666...the Devils Moving Average

[aphexcoil]

Quote from Gordon Gekko:


i'm not arguing that point.

just because something's been around a while doesn't mean it's true. in fact, i'd be especially skeptical of claims made in like the year 900.

I'm not saying you should trust it based on its age -- I'm saying you should stop trashing it because I doubt you've even read it! You know, even the most skeptical atheists should take the time out to know what they are refuting.

I'm not saying that everything found in the bible is true, but the book is a collection of great wisdom, stories and struggles. Even reading it from a non-religious standpoint is rewarding, because what you are reading is one of the pivotal books that have shaped our society and many before it.

 

[axeman]

I would respond, but you obviously didn't read the site very well.
It's totally rigged.

I'll prove it to you in SIMPLE terms if you really need the hand holding.
The author did an excellent job explaining how it was rigged.

Your unusual emotional reaction to a site that shakes the
foundation of your belief system speaks volumes.


peace

axeman

Quote from Doubter:

Why the $250,000 challenge is BUNK
The creationists $250,000 challenge to prove evolution
axeman
_______________________________________

The site quoted is a lopsided joke. They introduce the site as presenting both sides to the evolution-creation debate but are nothing but a onesided junk science site. Pure lies and BS.
Their main position is that of proving everything in the evolution side by relying on what some call micro-evolution and saying creationists move the goal posts to demand macro-evolution. The position of the creationists has forever been that you must have macro evolution to prove new species or species jump or beginning of life. Not minor changes in the original species. If the science community had one absolute proof of this the $250,000 would be gone and the whole world would hear about the final end of the debate but they can't produce even one recording of macro-evolution.

 

[Doubter]

If I hadn't spent a lifetime in the genetics and selective breeding fields I might be impressed. But not hardly. Not by that line of junk science crap. The volumnes spoken are of your lack of knowledge in the field.

 

[axeman]

The only volumes I see here are your obvious emotionally charged STRAWMAN fallacies.

You make vast unfounded assertions. Typical.

It doesn't even sound like you READ IT AT ALL.

Here is a snip:

By every appearance of that opening, all that needs be done is to present some empirical scientific evidence for evolution and collect $250,000. But note the asterisk! It leads to the following footnote:

* NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).



This is part of the challenge footnote.

THE VERY FIRST PART requires us to prove god doesn't exist!!!
Impossible!

THIS ALONE qualifies it as merely a rigged contest to get BS attention.

Time., space and matter? What does this have to do with evolution?????
Planet and star formation???? Same question....

He is only willing to give up the cash if we prove ALL KINDS
of things which are only theory in addition to EVERY kind
of evolution. His own, manufactured definition of evolution
doesn't even come CLOSE to the scientific definition.

Since when does evolution claim that time space and matter
came into existence by themselves?!?!?

Pure hogwash. 100% obviously rigged.
A child could see that.

Before you spew forth such emotionally charged, obviously false and ridiculous claims, know that you will be called on it.



peace

axeman

Quote from Doubter:

If I hadn't spent a lifetime in the genetics and selective breeding fields I might be impressed. But not hardly. Not by that line of junk science crap. The volumnes spoken are of your lack of knowledge in the field.

 

[aphexcoil]

The problem with discussing religion on this board is that a lot of people are more interested in demonstrating their ego and debating skills rather than having an open, collective and informative discussion about the subject.

I've learned over the past year or so who among the ET family is genuinely interested in clean, mind expanding chit-chat and who is trying to wave their dick around saying, "hey, look at me! I'm so smart and clever!"

Why even be pretentious about it? We can all agree that, in the grand scheme of things, none of us have the full answer. Why not try to pool our collective intelligence and actually work the problem and learn new things instead of the blatant displays of egocentric debating?

I really appreciate shoeshine's posts. I may not agree with everything he says, but I'm definitely open to learning something I didn't know previously from another man's different perspective.

I propose that we stop the personal insults and have a nice, light-hearted discussion about religion. Is that possible?

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from aphexcoil:

The problem with discussing religion on this board is that a lot of people are more interested in demonstrating their ego and debating skills rather than having an open, collective and informative discussion about the subject.

I've learned over the past year or so who among the ET family is genuinely interested in clean, mind expanding chit-chat and who is trying to wave their dick around saying, "hey, look at me! I'm so smart and clever!"

Why even be pretentious about it? We can all agree that, in the grand scheme of things, none of us have the full answer. Why not try to pool our collective intelligence and actually work the problem and learn new things instead of the blatant displays of egocentric debating?

I really appreciate shoeshine's posts. I may not agree with everything he says, but I'm definitely open to learning something I didn't know previously from another man's different perspective.

I propose that we stop the personal insults and have a nice, light-hearted discussion about religion. Is that possible?

Absolutely! I don't think any of us have all the answers! I think the key to this is to stick to the issues. I'm politically conservative, but one thing I really dislike about certain conservative talk show hosts is how some of them trash-talk their opponents and use sarcasm, criticism and demeaning language to try to win the audience. I am constantly thinking: just stick to clear headed logic and you've already won...

I've always felt if you have a good argument, it can speak for itself and it will win in time. If you have a bad argument, it will lose in time.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Look at it this way: we've got 6 or 7 regular posters on this thread representing 3 to 4 completely different viewpoints. What is the point of continually slamming those who are different? Do you really just want a thread where everyone agrees with each other and pats each other on the back and complements each other on how clever each other is?

Or is the trash talking to show confidence? What does confidence have to do with being right? Zip of course! If you are truly confident, show it by giving your argument and backing off. Let people quietly decide for themselves. They don't need you to tell them they're a retard if they don't agree with you. They can figure it out for themselves without your omnipotent help.

That's one of the things I very much admire in the some of the non-theistic astronomers of past eras such as Hoyle and Eddington. Both of these men desperately hoped for a steady state universe. But they still went with the truth wherever it led them.

I want to be on the side of the truth no matter where it takes me.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from axeman:


Newsweek also wrote an article not too long ago called "Science Finds God", which claimed that theologians and scientists were now converging.

Nothing could be further from the truth.
"A recent poll of U.S. National Academy of Science members indicated only 7% believe in a personal creator, down from 15% in 1933 and 29% in 1914. If anything, most scientists seem to be moving away from spirituality rather than toward it. "
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/stenger_19_1.html

This is HUGE. I meant to come back to this but never did. Why are the #s decreasing in your poll above? Because the NAS is an exclusive club. It is a group of secular humanists (w/ a few Deists and skeptics thrown in) that choose their own membership. So obviously it is going to move towards a non-theistic membership.

Magazines like Discover and Science that have polled their readership, which is much more representative of the general scientific population, have found that religion among the scientific and technological community is weighted approximately equal to the general population.

But I want to go back to my first paragraph. This is incredibly important. The lock that the NAS (and other similar organizations) has on its membership is critical to explain part of why secular humanism has become so dominant.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from aphexcoil:

I have read that the old testament should not be read verbatim due to errors in translation that have occurred throughout the ages. The Old Testament has literally been translated into hundreds of languages and that many of the popular English translations were third, forth and fifth translations from other languages.

If you don't trust translations, then forget them. Stick to Hebrew. Let me explain why:

"The Old Testament is written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Nearly all of the Old Testament is written in Hebrew, a member of the Semitic languages which includes Aramaic, Syriac, Akkadian (Assyrian-Babylonian) and Arabic. The Hebrew alphabet is without vowels, although a vowel system was added to aid the reader. Modern Hebrew magazines are usually printed without vowels.

Aramaic is related to Hebrew and after the exile in 500 BC, Aramaic became the most common language in Palestine until the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great, and as a result, several sections of the Old Testament are in Aramaic rather than Hebrew. This includes six chapters in Daniel (2:4b-7:28) and several chapters in Ezra (4:8-6:18, and 7:12-26). Because Aramaic characters are the same as Hebrew, these sections appear the same as the rest of the Hebrew scriptures."

So the bottom line is that if you want to read the Jewish Bible in its original form, read it in Hebrew. Here's a little history that shows the incredible skills of the Jewish scribes:

1. Prior to the Dead Sea scrolls, the earliest Masoretic manuscript that we had was from A.D. 895 was called Codex Cairensis and was produced by the Masoretic Moses ben Asher family. (The Masoretes were the Jewish scholars who between A.D. 500 and A.D. 950 were entrusted with the manuscripts of the Jewish Scripture.)
2. In 1947 the first of the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Huge caches of manuscripts were uncovered and they date from the 3rd century B.C. to the 1st century A.D.
3. This discovery left the scientific and religious communites in tremendous anticipation. This of course would show the accuracy of the Jewish scribes. The question was: over the centuries, had the scribes accurately copied the original Hebrew?
4. What they found was the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts, generally over a THOUSAND years older, were word for word accurate. The slight variations were almost entirely obvious slips of the pen and variations of spelling. And the variations never effected the original meaning.

The Jewish people of the world can be incredibly proud of the traditions of their scribes who did a nearly perfect job over an incredible span of time. (Christians can be similarly proud with the New Testament.)

Also: if someone is back east, pm me and I'll send you a list of locations where there are huge collections of manuscripts.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from aphexcoil:
The discussion of religion fascinates me to no end. [/B]

There are a few sane people left in the world.

I have always hated it when someone says, "Just don't talk to me about religion or politics!" Are there any two things that will effect their life more?