IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 10th March 2015, 07:17 AM   #3401
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Coming from someone who thinks all the answers can come from reading and consulting only one book, this is amazingly brassy, Paul.
You are absolutely correct—my knowledge stems from the one Book, written by 39 different people, over a period of some 1500 years, consolidated into 66 books.

But I still cannot from what I have read and heard about TOE, accept that things came about by mere chance. I tried this by putting all the ingredients for a cake in a bowl,, but no cake was formed.

It reminds me of an explanation in the Scriptures about how the golden calf came to be---very funny.► Exodus 32:24 So I told them, 'Whoever has any gold jewellery, take it off.' Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!"
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 07:26 AM   #3402
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
I have on numerous occasions set out what will begin to happen, when the time comes—there are many things that will follow the blinding of Randi, depending on the response of events that are presented to establish my credentials.
And those would be what? Please be specific.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 07:43 AM   #3403
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
How very sad.

You have been told, multiple times, the the TOE does not, in fact, claim that anything "came about by chance"; and further, that the "origin of living things" (to say nothing of the "origin of the universe") is not part of, is not addressed by, is not within the proper purview, and is not within the ambit of the TOE. Instead of accepting the testimony of those posters who, in fact, understand the TOE (and what it does, and does not, encompass); or, even better, reading the provided sources andfinding put for yourself what the TOE does (and does not) encompass; youu, instead, respoond with the following:



and



and



and



These are not the responses of an honest disputant.

You are, in fact, ignoring reality, and pretending that the cartoon version (or perversion) of the TOE that you are prepared to confront were anything other than your own straw person, raised up as if it had any substance oin the actual content of the actual TOE.

It does not matter how often you repeat your errors, repetition does not cloak falsehood in the semblance of truth.

How poor is a witness that must be shored up with baulks of outright falsehood.

To be perfectly clear:

You say that you "reject" the TOE because "there is no consensus", yet you are completely unable to demonstrate the lack of consensus you claim to find.

You say that you "reject" the TOE because you say it makes the claim that "everything came about by chance"; yet you are utterly unable to demonstrate a single statement of the actual TOE as contemplated by actual scientists that contains, hints at, or honestly implies your claim.

You are not dealing with the subject, the material, or the posters on this thread with anything resembling forthrightness.

I patiently encourage you, once again, to address my questions honestly,and factually; to respond to what I have, in fact, written, and not what you wish I had said; to engage the TOE, and not the false, person-of-straw version you have repeatedly raised up. I am coming to understand that you will not; that you cannot; that you dare not--but I continue to offer you the invitation.

Do consider honesty.
There is too much to address—so I will as I have said before, retain my stance on what I have previously stated. You keep referring to TOE as if this is the final explanation and that TOE only deals with certain things and not the explanation of how all things came to be.

Evolution states that there is no Creator, and that everything came about by some magical formation of certain things that formed other things, which in turn other things evolved.

Some say that the universe is 13.8 billion years old—now I have read how people arrive at this so very accurate number, but still am baffled how they can be so sure of their facts—no I am not baffled, just amused.

I am what people call a creationist, so naturally I do not hold to the theories of evolution—they make no sense to an intelligent person.

You and others can present what you want and I will read it, but it still is beyond reason that what we have, is the result of chance happenings.

Design Sir, everything must come about by design—to reject this is not realistic, because everything in the world today has been designed.

So if that is the case, how can you insist that the universe came about without design?
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 07:55 AM   #3404
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Odd that you address one of the central strengths of the TOE as if it were a flaw.

"Nature" does not "demonstrate design". As I, and others, have pointed out to you, multiple times, living things clearly demonstrate the nested hierarchies of derived characteristics that indicate that living things are "cobbled together"; the "good enough" results of natural selection repurposing structures for novel (and suboptimal) functions; the constraints of heredity that limit innovation.

The TOE does not, cannot be said to claim to, "demonstrate design". Instead, the TOE, as stated by actual scientists, celebrates reality, and demonstrates that living things are not (repeat, NOT) "designed".



I will accept your apology for this untrue statement; this unwarranted accusation. I have "stolen" nothing. I eagerly await your correction.



What an interesting, and dishonest, way to describe a process that can be seen to happen right before your eyes; that has been observed in the lab; that echoes through the fossil record.

Especially given the object of your own loyalties.



This is not a correct use of the term, "evolve". Individuals do not evolve. Consider this:





Neither of which is a proper example of how evolution works. Neither of which demonstrates "...changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next..."(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...e/0_0_0/evo_02)

You continue to pretend you are defeating the TOE, when all you are doing is demonstrating, yet again, that you do not understand that which you claim to be opposing.



Given that the origin of living things (as you would have it, "...where and when and how, did life begin?") is not part of the TOE; is not addressed by the TOE; is not within the proper purview of the TOE; and is not within the ambit of the TOE; I simply decline your invitation to a derail.

I would be glad to discuss the actual TOE, and its actual ramifications, were you to ask questions about, or raise issues with, the actual TOE.

I would be happy, for instance, to demonstrate how the TOE provides a real-world solution for how the three-toed tree sloth got to Brasil...



I wonder what you, who are self-admittedly dependent upon translations of your own scriptures, provided to you by others; translations within which you have demonstrated the need to go version-shopping to tailor what you pretend your scriptures say in order to make it seem as if they support your claims, think that this means? be so kind as to explicate.
The Scripture as we have them today give us a clear vision of the character of the Creator—the many translations are able to be blended into one complete revelation. I do not pretend—it is as I have stated, you do not know how to understand the revelation of the Scriptures –so you try to find fault.

It is as it is stated--►Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
►Gen 1:16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

Now this is a logical way of understanding how things came about—simple, yet so amazing.

To add►Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

You see Mr Slowvehicle, this is simple to understand—easy to explain to a child—yes amazing but simple.
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 08:03 AM   #3405
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Life is, in fact, improtant, as you would have it. The origins of life are so important, that those who choose to pursue what is known and what can be learned, about the origins of living things, do not seek their answers within the TOE (which does not address the "origins of life" or the "origins of the universe").

What is actually addressed by the TOE does, in fact, matter, as you made the unsupported claim that you "reject" evolution "because there is no consensus". Oddly enough, you have demonstrated that you do not understand the actual tenets of the TOE well enough to be fairly said to be able to determine what would comprise the "consensus" you claim is "lacking".

Yet you continue to strain at your invention of a gnat of your own construction while swallowing the camel of the clear, notorious, and pervasive "lack of consensus" among the more than 3500 splinter sects of xianity. One is led to wonder why an invented "lack of consensus" (that does not, in fact, exist) is to be supposed to "invalidate" the TOE; while the demonstrable (even bragged-about) lack of consensus among the churches is not to be taken as "invalidating" xianity.



You are as unskilled at mind reading as you are at apologetics.

You really, really ought to answer the questions, even if only for your own good. I am, in fact, genuinely curious about your take on the issues about which I have asked.



Apparently, you do not know what the word, "superstition", means. In general, careful users of the language do not use the term to refer to processes that are supported by evidence, that can be observed, and that do not require resort to magic.
Thank you for the lecture.

I do not support all the denominations among Christianity—there are more than thirty thousand different denominations.
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 08:17 AM   #3406
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Again with your astoundingly deep misunderstanding of the concept "chance." And "have seen nothing come about by ____" is argument from ignorance.
Well eventually I came to you after Mr Slowvehicle took up so much space—so what are you on about—oh, you call me ignorant, because I believe in reality and not chance.

As I have stated—nothing, that is nothing, can come about by chance—everything must be designed by a designer, then it must be “made”. There must be a beginning, and how that beginning came about.

►Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
►Gen 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

So now we can see that everything was made by God—who has subsequently revealed himself to mankind through the Scriptures that the Jews so jealously guarded.

I do not think I am ignorant—in certainty I am enlightened.
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 09:50 AM   #3407
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Understanding.

I have gained a lot of insight from this Professor—you will do well to consider his clear explanation from his many lectures.
Listening to him gives one a good look at where evolutionist get things wrong----Now he was an atheist—but common sense was employed.

Quote:
Darwinism and natural selection as models for the evolution of life are contrasted with origin by design. Biochemical evolution, speciation, and the origin of variety are presented in full multimedia format. This fascinating lecture includes examples of irreducible complexity, discusses the core of genetic problems involved in the evolutionary process, and is presented in simple terms so that even non-scientists can understand the principals involved.
http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/2...es-of-genesis/
http://genesisconflict.com/
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 02:08 PM   #3408
ComfySlippers
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
Exclamation

Originally Posted by ComfySlippers View Post
Saint Paul, a couple of questions about your God:

Why did he 'create' the emerald cockroach wasp?
And how did Mr Noah find two to put on his boat?
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
As to why, God created all things for his pleasure.
Noah must have had a means to getting all life that was preserved into the Ark—must have been quite a sight.
Emerald cockroach wasp - Wikipedia
Read onwards from "Reproductive behavior and life cycle" and tell me that your God isn't a bit of a twisted pollock if he gets pleasure from any of that.
ComfySlippers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 03:38 PM   #3409
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 5,203
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Exactly wrong. The TOE makes eminently practical sense in being able to predict the discovery of something like Tiktaalik. Your fairy tales, OTOH...well, you yourself, and the unfailing failure of your "prophecies," are pretty good evidence for just how much "practical sense" is in them. (And you can spare me the "I haven't been right yet, but some things remain to be seen" rationale; the only person that line is convincing is you.)

And I didn't ask you about "looking down" on other folks. What I asked you about was your double standard in logic. Why do you think you get to tell people "you're wrong about the Bible because your knowledge of it is incomplete," but the exact same reasoning doesn't apply to you, that you might be wrong about the TOE because your knowledge of it is (at best) a second-grader's understanding? Do you think your sainthood exempts you from even-handed application of logic? Does your "holier than thou" automatically include "smarter than thou"?
What you say is not right—firstly TOE does not make sense, because noting as I have said, nothing just comes about by chance—there must be a designer, so why am I wrong in stating the logical understanding about creation requiring a Creator who has designed and implemented that design, by virtue of his wisdom and power?

My knowledge and the application of that knowledge is complete—knowledge must have a practical application—the Bible was written in the past, also for the future, in order to fulfill the will of God the Creator—even when it takes a long time to culminate.

So what do you teach a second-grader?
Surely a second-grader cannot understand TOE—it is to complicated.
Wow. I don't think I have ever seen a rationale quite so twisted, to basically agree that what I said- that your understanding of the TOE is so woefully inadequate, on a 2nd grader's level, that you have no business criticizing it- was right, and still manage to conclude that I was wrong. This is an amazing grace indeed, Paul.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 03:56 PM   #3410
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 5,203
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
You are absolutely correct—my knowledge stems from the one Book, written by 39 different people, over a period of some 1500 years, consolidated into 66 books.

But I still cannot from what I have read and heard about TOE, accept that things came about by mere chance. I tried this by putting all the ingredients for a cake in a bowl,, but no cake was formed.

It reminds me of an explanation in the Scriptures about how the golden calf came to be---very funny.► Exodus 32:24 So I told them, 'Whoever has any gold jewellery, take it off.' Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!"
Then you've got no business sneering at other folks who can "[only] read some books in order to answer the question." It's that complacent "holier than thou" double standard at work again; you're imprisoned by your own world-view into a complete inability to deal fairly with any other.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 04:29 PM   #3411
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
It has been pointed out to you, several times, that you are parroting an untruth; that your cartoon misstatement does not reflect the TOE, and that you do not begin to understand what you claim to be opposing (you are, in fact, opposing a claim made by no biologist; a position taken by no one who understands even the basics of the actual TOE).

And yet, somehow, you continue to parrot the same misstatement, showing absolutely no evidence of having read a single post, ot pursued a single source, you have been offered. You continue to mouth a falsehood; worse, you cannot even identify who you claim you are "quoting", or provide a single source that supports the position you claim to have "read".

It seems patent why you will not, in fact, engage the actual TOE; why you will not, in fact, provide the sources you claim "support" your misstatements.

Here is the most recent spate of unsupported repetitions of your demonstrably inaccurate claims:

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
<snip>...But I still cannot from what I have read and heard about TOE, accept that things came about by mere chance...<snip>
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
What you say is not right—firstly TOE does not make sense, because noting as I have said, nothing just comes about by chance...<snip for focus>
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
<superstitionsnip>...Evolution states that there is no Creator, and that everything came about by some magical formation of certain things that formed other things, which in turn other things evolved...<snip>
Not one of those statements is a correct statement of any tenet of the TOE. If any of them were, in fact, something you had "read" (instead of inventing), it was not something you were "reading" about the TOE. It is telling that, instead of providing links to an actual biologist, or an actual scientist (or even an actual classroom teacher), actually familiar with the actual TOE who supports, or agrees with, the cartoon version you constructed out of straw in order to be able to refute; all you can do is repeat, and repeat, and repeat, and repeat, and repeat your misstatements.

It is a good thing your 'god' is so soft on the whole "false witness" thing...

I must say, in all fairness, that once, just once, you slipped, and said the truth, to wit:
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
<snip>...As I have stated—nothing, that is nothing, can come about by chance—everything must be designed by a designer...<superstitionsnip>
Just this one time, you admitted that your fantasy accusations of claims about "chance" are, in fact, not contained in the TOE, but are your own contribution, without support, without source, without evidence. It is clear that is what you believe; it is equally clear that is not part of the TOE.

Perhaps, having slipped and made the admission, you will come clean, mend your ways, and turn form your ἁμαρτία; and stop pretending that the TOE says what it does not.

Just to be clear: the TOE does not address the "origins" of life; does not address the "origins" of the universe, and does not hold that "everything came about by mere chance".
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 04:47 PM   #3412
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
I have gained a lot of insight from this Professor—you will do well to consider his clear explanation from his many lectures.
Listening to him gives one a good look at where evolutionist get things wrong----Now he was an atheist—but common sense was employed.



http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/2...es-of-genesis/
http://genesisconflict.com/
I see. You will not (can not?) read sources suggested to you, but you "encourage" others to watch videos you found helpful? Maybe you missed the part about AIG and DI.

At any rate, I have explained my problem with videos beforee, multiple times. Are you aware of anywhere this nutritional psychologist (who, by his own testimony, "abandoned" the TOE, not because of physical evidence, but because of conflicts with his new-found (Adventist) faith, and who now practices apologetics), has published, or made available, the transcripts to his sermons? I would see what he has to say, but I am loath to sit through preachment. Reading is much easier for me.

Thanks!
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 04:57 PM   #3413
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Lest you think it went unnoticed, you missed a few questions.

In your own opinion, when is þͤ fludde to be supposed to have taken place?

In your own opinion,what physical evidence is there for þͤ fludde?

In your own opinion, why does the fossil record demonstrate chronological sorting, instead of hydrodynamic sorting, or the results of some specially-pled "escape protocol"?

In your own opinion, how, in fact, did two three-toed sloths get form Turkey to Brasil?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 07:38 PM   #3414
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,213
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
You are absolutely correct—my knowledge stems from the one Book, written by 39 different people,

Wrong on the count.


Quote:
over a period of some 1500 years,

Quite open to doubt.


Quote:
by mere chance.
Again the false understanding of the terminology.


Quote:
I tried this by putting all the ingredients for a cake in a bowl,, but no cake was formed.

Because, in very large part, a cake is more than just the ingredients.
Peregrinus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 08:09 PM   #3415
devnull
Philosopher
 
devnull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,057
Paul, why would I take life advice from someone who consistently makes the same error, again and again, in spite of being corrected numerous times?
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas
devnull is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 08:14 PM   #3416
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
You are absolutely correct—my knowledge stems from the one Book, written by 39 different people, over a period of some 1500 years, consolidated into 66 books.

Yes, and the Gospels of the New Testament were chosen by church leaders following their own political/religious agendas, and were not in there current form until the 16th century - more than 1500 years after JC is alleged to have walked the earth. Given the different tones if the various gospels and the differences in content, it is readily apparent that they are NOT writing about the same person, or are doing so based on third or fourth hand information at best, plus there is also the lack of corroborating evidence for several of the key figures in texts other than the Bible. Meaning that your sole source of knowledge is inaccurate, contradictory and is the product of several committees.

Had Arias been more politically connected it is quite possible that his interpretation of JC would now be what is taught.

The Old Testament is another product of committees, and differs from the Torah in content as well.

If this is indeed a divinely inspired book - it is apparent to all, save those who will not see, that the message has changed over the years and what is now considered as part of the Bible may not always have been. In short there is no way to actually know if what you believe in is actually what your deity inspired, if it was all made up to support a particular agenda, or if time and copying have altered the message.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 08:36 PM   #3417
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
<misrepresentationsnip; superstitionsnip>
So what do you teach a second-grader?
Surely a second-grader cannot understand TOE—it is to complicated.
Actually, Second Graders can, in fact, learn the basics of the TOE, and understand it very well.

Here is an overview of a process i have used, more than once; I will not go into the kind of excruciating detail an actual lesson plan requires.

Start by emphasizing the four practical pillars of the TOE:
-Variation
-Inheritance
-Selection
-Time

Present each one with a concrete activity, and be sure to emphasize the functional vocabulary.

For Variation, have the students draw up a chart of visible physical traits (eye color, hair color, hair texture, skin color, height, build, nose shape, eye shape, face shape, handedness, and so forth--this will work best if you let the students, themselves, identify and select traits). Have the students draw up a personal chart on themselves; then mix up the charts and have the students locate the person designated by a chart chosen at random.

For Inheritance, have them use their physical traits list to see if they can tell if they are more like their parents and siblings than their cousins, or their friends. Point out how heredity goes hand-in-hand with variation by talking about how they are like, but not identical to their close relatives. There are many age-appropriate "build-a-critter" activities, where students use various methods to select alleles for "traits" in simple organisms ("Snorks" is a good one); have the students build or draw their organisms to explore the ways in which the same organism can be different.

For Selection, play "Hide-a-Moth": give each student a simple paper moth shape; let them color the moth to match a particular background or "habitat" in the room; hide the colored moths on the selected background, and have a "predator" hunt for the moths (it is fun to let another teacher, or the principal, be the "predator"); any moth that is found in 180 seconds dies, and does not reproduce. Let the students use the characteristics of the surviving moths to figure out what the next generation of moths might look like. (If you have time, you can even make, and hunt, the second, and the third, generation).

Another Selection activity is a Trophic Structures game (the one I use with Second Graders is called, "Food Fight"). Basically, the students are divided into 4 teams. Each team selects a "hunter", each team's "hunter" gets a different "tool" taped to the thumb and forefinger of each hand (one "hunter", for instance, gets a plastic spoon, bowl up, taped to each hand; one gets the same kind of spoon but bowl down, one gets two forks, one gets two knives). Put a large, square blanket on the floor, and scatter a package of coloured mini-marshmallows on it. Let the students "hunt for food" (they have to pick up one piece of food with only their tools, and take it back to the rest of their team, off the blanket, before they can go back and pick up another. At the end of two minutes, have the students graph how much food was gathered with each tool. You can do several different ways of showing how the most successful tool would become more numerous, and the least successful tool might even die out. If you can play outside, on grass, you can do the same kind of analysis on the "food"--which colour is the best at hiding, which will die out, etc.

For Time, have the students build a timeline of significant geological events, to get a feeling for how much time is involved.

In a week, you will have a class of students who have no problem understanding the basics of the actual TOE. Do notice two things: Not one of the activities even mentions "the origin of life", or the "origin of the universe"; not one of the activities teaches or even implies that "everything came about by chance".

It's much easier, much more fruitful, and more constructive than telling the students fairy tales and superstitions--and I get to deal with things they can see and make happen with their own two hands. I get to be honest with them.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 09:54 PM   #3418
gabeygoat
Graduate Poster
 
gabeygoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hard Corvallis Oregon
Posts: 1,944
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
But I still cannot from what I have read and heard about TOE, accept that things came about by mere chance. I tried this by putting all the ingredients for a cake in a bowl,, but no cake was formed.
N[/b]
Just because you aren't smart enough to bake the ingredients doesn't disprove evolution
__________________
"May I interest you in some coconut milk?" ~Akhenaten Wallabe Esq
gabeygoat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 10:04 PM   #3419
Astreja
Springy Goddess
 
Astreja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,513
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
It still requires design—to fit things together.
Not at all. Molecules, atoms and subatomic particles fall together into stable structures as a result of their own electromagnetic properties, and those structures react with other ones to create increasingly more complex ones.

Quite frankly, I don't think that a god who'd let his "creation" succumb to the wiles of a Talking Snake™ is smart enough to build a Higgs boson, let alone something like deoxyribonucleic acid.

Quote:
Personal appearance you will get—but I can assure you that you will not be so haughty at the time.
Well, if your "assurance" is up to your usual prophetic standards (or lack thereof), you may well witness Me tossing your alleged god into a supernova, My haughtiness unscathed, and then inviting everyone from Hell upstairs for one heck of a good party. .
__________________
Reality is a theory, not a hypothesis.
Astreja is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:46 AM   #3420
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by ComfySlippers View Post
Emerald cockroach wasp - Wikipedia
Read onwards from "Reproductive behavior and life cycle" and tell me that your God isn't a bit of a twisted pollock if he gets pleasure from any of that.
Life mutates—things change from the original---like cannibalism.
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 04:51 AM   #3421
ComfySlippers
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
Life mutates—things change from the original---like cannibalism.

Your mish mash of gibberish proves how much you're struggling to keep your silly stories straight.

So life mutates? You've explained that things don't happen by chance so what caused the emerald cockroach wasp to "mutate"? Surely your God designed the creature this way when he created it?

Or did this creature do a naughty like the black people you despise so much who became black because they ate gorillas and drank blood?

What quantity of blood and gorilla do I have to consume before I turn black?
Or am I like one of the cakes you don't understand how to make?

Does your God have a belly button?
Ask him when you next chat with him please.
Also, ask him for a proper date of when this END is going to happen.
I for one can't wait for it, it sounds a real hoot.
ComfySlippers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 05:59 AM   #3422
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,213
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
Life mutates—things change from the original---like cannibalism.
Evolution is false, but mutation is true? It is to larf. And, cannibalism "mutated" from what, pray tell?
Peregrinus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 06:06 AM   #3423
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,213
yet another telling error

And your "66 books" is only true for some bibles; other Christian canons contain as many as 80.
Peregrinus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 06:36 AM   #3424
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
But I still cannot from what I have read and heard about TOE, accept that things came about by mere chance.
Once again: the only part chance plays in evolution by natural selection is in the provision of variety, the raw material upon which natural selection acts. Natural selection is a far more powerful force than chance - powerful enough to turn billion-to-one probabilities into stone cold certainties - but it is not a conscious force, let alone an intelligent one.

You can either make some effort to understand this (and most small children have no difficulty grasping it) or you can keep wilfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting what the TOE says, and keep being corrected by those who do understand it, until you die.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 09:10 AM   #3425
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,521
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
Life mutates—things change from the original---like cannibalism.
So, let me think if I understand now: what you call god is not enough; now you need a devil to stick out its tail.

[Why don't you take this way out I'm offering you and start a new chapter of this long thread. So far, your strawmen about evolution have failed miserably, your repetition of the bit "by chance" that is a classic boomerang clumsily used by creationists has degenerated in a sort of "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!" on your part, so, give it a thought]
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated.These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
If the horse reasons the Kentucky Derby is over
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 09:39 AM   #3426
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 14,588
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
There is too much to address—so I will as I have said before, retain my stance on what I have previously stated. You keep referring to TOE as if this is the final explanation and that TOE only deals with certain things and not the explanation of how all things came to be.

Evolution states that there is no Creator, and that everything came about by some magical formation of certain things that formed other things, which in turn other things evolved.

Some say that the universe is 13.8 billion years old—now I have read how people arrive at this so very accurate number, but still am baffled how they can be so sure of their facts—no I am not baffled, just amused.

I am what people call a creationist, so naturally I do not hold to the theories of evolution—they make no sense to an intelligent person.

You and others can present what you want and I will read it, but it still is beyond reason that what we have, is the result of chance happenings.

Design Sir, everything must come about by design—to reject this is not realistic, because everything in the world today has been designed.

So if that is the case, how can you insist that the universe came about without design?
Since you the one who is immortal and since you are the one who has God powers, then kindly show us mere mortals good data that supports your conclusions.
__________________
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 10:28 AM   #3427
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
As an example of why we should NOT use the Bible as a sole source of knowledge let's take a look at the geneaology of Jesus.

It's dealt with explicitly in 2 of the 4 Gospels found in the New Testament (NT), the other 2 ignoring everything about Jesus that happened pre-ministry.

Matthew figures that we need to establish JC's right to be considered the Messiah right away and takes the first 16 verses of the first chapter to cover Jesus' ancestor's. He traces the ancestry right back to Abraham. According to Matthew, Joseph is the descendant of King David through Soloman (David's son by Bathsheba - the woman David had Uriah the Hittite betrayed and killed over).

Luke starts off a little later in his story, waiting until chapter 3. He traces it all back to Adam, but there is little agreement between the lists - ie. David. After David the stories diverge - Matthew tracing JC's human lineage through Soloman, a well known king, while Luke traces the line through Nathan, a lesser known son of David who was never King. The two gospels don't even agree as to who the father of Joseph was - Matthew says that Joseph's father was Jacob, Luke says it was Heli. Which should tell anyone that the authors of these two gospels didn't actually know JC, and certainly were trying to advance a particular religious/political agenda - namely that JC had a right to be the Messiah, or annoited one based on his ancestry through the male line to the Kings of old - which would have been essential to gaining political and religious control, one author decided to go for the gusto, while another went for a lesser known line to make it just a little more plausible.

And if you believe either text, it's all pointless because Jesus is the bastard child born of an adulterous union between Mary and the Holy Spirit, which given the way that bastards were treated in ancient societies you can understand why it's glossed over.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:04 PM   #3428
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by ComfySlippers View Post
Your mish mash of gibberish proves how much you're struggling to keep your silly stories straight.

So life mutates? You've explained that things don't happen by chance so what caused the emerald cockroach wasp to "mutate"? Surely your God designed the creature this way when he created it?

Or did this creature do a naughty like the black people you despise so much who became black because they ate gorillas and drank blood?

What quantity of blood and gorilla do I have to consume before I turn black?
Or am I like one of the cakes you don't understand how to make?

Does your God have a belly button?
Ask him when you next chat with him please.
Also, ask him for a proper date of when this END is going to happen.
I for one can't wait for it, it sounds a real hoot.
Mutation is when something changes from its original’
Quote:
A Mutation occurs when a DNA gene is damaged or changed in such a way as to alter the genetic message carried by that gene. A Mutagen is an agent of substance that can bring about a permanent alteration to the physical composition of a DNA gene such that the genetic message is changed.
So as I stated –all that God created in its perfect kind, has been changed by man who deviated from what God created—so life has mutations, different to what was original—so mutation took place when people began to drink raw blood.

I know you will not be so haughty when the END comes.

So the world is close to the same degree of violence when God destroyed those people.► Gen_6:13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.


You see Slippers God would not be just if he should favouritism.

► Isaiah_13:11 I will punish the world for its evil, the wicked for their sins. I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty and will humble the pride of the ruthless.

So be patient and enjoy your present life—for the END will change all of that.
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:09 PM   #3429
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Evolution is false, but mutation is true? It is to larf. And, cannibalism "mutated" from what, pray tell?
Pray I will tell you—cannibalism is when people eat people.
So I was using this to show how corrupt people had become—so many variety of animals mutated from what they were originally created to be. It illustrates how change can take place through what people consume as food.
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:15 PM   #3430
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
And your "66 books" is only true for some bibles; other Christian canons contain as many as 80.
That may be so—but the 66 books are sufficient to give a clear revelation of what God wants to pass on to us, in order for us to understand the revelation he has given to us.
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:18 PM   #3431
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Once again: the only part chance plays in evolution by natural selection is in the provision of variety, the raw material upon which natural selection acts. Natural selection is a far more powerful force than chance - powerful enough to turn billion-to-one probabilities into stone cold certainties - but it is not a conscious force, let alone an intelligent one.

You can either make some effort to understand this (and most small children have no difficulty grasping it) or you can keep wilfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting what the TOE says, and keep being corrected by those who do understand it, until you die.
But I will not die.
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:22 PM   #3432
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Actually, Second Graders can, in fact, learn the basics of the TOE, and understand it very well.

Here is an overview of a process i have used, more than once; I will not go into the kind of excruciating detail an actual lesson plan requires.

Start by emphasizing the four practical pillars of the TOE:
-Variation
-Inheritance
-Selection
-Time

Present each one with a concrete activity, and be sure to emphasize the functional vocabulary.

For Variation, have the students draw up a chart of visible physical traits (eye color, hair color, hair texture, skin color, height, build, nose shape, eye shape, face shape, handedness, and so forth--this will work best if you let the students, themselves, identify and select traits). Have the students draw up a personal chart on themselves; then mix up the charts and have the students locate the person designated by a chart chosen at random.

For Inheritance, have them use their physical traits list to see if they can tell if they are more like their parents and siblings than their cousins, or their friends. Point out how heredity goes hand-in-hand with variation by talking about how they are like, but not identical to their close relatives. There are many age-appropriate "build-a-critter" activities, where students use various methods to select alleles for "traits" in simple organisms ("Snorks" is a good one); have the students build or draw their organisms to explore the ways in which the same organism can be different.

For Selection, play "Hide-a-Moth": give each student a simple paper moth shape; let them color the moth to match a particular background or "habitat" in the room; hide the colored moths on the selected background, and have a "predator" hunt for the moths (it is fun to let another teacher, or the principal, be the "predator"); any moth that is found in 180 seconds dies, and does not reproduce. Let the students use the characteristics of the surviving moths to figure out what the next generation of moths might look like. (If you have time, you can even make, and hunt, the second, and the third, generation).

Another Selection activity is a Trophic Structures game (the one I use with Second Graders is called, "Food Fight"). Basically, the students are divided into 4 teams. Each team selects a "hunter", each team's "hunter" gets a different "tool" taped to the thumb and forefinger of each hand (one "hunter", for instance, gets a plastic spoon, bowl up, taped to each hand; one gets the same kind of spoon but bowl down, one gets two forks, one gets two knives). Put a large, square blanket on the floor, and scatter a package of coloured mini-marshmallows on it. Let the students "hunt for food" (they have to pick up one piece of food with only their tools, and take it back to the rest of their team, off the blanket, before they can go back and pick up another. At the end of two minutes, have the students graph how much food was gathered with each tool. You can do several different ways of showing how the most successful tool would become more numerous, and the least successful tool might even die out. If you can play outside, on grass, you can do the same kind of analysis on the "food"--which colour is the best at hiding, which will die out, etc.

For Time, have the students build a timeline of significant geological events, to get a feeling for how much time is involved.

In a week, you will have a class of students who have no problem understanding the basics of the actual TOE. Do notice two things: Not one of the activities even mentions "the origin of life", or the "origin of the universe"; not one of the activities teaches or even implies that "everything came about by chance".

It's much easier, much more fruitful, and more constructive than telling the students fairy tales and superstitions--and I get to deal with things they can see and make happen with their own two hands. I get to be honest with them.
You also believe in fairy tales—for that is what evolution is—do you support the theory of the big bang?
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:28 PM   #3433
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Yes, and the Gospels of the New Testament were chosen by church leaders following their own political/religious agendas, and were not in there current form until the 16th century - more than 1500 years after JC is alleged to have walked the earth. Given the different tones if the various gospels and the differences in content, it is readily apparent that they are NOT writing about the same person, or are doing so based on third or fourth hand information at best, plus there is also the lack of corroborating evidence for several of the key figures in texts other than the Bible. Meaning that your sole source of knowledge is inaccurate, contradictory and is the product of several committees.

Had Arias been more politically connected it is quite possible that his interpretation of JC would now be what is taught.

The Old Testament is another product of committees, and differs from the Torah in content as well.

If this is indeed a divinely inspired book - it is apparent to all, save those who will not see, that the message has changed over the years and what is now considered as part of the Bible may not always have been. In short there is no way to actually know if what you believe in is actually what your deity inspired, if it was all made up to support a particular agenda, or if time and copying have altered the message.
Very well put—but that does not deter from the revelation that is contained in the present 66 Books.
The harmony of the books are accurate with regards to the overall revelation.
That is why I have a clear understanding of the END.
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:30 PM   #3434
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 5,203
Originally Posted by gabeygoat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Bethke View Post
But I still cannot from what I have read and heard about TOE, accept that things came about by mere chance. I tried this by putting all the ingredients for a cake in a bowl,, but no cake was formed.
Just because you aren't smart enough to bake the ingredients doesn't disprove evolution
Best answer ever to one of the sillier creationist memes. And another thought- if Saint Paul had put the bowl outside on a hot enough day, he probably would have gotten his cake, no magic (or "chance") required.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:31 PM   #3435
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
I see. You will not (can not?) read sources suggested to you, but you "encourage" others to watch videos you found helpful? Maybe you missed the part about AIG and DI.

At any rate, I have explained my problem with videos beforee, multiple times. Are you aware of anywhere this nutritional psychologist (who, by his own testimony, "abandoned" the TOE, not because of physical evidence, but because of conflicts with his new-found (Adventist) faith, and who now practices apologetics), has published, or made available, the transcripts to his sermons? I would see what he has to say, but I am loath to sit through preachment. Reading is much easier for me.

Thanks!
OK if you say so.
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:34 PM   #3436
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Lest you think it went unnoticed, you missed a few questions.

In your own opinion, when is þͤ fludde to be supposed to have taken place?

In your own opinion,what physical evidence is there for þͤ fludde?

In your own opinion, why does the fossil record demonstrate chronological sorting, instead of hydrodynamic sorting, or the results of some specially-pled "escape protocol"?

In your own opinion, how, in fact, did two three-toed sloths get form Turkey to Brasil?
I would naturally have to consult some books or Wikipedia on these matters—but you should know so I will leave it with you.
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:36 PM   #3437
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by devnull View Post
Paul, why would I take life advice from someone who consistently makes the same error, again and again, in spite of being corrected numerous times?
If that is the way you see it at present.
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:41 PM   #3438
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by gabeygoat View Post
Just because you aren't smart enough to bake the ingredients doesn't disprove evolution
No but it shows how ridiculous evolution is—nothing can just come into being without being designed.
So like the golden calf, just appearing after the gold was chucked in---so where did all the ingredients come from to create the universe?
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:46 PM   #3439
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Since you the one who is immortal and since you are the one who has God powers, then kindly show us mere mortals good data that supports your conclusions.
The data is there for all to see—but the evidence will be presented to back up the data.
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:48 PM   #3440
Paul Bethke
Philosopher
 
Paul Bethke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Coast South Africa
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
As an example of why we should NOT use the Bible as a sole source of knowledge let's take a look at the geneaology of Jesus.

It's dealt with explicitly in 2 of the 4 Gospels found in the New Testament (NT), the other 2 ignoring everything about Jesus that happened pre-ministry.

Matthew figures that we need to establish JC's right to be considered the Messiah right away and takes the first 16 verses of the first chapter to cover Jesus' ancestor's. He traces the ancestry right back to Abraham. According to Matthew, Joseph is the descendant of King David through Soloman (David's son by Bathsheba - the woman David had Uriah the Hittite betrayed and killed over).

Luke starts off a little later in his story, waiting until chapter 3. He traces it all back to Adam, but there is little agreement between the lists - ie. David. After David the stories diverge - Matthew tracing JC's human lineage through Soloman, a well known king, while Luke traces the line through Nathan, a lesser known son of David who was never King. The two gospels don't even agree as to who the father of Joseph was - Matthew says that Joseph's father was Jacob, Luke says it was Heli. Which should tell anyone that the authors of these two gospels didn't actually know JC, and certainly were trying to advance a particular religious/political agenda - namely that JC had a right to be the Messiah, or annoited one based on his ancestry through the male line to the Kings of old - which would have been essential to gaining political and religious control, one author decided to go for the gusto, while another went for a lesser known line to make it just a little more plausible.

And if you believe either text, it's all pointless because Jesus is the bastard child born of an adulterous union between Mary and the Holy Spirit, which given the way that bastards were treated in ancient societies you can understand why it's glossed over.
Well if that is the way you see it.
__________________
Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.
Paul Bethke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.