Quote:Original post by Machaira

Quote:Original post by twix

Quote:Original post by Machaira
Mainly because, by the time someone becomes a Christian, they've already determined that God is and the Bible is true. I think that's part of what the non-Christians here don't get or forget. They wonder why I'm not willing to consider that I might be wrong. Once you learn 2+2=4 would you believe someone that tells you 2+2=7?

Uh huh. On a similar note, once you've learned 2+2=7, would you believe us when we tell you that 2+2=4? [smile]

And you guys say I say stupid things. [rolleyes]

I take it your answer is no?

Seriously man, when you say something completely ridiculous, don't expect us not to call you on it.

Quote:Original post by Wombah
The discussion so far has done nothing but strengthen my belief that scientists are *far* more willing to actually accept they are wrong, going so far as to actually trying to disprove themselves as a part of the methodology, while on the other side of the fence people don't actually try to prove or disprove their theories at all.

As an example, this is how I'd imagine part of the process when a scientist would go about 'proving' that the flood happened;
Since everything was under water, there would be all kinds of traces of it all over the world (sedimentation, stream beds on dry land and whatnot). Then I should be able to find such traces with a reasonable success rate no matter where I go looking. I would randomly select a large enough location sample set and go look for said traces of a flood, and if I find a lot of them, I would conclude that the flood might have happened, so I'd write it up together with all the other scientific theories in wait for more evidence for or against it.

From what I've read about evidence supporting the flood (admittedly not a lot, but I've read some of it) it seems that rather than making a prediction (traces of the flood can be found all around the world at randomly chosen places) and then trying to disprove it (by going to those places and looking) someone just scoured the world for any places with any traces that could be from a flood. Problem is that the traces could be from localized floods (that I would think almost everyone agrees do happen). This is not a problem if you randomly choose a number of locations and *then* go look, because you would not hit sites for localized floods with a frequency big enough to matter, assuming a large enough set of locations are investigated. The point is that if there was a flood of literally biblical proportions it would leave traces *everywhere*, not in a few carefully selected locations.

It's not about assuming things. That is the basis of formulating the hypothesis, it's about assuming things and then doing a half-assed job of trying to disprove it by carefully selecting that evidence which supports it, while conveniently forgetting all the samples that do not. That's about as informative as this.

Quoted for emphasis. That's exactly my impression of the flaws of creation science as well. The problem with every creation science study I've seen is that the argument always goes:

• Start with the hypothesis as truth
• Look exclusively for evidence that implies that your hypothesis is true
• Ignore anything and everything that discredits your hyptohesis

It's the exact opposite of the scientific method.

Taking the examples of studies into the Creation Flood:

Quote:Clicky1
Clicky2
Clicky3
Clicky4
Clicky5

I'm not a geologist and it would be a misuse of my time to dig too deep into any of these papers (I do have other things to do besides reply to this thread [smile]), but all of these papers fall into the problems outlined by Wombah.

Clicky 1 describes a hypothesis about how the ocean lithosphere could be rapidly recycled into the Earth's mantle, and according to the paper:

Quote:Evidence in the geological record is compelling that such a cataclysmic episode indeed has occurred in the Earth’s recent past. A reasonable inference is that this event corresponds to the Flood described in the Bible and other ancient sources.

In other words, it's arguing that it occured roughly at the same time which may correspond to a global flood. Or it could not; the link is purely an inference. Clicky 3 also seems to this hpyothesis.

Clicky 2 is on how a 3D computational model can show that tectonic plates can deal with the massive amounts of sediment that would be deposited by a worldwide flood. It doesn't actually go out and look for this sediment however.

Clicky 4 is about how carbon dating is flawed, and that samples may be much younger then they were previously dated, which in turn is consistent with a Creation Flood. It's an argument against carbon dating rather than any proof of the flood itself (if their argument is true, then may be because of a flood)

Clicky 5 is again about how someone has created a simulation that holds to a creationist theory of Earth, not actually going out and looking for evidence on the real Earth.

None of these arguments seem very compelling to me; even if their claims are true it does not follow from their hypothesis that the Creation Flood occured, merely that their observations are consistent with the Flood. They're not looking for any evidence that the flood didn't happen, like for example searching for a large sediment layer everyone on Earth at the time they expect the Flood to occur. To me it appears as very bad science.

Quote:Original post by LachlanL

Quote:Original post by skjinedmjeet
At a certain point Faith began bothering me quite a bit: It seemed to be the primary cause of terrorism! Sure, you might argue that terrorists believe in a more extreme version of their religion, or a perverted version of Islam but these people have enough Faith that they are willing to not only kill others, but die themselves in the process. Faith - belief without evidence - is the culprit, not "Islamic extremism" which itself is simply a particularly nasty expression of Faith.

Hey, just thought I'd stop by and comment on this. Is it not possible that faith could be more of an excuse for terrorism, than a cause for it?

Certainly for many people their (professed) faith is used as an excuse, but at the same time, for many other people faith is the primary cause of their actions. Is the evidence in on which is of greater significance? Not that I know of.

More significantly, does it matter? My interpretation is that a powerful minority use religion (amongst other things) to trick a faithful majority into accepting and supporting their actions.

I think the "Muslims vs. Christians" or "Freedom vs. Terrorism" charades have been used to quell (not, of course, entirely successfully) unrest amongst the American and British populace about a war which is basically about control of strategically and commercially important oil resources.

You might say that if the wrongs attributable to religion come about from it being used as a tool for deceiving people rather than following naturally from the teachings of the religion itself, that means religion can be held blameless.

Well, I disagree. The fact is that religion can be used to manipulate and control people towards nefarious ends. It has been used for this purpose for tens of thousands of years. The atheist might well argue that that was the original purpose of organized, hierarchical religion. And over the thousands of years religion has, on the whole, still not taken steps to inoculate itself against this.

For many religions, the organizational structure is still an unquestionable hierarchy, with free-thinkers and people who don't submit to the cult of personality of their leaders (I'm thinking in this sentence of the Pope, and hugely wealthy TV evangelists) dismissed as heretics. For all the obvious harm that these attitudes cause, most significant religions have yet to decry them.

Few religions explicitly, clearly and repeatedly admonish their followers not to trust their "spiritual betters"; one which does is Buddhism, whose iconoclasmic tendencies extend to admonishing its followers that if they should happen to encounter the Buddha, they are to kill him. (Not literally: The lesson is that if you meet a teacher of great renown, you must kill the version of him that you have in your mind so you can see him for the flawed mortal he truly is.)

Quote:Original post by Machaira

Quote:Original post by King of Men
2. The point that prayer should not be producing 5% effects on hospital stay lengths, but miracles.

No, it's not the point.

There seems to be some confusion here. You see, that is exactly the point that KoM made. That is most definitely the point. The Bible says in quite plain terms that prayer can move mountains, kill fig trees, or cause mulberry trees to grow on the ocean. Prayer is not observed to produce this result. That is very much the point KoM was making. The point, is that.

I understand that it might not be the point that you would like to have made, though.

Quote:Original post by Machaira
I'm not willing to consider that I might be wrong.

And you berate us for apparently displaying the same flaw. And demand evidence which, necessarily, you can't accept because you're not willing to consider that you might be wrong.

Quote:Original post by LachlanL

Quote:Original post by BerwynIrish

Quote:Original post by Machaira

Quote:Original post by Sandman
Anyone who believes the flood story to be literally true earth is round/earth is not the center of the universe/etc. clearly has little or no grip on reality. I really can't take anyone who believes that ridiculous kiddie story seriously.

Food for thought. [grin]

You suck at rational thinking. I mean, really, really suck.

And no, I won't tell you why. In fact, I can't tell you why, because you do nothing but play games. There are 2-3 implications in your quote above, all of which are shit. I won't pick them out one by one because you could always come back with one of your trademark one-sentence non-replies which allow you to avoid directness.

"It's a good thing I don't believe that, then"
"You're making assumptions"
"I already addressed that"

I don't have the time to deal with that kind of nonsense. Suffice it to say, if by some miracle you had made your point in a direct manner, I am confident that myself and others could point out the irrationality of it.

But of course, making judgements with no argument to back them up is just sooooo much better. You do realise that many of your observations above apply to your post, don't you? "I don't have time to deal with that kind of nonsense". Man, that's the perfect post! I think I'll just respond with that from now on.

You do have a half-truth which might confuse the simple or inattentive: Had Machaira made a direct point, I would have addressed it. Further, nothing has been stopping him from making the point directly since his original "food for thought" post, and I have in fact been waiting for such forthrightness so I could have my say about it. But this troll would find it more agreeable that I put words in Mac's mouth and then attack that.

That aside, I've learned better than try to reason with LachlanL, but if there's anybody reading this who is just joining us and is inclined to take this troll seriously, then I suggest reviewing some of the exchanges between myself and Machaira and drawing your own conclusions as to whether or not my aversion to addressing vaguely-made points on Machaira's part is warranted. And there is also his implication that I routinely don't back up what I say, which is a hoot and a half. I again invite anybody who cares enough to take LL seriously to review this thread and decide for themselves. And I ask the same for whatever future nonsense he posts about me, because I am done responding to him.

Quote:
Offtopic:
Welcome to number 3 in the hottest topics of all time!

Ontopic:

The following is pure opinion, and is not ment to question
one's beliefs in any way. I apologize in advance if the following
offends anyone in anyway.

"Do you believe in God" can be a hard or an easy question.
It all depends on each individual persons believes. As
no one can prove Gods existance, or not, wheather one believes
or not is irrelvant as both sides are correct.

Alot of people may not believe in God until something tragic
happens, and they lose hope.

Other people may believe in God some days, but question other
days. I personally would fit in this category. I feel his
existance; however I dont question God directly. Anytime one
questions how the world works they may indirectly question God.
(ie, Science vs Magic")

This is just my opinion.

Quote:Original post by BerwynIrish

Quote:Original post by LachlanL

Quote:Original post by BerwynIrish

Quote:Original post by Machaira

Quote:Original post by Sandman
Anyone who believes the flood story to be literally true earth is round/earth is not the center of the universe/etc. clearly has little or no grip on reality. I really can't take anyone who believes that ridiculous kiddie story seriously.

Food for thought. [grin]

You suck at rational thinking. I mean, really, really suck.

And no, I won't tell you why. In fact, I can't tell you why, because you do nothing but play games. There are 2-3 implications in your quote above, all of which are shit. I won't pick them out one by one because you could always come back with one of your trademark one-sentence non-replies which allow you to avoid directness.

"It's a good thing I don't believe that, then"
"You're making assumptions"
"I already addressed that"

I don't have the time to deal with that kind of nonsense. Suffice it to say, if by some miracle you had made your point in a direct manner, I am confident that myself and others could point out the irrationality of it.

But of course, making judgements with no argument to back them up is just sooooo much better. You do realise that many of your observations above apply to your post, don't you? "I don't have time to deal with that kind of nonsense". Man, that's the perfect post! I think I'll just respond with that from now on.

You do have a half-truth which might confuse the simple or inattentive: Had Machaira made a direct point, I would have addressed it. Further, nothing has been stopping him from making the point directly since his original "food for thought" post, and I have in fact been waiting for such forthrightness so I could have my say about it. But this troll would find it more agreeable that I put words in Mac's mouth and then attack that.

That aside, I've learned better than try to reason with LachlanL, but if there's anybody reading this who is just joining us and is inclined to take this troll seriously, then I suggest reviewing some of the exchanges between myself and Machaira and drawing your own conclusions as to whether or not my aversion to addressing vaguely-made points on Machaira's part is warranted. And there is also his implication that I routinely don't back up what I say, which is a hoot and a half. I again invite anybody who cares enough to take LL seriously to review this thread and decide for themselves. And I ask the same for whatever future nonsense he posts about me, because I am done responding to him.

Alrighty, I apologize if I made it look like I was commenting on all of your posts. I'm happy to confirm that most of the time your posts are well argued and thorough.

What I was commenting on was these occasional posts you throw in where you dump in a ton of judgement to the tune of "you suck" and then promptly follow up with "And no, I won't tell you why". How exactly was he supposed to respond to that? Was there any purpose at all? Are the rest of us supposed to just nod and chuckle? I'm not trying to say that I agree with whatever his original post was about. I'm just saying we could be a bit more constructive about things. I realise you guys are probably getting quite frustrated with the way Machaira answers some of your questions, but flying off the handle isn't going to make it any better. If you want to call me a troll, that's fine. I'm not trying to win a popularity contest.

That's just my opinion though, so feel free to flame away. [grin]

Quote:Original post by Crypter
"Do you believe in God" can be a hard or an easy question.
It all depends on each individual persons believes. As
no one can prove Gods existance, or not, wheather one believes
or not is irrelvant as both sides are correct.

Don't agree. Saying we don't know is neither wrong nor correct; saying "God does/doesn't exist" could mean you will be right or wrong but all your doing is taking a wild guess anyway. Stick to reason and evidence and say you just don't know.