straight forward.

    So you are just automatically right unless proven wrong? Why aren’t I?

    Do you actually have any idea what the Burden of Proof actually is? Your continued ignorance is astounding.

    Sucks to be you.
    Not really. I have Jesus.

    I have Optimus Prime and as I have already shown on this blog, ol’ Optimus has a much better track record.

    Forgive me, I still do not understand how the idea that using soap is implied (just like it is today) is impossible.

    Neither is the use of ground up unicorn horn impossible in that statement. Or the blood of virgins. Or smurf blood.
    Starting to see where you reasoning on this matter is silly?

    I am sure I have before, but not in that sentance.

    Going to play semantics are we? Truly the domain of the fool and coward. Look at what you’ve previously written as a direct precedent to that statement in your earlier comments. You admitted it.

    That would be called bashing.

    That is not bashing. That is, once again, an observation. Your continued ignorance of a subject you’re trying, very badly, to debate is breath taking. Every time you come back with a reply, you only make yourself look worse.

    Whoa hold on there. That is definitely not true. I strive to increase my knowledge and wisdom.

    Good! Then for the sake of all that’s right and good, actually go and read some credible scientific resources, journals, text books, research and other verified sources of scientific knowledge. Right now it seems rather obvious that you have little to no idea about science, which makes your claims about evolution facepalm inducing to the say the least.

  34. Garrett Oden says:

    I suggest you look again. What is listed is extremely far from peer reviewed research.
    “1) From a video Lecture by Dr. Kent Hovind ” … Seriously.
    Peer reviewed research tends to at least have the date it was published, who it was by, where it was published and so forth listed. Just as a small hint

    Haha well Kent Hovind sure has a lot of references, so indirectly that article has a good amount of references.

    I’m not here to do your research for you. Do not be lazy. A quick google search should get you the information you want, it’s fairly straight forward.

    Haha then we are both lazy =\

    Neither is the use of ground up unicorn horn impossible in that statement. Or the blood of virgins. Or smurf blood.
    Starting to see where you reasoning on this matter is silly?

    Not really. All those things you listed are things that we know are just fictional things. Soap is not fictional. I will use my example again: If I tell you to wash your hands, the soap is automatically part of that. There is no need to tell you to use soap, because it is implied. It is perfectly possible that was the case in the Bible.

    That is not bashing. That is, once again, an observation. Your continued ignorance of a subject you’re trying, very badly, to debate is breath taking. Every time you come back with a reply, you only make yourself look worse.

    Just because you may thing something is true, it does not justify a rude comment.

    Good! Then for the sake of all that’s right and good, actually go and read some credible scientific resources, journals, text books, research and other verified sources of scientific knowledge. Right now it seems rather obvious that you have little to no idea about science, which makes your claims about evolution facepalm inducing to the say the least.

    I would love to! Lee Strobel (magnificent author) has some books I was looking to read.

  35. Matt says:

    Haha well Kent Hovind sure has a lot of references, so indirectly that article has a good amount of references.

    You have no idea what referencing actually is, do you?

    Not really. All those things you listed are things that we know are just fictional things.

    No, not all. I included the blood of virgins to cover that aspect. Your reading comprehension still needs work.

    It is perfectly possible that was the case in the Bible.

    Except for the case that the bible says running water and mentions nothing else at all. Which leads directly to the open ended interpretations possible listed previously.

  36. Garrett Oden says:

    You have no idea what referencing actually is, do you?

    Sure I do! It’s a mention or a book or passage referred to.

    No, not all. I included the blood of virgins to cover that aspect. Your reading comprehension still needs work.

    I was inferring that the blood of virgins was fictional along with the other two items. You should really be happy that I used that skill! Do you not teach inferring?

    Except for the case that the bible says running water and mentions nothing else at all. Which leads directly to the open ended interpretations possible listed previously.

    This is true. Now I can still tell you to wash your hands with soap, in this case, would you leave out the water? Of course not!

  37. Matt says:

    Sure I do! It’s a mention or a book or passage referred to.

    In a set and credible manner. How many referencing systems are you aware of, hm? The purpose of referencing? What is and isn’t a valid reference?

    Here’s a big clue for you: ‘A video by Ken Hovind’ is not good referencing.

    I was inferring that the blood of virgins was fictional along with the other two items. You should really be happy that I used that skill! Do you not teach inferring?

    Great, now it seems you’re trying to claim that virgins don’t have blood. If that’s so, your knowledge of basic biology is astoundingly ignorant.

    Here’s another clue for you: washing of hands in human blood has been a staple part of many religious practices and services for a long, long time. Thankfully it’s now rather rare since it is an idiotic and barbaric practice.

    This is true. Now I can still tell you to wash your hands with soap, in this case, would you leave out the water? Of course not!

    It seems your powers of logical connection are absurdly weak. Technically speaking, you could use any liquid to wash with soap, couldn’t you? Milk, for example. Or Lemonade. Or wine. Some cultures practised such things in the past (not with lemonade, obviously, but milk was common)

    Running water, that’s all the bible says in regards to the washing of hands. It mentions nothing at all about anything else which leaves you desperately trying to add things without any sort of evidence, in a really poor attempt to justify some really poorly written text.

  38. AV says:

    Well you are free to think that if you wish.

    Not that I need your permission, of course. But this isn’t much of a counter-argument.

    Everybody is bias in some way or another.

    If you read the Nizkor page on the “Appeal to Authority” fallacy, you’ll find that this point is acknowledged. Which is why the quantifier significant is used. There is a distinction between a genuine striving to be objective—which is what the scientific community does, and would not be able to function very well as a scientific community if it did otherwise—and sacrificing any such attempt at objectivity on the altar of dogma and unsupported presuppositions, which is what religions, particularly fundamentalist religions, are guilty of. Creationists like Kent Hovind, for example, have a vested interest in opposing science—particularly geology and biology—because they have a prior commitment to biblical literalism, and because so much in modern science contradicts the literalist interpretation of the bible to which they are committed.

    The same simply cannot be said of the scientific community, whose members comprise a variety of positions along the religious spectrum—atheistic and theistic—and therefore cannot be described as having a prior commitment to some dogma that would compromise their scientific work. There is no “vested interest” here—lest it be discovering more about the world and the universe that we knew previously, lest it be the discovery of natural explanations for natural phenomena, lest it be the use of knowledge for the improvement of the world and of the human condition. And unlike the authoritarianism and groupthink that so characterises fundamentalist religious communities, the scientific communtiy is by nature intersubjective—collegial, yes, but also critical and skeptical. It has to be in order to function. It can’t afford to be a mutual masturbation society—which is precisely what the creationist movement is—because it couldn’t progress, couldn’t learn anything, couldn’t teach us anything, and couldn’t benefit if it were.

    “things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
    Hebrews 11:3

    Which in no way implies a knowledge of particle physics on the part of those who wrote the Bible, since there are many ways in which “things which do [not] appear” could be interpreted. It is a sign of extreme desperation that the creationist, after science has done all the heavy-lifting in describing the elementary constituents of matter, should pathetically attempt to match this achievement to a vaguely-worded passage in the Bible in order to give its writers credit for something they did not achieve in the first place.

    In short: if you expect me to believe that the writers of the Bible were aware of protons, neutrons and electrons, you are going to have to come up with much better evidence than this.

    Do Evolutionists not make guesses based on sight?

    Make “guesses”? No. No, they don’t. Drawing conclusions from the evidence—which is what scientists do, including those to whose work evolutionary theory is relevant—is not the same thing as “guessing.”

    Oh but it does claim scientific facts discovered much later. I have already given you a few.

    And the few you have given me I have shown not to be scientific predictions at all. Vaguely-worded passages which could be interpreted in any number of ways don’t make for reliable predictions of what science will come to discover at a future time.

    Incidentally, a fact in science is only tentatively true, insofar as its factual status is dependent upon the evidence that supports it. Future scientific discoveries may overturn some of what are currently held to be scientific facts. That is not a problem for science, of course—scientific knowledge could not progress any other way.

    It does constitute a big problem, however, for the contention that the Bible is able to predict science.

    I already gave you the verse:
    When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13).

    And I already explained that there are other purposes for the washing of body parts with water that have very little to do with sanitation, such as ritual purification, and the idea that dead or diseased bodies are taboo. Catholics, for example, pour water over a baby’s head when they baptise it. This ritual has nothing to do with sanitation.

    [The Bible] has everything we need.

    Really? What do we “need”, exactly, and what evidence is there that we need it?

    Why not? I was watching the history channel the other day and archeologists uncovered this crazy complex machine (don’t know the use) with other 170 different gears and knobs from even before Jesus’s time.

    If you can’t tell me the purpose of this object, how can you hold it up as evidence that Bronze Age peoples had a knowledge of science and technology on a par with our own? Try again.

    So we did the exact same thing, but I did it wrong?

    No, we didn’t do exactly the same thing. I made an argument. You obviously disagreed with the argument, but rather than offering reasons why the argument is wrong, you simply changed a couple of words around in the sentence. Sorry—that’s not a counterargument. That’s just your way of saying (in a very childish way) that you disagree.

    Nope that’s not evidence

    Those books are popular science works, and I offered them—one written by a professor of zoology, the other by a science journalist—as accessible introductions to modern biology and evolution. They explain why evolution is true and how it so successfully explains natural history. They also explain why creationism fails so miserably to explain everything, and why it is such a non-starter in science—even if it is so popular in the religious world. The evidence has been and continues to be presented in peer-reviewed science journals, by actual scientists who have gotten out of the armchair and are in the real world doing science—rather than the whining, the lying, the obfuscating and the demagoguery which is the stock in trade of the creationism industry. The books I suggested—and many others like it—present this evidence in a digestible form.

    Why AV, [the evidence that God exists] all around you!

    Really? (Looks around.) Where? Be specific.

    My outlook is NOT based on savagery

    I never said it was.

    If somebody walked up and gave you a $10 bill, would it be reasonable to question whether somebody really came and gave you that money? It’s not like it comes from nothing.

    Really? Your worldview contends that there is at least one being that came from nothing—God. (Otherwise, you would be able to give a reasonable answer to the question “Where does God come from?”) If one being can come from nothing, then why not more than one being? Why not many beings?

    Definitely! But there is a verse that most people forget about: It’s in Deuteronomy and it says “God is just.”

    If you believe that, given the Bible passages I have cited to you in previous posts regarding God’s actions and character, you have a very twisted notion not only of “love,” but also of “justice.”

    The Origin of Species is filled with a bunch of theories that according to you have no relevance since they are just randomly out there. I will have to look up about the eye, though chances are it’s a load of rubbish along with the rest of the book.

    Have you read The Origin of Species? (And by “read” I mean “read and understood.”) Be honest now. Unless there is some loophole in your religion’s teachings on morality where you are permitted to tell lies to the infidel, baby Jesus will be mad if you lie.

    If I tell you to wash your hands, the soap is automatically part of that. There is no need to tell you to use soap, because it is implied. It is perfectly possible that was the case in the Bible.

    Soap is “automatically” associated with the washing of hands in countries with widespread knowledge of the link between personal hygiene and (preventing) the spread of disease (via microscopic pathogens). There is no evidence that the writers of the Bible possessed such medical knowledge, especially given that . . . . (drum roll, please) . . . . they didn’t have microscopes!

    Now, it is possible that the writers of the Bible used soap and were aware of its cleaning abilities. It is also possible that there are little green men in orbit around Alpha Centauri, too small to be detected with even the most powerful telescope we possess. The point is this: if you are going to make a claim—i.e. that the reference to handwashing in the Bible meant washing with detergent, then you need to provide evidence that it is so.

  39. Garrett Oden says:

    In a set and credible manner. How many referencing systems are you aware of, hm? The purpose of referencing? What is and isn’t a valid reference?
    Here’s a big clue for you: ‘A video by Ken Hovind’ is not good referencing.

    Well you can reference from a book, a website, and yes – even a video, though you are right that is not the right way to do so.

    I was inferring that the blood of virgins was fictional along with the other two items. You should really be happy that I used that skill! Do you not teach inferring?

    Whoa that’s not what I meant. I thought “virgins blood” was a fictional story or book or something magical and not literal.

    Here’s another clue for you: washing of hands in human blood has been a staple part of many religious practices and services for a long, long time. Thankfully it’s now rather rare since it is an idiotic and barbaric practice.

    Amen to that.

    Running water, that’s all the bible says in regards to the washing of hands. It mentions nothing at all about anything else which leaves you desperately trying to add things without any sort of evidence, in a really poor attempt to justify some really poorly written text.

    My sister is 11, but mentally immature. When my mom tells her to wash her hands with soap, she doesn’t mean to leave out the water (or milk- whatever substance being used to wash). I don’t understand why the Bible cannot be the same way? Makes perfect sense.

    Sorry AV I will respond to you tomorrow.

  40. AV says:

    I don’t understand why the Bible cannot be the same way?

    Before you respond to us further, I do hope you take the time to muse upon the particular logical fallacy you have just committed.

  41. AV says:

    Some further reading on the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

  42. AV says:

    And, for good measure, some extra reading on macroevolution.

  43. Garrett Oden says:

    It is a sign of extreme desperation that the creationist,

    This might be true, although it perfectly makes sense to me. Don’t try to tell me Evolutionists have pathetic excuses also.

    Make “guesses”? No. No, they don’t. Drawing conclusions from the evidence—which is what scientists do, including those to whose work evolutionary theory is relevant—is not the same thing as “guessing.”

    Hmm. There is a difference between drawing conclusions and guessing, but guessing is required to draw a conclusion. Isn’t drawing a conclusion basically making an educated guess?

    It does constitute a big problem, however, for the contention that the Bible is able to predict science.

    The Bible did not predict science, but knew about it beforehand.

    Really? What do we “need”, exactly, and what evidence is there that we need it?

    Well when you put it that way, is there anything we really need? You might say water, but do we really need water? It depends on our definition of need. The Bible gives us everything we need to be a successful follower of Jesus.

    If you can’t tell me the purpose of this object, how can you hold it up as evidence that Bronze Age peoples had a knowledge of science and technology on a par with our own? Try again.

    Well that’s the thing! They don’t know what it did, and that is part of what is so amazing.

    No, we didn’t do exactly the same thing. I made an argument. You obviously disagreed with the argument, but rather than offering reasons why the argument is wrong, you simply changed a couple of words around in the sentence. Sorry—that’s not a counterargument. That’s just your way of saying (in a very childish way) that you disagree.

    It was not meant to be a counter-argument, but rather a statement to show how easy it is to say something and it not have any value.

    They also explain why creationism fails so miserably to explain everything, and why it is such a non-starter in science

    What can Creationism not stand up to?
    Here’s something Evolution cannot stand up to: emotions.

    Really? (Looks around.) Where? Be specific.

    The computer monitor you are reading from.

    Really? Your worldview contends that there is at least one being that came from nothing—God. (Otherwise, you would be able to give a reasonable answer to the question “Where does God come from?”) If one being can come from nothing, then why not more than one being? Why not many beings?

    To start I have a post on my blog about this:
    http://foreverchristian.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=172

    God doesn’t need a beginning. He exists outside of our demensions (time and space). He doesn’t need anybody to create Him or a chemical reaction to form Him. He is everlasting.

    Have you read The Origin of Species? (And by “read” I mean “read and understood.”) Be honest now. Unless there is some loophole in your religion’s teachings on morality where you are permitted to tell lies to the infidel, baby Jesus will be mad if you lie.

    I have not read the entire thing, but I have looked at bits and pieces.

    I did not lie about anything in that comment.

    There is no evidence that the writers of the Bible possessed such medical knowledge, especially given that . . . . (drum roll, please) . . . . they didn’t have microscopes!

    You are right, but they had something more powerful:
    God.

    The point is this: if you are going to make a claim—i.e. that the reference to handwashing in the Bible meant washing with detergent, then you need to provide evidence that it is so.

    Even if the Bible’s characters didn’t know about soap (but we both know they did), the fact that they even know to wash their hands after dealing with diseased should still leave you dumbfounded, since they were not supposed to discover diseases till much later on.

    Before you respond to us further, I do hope you take the time to muse upon the particular logical fallacy you have just committed.

    Hmm I have perfect reason to believe what I believe.

  44. Matt says:

    This might be true, although it perfectly makes sense to me. Don’t try to tell me Evolutionists have pathetic excuses also.

    Just because you don’t understand something, and it seems clear you have no understanding of the Theory of Evolution, does not mean it is not true. Once again, your ignorance is not evidence.

    Isn’t drawing a conclusion basically making an educated guess?

    I think that statement nicely sums up the level of your scientific ignorance rather nicely.

    What can Creationism not stand up to?

    Any sort of critical scrutiny, for starters. Scientific examination also completely demolishes it. Simple logic does it as well.

    Here’s something Evolution cannot stand up to: emotions.

    That’s just as bad as ‘evolution can’t explain morals’. Emotions are actually very useful from a survival point of view; they ramp up adrenaline production, they inform the body of what sort of situations it should avoid (such as pain, both physical and emotional) and which should be embraced (such as the feeling endorphins being released into the brain bring the body, from sex, eating certain foods, helping others out, etc).

    The computer monitor you are reading from.

    That informs us that human society has a technological capacity to build computer monitors and little else. You’ll need to try a lot harder.
    And this had better not be an appeal to the watchmaker argument because that would just be a waste of time.

    I have not read the entire thing, but I have looked at bits and pieces.

    Just as I thought, you’re speaking from a position of ignorance.

    the fact that they even know to wash their hands after dealing with diseased should still leave you dumbfounded, since they were not supposed to discover diseases till much later on.

    Not at all. Death has been feared by man pretty much since day one. Early beliefs simply went along the lines of you don’t touch a dead body much (if it all) lest whatever killed it killed you. Also it involved respect for the deceased to not desecrate their corpse and so on.

    As for the general washing of hands; no one likes eating (and most eating back in those days was done by hand, cutlery wasn’t in vogue) when their hands are covered in dirt, mud, animal crap or anything of the sort. You ate with clean hands so you didn’t get bad tastes in your mouth.

    Hmm I have perfect reason to believe what I believe.

    Then try sharing some of this startling evidence instead of speaking in such broad terms. If you have something to share, then share it.

  45. AV says:

    This might be true, although it perfectly makes sense to me. Don’t try to tell me Evolutionists have pathetic excuses also.

    This is the tu quoque fallacy (i.e. two wrongs don’t make a right). And no, I’m not aware of any “pathetic excuses” on the part of scientists working with the theory of evolution.

    Isn’t drawing a conclusion basically making an educated guess?

    I’m not sure what you mean by “educated guess”, though the qualification does suggest to me that even you recognise that scientists working with evolutionary theory are not just taking wild stabs in the dark.

    How does science work? The National Academy of Sciences give a good explanation in their recent publication Science, Evolution and Creationism:

    The study of evolution provides an excellent example of how scientists go about their work. They observe nature and ask testable questions about the natural world, test those questions through experiment and new observations, and construct explanations of evolution based on evidence. As scientists gather new results and findings, they continue to refine their ideas. Explanations are altered or sometimes rejected when compelling contradictory evidence comes to light.

    Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

    A good example is the theory of gravity. After hundreds of years of observation and experiment, the basic facts of gravity are understood. The theory of gravity is an explanation of those basic facts. Scientists then use the theory to make predictions about how gravity will function in different circumstances. Such predictions have been verified in countless experiments, further confirming the theory. Evolution stands on an equally solid foundation of observation, experiment, and confirming evidence.

    The Bible did not predict science, but knew about it beforehand.

    There is no evidence to support this claim.

    Well when you put it that way, is there anything we really need?

    You’re the one who brought it up. You tell me.

    The Bible gives us everything we need to be a successful follower of Jesus.

    That suggests that being a successful follower of Jesus involves rape, genocide, and cruel and unusual punishment for non-crimes like blasphemy or adultery, since the deity described in Bible ordains all of this (as I have pointed out to you many times).

    In any case, why would I need or want to be a successful follower of Jesus?

    They don’t know what it did, and that is part of what is so amazing.

    Why is that amazing? If you are about to claim that because they don’t know what the purpose of this artifact was, therefore it must have been some advanced technology, then you are committing the argument from ignorance fallacy.

    It was not meant to be a counter-argument, but rather a statement to show how easy it is to say something and it not have any value.

    In other words, you were being juvenile and snarky. Why? How does that contribute to the discussion?

    What can Creationism not stand up to?

    Depends upon how it’s framed. One of the most successful advocates for evolution is Ken Miller, professor of biology at Brown University and a Roman Catholic, who believes that God ultimately set the world in motion, and nature is evolving just as planned. He is, therefore, a kind of creationist, and his creationism is untestable (how would you test for the claim that God ultimately set the universe in motion?) and therefore unscientific—something he freely admits, by the way.

    There is no reason to accept his claims about the creation of the universe as true, because there is no evidence to support them.

    Your version of creationism, by contrast, does make some testable claims. Your version of creationism makes the claim that the planet came into existence 6000 years ago, for example; modern science (including not only biology and paleontology, but physics, chemistry, geology and astronomy for starters) has falsified this claim.

    Here’s something Evolution cannot stand up to: emotions.

    Why? If human beings have emotions, and if human beings are part of the natural world (which they are), then human emotions are natural phenomena. There is no reason, then, why science should not seek a natural explanation for them.

    And hey presto! There happens to be a field of research in neuroscience and neuropsychology known as affective neuroscience that is studying the very relationship between emotions and areas of the brain including the amygdala and the prefrontal cotex, among others.]

    The computer monitor you are reading from.

    Explain. (P.S. Your evasiveness on the question of whether there is evidence for God’s existence, and what this evidence is, is noted.)

    God doesn’t need a beginning. He exists outside of our demensions (time and space). He doesn’t need anybody to create Him or a chemical reaction to form Him. He is everlasting.

    This is the special pleading fallacy. You have to provide good reasons for why the principle that “everything must have a cause” does not apply to God. Prove that God, if he indeed exists, exists outside of time and space. Prove that God, if he indeed exists, is everlasting. Heck, prove that God exists while you’re at it, since you would need to establish God’s existence in the first place before you can establish your claims about his nature.

    Otherwise, there is no reason to think that if God doesn’t need anybody to create him, then the universe doesn’t require a creator either.

    I did not lie about anything in that comment.

    You’ve only read “bits and pieces” you say, and yet you write the whole thing off as a “load of rubbish.” Forgive me for not taking your judgement on this matter seriously.

    You are right, but they had something more powerful:
    God.

    Really? What evidence do you have to support this claim?

    Even if the Bible’s characters didn’t know about soap (but we both know they did)

    Do we? We both know? You mean I know it, too?

    Now you have to provide evidence for two claims:

    (i) that the characters in the Bible knew about soap and its detergent qualities.

    (ii) that I know this.

    the fact that they even know to wash their hands after dealing with diseased should still leave you dumbfounded

    Nope, and I’ve already explained why.

    Hmm I have perfect reason to believe what I believe.

    So why are you so inept at communicating this reason to us?

  46. Garrett Oden says:

    Just because you don’t understand something, and it seems clear you have no understanding of the Theory of Evolution, does not mean it is not true. Once again, your ignorance is not evidence.

    I understand Evolution enough to realize it’s just another excuse.

    I think that statement nicely sums up the level of your scientific ignorance rather nicely.

    I just returned from a Bible study with a few atheists and agnostics and Christians, and every single person agreed that “drawing conclusions” is basically guessing. They are synomyms.

    their hands are covered in dirt, mud, animal crap or anything of the sort

    Now I am sure this was true, it still is today, but that’s not what we were talking about. We were talking about disease, not dirt and mud.

    If you have something to share, then share it.

    You know it, even though you may say you don’t. You know that there is something more to life than just this mess that some people call the universe. It’s an undeyniable feeling in humans. In fact, it’s scientifically proven that humans know that there is something more than just money and possesions.

    Now onto AV’s comment.

    And no, I’m not aware of any “pathetic excuses” on the part of scientists working with the theory of evolution.

    Well one somewhat pathetic excuse is the Miller experiment where he tried to create life from the proposed “ancient atmosphere”. He made some amino acids sure, but people now agree everywhere that the “ancient atmosphere” he used wasn’t what it was really like. If you take the supposed “ancient atmosphere” that scientists guess existed, you get nothing besides some brown goo that is only harmful to life.

    Another one: Some people still try to use the Archaeopteryx as a “transitional fossil”. Did you know that most research centers not say that it was just another extinct species? In fact, birds are thought to evolve millions of years after the Archaeopteryx fossil dated to.

    There is no evidence to support this claim.

    It was you earlier who said this AV:
    “Before you respond to us further, I do hope you take the time to muse upon the particular logical fallacy you have just committed.”
    Don’t worry, we are all hypocrytes in our own way.

    You’re the one who brought it up. You tell me.

    Jesus.

    That suggests that being a successful follower of Jesus involves rape, genocide, and cruel and unusual punishment for non-crimes like blasphemy or adultery, since the deity described in Bible ordains all of this (as I have pointed out to you many times).

    The Bible never says to follow these examples. And don’t start to think that God enjoys punishing us. We are His children.

    Why is that amazing? If you are about to claim that because they don’t know what the purpose of this artifact was, therefore it must have been some advanced technology, then you are committing the argument from ignorance fallacy.

    No – I have not here. The reason it is so amazing is because with everything we have and know, they still couldn’t figure out what this complex mechanism was. Wheren’t these people supposed to be “primitive”?

    (how would you test for the claim that God ultimately set the universe in motion?)

    The fine-tuning of the universe. You know this to be true.

    And hey presto! There happens to be a field of research in neuroscience and neuropsychology known as affective neuroscience that is studying the very relationship between emotions and areas of the brain including the amygdala and the prefrontal cotex, among others.]

    Well this has nothing to do with the brain and emotions, but the origin of emotions. Why would weak emotions prevail and allow longer survival? That’s what you have told me a few times: survival of the fittest.

    Explain.

    Every single knob, dial, gear, and chip in there have no possible way of coming about naturally by the works of Evolution.

    This is the special pleading fallacy. You have to provide good reasons for why the principle that “everything must have a cause” does not apply to God.

    Well the statement that everything must have a cause to start is a good reason to believe in God, but God does not need that statement because it only applies to material things.

    Prove that God, if he indeed exists, exists outside of time and space.

    It says so in the Bible. Innocent unless proven guilty?

    Really? What evidence do you have to support this claim?

    Bible.

    Do we? We both know? You mean I know it, too?

    Correct, that’s what I mean.

    (i) that the characters in the Bible knew about soap and its detergent qualities.

    Is anything impossible with God?

    (ii) that I know this.

    You don’t need me to tell you something you already know.

    Nope, and I’ve already explained why.Nope, and I’ve already explained why.

    You have given me some reasons, yes, but not specifically about the diseased.

    So why are you so inept at communicating this reason to us?

    Oh but I already have more than once. On my blog and on this one multiple times.

    Whoa long comment. Took me nearly 30 minutes to complete! Wow… you guys wear me out =D

  47. AV says:

    I understand Evolution enough

    You haven’t demonstrated any understanding of evolution at all. I’m sorry, but you haven’t.

    I just returned from a Bible study with a few atheists and agnostics and Christians, and every single person agreed that “drawing conclusions” is basically guessing.

    Appeal to authority fallacy. (See also Little Johnnyism.)

    You know that there is something more to life than just this mess that some people call the universe.

    What is it with Christian apologists and their arrogant presumption to know what other people are thinking. Why don’t you put your psychic abilities to better effect than arguing on the internet with atheists, such as scrying the winning lottery numbers?

    In fact, it’s scientifically proven that humans know that there is something more than just money and possesions.

    Cite the studies.

    Well one somewhat pathetic excuse is the Miller experiment

    Already dealt with by Matt, and irrelevant to the TofE.

    Some people still try to use the Archaeopteryx as a “transitional fossil”.

    I don’t know—nor do I see why I should really care—what creationists, fundie pastors and pseudoscientific cranks think, but modern science still recognises Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil. Sorry.

    Don’t worry, we are all hypocrytes in our own way.

    I see. You clearly don’t understand what arguing from ignorance entails, so you’ve reduced yourself to namecalling.

    When I say there is no evidence to support x, I am not making an argument from ignorance. I am stating a fact—there is no evidence to support x—and because such evidence is lacking it is not possible for me to rationally accept this claim at face value. This means that if you are going to make a claim x, the burden of proof lies with you, the claimant, to produce the evidence in support of your claim.

    Jesus.

    Why do we need Jesus?

    The Bible never says to follow these examples.

    God ordained all of this. Are you saying that God was wrong to do so, or that we should not try to emulate his moral examples?

    The reason it is so amazing is because with everything we have and know, they still couldn’t figure out what this complex mechanism was.

    There are many things about human history that we don’t fully understand. That’s why archaeologists and historians do research. They look for the answers. They don’t take the utterly useless route of throwing their hands up in despair and crying “GODDIDIT!”

    The fine-tuning of the universe. You know this to be true.

    Again with the projection. I don’t know that to be true. Prove it.

    That’s what you have told me a few times: survival of the fittest.

    Where did I say that? And what constitutes a “weak emotion” or a “strong” one, for that matter?

    Every single knob, dial, gear, and chip in there have no possible way of coming about naturally by the works of Evolution.

    Who said it did?

    Well the statement that everything must have a cause to start is a good reason to believe in God, but God does not need that statement because it only applies to material things.

    Special pleading fallacy. Why does it only apply to material things?

    It says so in the Bible.

    How do you know the Bible is true? Why should I accept that the Bible is true?

    Bible.

    How do you know that the Bible is true?

    Correct, that’s what I mean.

    Prove it.

    Is anything impossible with God?

    You tell me.

    You don’t need me to tell you something you already know.

    How do you know that I know it? What evidence do you have that I know it?

    You have given me some reasons, yes, but not specifically about the diseased.

    Actually, I did. Death and disease (or diseased bodies) could have been considered taboo objects by the ancient Hebrews. It’s a far more plausible explanation for the hand-washing ritual than any knowledge of microbiology or modern epidemiology that you are claiming they possessed.

  48. Garrett Oden says:

    You haven’t demonstrated any understanding of evolution at all. I’m sorry, but you haven’t.

    That would be an opinion.

    Appeal to authority fallacy. (See also Little Johnnyism.)

    You were getting onto me for whinning about linking to one of these…

    What is it with Christian apologists and their arrogant presumption to know what other people are thinking. Why don’t you put your psychic abilities to better effect than arguing on the internet with atheists, such as scrying the winning lottery numbers?

    You can attack me all you want, but every person who will read this comment will know the truth, but will be too arrogant to admit it.

    Already dealt with by Matt, and irrelevant to the TofE.Already dealt with by Matt, and irrelevant to the TofE.

    Again – opinion. The atmosphere that scientists consider accurate today produces nothing close to life. True fact you can look it up.

    but modern science still recognises Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil. Sorry.

    Not always.

    I see. You clearly don’t understand what arguing from ignorance entails, so you’ve reduced yourself to namecalling.

    Then I am calling myself names.

    I am stating a fact—there is no evidence to support x—and because such evidence is lacking it is not possible for me to rationally accept this claim at face value.

    That is almost exactly what skepticwiki says that logical fallacy is.

    This means that if you are going to make a claim x, the burden of proof lies with you, the claimant, to produce the evidence in support of your claim.

    Then the burden as well lies with you to show me how all the elements formed.

    Why do we need Jesus?

    Your soul depends on it.

    God ordained all of this. Are you saying that God was wrong to do so, or that we should not try to emulate his moral examples?

    Well let me rephrase that… God has told us to not do so since then.

    Again with the projection. I don’t know that to be true. Prove it.

    Well here is a page with a few:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

    Here’s a quote from: http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/The_Fine_Tuning_of_the_Universe.asp
    “Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg’s wonder at our well-tuned universe. ”

    Where did I say that? And what constitutes a “weak emotion” or a “strong” one, for that matter?

    Well you, Spectator, and Matt have all three told me on my blog. Check out my dinosoar to chicken or the mutations posts.

    Special pleading fallacy. Why does it only apply to material things?

    Well ok I am going to take part of that back. Simple mistake sorry. For all we know, it only applies to material things. We have never been outside the material world so you can’t really know, but it says so in the Bible.

    How do you know the Bible is true? Why should I accept that the Bible is true?

    Now a lot of people will tell you the Bible has been corrupted over time, and that it is no longer accurate and is flawed. It is logical to believe that, I give those people credit, with a little bit of research it’s disproven without too much difficulty.

    The New Testiment has been verified by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Everybody said that it had been corrupted, but when some boy found hundreds of scrolls in a cave one day, they all matched the Bible’s text at that time perfectly.

    Prove it.

    If you are not going to be serious, then I will start ignoring your comments, for they are just a waste of time. There is too much to do to be arguing with sombody who looks to gain nothing.

    Is anything impossible with God?

    You tell me.

    Nope.

    Actually, I did. Death and disease (or diseased bodies) could have been considered taboo objects by the ancient Hebrews. It’s a far more plausible explanation for the hand-washing ritual than any knowledge of microbiology or modern epidemiology that you are claiming they possessed.

    And what evidence do you have to support this?
    Gets annoying after a while…

  49. […] logicall fallacy, often, popular, religion, whining Well while discussing a few topics on another blog, a few things another person said made me chuckle inside. To start, it is important that you know […]

  50. AV says:

    That would be an opinion.

    It’s an observation. (And not that long ago you didn’t even know that whales and dolphins were mammals, not fish, for fuck’s sake!)

    You were getting onto me for whinning about linking to one of these…

    No, I wasn’t. (Don’t you Christians have a commandment against telling lies?) I told you to stop whining, because you seemed all bent out of shape that I wasn’t pointing out the logical fallacies in the arguments of every other contributor to this thread. Well, as it happens, I’m having a discussion with you and responding to your arguments, not Gordon’s. And I acknowledged that you did seem to have learned something about logical fallacies in the course of our discussion, since you were able to spot one in another commenter’s remark. At least recognise a compliment when one is paid to you.

    You can attack me all you want, but every person who will read this comment will know the truth, but will be too arrogant to admit it.

    Fine.

    Garrett Oden enjoys having sex with animals. I have no evidence to support this claim, but I have made the claim, and I can repeat it if you wish, and that is all the evidence you need. And I am going to ignore anything Garrett himself has to say on the subject.

    Indeed, if Garrett does try to gainsay the claim that he enjoys having sex with animals, well, he’s just being arrogant.

    Again – opinion.

    Whatever.

    Not always.

    Like I said, I’m not interested in what fundies, whackos and creationists have to say on the subject. When it comes to legitimate science, they don’t count. Sorry.

    Then I am calling myself names.

    Feel free to do that.

    That is almost exactly what skepticwiki says that logical fallacy is.

    Wrong.

    Then the burden as well lies with you to show me how all the elements formed.

    Why?

    Your soul depends on it.

    What evidence is there that souls exist?

    God has told us to not do so since then.

    Where, exactly?

    And does that mean God was wrong previously? Did God have bad morals in the Old Testament.

    Well here is a page with [yada yada yada]

    The fine tuning argument (and Weinberg is not making a fine tuning argument for the existence of God, since he is not a theist) proves nothing about the existence of a creator. It does not show how a god is supposed to have created the universe, nor how he supposedly fine-tuned its physical constants. It does not explain why this god chose to impose such physical constants on the universe in the first place, since presumably—being god—he could have chosen to design the universe any way he liked. And if god didn’t impose these constants but was, perhaps, forced to work with them, then that means that they were always there—and they do not need the existence of a god to explain them. It does not explain why this god took so long to introduce sentient beings into this universe, nor why he chose to restrict them to planet Earth.

    Now what does Steven Weinberg actually think about fine tuning?

    I don’t see any clear evidence that the laws of nature or the constants of nature as we know them are fine tuned to allow life. I mean, certainly the laws of nature do allow life. But I don’t see anything clearly in them that looks like a spectacular coincidence. I’m not convinced by any of those arguments.

    There are some things that are quite mysterious in our understanding of nature as we know it now. There is a constant called the “cosmological constant”, which if I didn’t know anything I would make an estimate of what its magnitude would be just on the basis of guess work from what I know about the laws of nature. The correct value is less than that estimated value by something like 120 orders of magnitude. That looks like some kind of fine tuning. And we don’t know. It may be that that number is simply zero, and it’s zero for some fundamental reason that we will discover. And so it isn’t fine tuned. It’s also possible that the universe is bigger and more complicated than we had thought, and that what we call the universe, is just part of the universe, and that what we call the laws of nature differ from one part to another, and that we are living in a part of the universe where what we call the laws of nature, including the value of this constant, allow life to appear. In that case we wouldn’t imagine that any supernatural agency fine tuned the laws and constants to make us possible, any more that we imagine that a supernatural agency arranged that the Earth had a temperature which allows life. Out there, there are doubtless millions of planets in the galaxy, and we live on one that allows life. That doesn’t imply to me that it has been specially arranged to allow life.

    Well you, Spectator, and Matt have all three told me on my blog.

    I don’t recall saying anything like that. Could you quote my words and provide a link to the comment?

    The New Testiment has been verified by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    And how do you know the Dead Sea Scrolls are true?

    If you are not going to be serious

    I am serious. If you are going to make claims that you either cannot or don’t want to back up with solid evidence, don’t start whining when you’re called on it.

    Nope.

    If nothing is impossible with God, then this whole debate is moot. You might as well concede the scientific validity of evolution, since it is not impossible that God designed the universe so that organisms develop according to evolutionary principles. You might as well concede—to the Catholics and mainline Protestants—that their acceptance of evolution does not conflict with their faith.

    Of course, you’d still have to prove that God exists, and that nothing is indeed impossible for him to do.

    Can God create a being more powerful than himself?

    Can God create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it?

    And what evidence do you have to support this?

    I was making a conjecture, not a bold assertion, but for more information you should see the Wikipedia article on “Ritual Washing in Judaism.”

    You have made a positive claim that the writers of the Bible were conversant with modern microbiology, and that ritual handwashing in those times involved soap. Where is your evidence?

  51. Garrett Oden says:

    It’s an observation. (And not that long ago you didn’t even know that whales and dolphins were mammals, not fish, for fuck’s sake!)

    My observation may be that that you are hot headed (this is not really what I mean), but it is still my opinion.

    No, I wasn’t.

    … Sorry AV that just doesn’t fly.

    Like I said, I’m not interested in what fundies, whackos and creationists have to say on the subject. When it comes to legitimate science, they don’t count. Sorry.

    What did I tell you? So nothing I say, will ever sway your thinking?

    Wrong.

    What evidence do you have that supports this?

    Why?

    Well because you made the claim. That’s what you told me earlier. You said:
    “If you are claiming that you are craving an icecream right now, the burden of proof would be on you to provide evidence that your claim is true. Just asserting that is true does not make it true. ”

    Where, exactly?

    Jesus

    Now what does Steven Weinberg actually think about fine tuning?

    Steven Weinberg must then be choosing to ignore what he already knows. Here is another thing he said:
    “How surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.”

    And how do you know the Dead Sea Scrolls are true?

    Evolutionist methods (something you believe in) proved it.

    I am serious. If you are going to make claims that you either cannot or don’t want to back up with solid evidence, don’t start whining when you’re called on it.

    You are not genuinely interested in what I have to say.

    If nothing is impossible with God, then this whole debate is moot. You might as well concede the scientific validity of evolution, since it is not impossible that God designed the universe so that organisms develop according to evolutionary principles. You might as well concede—to the Catholics and mainline Protestants—that their acceptance of evolution does not conflict with their faith.

    But God has told us otherwise, so it is impossible.

    Can God create a being more powerful than himself?

    It doesn’t get more powerful, so no.

    Can God create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it?

    These are good questions, but no.

  52. AV says:

    … Sorry AV that just doesn’t fly.

    Yes, it does. And now I see you’re lying about me on your blog. Baby Jesus doesn’t like it when you tell lies.

    So nothing I say, will ever sway your thinking?

    Evidence, by which I mean the kind of evidence that counts as evidence in science (as opposed to Bible verses, creationist swill, personal anecdotes or special revelation), will sway my thinking.]

    Got any?

    What evidence do you have . . .

    This:

    It cannot be shown that P is true
    Therefore, not-P.

    And this:

    This “burden of proof” is often generalized informally in debate and dialogue, where the person presenting a claim — particularly an unusual or improbable claim — is usually considered to have the “burden of proof” in proving his claim. If he cannot provide evidence supporting his claim, many rational observers will reject his claim. This is particularly true where his claim contradicts well-established (and well-supported) aspects of reality such as the basic laws of physics. So the following argument is usually considered rational.

    Person X claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine
    Person X cannot (or will not) provide evidence that his perpetual motion machine works
    A working perpetual motion machine would violate the laws of thermodynamics
    Therefore, Person X is incorrect in his claim.

    If you make a claim, and provide no evidence in support of your claim, and if on the basis of that lack of supporting evidence I make a claim that your claim is wrong, then I would be committing the argument from ignorance fallacy.

    But this is not what I am claiming. If you make a claim, and you provide either no evidence, or insufficient evidence in support of your claim, then I have no reason to accept your claim. It doesn’t mean that your claim is wrong, nor does it mean that I am claiming that your claim is wrong. I am agnostic as to whether your claim is right or wrong, because you—having provided insufficient supporting evidence—have not supplied me with the information I need to make the call.

    For example, if I claim that there is an invisible pink unicorn in my bedroom, but fail to provide the evidence that would support the claim that there is an invisible pink unicorn in my bedroom, you are under no obligation to accept my claim as true. The burden of proof would lie with me, the one making the claim.

    Well because you made the claim.

    What claim did I make?

    Jesus

    Not a sufficient response, I’m afraid, not by a long shot. Do you have a Bible verse that supports your claim?

    Because it certainly looks like Jesus endorsed the Old Testament. In John 10:35 he said “The Scripture cannot be broken.” In Matthew 15:3 he calls it the “commandment of God” and in 15:6 he calls it the “Word of God.” In Matthew 5:17 he said: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.”

    Can you cite the Bible verse where Jesus disavows the stoning to death of unruly children, or blasphemers, or adulterers, or rape victims who fail to cry out? Can you cite the Bible verse where Jesus condemns slavery? Can you show me where in the Bible Jesus says that homosexuals or witches should not be put to death? And so on.

    Steven Weinberg must then be choosing to ignore what he already knows.

    No. He was asked a question about fine tuning, and he answered honestly. The honest thing for you to do would be to accept his answer rather than pretend he didn’t say it just because his answer happens to be inconvenient for your argument. But you’ve already shown that you’d rather bash strawmen than deal with what your opponents have actually said. Why should I expect you to change your ways now?

    Evolutionist methods (something you believe in) proved it.

    Can you describe exactly how “Evolutionist” methods were used to prove that the Dead Sea Scrolls give an accurate description of the origins and history of the Earth and the universe?

    You are not genuinely interested in what I have to say.

    I am genuinely interested in whether you are able or willing to substantiate your claims with sufficient evidence.

    But God has told us otherwise, so it is impossible.

    I thought you said that nothing was impossible with God.

    And how do you know that a “God” has actually said anything on the subject?

    It doesn’t get more powerful, so no.

    These are good questions, but no.

    So some things are impossible with God, then?

  53. Garrett Oden says:

    Yes, it does. And now I see you’re lying about me on your blog. Baby Jesus doesn’t like it when you tell lies.

    Where did I lie? I just copy and pasted quotes from here.

    What claim did I make?

    That you must provide evidence to support claims you make.

    Not a sufficient response, I’m afraid, not by a long shot. Do you have a Bible verse that supports your claim?

    That is the perfect response.
    John 3:16 – For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son, that whomever believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.

    Mark 12:31 – The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c]There is no commandment greater than these.”

    No. He was asked a question about fine tuning, and he answered honestly.

    In the quote I provided he talked of how amazing it is that everything works perfectly like it does. How all the laws work just right in order for life to form.

    Can you describe exactly how “Evolutionist” methods were used to prove that the Dead Sea Scrolls give an accurate description of the origins and history of the Earth and the universe?

    Carbon Dating.

    I thought you said that nothing was impossible with God.

    Well nothing is impossible, but He won’t lie.

    And how do you know that a “God” has actually said anything on the subject?

    That would be the Bible…

    So some things are impossible with God, then?

    No.

  54. AV says:

    Where did I lie?

    You lied about the reason I told you to stop whining.

    That you must provide evidence to support claims you make.

    So do you disagree that you ought to provide evidence in support of your claims if you want others to accept them? That’s interesting. I guess that means I’m justified in making the following claim . . .

    Garrett Oden enjoys having sex with animals

    . . . because I don’t have to provide evidence in support of this claim. All I have to do, if I understand Garrett’s position on the question of substantiating claims correctly, is make the claim, and it should be accepted automatically. No evidence required whatsoever.

    P1. Garrett Oden enjoys having sex with animals.
    P2. Garrett Oden enjoys having sex with animals.
    C. Therefore, Garrett Oden enjoys having sex with animals.

    That is the perfect response.

    The Bible verses you provided in no way indicate that Old Testament laws and punishments no longer apply. You’ll have to try harder.

    I provided he talked of how amazing it is that everything works perfectly like it does. How all the laws work just right in order for life to form.

    So he thinks it’s amazing—or thought so at the time he, according to the secondary source you cite—supposedly said what you quoted. So what?

    Carbon Dating.

    Carbon dating? Are you serious? That can only be used to measure items up to 60,000 years old. The universe is estimated by astronomers to be somewhere in the order of 13 billion years old. Clearly you know nothing about this topic.

    In any case, just because two ancient documents make certain assertions about the history of the universe does not mean that either document is accurate. You might as well write “Santa Claus exists” on a sheet of paper, photocopy it, and then argue that your claim must be true because two separate documents agree with it.

    He won’t lie

    Jeremiah 4:10
    Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.

    Jeremiah 20:7
    O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.

    Ezekiel 14:9
    And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.

    2 Thessalonians 2:11
    For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

    That would be the Bible…

    How do you know the Bible is true?

    No.

    So on the one hand you’re saying that nothing is impossible with God, and on the other you’re saying that God can’t create a being more powerful than himself, nor create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it.

  55. Garrett Oden says:

    You lied about the reason I told you to stop whining.

    Did not. I accused somebody of committing a logical fallacy and you told me to stop whining about it.

    So do you disagree that you ought to provide evidence in support of your claims if you want others to accept them? That’s interesting. I guess that means I’m justified in making the following claim . . .

    I have provided evidence to support my claims.

    You’ll have to try harder.

    Yeah so will you. Why are you even arguing with me? Isn’t it just a waste of your time?

    So what?

    So you had said otherwise, and I was correcting you.

    Carbon dating? Are you serious? That can only be used to measure items up to 60,000 years old. The universe is estimated by astronomers to be somewhere in the order of 13 billion years old. Clearly you know nothing about this topic.

    I am serious. The Dead Sea Scrolls easily came within those 60,000 years. So where do people get 13 billion years old? Why do people say dinosoars never with humans if carbon dating doesn’t work?

    I’ve heard it only works to 60,000 years, 30,000 years, 13,000 years, and 11,000 years. Why should I believe your claim again? Where is your evidence that supports this?
    Gets annoying huh?

    In any case, just because two ancient documents make certain assertions about the history of the universe does not mean that either document is accurate. You might as well write “Santa Claus exists” on a sheet of paper, photocopy it, and then argue that your claim must be true because two separate documents agree with it.

    It shows that the Bible hasn’t been corrupted since it’s original writing.

    Jeremiah 4:10
    Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
    Jeremiah 20:7
    O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
    Ezekiel 14:9
    And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
    2 Thessalonians 2:11
    For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

    Those are all very good verses, and you have changed the way I think. I admit it, I was mistaken, so some degree.

    My father and I talked about this yesterday. God hides himself from the proud. I was going to look up those verses and make a post about it on my blog, thanks for doing that work for me!

    How do you know the Bible is true?

    Seen it’s work in action, and has prophecies that actually come true.

  56. AV says:

    I accused somebody of committing a logical fallacy and you told me to stop whining about it.

    And? I told you to stop whining. I wasn’t berating you for pointing out someone else’s logical fallacy. In fact, I commended you for it.

    I have provided evidence to support my claims.

    No, you haven’t. You’ve spouted Bible verses, committed any number of logical fallacies and copied and pasted from pseudoscientific websites. None of this counts as sufficient evidence, especially given the nature of what you’re trying to prove.

    Isn’t it just a waste of your time?

    It is a monumental waste of my time, and that’s probably the most insightful thing you’ve said thus far, or are likely to say.

    So you had said otherwise

    No, I linked you to a PBS interview with Weinberg in which he was saying otherwise, and offering his reasons why.

    The Dead Sea Scrolls easily came within those 60,000 years. So where do people get 13 billion years old?

    And the Dead Sea Scrolls is just another ancient document. What evidence is there that whatever claims it might make about the nature and origins of the universe are accurate?

    As for where people get the 13 billion year figure: science. This figure could be wrong, but if so it would be shown to be wrong by means of the scientific method and the discovery of new evidence. Not by waving a bible around in the air.

    Why do people say dinosoars never with humans if carbon dating doesn’t work?

    Who said carbon dating doesn’t work? Carbon dating works within a time scale of 60,000 years because of the half-life of the radiocarbons involved. For larger geological timescales, isotopes with much longer half-lives are used.

    I’ve heard it only works to 60,000 years, 30,000 years, 13,000 years, and 11,000 years.

    Obviously I can’t be expected to speculate or comment on what you may have “heard,” or for how authoritative your source is.

    Where is your evidence that supports this?

    WordPress eats comments that contain too many links, so I’m going to have suggest that you Google the answers yourself. I can point you in the right direction for starters, however:

    “Radiometric Dating: a Christian Perspective” (Dr. Roger C. Wiens, Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory)
    “Foundational Concepts: Introduction to Dating Methods” (Smithsonian Department of Paleobiology)
    “Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods” (ActionBioScience)
    “RECORD OF TIME: An Introduction to the Nature of Fossils and Paleoanthropological Dating Methods” (Dr Dennis O’Neill, Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College)

    It shows that the Bible hasn’t been corrupted since it’s original writing.

    It doesn’t show that the Bible gave an accurate account of the nature and origins of the universe at the time of its original writing, or at any time since then.

    God hides himself from the proud.

    The problem with this approach is that it just looks as if you are making excuses for the lack of evidence for God’s existence. In fact, you seem to attributing the lack of evidence for God’s existence to some personal fault of mine—namely that I am “too proud” to see God. This is the fallacy of special pleading.

    You can see this for yourself if you remove “God” from that sentence and replace it with “fairies” or “leprechauns.” “Fairies hide themselves from the proud.” “Leprechauns hide themselves from the proud.” I doubt that you would accept this kind of reasoning when it comes to the existence of fairies or leprechauns, so why use it when arguing for the existence of God?

    If I am not given sufficient evidence to accept a claim, the most honest and rational thing for me to do is to not accept the claim until I am given that evidence. (That’s being honest to myself as well as others.) Whether you are claiming the existence of gods, fairies, or leprechauns.

    Seen it’s work in action, and has prophecies that actually come true.

    What prophecies in the Bible have actually come true?

  57. Garrett Oden says:

    In fact, I commended you for it.

    You were happy that I had learned something, but you still told to to “Stop whining.”

    No, you haven’t. You’ve spouted Bible verses, committed any number of logical fallacies and copied and pasted from pseudoscientific websites. None of this counts as sufficient evidence, especially given the nature of what you’re trying to prove.

    The Bible verses are evidence of what the Bible says (which was what we were discussing at the moment.

    You have committed a good number of logical fallacies as well, I just haven’t been pointing them out.

    And the Dead Sea Scrolls is just another ancient document. What evidence is there that whatever claims it might make about the nature and origins of the universe are accurate?

    The Dead Sea Scrolls certainly do not prove God’s existence, but I used them to show you that the Bible has not been “corrupted” over time.

    Who said carbon dating doesn’t work?

    Sorry I worded that badly. I mean why do people say that dinosaurs didn’t live with humans if carbon dating doesn’t even reach to the supposed time of the first humans? Isn’t that just a guess?

    The problem with this approach is that it just looks as if you are making excuses for the lack of evidence for God’s existence. In fact, you seem to attributing the lack of evidence for God’s existence to some personal fault of mine—namely that I am “too proud” to see God. This is the fallacy of special pleading.

    I am not meaning to sound conceded in any way, but to me, the evidence sticks out like a sore thumb. I am “too proud” from time to time as well. We all are.

    You can see this for yourself if you remove “God” from that sentence and replace it with “fairies” or “leprechauns.” “Fairies hide themselves from the proud.” “Leprechauns hide themselves from the proud.” I doubt that you would accept this kind of reasoning when it comes to the existence of fairies or leprechauns, so why use it when arguing for the existence of God?

    Probably because the creators of fairies and leprechauns openly admitted that they were just fictional creatures and nothing more. There is good evidence for God, it just takes a lot to really see it.

    What prophecies in the Bible have actually come true?

    Well plenty!
    Here is a site with quite a few:http://www.100prophecies.org/

    It lists prophecies that have been fulfilled or are being fulfilled right now.

  58. Matt says:

    Bible verses are only valid if the accuracy and truth of the Bible are somehow proved. This is not yet the case, therefore quoting Bible verses is a waste of everyone’s time.

    AV, as far as I can tell, has not committed any logical fallacies. Except, of course, in satire of your own ignorance based actions.

  59. AV says:

    You have committed a good number of logical fallacies as well, I just haven’t been pointing them out.

    Who’s stopping you? Knock yourself out.

    The Dead Sea Scrolls certainly do not prove God’s existence, but I used them to show you that the Bible has not been “corrupted” over time.

    Where did I say that it had?

    I mean why do people say that dinosaurs didn’t live with humans if carbon dating doesn’t even reach to the supposed time of the first humans? Isn’t that just a guess?

    Are you reading my responses, or skim-reading them? Other dating methods, using isotopes with longer half-lives, are used for longer time scales than 60,000 years.

    I am not meaning to sound conceded in any way, but to me, the evidence sticks out like a sore thumb.

    Then it should not be difficult for you to point it out to us.

    I am “too proud” from time to time as well. We all are.

    If I were to accuse you of being, say, a sex offender, it would not make the accusation any less slanderous, nor would I be any more justified in making the accusation, if I said “I’m a sex offender, too.” Would it?

    Probably because the creators of fairies and leprechauns openly admitted that they were just fictional creatures and nothing more.

    Who created fairies, who created leprechauns, and where and when did these individuals openly admit that they are fictional creatures and nothing more? (And if they did admit such a thing, what if they were lying?) And are you claiming that the existence of a thing is dependent upon whether people believe in its existence? About 10% of Icelanders believe that elves exist, and there is even a school in Reykjavik devoted to the study of elves. Does this mean that elves really exist?

    The point is that there is just as much evidence for God as there is for fairies and leprechauns, i.e. none.

    There is good evidence for God, it just takes a lot to really see it.

    What does it take to see the evidence for God that it wouldn’t take to see the evidence for, say, giraffes or geraniums?

    http://www.100prophecies.org/

    What a joke. This is an example of a “prophecy”:

    Jesus will return (to judge the living and the dead)
    Bible prophecy: Matthew 24:29-31
    Prophecy written: During the first century
    Prophecy fulfilled: To be fulfilled

    Emphasis added.

    Here is another one:

    No one will know the hour or the day of Jesus’ return
    Bible prophecy: Matthew 24:36-37
    Prophecy written: During the first century
    Prophecy fulfilled: Many times throughout history

    They’ve basically turned their non-committal stance on Jesus’ return—a return they’ve been forced to adopt after fuck up upon fuck up in the past—into some kind of “magical” prediction of future events. Astonishing. I can do that, too. I predict that there will never be a square circle or a married bachelor. I guess that makes me a holy man.

    And here’s another:

    God will never forget the children of Israel
    Bible prophecy: Isaiah 49:13-17
    Prophecy written: Between 701-681 BC
    Prophecy fulfilled: Throughout history

    Nowhere do they actually provide evidence of God’s existence, but then I guess that would be too much like hard work.

    The rest basically involves one part of the Bible “predicting” the events of another, which is like one part of a book predicting events described in another part of the same book; or vaguely-worded passages and symbols being subjected to wild interpretations. People have been pulling the same shit with Nostradamus for centuries.

    You’ll notice that Bible never prophesises anything really calamitous or significant, such as the Holocaust, or the Great Wars, or 9/11, or the SE Asian tsunami of a couple of years ago, or the slaughter in Rwanda in 1994. It seems to be very silent and evasive on anything significant that will be occuring in the next 50 years, or the next 100 years. Where will be the next great conflict? It doesn’t say. What will be the next big advance in scientific knowledge. This so-called predictive science textbook is curiously silent on this question. I wonder why.

  60. Garrett Oden says:

    Bible verses are only valid if the accuracy and truth of the Bible are somehow proved. This is not yet the case, therefore quoting Bible verses is a waste of everyone’s time.

    Well the question was if the Bible said what I had said it did. So the verses are the appropriate evidence for that type of question.

    AV, as far as I can tell, has not committed any logical fallacies. Except, of course, in satire of your own ignorance based actions.

    Well when AV referred to the Bible writers as primitive cave men as a reason to question it’s truth, that would have been an appeal to novelty.

    He also used the pope to say that Evolution works with Christianity. Appeal to authority.

    Where did I say that it had?

    You have not said that, but it is an issue many people face and know little about. Of course it’s logical to believe that things are corrupted over time, but the evidence simply shows against that. Just though the readers should hear that.

    Then it should not be difficult for you to point it out to us.

    Oh but I have!

    If I were to accuse you of being, say, a sex offender, it would not make the accusation any less slanderous, nor would I be any more justified in making the accusation, if I said “I’m a sex offender, too.” Would it?

    No, but can you tell me that you are not prideful? Is there anybody here who thinks they are completely selfless? I am surely not!

    Who created fairies, who created leprechauns, and where and when did these individuals openly admit that they are fictional creatures and nothing more? (And if they did admit such a thing, what if they were lying?) And are you claiming that the existence of a thing is dependent upon whether people believe in its existence? About 10% of Icelanders believe that elves exist, and there is even a school in Reykjavik devoted to the study of elves. Does this mean that elves really exist?

    That does not mean that elves exist, it would still take a good reason to believe that they exist. The Bible has plenty of these good reasons.

    Nowhere do they actually provide evidence of God’s existence, but then I guess that would be too much like hard work.

    Maybe not God’s existence, but a supernatural power that apparently does exist.

    The rest basically involves one part of the Bible “predicting” the events of another, which is like one part of a book predicting events described in another part of the same book; or vaguely-worded passages and symbols being subjected to wild interpretations. People have been pulling the same shit with Nostradamus for centuries.

    Well there is only one problem with this theory. Your precious carbon dating dates the old testament books many many years older than the new testament books.

    So that’s like me writing a book with prophecy now, and 50 years later it coming true, and people writing about what occurred.

    You’ll notice that Bible never prophesises anything really calamitous or significant, such as the Holocaust, or the Great Wars, or 9/11, or the SE Asian tsunami of a couple of years ago, or the slaughter in Rwanda in 1994.

    Well the Bible does talk about God’s chosen people (the Jews) would be severely persecuted. There are many other things as well, just Google it.

  61. AV says:

    Well when AV referred to the Bible writers as primitive cave men as a reason to question it’s truth, that would have been an appeal to novelty.

    Good on you for trying, but wrong. I was questioning the likelihood that the people who wrote the Bible had knowledge of modern science, or an ability to predict modern scientific discoveries, since there is no evidence that they possessed such knowledge. That is not an appeal to novelty.

    He also used the pope to say that Evolution works with Christianity. Appeal to authority.

    Again, nice try, but wrong. I cited the pope’s pronouncements on evolution as an example of a Christian denomination which does not see a conflict between Christianity and evolution. Whether or not Catholics are True Christians (TM) is not for me to adjudicate; I just don’t see any reason why they—or any other Christian who accepts evolution—should not be considered Christians.

    Not an appeal to authority.

    You have not said that

    I haven’t stated a position on the question either way.

    Oh but I have!

    Not in any form that is intelligible or acceptable to us.

    No, but can you tell me that you are not prideful?

    No, but I don’t see what pride has to do with being able to recognise evidence for the existence of a deity. If the evidence is there, and is sufficient, and is credible, and is reasonable, then it should be plain for anyone to see, be they proud or not.

    That does not mean that elves exist, it would still take a good reason to believe that they exist.

    Again you show some semblance of being reasonable.

    The Bible has plenty of these good reasons.

    And then you screw it up by saying something like this. What empirical evidence for the existence of god is provided by the bible?

    Moreover, if the bible is the inspired word of God, that means that you have to be convinced of God’s existence first, before you could declare the bible to be literally true. The truth of the Bible is dependent upon whether there is a god. What evidence is there that god exists? If you say “The Bible,” you’ll be arguing in circles (also a fallacy).

    Maybe not God’s existence, but a supernatural power that apparently does exist.

    What is the nature of this supernatural power? Where is it predicted? How is the prediction verified?

    Well there is only one problem with this theory. Your precious carbon dating dates the old testament books many many years older than the new testament books.

    The writers of the New Testament were aware of the Old—very aware. They called it the Scriptures, in fact, and it was their holy book. That means that, where there seems to be a match between a prophecy in the Old Testament, and an event described in the New Testament, it is far more plausible that the New Testament was written that way. It is more plausible to suppose that events were narrated, such as the Jesus story, in such a way that they appeared to fulfil prophecies in the Old Testament.

    Strangely, the prophecies about Jesus don’t seem to have convinced the Jews. Why is that?

    just Google it.

    No. You introduced that website into the discussion. I have questioned its claims about the Bible’s prophetic powers, and given my reasons. If you want to defend that website’s claims, then you have to do the legwork, not me.

  62. Garrett Oden says:

    Good on you for trying, but wrong. I was questioning the likelihood that the people who wrote the Bible had knowledge of modern science, or an ability to predict modern scientific discoveries, since there is no evidence that they possessed such knowledge. That is not an appeal to novelty.

    That’s almost exactly an appeal to novelty.
    You question its accountability because of its age.

    Again, nice try, but wrong. I cited the pope’s pronouncements on evolution as an example of a Christian denomination which does not see a conflict between Christianity and evolution. Whether or not Catholics are True Christians (TM) is not for me to adjudicate; I just don’t see any reason why they—or any other Christian who accepts evolution—should not be considered Christians.

    Well to start the argument was about whether you can be a Christian and Evolutionist at the same time, and to some point you can, but they don’t align together.

    You said I should just accept it because even the Pope does. That is a perfect example of an appeal to authority.

    Come on you should know these after linking to them so many times.

    Not in any form that is intelligible or acceptable to us.

    Nope. Here is a quote I like:
    “When Jesus taught, He commonly taught with those theological masterpieces called parables. Many times people will tell us that parables were “aids” in teaching. But a careful study of the parable shows that Jesus is teaching profound theological ideas before people coupled inside the parables. And these parables were always a mystery to many. Matthew 13:10 (and Mark 4:1-11) tells us specifically why Jesus taught in parables. “And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do you speak in parables?” He said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given… Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says, “hearing you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will see and not perceive.”” Jesus speaks to people in parables so they cannot understand. A parable serves two purposes: 1) it helps those to whom salvation is given to understand the things of the kingdom of God, and 2) it condemns and hardens the hearts of those who are not chosen for salvation. Parables save and parables condemn, depending upon who is listening. God is a God who is hidden in the mystery of salvation and in the cryptic messages of Jesus’ parables.”

    No, but I don’t see what pride has to do with being able to recognise evidence for the existence of a deity. If the evidence is there, and is sufficient, and is credible, and is reasonable, then it should be plain for anyone to see, be they proud or not.

    It has everything to do with seeing God.
    Pride wants us to think that we are supreme and the most powerful thing. Pride wants us to think that we don’t need God to survive, but it is really the opposite.

    . What empirical evidence for the existence of god is provided by the bible?

    A heathen philosopher once asked a Christian, ‘Where is God’? The Christian answered, ‘Let me first ask you, Where is He not?’ Aaron Arrowsmith[1]

    The writers of the New Testament were aware of the Old—very aware. They called it the Scriptures, in fact, and it was their holy book. That means that, where there seems to be a match between a prophecy in the Old Testament, and an event described in the New Testament, it is far more plausible that the New Testament was written that way. It is more plausible to suppose that events were narrated, such as the Jesus story, in such a way that they appeared to fulfil prophecies in the Old Testament.

    But since we know that Jesus lived (although most people just think He was a prophet or a good person), and we know that the Bible has not been corrupted, we now have a good reason to believe in its credibility.

    Strangely, the prophecies about Jesus don’t seem to have convinced the Jews. Why is that?

    Pride. Jews were once God’s “chosen people”. When Jesus extended the invitation to gentiles, not everybody was too happy.

    I am not saying that all Jews are prideful, but that is the reason they didn’t see. Just like you.

    No. You introduced that website into the discussion. I have questioned its claims about the Bible’s prophetic powers, and given my reasons. If you want to defend that website’s claims, then you have to do the legwork, not me.

    What website? Google?

  63. Ric says:

    Oden’s comments here do raise a serious question. Does religious belief damage the brain or does one require a damaged brain in order to hold religious beliefs?

    Or is Oden actually a troll?

  64. Matt says:

    A little of A and a little of B. Plus, from what I could gather, Oden is a hyperactive teenager who;
    a) has too much time on his hands.
    b) doesn’t actually pay attention in class.
    c) doesn’t actually want to learn anything, instead keeping what he thinks he knows sacred and untouchable to things like logic and evidence.

  65. Ric says:

    Yeah. You and AV have a hell of a lot more patience than I have with these people.

  66. Garrett Oden says:

    a) has too much time on his hands.

    True.

    b) doesn’t actually pay attention in class.

    Sometimes true.

    c) doesn’t actually want to learn anything, instead keeping what he thinks he knows sacred and untouchable to things like logic and evidence.

    Completely false.

    Yeah. You and AV have a hell of a lot more patience than I have with these people.

    True, Matt and AV have both shown a good amount of patience, which I greatly appreciate.

  67. Martijn says:

    Indeed good patience, respect for both…

    Sorry to mess this all up, but I found an Interesting quote from AV in the beginning of this blog:

    No amount of Bible quoting is going to make that claim less implausible, since the veracity of the Bible—the “inspired word of God”—depends upon God actually existing, which is the very thing the theist is obliged to prove

    Why would we need to? I am not obliged to prove. It is your own search to find out if it’s true or not. It is your own right to not believe in God. I just find believing in God rather more fitting in my life. The way things are written, the people I meet, the inspiration, as we call it is something that works far better for me than atheism has shown to me so far.

  68. Martijn says:

    Oh lest I forget, I do think you guys have good arguments.

  69. Matt says:

    A belief which you can be back up is not much of a belief; it relegates such to an equal footing to believing in fairies, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters and other such fanciful things.

    Also just because you find a belief comforting or fitting, as you profess, does not validate it in the least. There are plenty of people who hold extremely comforting beliefs which are quite clearly false – madmen who believe themselves to be Napoleon is a class example of such.

    • Martijn says:

      Matt wrote: …it relegates such to an equal footing to believing in fairies, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters and other such fanciful things…

      No it does not, since none of these are accepted as any sort of deities. Just like your “church of prime”. Just saying that believers are just a bunch of loonies following a “spagetti monster” is a lack of respect for the “genuine” faith. You are mocking a part of the identity of many persons. Which is like an elephant running through a porcelain cupboard.
      The main motivation of many is that humble Love that is found and shared and that is what unites. Is that a problem? does that make faith bad? I don’t think so. I even think it exels beyond just hunamism. Not in pride, but in excelling into becoming more alive and becoming more in tune with God, with creation and with one’s self.
      There are so billions who found healing through faith. Or did good because of their faith in God (within or outside the border of known religion). There is no science applied because it is not needed nor an essential. The matter of the heart is what does matter.

      • Matt says:

        It is actually equal. They’re all fanciful mythological/fantasy entities with no evidence to back them up. If you like you can swap leprechauns/flying spaghetti monster/whatever with Ra, Zeus, Odin, Poseidon or any other long defunct god-figure you care to mention. There is fundamentally no difference, however, between those deities and things like leprechauns, guardian angels or anything else of the ilk.

        I honestly don’t care if I’m ‘mocking a part of the identity of many persons’. If that aspect of their being is so fundamentally flawed that it can not be backed up with evidence, logic or rational discussion then it deserves a thorough critical analysis and either mocked or discarded as the situation demands.

        As for the rest … doing or feeling good based on false reasons (in this case religion) is still false. Far better to live life based on testable facts and go with what we know to be true rather than what is essentially a guess what is true. It all relates back to the fact that it does not matter if a delusion brings you comfort or satisfaction … it’s still a delusion or fantasy.

        A quick analogy would be a lonely child who conjures for himself an imaginary friend, which is a common enough practice. It brings him comfort to have this imaginary entity at his side but it does not mean that entity actually exists – and the comfort is no validation for it’s existence.

  70. Martijn says:

    Your concept of God, spirituality and everything that goes with it, is just plain dumb. You don’t know anything about it. The depth, the freedom, the beauty, the love are so much more than meets the eye… Your word are just a shallow noise since you just don’t get it, and your ilustrations are mostly inconsistent at best. You cannot wrap your own mind on something that you cannot do YOUR logic on. A relationship with God is not something you measure, nor do you do that with any person you meet. How do you do science on love? How do you measure humble care for another? what does serving another do with a human being?
    All those things are left aside by science.
    You think you have it all figured out. And still it all comes down to your own judgmental sense of right and wrong. True and false. You are the judge, your ego defines what is true and what is not. And still it is so subjective and crude.
    That is how all the wars of history start. power abuse and being a egoistic judge… And that says something…. that You don’t care…. You don’t have any integrity or give any margin to faith for anyone who has any belief in God. That is a human right. That makes you a accessory to the injustice of this world.
    That says something about you, and about God. Now you define what is good and what is bad, not God. You sit in the seat of who has to stay and who has to go. In other words you take the right to become a god. As i said, you are just as worse as some heavy fundy’s I’ve read, seen or spoken to.

    IF you don’t love and give up your rights you don’t live in freedom.

  71. Matt says:

    Appeals to incredulity mixed with appeals to emotion.
    No arguments made, nothing to refute.

  72. Anonymous says:

    Tried to leave a reply on the chica’s blog but she’s a bitch and deleted what I had to say. I wasn’t even that mean….

  73. Christianboy says:

    People who accuse Christians of using Circular Reasoning and ask:

    Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?

    (without Quoting the Bible, can you answer this questions?)

    My Question are:

    Why should God heal the Amputee?

    Which God didn’t heal the Amputee?

    Can you tell me about the God who didn’t Heal the Amputee?

    Christians belief in the Bible because it is the Word of God. Why and how we know that it is the Word of god?

    2 main reasons.

    1) The Bible is all we need to be saved (2 Timothy 3:15-17)

    2) You cannot find God’s Word outside the Bible (because it is NOT the word of men)

    And even Atheist’s cannot deny God without denying that the Bible is the word of God.

    If you think you can, try putting up a website on Atheism without a single Bible verse.

  74. The Village Heathen says:

    This kind of circular reasoning from christians is way too common. I’ve explained to them many times that circular reasoning gets them nowhere, but it doesn’t seem to get through their thick heads.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s