666...the Devils Moving Average

[stu]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:


Several important things:
1. Answer your question. In your thread you asked what I meant by lunar event.
2. Point out that the original situation is more involved than we originally thought.
3. This thread is also about Intelligent Design and so this another example of that as well.
4. Provide another example of how the earth is an extemely low probability event which is germane to the probability of life on earth ever occurring randomly in our universe.

shoeshine, thanks for your response

1. My question obviously did not transmit itself as the rhetorical one I intended it to be. My intention was to convey the moon was not germane to the discussion about earth's 1st (primitive) atmosphere or earth's 2nd atmosphere.

2. When you use "we" collectively, do you mean you and I or humankind in general? I appreciate the original situation - (ie: the creation of the universe) - is more involved than the ancient writers originally thought, my contention is that the theistic argument is constantly in denial of that fact. It's at the centre of what we are discussing, and you now seem to be endorsing my position.

Genesis writers did not know it was more complicated and it shows in the simplistic text. They did not , could not understand (they did not have enough science) so they attributed everything to their God. The way they did that along with the misunderstanding of how stuff works is evident, as Genesis does not match scientific understandings and knowledge.

3. With respect, you and I were discussing your claim that Genesis matches science,You and I had not touched upon ID as a subject. I have said earlier, others are more proficient at addressing what I see as, the theistic approach of hopping and skipping from one subject area to another, thereby jumbling everything up in a hopeful endeavor to make things sound "true". One person who can take this in his stride is axeman and I note his responses are far more than just adequate in dealing with such tactics. .

4.. We did the big numbers thing. "We" found probability in mathematics an unsound method for dealing with such matters. Your lunar event does not however address the 'low probability ' assumption itself in any way.

 

[marketsurfer]

thank you for an excellent discussion. doubter, you are the first serious competition that axe has encountered on this board--- interested to see where this leads

surfer

 

[TM_Direct]

Science is not only about fact but orientation -- who and what we are. We are part of the universe, an instance of life, and an individual expression of what is still only partially understood - the phenomena of mind and consciousness. What is the relationship between us here -- question asking and fact seeking intelligent beings -- to this much larger story of all things? The cosmic mirror aims to put you in touch -- here we seek to stop you reading this book as yet another about science and instead get you to see your hidden self. You - here as you breath and reflect -- are history from the Big Bang, the formation of the Earth, the origin of life and the varied stages of biological existence that led to you. But you need to see - that other self in the mirror.

============================================

BWAAAAHHHHAAAAHAAAA HAAA!!!!!


What a F*ing joke!!!!....How come you give Sagan a free ride???? Where did we come from??? a BIG BANG!!! BWAAAHAAA HAAAA!!!!!.......These same scientists can't find the answers, denounce the idea of God....but the say ..."You see, their was this big BANG 7 billion years ago"...or they just GAP over Plant cells to Animal cells...How come nobody is as critical of sagan and his big bang???? what a joke.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from stu:

shoeshine, thanks for your response

1. My question obviously did not transmit itself as the rhetorical one I intended it to be. My intention was to convey the moon was not germane to the discussion about earth's 1st (primitive) atmosphere or earth's 2nd atmosphere.

2. When you use "we" collectively, do you mean you and I or humankind in general? I appreciate the original situation - (ie: the creation of the universe) - is more involved than the ancient writers originally thought, my contention is that the theistic argument is constantly in denial of that fact. It's at the centre of what we are discussing, and you now seem to be endorsing my position.

Genesis writers did not know it was more complicated and it shows in the simplistic text. They did not , could not understand (they did not have enough science) so they attributed everything to their God. The way they did that along with the misunderstanding of how stuff works is evident, as Genesis does not match scientific understandings and knowledge.

3. With respect, you and I were discussing your claim that Genesis matches science,You and I had not touched upon ID as a subject. I have said earlier, others are more proficient at addressing what I see as, the theistic approach of hopping and skipping from one subject area to another, thereby jumbling everything up in a hopeful endeavor to make things sound "true". One person who can take this in his stride is axeman and I note his responses are far more than just adequate in dealing with such tactics. .

4.. We did the big numbers thing. "We" found probability in mathematics an unsound method for dealing with such matters. Your lunar event does not however address the 'low probability ' assumption itself in any way.

I shouldn't have used "we". I'm sure there's nothing more annoying than the person on the other side of a discussion speaking for you.

Now, wait a minute - I'm far from putting up a "white flag" on Genesis. I actually don't agree with a number of things you wrote in your post. What you did was raise a couple of questions I could not answer and I wanted to answer those before I got back into a discussion again (since you may very well ask them sometime down the road).

Personally, I feel that neither of us knew enough of what we were talking about and so I want to do some more research before we went on. And that was part of the point of the lunar example...

I don't know if you were saying that I was sometimes fragmenting the discussion. If so, I'll just say that I feel that I am the only one in my position (old earth creationist) and so i need to jump in there on all topics. I feel that I have to respond to all the issues both you and axe were raising (which is pretty much a full time job).

By the way, I actually think I've been pretty good. I've got a couple of other "hot discussion points" but have held off.

 

[axeman]

Shoeshine,

It seems we are in agreement.

But we SEEM to disagree on one point.

I am basically saying that it is OBVIOUS that if we change our universe in a way that prevents OUR kind of life, that it WILL prevent our kind of life.

You seem to believe that the fact that we can change a parameter and thus changing our universe into another, prevents our kind of life, SOMEHOW carries SOME kind of weight, and makes SOME KIND of implication that supports your creationist case.

It simply isnt there.

Claiming that changing any one of these 50 parameters makes a difference to the possibility to our kind of life is just an obvious statement. It has no implications.

Basically, in the big scheme of things, you are rejecting that nature can be the creator you seek, and instead fabricate and accept a hypothetical creator you have no evidence for.

peace

axman

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:


Granted - if we are talking about another universe I agree with you. But if we're talking about our universe, then I still disagree with you (and you did give me permissions in a previous thread to stick to our universe) for the reasons above.

 

[axeman]

With all due respect surf, HUH???

What has doubter posted that leads you to believe this?

I've seen a couple of postings from people who are not experts in their fields, making scientific claims of which they know little about, and which the general qualified scientific community disagrees with. Hardly a good case.



peace

axeman

Quote from marketsurfer:

thank you for an excellent discussion. doubter, you are the first serious competition that axe has encountered on this board--- interested to see where this leads

surfer

 

[axeman]

Now now TM....

"BWAAHAHAHAAAHAAA" <--- does not qualify as good rebuttal against a mind as great as Sagans.

He does NOT get a "free ride" by the way. Maybe if you explained WHY you think this, you could prove that he does.


peace

axeman

Quote from TM_Direct:

Science is not only about fact but orientation -- who and what we are. We are part of the universe, an instance of life, and an individual expression of what is still only partially understood - the phenomena of mind and consciousness. What is the relationship between us here -- question asking and fact seeking intelligent beings -- to this much larger story of all things? The cosmic mirror aims to put you in touch -- here we seek to stop you reading this book as yet another about science and instead get you to see your hidden self. You - here as you breath and reflect -- are history from the Big Bang, the formation of the Earth, the origin of life and the varied stages of biological existence that led to you. But you need to see - that other self in the mirror.

============================================

BWAAAAHHHHAAAAHAAAA HAAA!!!!!


What a F*ing joke!!!!....How come you give Sagan a free ride???? Where did we come from??? a BIG BANG!!! BWAAAHAAA HAAAA!!!!!.......These same scientists can't find the answers, denounce the idea of God....but the say ..."You see, their was this big BANG 7 billion years ago"...or they just GAP over Plant cells to Animal cells...How come nobody is as critical of sagan and his big bang???? what a joke.

 

[TM_Direct]

Click on GG's Link ......they very casually talk about BIG BANG as almost a FACT not a theory.....i printed a couple excerpts form it ...but really, If you believe in the BIG BANG theory, you might as well have Faith in a GOD because they both demand the same...faith not fact

 

[axeman]

I hope your just being sarcastic here.

My computer WAS created.
There is NO irony here at all.

I can PROVE my computer was created quite easily.

There is a label on my computer that says DELL.

I can go to the dell website and look up the model.

I can go to the Dell factory and even WATCH another computer just like mine be built.

I can find thousands of people who work for dell, tell me how it was created.

Asserting that something is CREATED requires proof, especially if it is something as GRAND as the whole fricken universe.


Where is your evidence that god created ANYTHING???

Is there a sticker on my body that says "built by god #344,554,234,576? No.

Is there a god factory I can find humans and universes being built it? No.

Can I ask god if he built me? No.


Creation must be DETERMINED, and you have completely FAILED to provide even the smallest shred of evidence that god created the universe or ME.

All you have done so far to date is attack science and evolution. This in NO way makes a case for god or creationism.


peace

axeman

Quote from Doubter:

No I don't. But I only have to look at sciences INCREDIBLE,
and mind blowing track record, to see that it obviously works very well.
Or I wouldn't be typing on this PC that is more powerful than
multimillion dollar Cray super computers 10+ years ago


peace

axeman
________________________________________

Ironically your PC was designed and created and someone or something helped with its creation. You could say it evolved but not in the macro-evolution sense.

Sorry I have to sign off my mommy says I have to go be the hunter gatherer tomorrow and need my rest.

 

[axeman]

Doubter: "1. Aethism= limited time, time ticking down to the end. A beginning and an end. A limited and depleting earth and universe."


You really shouldn't make such claims about something you are proving to know nothing about.

Atheism makes NO SUCH claims.
None. Zippo.

More STRAWMAN fallacies.
Learn what atheism IS before you attempt to claim what it says.


peace

axeman

Quote from Doubter:


______________________________________________
Below is a continuum of religions via their worldview.


Atheism Theism Animism
_________________________________________________

1. 2. 3.

The various religious worldviews as they relate to time.

1. Aethism= limited time, time ticking down to the end. A beginning and an end. A limited and depleting earth and universe.

2. Theism= time is event oriented. Living from one extra natural event to the next. Creation - to the fall - to Christ - etc. Beginning maybe no end.

3. Animism= continual cycles of time ie. seasons, years, reincarnation. Cycles mainly taken from their agriclutural backgrounds.

Ironically the failure of atheism has driven many of its adherents to "New Age" which is animist, clear on the other end of the spectrum. The failure was mainly because it left too many voids that adherents wanted to fill so one is growing and the other dwindling.