After concluding my thread on the Origins of the Universe, and When did Life begin, I think it is suitable to continue with the Radio Isotope dating techniques used by scientists to claim that Life can be as old as 3.5 billion years.
Now, I am not going to talk about Dendronology, Ice cores, or C14 tests.
C14 was discussed, and the mentioned treering and Ice layers will be discussed in future.
No, I want to know what the Atheist knows about how Fossils are tested to give a certain age of the once living creatures that died millions of years ago.
Is there a test that we can perform in a lab where we take a sample of this fossil, put it into a spectrometer, and get a printout, Coelacant=65 million years BP?
Lets see if there is an Atheist with the answer.
*sigh*... Let me google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?iie=1&q=Radiometric+dating). It's not what "atheists know" about the dating of fossils, it's what actual scientists and researchers know about it, that can be verified by other scientists and researchers, in free and open inquiry.
The data is starting to indicate that you're a troll. If you're so damned sure you're on to something here, why aren't you talking to actual archaeologists, biologists, and other researchers in the appropriate fields? I mean, I thank you for assuming all atheists must have multiple doctorates in multiple disciplinesâ€"I suppose it must seem that way to an apparent Romper Room dropout of a mouseâ€"but all we really do is read and think about what we've read, rather than just marvel at all the pretty squiggles on the screen or page.
I hope you guys enjoy your mental pushups.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 17, 2018, 01:28:36 PM
I hope you guys enjoy your mental pushups.
Rejecting evolution, implies rejection of biology. Rejection of biology, implies rejection of paleontology. Stratigraphy, partly based on fossils, and radioactive dating methods, are used to "date" long ago eras. Rejection of radioactive dating involves rejection of physics. Which helps with rejecting geology and biology. Basically it is saying ... "look at me, I am an idiot".
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 17, 2018, 01:28:36 PM
I hope you guys enjoy your mental pushups.
My brain has washboard abs and awesome biceps by now! XD
Quote from: Baruch on July 17, 2018, 05:31:20 PM
Rejecting evolution, implies rejection of biology. Rejection of biology, implies rejection of paleontology. Stratigraphy, partly based on fossils, and radioactive dating methods, are used to "date" long ago eras. Rejection of radioactive dating involves rejection of physics. Which helps with rejecting geology and biology. Basically it is saying ... "look at me, I am an idiot".
Well, how do you do that?
Quote from: Baruch on July 17, 2018, 05:31:20 PM
Rejecting evolution, implies rejection of biology. Rejection of biology, implies rejection of paleontology. Stratigraphy, partly based on fossils, and radioactive dating methods, are used to "date" long ago eras. Rejection of radioactive dating involves rejection of physics. Which helps with rejecting geology and biology. Basically it is saying ... "look at me, I am an idiot".
And here we have the answer.
There are many other sites, but anyone will suffice
Determining the age of Rocks and fossils (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/McKinney.html)
and here we use fossils to date rocks, but the Rocks was dated with RI dating (https://www.fossilera.com/pages/dating-fossils)
but Wiki gives an in depth explanation.
Radiometric dating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating)
And dont forget the geological column
geological column (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale#/media/File:Geologic_Clock_with_events_and_periods.svg)
Sorry, Mousetrap, but you have been taken in by used-science salesmen. I hope you didn't buy any cars from them ;-( Got Phlogiston?
Now, after we found that Atheists accuse the Biblical description of the origins of the Universe as non scientific, and I showed my Atheist warriors that the science which they thought was evidence to disprove the Biblical version, was actually plagiarized from Genesis!
This is something no atheist likes to hear, and they will never take scientific discoveries in support of the Nebular theory as evidence that destroys their belief.
Frankly, they get crazy when they find out that the current scientific description on the Origins of the Universe, was actually a description claimed by the 'Author" of the Bible about 4500 years ago.
This is the one Thing that made me realize that the Bible has much more to say about the Existence of a Creator, than what atheists and scientists like us to believe.
I followed this investigation up with the initial agenda to dismiss the Biblical claim that Life is a mere 6YK in existence.
Well, when I looked at what scientists were teaching about dating ex life with C14/C12 RI tests, I learned that the Bible actually spoke about the effects of C14, and the over or under supply of it in the Atmosphere. I learned that the Biblical description of an atmosphere that was not yet in Equilibrium, but that was waterlogged and was instrumental in a Global flood, and that this atmosphere cleared after this flood to effectively allow refraction of light for the first time, led me to understand that the claim that the atmosphere was already in equilibrium millions of years ago was incorrect.
Why, because scientists explains that the mor C14 radioactivity in your body, the faster you will age.
Wow, this then took another claim ridden by Atheists as proof of Biblical mythology, and it destroyed the atheist claim abruptly.
The description...(something the Bible claims and atheists calls mythology) Humans lived for a long time in this atmosphere before the flood, and just after it.
They did not age this fast!
Well, Well, Well...The Bible is correct again, and atheism is wrong again.
Therefore, The Nebular theory proved the Bible correct, and science proved the Nebular theory correct.
C14 Dating proved the Bible correct and science proved c14 correct.
Now we will look at RI dating on fossils and rocks.
Lets see.
If we test a rock's age, what are we testing?
The radio isotope decay in the rock.
Can this scientific test be incorrect?
No.
Why, because we are measuring certain isotope decay, and this is set in 'stone'.
I do not have any objection in the dating methods at all!
I agree with them, rocks are old.
The Earth is old!
But life?
C14 could not prove life existed longer ago than 6YK.
So what can we use?
Oh, I forgot, we have fossils caught up in strata and these fossils can be dated with RI tests.
So, if we look at where a fossil is in the strata of a rock layer, we can say this animal lived a certain age ago.
To conclude,
We will date the fossil as well as the Rock with RI tests.
We will look at where the fossil is in the rock strata to determine its age.
Great.
I will be back.
Of course, your bible also says that whales are fish (they're not), that bats are birds (they're not) and that pi is equal to exactly 3 (it isn't).
So much science, yeah.
Since I know you need all the help you can get, Mousie, that last sentence was sarcasm.
Quote from: trdsf on July 18, 2018, 07:06:09 AM
Of course, your bible also says that whales are fish (they're not), that bats are birds (they're not) and that pi is equal to exactly 3 (it isn't).
So much science, yeah.
Since I know you need all the help you can get, Mousie, that last sentence was sarcasm.
I never can understand the argument by Bible criticizers on these points.
The Hebrew word for fouls or birds in the Torah is flying creature and for whales is sea creatures.
There is a law in South Africa that prohibits people from smoking in a public place.
It was published in 2005.
Lets test the situation according to your reasoning.
I used to smoke everywhere since 1980, but stopped doing so in 2005, and was summoned to court last year for smoking in public places before 2005.
Do you think the state prosecutor will stand a chance to get me convicted for doing something before the goalposts was set up?
Ridiculous indeed.
Now, what you are attempting to do is to say that because Carolus Linnaeus produced Taxonomy starting in 1735, the Biblical description that a bat is not a mammal is incorrect.
Following up on this you deliberately again went and produced a straw man, which you thought if destroyed, you proved the Bible wrong.
When will atheists ever learn this can not be used as an argument.
Quote from: trdsf on July 18, 2018, 07:06:09 AM
... and that pi is equal to exactly 3 (it isn't).
So much science, yeah.
...
And bring on the Sea of Solomon as a measurement, and lets see if it is to the dimensions you are so confused about.
Take into account that I will use calculations on the Inside and Outside diameter.
Come on guys, this so called mathematical error was already answered in 1675 by Newton.
His words was...
...throughout my life I studied the Bible (Old Testament) and could not find a single error when tested by theoretical and experimental science....
And here you come and think you can use the Atheists annotated Bible to prove something that simply was answered by one of the World's greatest scientists and Biblical students.
Ah, good, you've just undermined your bible completely as any sort of authority. What does the bible say about the Sea of Solomon? The
exact wording is ten cubits in diameter and thirty cubits in circumference. It says NOTHING about inner and outer diameters, that's just later made-up stuff to try to get past the fact that this was clearly written not by a god, but by an innumerate nomad. I don't care if Newton, Einstein, Hawking or Ed Witten came up with the inner and outer diameter
apologia, it's still
not what your book says.
So who do you worship, your god or Isaac Newton?
You have by your own admission fallen to interpretation, which means you can no longer demand literalism. If you want to be literalist, you need to be consistent. If you want to interpret, then you permit interpretation of any of it. There is no test you can devise to separate the literal from the figurative.
And now I'm going to sit back and be amused while you desperately try to claim that interpretation is literalism and black is white and up is down.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 18, 2018, 09:21:35 AM
Now, what you are attempting to do is to say that because Carolus Linnaeus produced Taxonomy starting in 1735, the Biblical description that a bat is not a mammal is incorrect.
Following up on this you deliberately again went and produced a straw man, which you thought if destroyed, you proved the Bible wrong.
When will atheists ever learn this can not be used as an argument.
The bible didn't say bats were mammals (they are) and
I never said it did, you lying hypocrite. The bible said BIRDS.
*
ahem* And
you're the one demanding the bible is scientifically accurate, not us.
And now you admit it isn't? What the fuck have you been wasting all our time for, then? You just completely threw out EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID.
Confirmed...Mousedroppings is a creationist chump, and he's beginning to repeat his material.
Time for purgatory?
Quote from: sdelsolray on July 18, 2018, 09:55:13 AM
Confirmed...Mousedroppings is a creationist chump, and he's beginning to repeat his material.
Time for purgatory?
Yeah, I'm leaning that way. Now that Mousie is claiming that his bible is science except that it isn't, that's
the fundamental contradiction, and pisses away his 200-some posts in one puff of logic.
Quote from: sdelsolray on July 18, 2018, 09:55:13 AM
Confirmed...Mousedroppings is a creationist chump, and he's beginning to repeat his material.
Time for purgatory?
Oh I don't know.
I wouldn't, if I were admin.
He's only got one strike in my book, found in the horse he rode in on.
Now if he were to actually spam a whole lot new threads or interrupt other threads with his spiel, then yes.
But the amount of threads he makes are relatively low. They are higher than my count, for sure. But if we were to put someone in purgatory for making uninteresting a couple of uninteresting threads in a row, we'd have to place a lot more people there to stay consitent.
Randy Carson spammed thread after thread, for example. He interrupted other threads too, if I recall correctly. Trap contains himself, which is fine.
Purgatory gives us the chance to ignore him. But you can already ignore his threads, if you want. I hardly respond because I know it's not worth it. My personal taste or lack of ambition or disinterest, however, should not get him thrown into purgatory.
Don't get me wrong. It's not that I want to be here, protecting Trap. But I have to. Until he actually does something wrong, I believe he should be allowed to stay.
My two cents. For what they are worth.
So, MT failed to hit the ball out of the park twice (though he delusionally thinks that he did), so I guess this will be the third strike.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 18, 2018, 06:37:59 AM
Now, after we found that Atheists accuse the Biblical description of the origins of the Universe as non scientific, and I showed my Atheist warriors that the science which they thought was evidence to disprove the Biblical version, was actually plagiarized from Genesis!
This is something no atheist likes to hear, and they will never take scientific discoveries in support of the Nebular theory as evidence that destroys their belief.
You have an interesting version of reality, because you still remain curiously silent regarding my rebuttals in the universal origins thread, or in the origins of life thread. That's usually indicative of someone who doesn't know the first thing of what they're talking about. It's like a car mechanic who can't change a tire â€" ya begin to suspect that the "car mechanic" isn't. The solar system
cannot have formed the way you describe. Even the details that might have been plausible, didn't happen because otherwise the objects involved would be substantially different than they actually are. I even deny that the biblical writers would have described the Genesis scene the way they would have had they a science movie view of what occured.
But even if the Bible was right on the money, so what? See, in science,
how you know something is more important than
what you know. The Bible contains a description of what it
claims happened to create the world as we know it, but there is no explanation that passes any scientific muster. You will find no Biblical passage that tells you the isotopic signatures of asteroids and why that indicates that they formed from a relatively few first-generation protoplanets being smashed apart, for instance. The Biblical passages are also hopelessly vague; was the Earth before land and sea formed a suspension of silt and water, or was it a homogenized chemical soup which later precipitated out the land, or what? Because the Bible doesn't tell you
how its authors could know the things it claims, it's worthless as a science book.
Quote
Frankly, they get crazy when they find out that the current scientific description on the Origins of the Universe, was actually a description claimed by the 'Author" of the Bible about 4500 years ago.
Maybe the same way decent, sane people "go crazy" when some loon deficates on a sidewalk, but I don't see why that's a detriment on them.
Anyway, the Bible wasn't written 4500 years ago. Not even the church thinks that. The consensus of biblical schollars say that the first books of the bible were written 2600 years ago. When you don't know basic things about your own text, you've got a problem.
Quote
This is the one Thing that made me realize that the Bible has much more to say about the Existence of a Creator, than what atheists and scientists like us to believe.
I followed this investigation up with the initial agenda to dismiss the Biblical claim that Life is a mere 6YK in existence.
Given that we have found life in strata dated to 3.5 billion years ago, this is hard to swallow.
Quote
Well, when I looked at what scientists were teaching about dating ex life with C14/C12 RI tests, I learned that the Bible actually spoke about the effects of C14, and the over or under supply of it in the Atmosphere. I learned that the Biblical description of an atmosphere that was not yet in Equilibrium, but that was waterlogged and was instrumental in a Global flood, and that this atmosphere cleared after this flood to effectively allow refraction of light for the first time, led me to understand that the claim that the atmosphere was already in equilibrium millions of years ago was incorrect.
There's no evidence of a global flood. At all. Where are the global diluvial deposits that should be present if a global flood occured? Why do we still have completely anchored dendrochronologies through this period, indicating trees living and growing right through the flood, when any global flood would have caused them all to drown or be uprooted? (Yes, trees can drown. They use oxygen to burn the sugars made during the day.) Hell, we have a handful of trees that are
still alive today that have weathered the supposed flood without even noticing.
Your description has the Global Flood is a worldwide climatic shift. To think that growing patterns worldwide would not be disrupted is completely untenable. All that water shielding C14 hanging as mist (supposing it could be mist, here) in the air would not just prevent C14 from forming. In case you hadn't noticed in your backpacking, mist is
opaque. Light can't get through thick banks of mist. Yet it doesn't occur to you that the sunlight wouldn't be able to get through that mist
either â€" your pre-flood earth would have been shrouded in darkness, yet apparently plants (which photosynthesize) grew through this supposed pre-flood period. I would think that the ancients would notice if it got truly light and saw the sun for the first time only after the flood.
Every means we have used to assess what happened 6-3k years ago shows us that there are no unusual climactic shifts on the scale of the Great Flood.
C14 not being in equilibrium doesn't prevent it from being incorporated into living organisms. This includes the tree rings we use in dendrochronology. Tree rings contain C14, and are an archive of what the concentration of C14 was like at that point in the past, as each ring is stable tissue that does not tear down and rebuild itself, like animal tissue does. We thus use dendrochronology (among other techniques) to calibrate the C14 curve, and therefore we need not make the assumption that C14 was in equilibrium at a certain level in order for it to work.
And when we do calibrate the C14 curve, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibration_of_radiocarbon_dates) we find that â€" nope, C14 experiences no sudden drops in C14 past 6-4000 years ago. In fact, by INTCAL13, an object dated to 40,000 years old by C14 gets a calendar dating of about 44,000 years old; it's actually older than C14 dating would predict because C14 was
higher in the past.
This is symptomatic to people who do not understand science and do not wish to. You learned only enough of C14 dating to provide what seemed to you a plausible explanation of the flood, only if you investigated a bit deeper, you would find that this was not the case â€" what science hath given you, science hath taken away. The flood would have left evidence galore as a major climatic disruption and shift, and we find no evidence of it anywhere. The flood would have left worldwide and recent diluvial deposits, a specific kind of strata, and we don't find them. All we find are the usual mostly gradual strata building processes that can only realistically take millions of years to form. Your misty (?) radiation shield would have made younger material appear older, but in actuality it's the older material that appears younger, and would constitute a shield that blocks sunlight even more effectively than it does radiation.
No, the fact that the Bible left out the fact that the sun could not be seen through the mist shield indicates that it could not do the job to shield us from radiation. Fail.
Quote
Why, because scientists explains that the mor C14 radioactivity in your body, the faster you will age.
But it doesn't follow from that if that you will stop aging if you remove C14 completely from your body. Simple cause fallacy.
Quote
Wow, this then took another claim ridden by Atheists as proof of Biblical mythology, and it destroyed the atheist claim abruptly.
The description...(something the Bible claims and atheists calls mythology) Humans lived for a long time in this atmosphere before the flood, and just after it.
They did not age this fast!
Well, Well, Well...The Bible is correct again, and atheism is wrong again.
This is what is
claimed. There is no evidence to support it. No human remains have ever exhibited signs that they had lived this long. Science does not have to explain what is not demonstrated.
Quote
Therefore,
Therefore
nothing. The Bible gets basic facts wrong about how the Earth and the solar system formed, there is no evidence for any global flood that should have produced plenty of evidence had it actually happened, or any evidentiary sign that C14 is as eratic as you claim.
Quote
Now we will look at RI dating on fossils and rocks.
Lets see.
If we test a rock's age, what are we testing?
The radio isotope decay in the rock.
Can this scientific test be incorrect?
Yes, because they align with other dating methods, when they can be performed. Sedimentary rock is a poor candidate for radiological dating because it forms from weathered rocks, which means that their radiologic clocks have already started. At best, they will give you an age where the rock can be no older than a certain date, the age of the last clock restart. Igneous and metamorphic rocks are good candidates because solidification from magma and metamorphic reworking tend to start and reset radiologic clocks.
Now, here's a thing to remember about the geological column: the geological column was worked out by creationists. These were people who believed that the Bible was correct in that God created all the creatures that ever walked on earth. Only the geological column gave them monsters like Megalosaurus. It was these early creationist geologists and paleontologists who worked out the geological column with all of its index fossils. That's important: these early paleontologists didn't believe that life was evolving, yet they were able to use the presence or abscence of life forms to put the local strata into the correct order and therefore date the rocks.
Rock dating is a complicated procedure of which "perform a (single) test on this sample and it spits out a date" is a comically gross oversimplification. What you will get is a bunch of statements, "this thing can be no older than
[blah] because
[blah-blah-blah];" "this thing can be no younger than
[blah] because
[blah-blah-blah];" and "this thing has to be between
[blah] and
[blah-blah] because
[blah-blah-blah]." What you get at the end is a succession of bounds for the age of an object that narrow down its exact age to some satisfactorily-restricted range.
When radiological dating was devised, it was used to test these ages that were already determined by a huge body of reasoning supported by evidence, and it was found that these radiological ages agreed with the dating already established.
Quote
I do not have any objection in the dating methods at all!
Except, apparently, the basic principles that those dating methods can help date material above, below, and embedded in them.
Quote
I agree with them, rocks are old.
The Earth is old!
But life?
C14 could not prove life existed longer ago than 6YK.
So what can we use?
Well, the fact that we find fossils buried in rock that are quite clearly millions of years old, which are in turn buried under other rock that clearly took millions of years to build up and form. Obvious conclusion.
I mean, in some cases, you can SEE the annual layers of some rocks.
Quote
Oh, I forgot, we have fossils caught up in strata and these fossils can be dated with RI tests.
So, if we look at where a fossil is in the strata of a rock layer, we can say this animal lived a certain age ago.
To conclude,
We will date the fossil as well as the Rock with RI tests.
We will look at where the fossil is in the rock strata to determine its age.
Well, given that rocks have to form atop of other rocks (have you ever seen a rock layer form in midair or midwater?), the law of superposition is valid. Given that a fossil has to be deposited in the rock it forms in before it hardens, the creature for which the fossil came can be no younger than the rock its fossil was found. Even conservative estimates of the rate of deposition for these rocks easily put the figures in millions of years. Heck there are even some rocks that are made slowly by creatures, like coral, and crinoids (limestone), and coccolithophores (chalk).
Of course, lots of things can happen between when one rock layer forms and successive layers form, as well as deposition having a bit of variation in it, so ages determined by this are only approximate. It is important in stratigraphy to establish the sequence of events that form a region's geological column.
Quote
Great.
I will be back.
Oh wow... Can't wait...
(https://img.ifcdn.com/images/026049fc45a1f1cf51585f09baeeda33298911946d1c535a383fd282cbed2efc_1.jpg)
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 18, 2018, 06:37:59 AMI do not have any objection in the dating methods at all!
I agree with them, rocks are old.
The Earth is old!
But life?
C14 could not prove life existed longer ago than 6YK.
(https://i.imgur.com/NyD2pw8.png)
https://www.theonion.com/sumerians-look-on-in-confusion-as-god-creates-world-1819571221
Quote from: trdsf on July 17, 2018, 06:35:05 PM
My brain has washboard abs and awesome biceps by now! XD
I noticed your forehead...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 18, 2018, 05:35:29 PM
I noticed your forehead...
(http://www.hairballmedia.com/forehead_1.jpg)
Quote from: trdsf on July 18, 2018, 07:21:56 PM
(http://www.hairballmedia.com/forehead_1.jpg)
His mom didn't enjoy giving birth to that kid!
Quote from: trdsf on July 18, 2018, 07:21:56 PM
(http://www.hairballmedia.com/forehead_1.jpg)
More jowls than forehead.
Quote from: trdsf on July 18, 2018, 09:52:37 AM
Ah, good, you've just undermined your bible completely as any sort of authority. What does the bible say about the Sea of Solomon? The exact wording is ten cubits in diameter and thirty cubits in circumference. It says NOTHING about inner and outer diameters, that's just later made-up stuff to try to get past the fact that this was clearly written not by a god, but by an innumerate nomad. [/i].
The biblical description that the bowl has a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits suggest that in the construction of the basin, π was approximated with the integer value 3. This is consistent with the practice in Babylonian mathematics at the time (6th century BC), but it has given rise to debate within rabbinical Judaism from an early period due to the concern that the biblical text might here be inaccurate.
wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_Sea)
so you think the Sea of Solomon had no inner and outer diameter?
Quote from: wiki
Rabbi Nehemiah in the 2nd century argued that the text is not claiming that π equals 3, but that instead the Hebrews measured the diameter from the outside edge of the rim of the bowl, while the circumference was measured from under the rim, since it cannot be measured with a cord along the outside edge of the rim. After accounting for the width of the brim--"about an hand breadth"--this results in a ratio closer to the true value of π. Taking a cubit to be about 18 inches and a hand breadth to be about 4 inches, the ratio of the described dimensions of the bowl differs from π by less than 1%.
Mmmmm... wrong again, do you want to phone a friend?
Do you see that this attack against the Sea at the Temple of Solomon is actually not a contradiction at all.
It is again just an atheist Straw-man argument!
Bible Gotcha again!
Quote from: trdsfSo who do you worship, your god or Isaac Newton?
Another Straw-man argument.
Look closely, I said that Isaac Newton already answered your Straw-man argument, now you built another straw-man and think you will get away with your incorrect claim in destroying the second Straw-man, thereby destroying the second, the first and the incorrect contradiction.
You are really funny!
Quote from: trdsfAnd now I'm going to sit back and be amused while you desperately try to claim that interpretation is literalism and black is white and up is down.
The bible didn't say bats were mammals (they are) and I never said it did, you lying hypocrite. The bible said BIRDS.
Silly...the bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, (oh and some Aramaic)
the word Bird is English.
You should not get confused with chronology.
Dead Sea Scrolls=Hebrew=180 BC.
New Testament=Greek= 230 Ad
King James=English=1611 Ad
1800 years different!
Please don't stop posting your accusations against the Bible,
You are helping my case a lot with your continuous attempt to derail the topic at hand with real non-cognitive straw-men concoctions.
Without you this forum will be boring!
Quote from: trdsf*ahem* And you're the one demanding the bible is scientifically accurate, not us.
No, you got it all wrong and upside down.
You (Atheists) made claims that the Bible is non compatible with science and this is your evidence that the Author of the Bible should never be considered as the Creator of the Universe.
I watched this website for more than 2 years before registering, and eventually decided to just join and to test you to see if your arguments can withstand my simple observations. Well what I found is that all your reasons for denial on the Biblical scriptures, is not valid.
All your straw-man arguments is very flimsy, and I will be able to produce 10 times better arguments than what you think is solid evidence.
Quote from: trdsfAnd now you admit it isn't? What the fuck have you been wasting all our time for, then? You just completely threw out EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID.
And here we see the true spirit of atheism.
Lose, then swear, denial, straw-man, and on and on and on it goes.
Quote from: trdsf on July 18, 2018, 10:01:30 AM
Yeah, I'm leaning that way. Now that Mousie is claiming that his bible is science except that it isn't, that's the fundamental contradiction, and pisses away his 200-some posts in one puff of logic.
And Atheists say they are openminded
informed and will investigate all the evidence at hand.
able to defend their position on the Bible.
Scientific intelligent.
I found 'half of all atheists' are close minded compare them to a clay ox.
Uninformed about Biblical apologetics, and total hatred, denial, even terminal in reading any Creationist publications.
They are quick to atack the Bible with silly accusations, but I found their reasons verry flimsy.
They believe they can defend their positin against the Bible, but only with self hypnosis.
And they might think they have scientific knowledge, but they unconsciously are sellective in what they want to hear.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 18, 2018, 10:19:42 AM
Oh I don't know.
I wouldn't, if I were admin.
He's only got one strike in my book, found in the horse he rode in on.
...
Don't get me wrong. It's not that I want to be here, protecting Trap. But I have to. Until he actually does something wrong, I believe he should be allowed to stay.
My two cents. For what they are worth.
Please note.
This is the next step in remaining in denial on what my posts showed.
Threat the Christian.
Or even better, block him from this site.
I love the results I am learning from Atheists when they know they do not have any answers.
LOL
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 19, 2018, 03:20:57 AM
Please note.
This is the next step in remaining in denial on what my posts showed.
Threat the Christian.
Or even better, block him from this site.
I love the results I am learning from Atheists when they know they do not have any answers.
LOL
You do realize I'm the one who opts you should be allowed to stay, right?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 19, 2018, 03:52:04 AM
You do realize I'm the one who opts you should be allowed to stay, right?
I do indeed,
Do you realize that I expect you to be a honorable moderator that realizes that if he disallows a Christian to post his points of view, it is a display of just how bias
one can be against any criticism.
Never did I swear at anyone on this forum.
Never did I preach or forced my religion down on anyone.
All I did on your website is the following.
1. I saw how atheists demanded to have the total knowledge that there is no deity and thereby they degraded the Bible with silly and unfounded accusations with no facts at all.
2. I said very clearly that all I want to achieve is to show the atheists who does this errors, the simple yet fundamental answers to these so called contradictions with science as they supposed it should be, and not what the facts reflect.
3. I was happily accepting the atheist treatment of swearing, calling or personal names, accusations of ignorance, and
I was even threatened to be shot for my points of view. etc.
Did I ever complain, no!
Why, because I accept the right of an atheist to express their point of view.
Guess what, I will even defend the atheists' view point to say what they believe in.
Now, lets' us see what your honor is all about.
You noticed that I was threatened to be shot. What did you say?
Nothing.
Now let us conclude on the situation.
Are you going to ban me to express my point of view of someone who simply entered this forum, where atheists were having a feast against the Bible and Christians where these atheists were living in a bubble, telling each other how clever they all are, and how intelligent Atheists are, and how stupid Christians are; and I placed my info on the table?
I can not prescribe any actions you think you should do, all I can do is to show all these posts to Christians in future, and show them how atheists fear a Christian once confronted with evidence proving the total ignorance of your brothers in the Atheist festival.
I am totally satisfied, and comfortable on any choice you make.
Banning me will be evidence of victory to the Bible.
Keeping me will be a continuation of the painful experience your atheist friends endured over the past few weeks.
Nice!
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 18, 2018, 10:44:04 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/NyD2pw8.png)
https://www.theonion.com/sumerians-look-on-in-confusion-as-god-creates-world-1819571221
I suggest you do some research on the Sumerian king list and learn that there are no evidence at all for the Kingship dating before 2500BC.
this is the same as the Egyptian chronology which was inflated by Manetho to impress the Greeks in 300BC.
Did you actually think this quote about the Sumerians who was frightened when YHWH created the universe is a serious scholarly document?
Well, believe it or not, the Sumerian tablets on creation is one that can not be reconciled with science at all.
I will debate you anytime on these documents.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 19, 2018, 04:30:43 AM
I do indeed,
Do you realize that I expect you to be a honorable moderator that realizes that if he disallows a Christian to post his points of view, it is a display of just how bias
one can be against any criticism.
Never did I swear at anyone on this forum.
Never did I preach or forced my religion down on anyone.
All I did on your website is the following.
1. I saw how atheists demanded to have the total knowledge that there is no deity and thereby they degraded the Bible with silly and unfounded accusations with no facts at all.
2. I said very clearly that all I want to achieve is to show the atheists who does this errors, the simple yet fundamental answers to these so called contradictions with science as they supposed it should be, and not what the facts reflect.
3. I was happily accepting the atheist treatment of swearing, calling or personal names, accusations of ignorance, and I was even threatened to be shot for my points of view. etc.
Did I ever complain, no!
Why, because I accept the right of an atheist to express their point of view.
Guess what, I will even defend the atheists' view point to say what they believe in.
Now, lets' us see what your honor is all about.
You noticed that I was threatened to be shot. What did you say?
Nothing.
Now let us conclude on the situation.
Are you going to ban me to express my point of view of someone who simply entered this forum, where atheists were having a feast against the Bible and Christians where these atheists were living in a bubble, telling each other how clever they all are, and how intelligent Atheists are, and how stupid Christians are; and I placed my info on the table?
I can not prescribe any actions you think you should do, all I can do is to show all these posts to Christians in future, and show them how atheists fear a Christian once confronted with evidence proving the total ignorance of your brothers in the Atheist festival.
I am totally satisfied, and comfortable on any choice you make.
Banning me will be evidence of victory to the Bible.
Keeping me will be a continuation of the painful experience your atheist friends endured over the past few weeks.
Nice!
Honorable moderator?
Trap,
I think you overestimate my investment regarding your threads.
I glance over them; pop in from time to time. Kudos to anyone who wants to; but I lack both the interest and the motivation as well as the masochistic tendencies in going into a religious debate with you and reading the entire manuscript you've posted here.
Now, for as far as I can tell, in my limited point of view. People here are a dick to you. Is that cool? Nah. But you are also being a different kind of a dick, and I highly doubt you don't have the self-insight to know that. I won't offend your intelligence by pointing out how. Because I think you know exactly what you are doing. And you know what? That's fine too. That's fair, as long as you keep that shit to your own threads.
Basically, if you want come to a forum; expect dicks. Most people can be dicks. Especially online. This goes for you. It goes for your conversational partners. It goes for me. You'd do well to get over that, if you feel like you have a destiny in educating people online. (I mean, you say you do. Although I see a lot of whining now...) You're all adults, presumably, so handle it amongst yourselves.
Everybody puts their bar of freedom of speech on their own perceived level. For me: I don't think harsh language is necessary, but I also don't think it needs to be banned in an adult conversation. Rather the same, I don't think a conversation should be shut down because one partner doesn't treat it like a conversation but rather as a lecture or a speech with continued refusal to adress certain points and flaws pointed out by their conversational partner. I just don't think it makes the conversation itself productive. But in both cases, people should be allowed to talk.
I now spoke out because I saw talk of banning, not of harsh language. That's where I draw the line. You can go ahead and ignore what the other says and insult and throw hissifits over bad sience and rip everything out of context to show how unfair everyone is, all you want. Go ahead, you have my blessing. And I probably won't intervene further. But if I happen to see talk of banning where I don't think it's justified; then I'll speak up. I don't ow you any more than that. And actually, I don't even ow you that much.
Did that dumbass actually think we could shoot him on the internet?
(http://rationalia.com/z/kiss.gif)
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 19, 2018, 05:00:01 AM
Honorable moderator?
Trap,
...But if I happen to see talk of banning where I don't think it's justified; then I'll speak up. I don't ow you any more than that. And actually, I don't even ow you that much.
Outch, now your members have to contend with me...but a thumbs up for your decision...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 19, 2018, 06:41:57 AM
Did that dumbass actually think we could shoot him on the internet?
(http://rationalia.com/z/kiss.gif)
Oooooo.....
Is that what you wanted to do?
Uhhh,
How can one shoot someone on the internet?
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 19, 2018, 07:37:55 AM
Outch, now your members have to contend with me.
..but a thumbs up for your decision...
Do you think I'm an admin?
Would Explain a lot.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 19, 2018, 07:37:55 AM
Outch, now your members have to contend with me.
..but a thumbs up for your decision...
No, we don't have to contend with you. Unless we want to. I don't read you any more--or rarely-- and your 'arguments' have simply shown how deluded you are--nothing more.
Great is the power of ignore.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 19, 2018, 05:00:01 AM
I now spoke out because I saw talk of banning, not of harsh language. That's where I draw the line. You can go ahead and ignore what the other says and insult and throw hissifits over bad sience and rip everything out of context to show how unfair everyone is, all you want. Go ahead, you have my blessing. And I probably won't intervene further. But if I happen to see talk of banning where I don't think it's justified; then I'll speak up. I don't ow you any more than that. And actually, I don't even ow you that much.
No one gets banned. If they are excessively offensive trolls, they may get sent to purgatory. I guess they're supposed to feel bad because they were sent to purgatory, but we still get message notifications every time they post. It's like they get their own private forum section. Maybe we can turn them off. I haven't bothered. I don't really care.
Like you I don't read Mousetrap's posts. Although oddly, I read people's responses to him. I have had a couple of brief spin-off discussions with some of Mousetraps respondents, so that's a good thing. But I'm just too closed minded to listen to new spin on old nonsense, as if there were any really new spin. It gets annoying listening to the same illogical beliefs for years and years. I'm mean how long are people supposed to listen to redundant driveling of the tin foil hat crowd? Is 50 years enough?
I get a kick out of Mouse trap accusing atheists of being close minded when he has no idea how we arrive at the fact that we know nothing about what cannot be known. Atheism isn't rocket science after all. Although, I can see how one could get so self absorbed that they cannot stop trying to convince others that they have special knowledge about the unknown or reality or whatever they call it.
But to ban or not to ban? It's pointless to discuss. The moderators decide. And with such an inactive membership as we have these days, we need people to talk to. So we have to lower our standards, although there is also a downside to allowing to much delusional or offensive babble in any discussion group. Where that line is, I don't know. That's not a coin toss that I have much investment in.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 19, 2018, 04:57:13 AM
I suggest you do some research on the Sumerian king list and learn that there are no evidence at all for the Kingship dating before 2500BC.
So? We have Sumerian pottery dating back 6500â€"4100 BCE. Someone made those pots, cupcake. You don't make pots unless you're living in more-or-less permanent settlements. Also, we have graves, with signs of social stratification as this culture developed. We have found no less than sixteen settlements from this period. It's a nascent civilization, not an empire yet, but on its way to getting there.
Quote
this is the same as the Egyptian chronology which was inflated by Manetho to impress the Greeks in 300BC.
So? We have rock drawings in Egypt that date back to 10,000 BCE. Someone carved them. We have the bones of a human that dates to 35,100-30,360 years in this region as well. Settlements dating back to 6000 BCE dot Egypt. People lived in Egypt. Again, not an empire yet, with dynasties ruling over Upper and Lower Egypt.
Someone was living in Mesopotamia and organizing itself into a large civilization quite a bit before God supposedly created the world, or as you suppose, just life. Egypt was already getting started itself as well. Not the Egypt of the Bible with Pharaoh and pyramid tombs, etc. or the Sumerian culture we're familiar with, but they were there.
And it wasn't just the Egyptians or Sumerians who were building up cultures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWjtRFNSl2s
So your counterargument fails. People and settlements dotted the entire globe around this time. And were already pretty organized even about this time. God couldn't create life or man at this point because they were already here, existing and doing impressive things already.
Quote
Did you actually think this quote about the Sumerians who was frightened when YHWH created the universe is a serious scholarly document?
No. It's from the Onion, a known satirist website. It's old hat to us. However, their articles are based on a grian of truth. The grain of truth here is that budding civilizations, based on farming and herding, succeeded the former hunter-gatherer tribes before 6000 years ago, when you suppose God created life.
Quote
Well, believe it or not, the Sumerian tablets on creation is one that can not be reconciled with science at all.
I will debate you anytime on these documents.
Who cares about the tablets? What about the fact that there were settlements and budding civilizations all over the world, proved by physical evidence we have dug out of the earth and through careful dating fixes them to around this time period? According to your interpretation of the Bible, the Earth is a barren place with no life on it before God wiggled his divine eyebrows. According to archeology, Earth was already flush with life, man had spread to all continents (except Antarctica) complete with farming, and civilizations were already building up to the greatness that we know.
"On this particular day, Sunday October 23, 4004 BC, no one alive would have believed that this was the first day, or that the Earth had just been created that morning." â€"Aronra.
An ancient earth demands equally ancient life and ancient civilization as well. You'll get no traction here, because even without radioisotope dating, the Earth, life, and civilization is extremely old and obviously so after any scientific scrutiny.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 19, 2018, 02:51:47 AM
wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_Sea)
so you think the Sea of Solomon had no inner and outer diameter?
Where does it say it had a thick enough rim for you to make up a lie to cover the fact that it was written by innumerate nomads? Show me the chapter and verse that says exactly that, or admit that the bible cannot be taken literally.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 19, 2018, 02:51:47 AM
Another Straw-man argument.
Look closely, I said that Isaac Newton already answered your Straw-man argument, now you built another straw-man and think you will get away with your incorrect claim in destroying the second Straw-man, thereby destroying the second, the first and the incorrect contradiction.
You are really funny!
There's no straw man (seems to be your favorite accusation -- maybe you should look up another couple logical fallacies so you can mix it up a little; we already can see by usage that in Mouseworld, 'straw man' is your phrase for 'mousie can't answer that!!').
And you're dodging the question, as usual: who do you worship, your god or Newton? If you're going with Newton's interpretation to cover what your bible
does not say, you're admitting that your bible cannot be taken at face value, and again, once you start interpreting, you can't place a marker to say 'stop here'. If your bible is infallible, it clearly makes the pi=3 statement.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 19, 2018, 02:51:47 AM
Silly...the bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, (oh and some Aramaic)
the word Bird is English.
You should not get confused with chronology.
Dead Sea Scrolls=Hebrew=180 BC.
New Testament=Greek= 230 Ad
King James=English=1611 Ad
1800 years different!
Surely you're not going to claim you've read it in the ancient Hebrew. EVERY translation that I'm aware of uses 'bird'. That means it was the Hebrew word for 'bird'.
This is called being disingenuous, if not actually childish.
And of course it gives you one extra post to dodge answering a direct question and throw out more irrelevant stuff. You haven't been studying Gish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop), have you?
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 19, 2018, 02:51:47 AM
You (Atheists) made claims that the Bible is non compatible with science and this is your evidence that the Author of the Bible should never be considered as the Creator of the Universe.
I watched this website for more than 2 years before registering, and eventually decided to just join and to test you to see if your arguments can withstand my simple observations. Well what I found is that all your reasons for denial on the Biblical scriptures, is not valid.
All your straw-man arguments is very flimsy, and I will be able to produce 10 times better arguments than what you think is solid evidence.
*psst* hint for you -- every time you start one of your lies with "You atheists..." that means you're about to deliver a
real straw man argument. Must be why it's your favorite accusation, you're so familiar with using the technique.
If you want to know why I reject claims of the existence of the divine,
ASK me. Do
not tell me what they are, because you do not know.
The reason I claim there is no god is because there is
no evidence of any, biblical or otherwise. This goes for
all claims of gods, not just your parochial little sky-daddy. Your bible has
nothing to do with it; has it occurred to you that if your bible is to be admitted as evidence, then you have to admit
all religious scripture as evidence for their gods? No, of course not. You're locked in to your pre-determined answer, and you will allow and accept nothing that doesn't fit in with what you've pre-decided must be true.
That's not the way the quest for truth works.
If I saw evidence, I would change my mind. If you see evidence, you either ignore it or deliberately misinterpret it. You
won't change your mind. That makes you a dishonest debater.
And yes, I would describe your observations as 'simple'. As in 'simple-minded'.
Tales told by illiterates sitting around campfires made from camel dung do not count as evidence.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 19, 2018, 11:50:25 AM
Tales told by illiterates sitting around campfires made from camel dung do not count as evidence.
But, but... These were the ancients, who were inspired by god, unlike society today that has lost its way. The Stargate series shows us that the ancients are no longer with us, but have elevated themselves to a higher plane of existence. A few of the wisest ancients rebelled and left us the Bible, a legacy of the true depth of their ancient knowledge accessible to all who are open minded enough to realize these so called camel herders have a much deeper insight into physics, biology, chemistry, and cosmology than today's closed minded scientists who only see what they want to see and make up untestable theories that any child can see are wrong. Let's not make fun of the camel herders by laughingly referring to them as simple goat herders (actually they herded many different kinds of animals). These were insightful people who could see the truth in their spare time. And they could do it all without an ounce of actual research. They spoke not a word of useless rubbish. They knew and understood all things without thinking. They were capable of divining things modern man cannot, and they were doing all this before God even created them. Without these rebel ancients who left us a sea of ancient knowledge, we would all be lost and would have no one to show us the way. They were there when there when god created the heavens. They stood by and watched Jesus have the shittiest weekend of his life. They give us a first hand account that no one today has witnessed.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 19, 2018, 11:50:25 AM
Tales told by illiterates sitting around campfires made from camel dung do not count as evidence.
Neither does e.e.cummings ... other than as evidence of poetry and the failure to use capitalization. No more than that.
Quote from: SGOS on July 19, 2018, 12:28:49 PMA few of the wisest ancients rebelled and left us the Bible
The Ori? :P
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 19, 2018, 04:57:13 AM
I suggest you do some research on the Sumerian king list and learn that there are no evidence at all for the Kingship dating before 2500BC.
this is the same as the Egyptian chronology which was inflated by Manetho to impress the Greeks in 300BC.
Did you actually think this quote about the Sumerians who was frightened when YHWH created the universe is a serious scholarly document?
Well, believe it or not, the Sumerian tablets on creation is one that can not be reconciled with science at all.
I will debate you anytime on these documents.
r/atetheonion
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 19, 2018, 12:41:43 PM
The Ori? :P
I cannot watch that series without continually seeing the parallels to Christianity as well as religion in general. SG1 was on a quest to wipe out belief in false gods, but cleverly avoids addressing Christianity's god by not talking about Christianity at all. I often wonder what the writers were trying to do, because I could never have written an episode without falling off that narrow fence they seemed to walk with such ease. That's something I've noticed good writers do. They create scenarios that paint pictures, and avoid explaining everything. In Of Mice and Men, Steinbeck never refers to Lenny as retarded. Instead, he paints a picture. He never says that simple mindedness can lead to drastic consequences. He paints a picture. I would be sitting there explaining it all, which would be a lot faster and shorter, but nowhere as interesting.
Didn't there have to be, I dunno, chiefs or such, BEFORE the kings? A long time before the kings most likely.
Quote from: SGOS on July 19, 2018, 09:19:03 AM
But to ban or not to ban? It's pointless to discuss. The moderators decide. And with such an inactive membership as we have these days, we need people to talk to. So we have to lower our standards, although there is also a downside to allowing to much delusional or offensive babble in any discussion group. Where that line is, I don't know. That's not a coin toss that I have much investment in.
Oh, no, he hasn't done anything bannable. He's done a number of things that let me know he's not someone I would want to hang out with in meatspace, but despite straying wildly from the informal rules of debate, he hasn't so far as I've noticed strayed from the formal rules of this forum.
Once he explained what "scientific theory" was, I stopped reading the rest of his prattle. I do enjoy reading the brilliant sound science that leaves him scurrying around for another "copy/pasta" ignorant try of rebuttal, but again get to enjoy the replies that makes this the smartest forum on the net. He will prattle about for awhile until his ignorance tires us all and eventually, ashes to ashes....dust to dust...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 19, 2018, 01:20:53 PM
Didn't there have to be, I dunno, chiefs or such, BEFORE the kings? A long time before the kings most likely.
Yes, Kansas City has been dominant in sports for a very long time ;-))
Quote from: aitm on July 19, 2018, 05:59:34 PM
Once he explained what "scientific theory" was, I stopped reading the rest of his prattle. I do enjoy reading the brilliant sound science that leaves him scurrying around for another "copy/pasta" ignorant try of rebuttal, but again get to enjoy the replies that makes this the smartest forum on the net. He will prattle about for awhile until his ignorance tires us all and eventually, ashes to ashes....dust to dust...
Homer schooled, I think.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 19, 2018, 09:16:45 AM
Great is the power of ignore.
On the character of the Atheist...
I rest my case!
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 19, 2018, 10:08:46 AM
So? We have Sumerian pottery dating back 6500â€"4100 BCE. Someone made those pots, cupcake. You don't make pots unless you're living in more-or-less permanent settlements. Also, we have graves, with signs of social stratification as this culture developed. We have found no less than sixteen settlements from this period. It's a nascent civilization, not an empire yet, but on its way to getting there.
So? We have rock drawings in Egypt that date back to 10,000 BCE. Someone carved them. We have the bones of a human that dates to 35,100-30,360 years in this region as well. Settlements dating back to 6000 BCE dot Egypt. People lived in Egypt. Again, not an empire yet, with dynasties ruling over Upper and Lower Egypt.
Someone was living in Mesopotamia and organizing itself into a large civilization quite a bit before God supposedly created the world, or as you suppose, just life. Egypt was already getting started itself as well. Not the Egypt of the Bible with Pharaoh and pyramid tombs, etc. or the Sumerian culture we're familiar with, but they were there.
....Shortened for convenience sake....
An ancient earth demands equally ancient life and ancient civilization as well. You'll get no traction here, because even without radioisotope dating, the Earth, life, and civilization is extremely old and obviously so after any scientific scrutiny.
Perhaps you dont understand what I am saying.
Your dating of these potteries and strata is exactly what I am referring to.
Lets go from this axis on your claim that there was life on Earth prior to 6 YK.
How did they date these sites?
Without continuation of these arguments, all I want you to tell me is how do they know this pottery is +35YK old?
How would anyone know that man did not exist before 6YK? What device could measure his absence?
Quote from: SGOS on July 20, 2018, 08:08:33 AM
How would anyone know that man did not exist before 6YK? What device could measure his absence?
Nice question indeed.
Absence is no evidence for presence.
This is Critique of Pure reason at its best.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 20, 2018, 08:11:53 AM
Nice question indeed.
Absence is no evidence for presence.
This is Critique of Pure reason at its best.
Or the critique of the lack thereof.
And absence is evidence for absence, until proven otherwise. You know, like a god or gods.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 20, 2018, 09:12:10 AM
And absence is evidence for absence, until proven otherwise. You know, like a god or gods.
Yes, and the lack of evidence to Evolution.
I love this critique of pure reason.
As Kant envisioned it compared to a blind person sitting in a field with a deaf person.
One can not see the rainbow, the other dont hear the birds.
Is it true that there is a rainbow, and birds?
What if we are without the necessary senses to determine the metaphysical.
Shall we remain with the empirical?
Skeptical, logical, liberal, intellectual.
Hey Hey Hey Hey.
Then a saxophone.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 20, 2018, 09:35:26 AM
As Kant envisioned it compared to a blind person sitting in a field with a deaf person.
One can not see the rainbow, the other dont hear the birds.
Is it true that there is a rainbow, and birds?
A stretch of analogy. As if a documented handicap overrides a documented sensory perception. Imagination is a perception, but doesn't warrant the status of sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch. A sixth sense of extrasensory perception is sometimes included with the 5 recognized senses, but it's existence remains in question. Theists hold it high regard and fundamentalists all seem to think they all have a variation of it, which throws further doubt on its authenticity.
Sometimes other senses are added to the 5, but they appear to be derivatives of the basic 5 or derivatives of the derivatives. Imagination is not included.
http://twentytwowords.com/humans-have-more-than-5-senses-here-they-are/
Quote•Pressure
•Itch
•Temperature
•Pain
•Thirst
•Hunger
•Direction
•Time
•Muscle tension
•Proprioception (the ability to tell where your body parts are, relative to other body parts)
•Equilibrioception (the ability to keep your balance and sense body movement in terms of acceleration and directional changes)
•Stretch Receptors (These are found in such places as the lungs, bladder, stomach, blood vessels, and the gastrointestinal tract.)
•Chemoreceptors (These trigger an area of the medulla in the brain that is involved in detecting blood born hormones and drugs. It also is involved in the vomiting reflex.)
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 20, 2018, 09:35:26 AM
What if we are without the necessary senses to determine the metaphysical.
Shall we remain with the empirical?
Yes, because that's all that can be demonstrated.
Fortunately, what can be known is not limited to our immediate senses, because we can extend them by means of tools and machines. Just because I can't see gamma rays doesn't mean they don't exist, but I know they do exist because their presence can be demonstrated reliably and repeatably. They can be recorded and examined.
I can't see infrared light, but I can experience it as heat, and I can photograph it with the right filters, and I can demonstrate it with only a thermometer, a prism, and a sunny day.
Back in the day, there was a group of deaf Deadheads who would still go to concerts, and not just for the camaraderie of the Deadhead world -- they would gather near the stage with balloons, because the balloons acted like audio lenses. They couldn't hear the concert, but they could
feel it. Could they hear the music? No. Were they experiencing it anyway? Absolutely.
My doctor can't see inside me, but he can track my symptoms and family medical history, then order an ultrasound and identify the gallstone he expected to be there. Oddly enough, when I finally had my cholecystectomy (they run in my family, it was all but inevitable), they checked on my appendix to see if it needed to be removed. My doctor later told me that it was perfectly healthy, so they didn't compound the surgery by doing something unnecessary.
Four years later, I had an emergency appendectomy.
Was I misdiagnosed when my gall bladder was taken out? No. I was correctly diagnosed. Surgeons work with data, not prophecy. He couldn't possibly have known that it was going to go rogue in four years -- and I want my medical care based on reality, not magic.
The reason for the scientific method is because it
works. And it works because it takes into account the fact that we are limited humans, and that our observations of the world around us change, so our understanding of the world around us must also change.
And no extension of our senses, even in to the most non-human realms like neutrino telescopy and gravitational waves, has ever revealed
anything metaphysical.
The direction you look like you're going is "Well, just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there" and that's a logical fallacy, that's shifting the burden of proof. If you assert something is there,
you have to propose a way to detect and measure it. If you can't do that, your claim can be dismissed without further consideration. It's not our job to
disprove your assertion, it's your job to
provide evidence for it first so that it can be reviewed, analyzed, examined, and most importantly repeated to ensure the same results are available to anyone.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 20, 2018, 09:35:26 AM
Skeptical, logical, liberal, intellectual.
Hey Hey Hey Hey.
Then a saxophone.
Proud to be all four, and really wish I could play the sax.
You're down to just
Non Sequitur Theater now, I see.
Quote from: SGOS on July 20, 2018, 08:08:33 AM
How would anyone know that man did not exist before 6YK? What device could measure his absence?
I definitely know I was here before Y2K ;-)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 20, 2018, 09:12:10 AM
And absence is evidence for absence, until proven otherwise. You know, like a god or gods.
Is that why we don't know anything? Pretty much all evidence is fake news that is politically motivated.
As I pointed out in the other string ... rationality is BS. Reality isn't rational.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 20, 2018, 07:32:58 AM
Perhaps you dont understand what I am saying.
Your dating of these potteries and strata is exactly what I am referring to.
Lets go from this axis on your claim that there was life on Earth prior to 6 YK.
How did they date these sites?
By the same kind of ways we date rocks, really. There are many methods, both absolute and relative. You can date the pottery itself by how much moisture it has reabsorbed after firing. Careful investigation of the surrounding debris layer and the kind of depositions it acquired since the sample was buried.
Again, you seem to think that only one method was used to date a rock or pottery sherd, or any other object. No. As many different kinds of dating that are applicable are applied, not just one. For instance, if you find a grave with a body in it, you don't just carbon-date the corpse. You also look carefully at the grave goods and descern its composition and form, and therefore which period its likely to have come from (because grave burial practices and the form of the goods themselves change over time). If there's a piece of wood, dendrochronology will come into play. The type of sediment that has covered the grave will also be considered. Any other datable object will also be considered.
What you'll find is that all of this data will tend to point towards the same date. On the Anna Karenina principle, good measurements will tend to agree with each other, where bad measurements will tend to be all over the place.
Quote
Without continuation of these arguments, all I want you to tell me is how do they know this pottery is +35YK old?
No, just 8ky old. The skeleton found in Egypt was 35ky old. Again, by a variety of methods both direct and indirect, for both the skeleton and the pottery.
For goodness sake, those two figures were in completely separated parts of my response. I'm beginning to see how you could be so confused on science.
Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2018, 12:46:17 PM
I definitely know I was here before Y2K ;-)
Another dumb joke...
Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2018, 12:47:00 PM
Is that why we don't know anything? Pretty much all evidence is fake news that is politically motivated.
As I pointed out in the other string ... rationality is BS. Reality isn't rational.
When you assign factual scientific evidence to "fake news" there really isn't much hope for you.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 17, 2018, 10:53:04 AM
After concluding my thread on the Origins of the Universe, and When did Life begin, I think it is suitable to continue with the Radio Isotope dating techniques used by scientists to claim that Life can be as old as 3.5 billion years.
Now, I am not going to talk about Dendronology, Ice cores, or C14 tests.
C14 was discussed, and the mentioned treering and Ice layers will be discussed in future.
No, I want to know what the Atheist knows about how Fossils are tested to give a certain age of the once living creatures that died millions of years ago.
Is there a test that we can perform in a lab where we take a sample of this fossil, put it into a spectrometer, and get a printout, Coelacant=65 million years BP?
Lets see if there is an Atheist with the answer.
In the sense that laboratory tests can determine the age of some items, yes. That is pretty much standard stuff. That you do not accept that is very informative about your ignorance.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 04:36:49 AM
Another dumb joke...
Your jokes are dumber ... so combined we are "dumb and dumber" ;-))
Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 04:38:36 AM
When you assign factual scientific evidence to "fake news" there really isn't much hope for you.
I don't ... the result of an experiment, set up just so, that is reproducible, is a fact. That isn't what science is here. Science is the unfolding of the Platonic Forms (particularly Plato's Republic) and that isn't science ... it is rhetoric and dialectic.
Quote from: Baruch on July 21, 2018, 09:30:44 AM
I don't ... the result of an experiment, set up just so, that is reproducible, is a fact. That isn't what science is here. Science is the unfolding of the Platonic Forms (particularly Plato's Republic) and that isn't science ... it is rhetoric and dialectic.
Amazing. You say in a single sentence that science is and isn't the same thing. Only a theist could do that.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 09:33:15 AM
Amazing. You say in a single sentence that science is and isn't the same thing. Only a theist could do that.
No, you demonstrate you are a science fan-boy ... who really doesn't understand what a controlled experiment (or repeated observation) is, and what it means to speculatively draw a curve thru the data (usually least-squares-method thru linearized data). Though the medical (and psych) and social sciences have the same confusion you do (they have a reproducibility crisis). Physics and chemistry have less of this, because they are dealing with deliberately selected, toy problems (falling apples and such).
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 20, 2018, 08:52:56 PM
By the same kind of ways we date rocks, really. There are many methods, both absolute and relative. You can date the pottery itself by how much moisture it has reabsorbed after firing. Careful investigation of the surrounding debris layer and the kind of depositions it acquired since the sample was buried.
Again, you seem to think that only one method was used to date a rock or pottery sherd, or any other object. No. As many different kinds of dating that are applicable are applied, not just one. For instance, if you find a grave with a body in it, you don't just carbon-date the corpse. You also look carefully at the grave goods and descern its composition and form, and therefore which period its likely to have come from (because grave burial practices and the form of the goods themselves change over time). If there's a piece of wood, dendrochronology will come into play. The type of sediment that has covered the grave will also be considered. Any other datable object will also be considered.
What you'll find is that all of this data will tend to point towards the same date. On the Anna Karenina principle, good measurements will tend to agree with each other, where bad measurements will tend to be all over the place.
No, just 8ky old. The skeleton found in Egypt was 35ky old. Again, by a variety of methods both direct and indirect, for both the skeleton and the pottery.
For goodness sake, those two figures were in completely separated parts of my response. I'm beginning to see how you could be so confused on science.
Well explained! My elderly dad once complained "how could they know that"? So I started to explain it to him and offerred computer sites that showed the age measurement charts.
It didn't make a bit of difference to him. HE didn't know how the ages could be measured so to HIM, it COULDN'T be measured.And he was an ENGINEER when younger.
You can't convince people to change their minds. You can only teach them when they are young.
Quote from: trdsf on July 20, 2018, 12:13:40 PM
Yes, because that's all that can be demonstrated.
Fortunately, what can be known is not limited to our immediate senses, because we can extend them by means of tools and machines. Just because I can't see gamma rays doesn't mean they don't exist, but I know they do exist because their presence can be demonstrated reliably and repeatably. They can be recorded and examined.
But the question is, did it exist before we were able to determine it's existence with our machines we made over the past 100 years?
Of corse it existed. But we did not know about it!
Do we know if there is such things as the afterlife, supernatural beings such as angels, God, Daemons?
No, does it exist?
We do not know!
Shall we dismiss it's existence?
We have the right to do so.
Shall we also dismiss a book that describes such an existence?
If it does not have any proof of validity, definitely yes.
How do we determine such a scripture's validity?
Does it undermine History, Archaeology, science?
If it does, dismiss it, if it does not, investigate it.
Quote from: trdsfI can't see infrared light, but I can experience it as heat, and I can photograph it with the right filters, and I can demonstrate it with only a thermometer, a prism, and a sunny day.
Back in the day, there was a group of deaf Deadheads who would still go to concerts, and not just for the camaraderie of the Deadhead world -- they would gather near the stage with balloons, because the balloons acted like audio lenses. They couldn't hear the concert, but they could feel it. Could they hear the music? No. Were they experiencing it anyway? Absolutely.
My doctor can't see inside me, but he can track my symptoms and family medical history, then order an ultrasound and identify the gallstone he expected to be there. Oddly enough, when I finally had my cholecystectomy (they run in my family, it was all but inevitable), they checked on my appendix to see if it needed to be removed. My doctor later told me that it was perfectly healthy, so they didn't compound the surgery by doing something unnecessary.
Four years later, I had an emergency appendectomy.
Was I misdiagnosed when my gall bladder was taken out? No. I was correctly diagnosed. Surgeons work with data, not prophecy. He couldn't possibly have known that it was going to go rogue in four years -- and I want my medical care based on reality, not magic.
Wonderful!
I also do not believe in magic.
This will be a huge mistake.
But why do you mix Prophecy in with Magic?
Do you know what a prophecy is, and do you know there is a nice logical and sound way to test if a prophecy is true, or just a concoction make believe? (Deut 18:18 to 22)
Quote from: trdsfThe reason for the scientific method is because it works. And it works because it takes into account the fact that we are limited humans, and that our observations of the world around us change, so our understanding of the world around us must also change.
And no extension of our senses, even in to the most non-human realms like neutrino telescopy and gravitational waves, has ever revealed anything metaphysical.
To think that humans already discovered every machine, physical particles, energy fields, and everything knowable about the Universe, is arrogant to say the least.
But, if you are a person that demands that senses dictates the existence of all, what about stuff like your mind?
Do you have a mind?
How do one even prove you have one.
Remember the old story about the professor who said he could not believe in anything the 5 senses could not experience and the student who asked him to prove that he was mind-less.
Quote from: trdsfThe direction you look like you're going is "Well, just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there" and that's a logical fallacy, that's shifting the burden of proof. If you assert something is there, you have to propose a way to detect and measure it. If you can't do that, your claim can be dismissed without further consideration. It's not our job to disprove your assertion, it's your job to provide evidence for it first so that it can be reviewed, analyzed, examined, and most importantly repeated to ensure the same results are available to anyone.
Proud to be all four, and really wish I could play the sax.
You're down to just Non Sequitur Theater now, I see.
Look, I loved what you are saying.
And you are 100% correct in your whole point of view.
But keep in mind what I am proposing is not that I am correct about the existence of God, but that your arguments against the Bible is not correct.
If, for instance, the Bible was not the source of the Nebular theory, or the Bible did claim the Universe was 6KY old (as so many creationists incorrectly claim), I would then be able to dismiss it for what it is.
However, If the Bible do not have such errors, why claim it does?
This is my whole argument.
Making a claim that God does not exist, because someone are incorrectly claiming the Bible is incorrect when compared with science, is not a logical, nor a scientific methodology at all!
To dismiss God on these grounds only allows me to play havoc with such arguments.
To dismiss God on the grounds of no evidence is a total different case than what Biblical attacks are.
And this is the arguments up until now. (errors of the Bible proves God does not exist).
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 10:54:18 AM
Do we know if there is such things as the afterlife, supernatural beings such as angels, God, Daemons?
No, does it exist?
We do not know!
Reminds me of this scene from Dumb and Dumber:
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/840/283/350.png)
Remember guys, unknown = maybe!
Guy walking on water? Maybe!
Talking snake? Maybe!
Invisible Pink Unicorn? Maybe!
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 23, 2018, 11:40:05 AM
Reminds me of this scene from Dumb and Dumber:
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/840/283/350.png)
Remember guys, unknown = maybe!
Guy walking on water? Maybe!
Talking snake? Maybe!
Invisible Pink Unicorn? Maybe!
Hey! Just a minute! The Invisible Pink Unicorn is NOT unreal. I've seen her; and she has a web site!
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 10:54:18 AM
But the question is, did it exist before we were able to determine it's existence with our machines we made over the past 100 years?
Of corse it existed. But we did not know about it!
Do we know if there is such things as the afterlife, supernatural beings such as angels, God, Daemons?
No, does it exist?
We do not know!
Shall we dismiss it's existence?
We have the right to do so.
Shall we also dismiss a book that describes such an existence?
If it does not have any proof of validity, definitely yes.
How do we determine such a scripture's validity?
Does it undermine History, Archaeology, science?
If it does, dismiss it, if it does not, investigate it.
That's exactly the point. It
does fly in the face of history, archaeology, biology, mathematics, etc. -- there was no Egyptian slavery of the Israelites, there was no Moses, there was no Exodus, there's no historical evidence for Saul or David or Solomon (all historical evidence we have is that nothing even resembling a kingdom of Israel until two to three centuries after the alleged events in II Samuel and I Kings). You have to twist science to the breaking point to come up with any sort of excuse to say it doesn't.
What you seem to not understand is "We do not know" does
NOT mean "maybe it is". "We do not know" means
only and exactly we do not know. Or do you believe me automatically if I tell you there's a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between the orbits of the Earth and Mars? "We do not know" there isn't, after all.
We
do, on the other hand, know there's a red Tesla convertible out there. And here's the important lesson in that: fifteen years ago, if I'd told you a red convertible was orbiting the Sun somewhere between the orbits of the Earth and Mars, you would be perfectly within your rights to look at me and say I was nuts. If today I were to tell you there is a red convertible on a solar orbit and you said there's not, I'd be within my rights to look at you and say you're nuts. Did I change? No. Did you change? No. What changed?
The demonstrable facts of the situation. Asserting fifteen years ago that there's no red convertible in orbit doesn't mean it's impossible, only that there's no evidence to suggest there is.
The situation we're in now is that you're asserting there's still no convertible in space despite the evidence that there
is. Up to about 550 years ago, you could still assert your bible was scientifically accurate because there was no evidence it wasn't. Since then, mountains of evidence have been observed demonstrating that the universe did
not come about as described in Genesis... but you continue to stick with the old interpretation despite all the evidence that's been gathered since then. Remember what I said about cometary water.
Facts matter.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 10:54:18 AM
Wonderful!
I also do not believe in magic.
This will be a huge mistake.
But why do you mix Prophecy in with Magic?
Do you know what a prophecy is, and do you know there is a nice logical and sound way to test if a prophecy is true, or just a concoction make believe? (Deut 18:18 to 22)
Yes, you do believe in magic. You've made it clear that you believe that all of science is just flushed away in a magical event 6,000 years ago.
And I don't care what your bible says about prophecy. You need to first demonstrate that the metaphysical exists and then we can worry about parameters.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 10:54:18 AM
To think that humans already discovered every machine, physical particles, energy fields, and everything knowable about the Universe, is arrogant to say the least.
But, if you are a person that demands that senses dictates the existence of all, what about stuff like your mind?
Do you have a mind?
How do one even prove you have one.
Remember the old story about the professor who said he could not believe in anything the 5 senses could not experience and the student who asked him to prove that he was mind-less.
I
never claimed that we've discovered everything there is to be discovered. THAT is a strawman.
What I said is that there is so far absolutely no evidence for anything metaphysical, that no observation ever done has revealed any proof of anything metaphysical. That doesn't say that a future observation is impossible, only that until there is some, I have no responsibility or requirement to take the suggestion there is even remotely seriously.
I'm not interested in proving whether or not I have a mind, and it's of no relevance to the current situation. You have assumed I have one, simply as a matter of how you've engaged.
The 'five senses' thing is childish at best. One, we have more than five senses. Two, the story is of no relevance.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 10:54:18 AM
Look, I loved what you are saying.
And you are 100% correct in your whole point of view.
But keep in mind what I am proposing is not that I am correct about the existence of God, but that your arguments against the Bible is not correct.
If, for instance, the Bible was not the source of the Nebular theory, or the Bible did claim the Universe was 6KY old (as so many creationists incorrectly claim), I would then be able to dismiss it for what it is.
However, If the Bible do not have such errors, why claim it does?
This is my whole argument.
Making a claim that God does not exist, because someone are incorrectly claiming the Bible is incorrect when compared with science, is not a logical, nor a scientific methodology at all!
To dismiss God on these grounds only allows me to play havoc with such arguments.
To dismiss God on the grounds of no evidence is a total different case than what Biblical attacks are.
And this is the arguments up until now. (errors of the Bible proves God does not exist).
Wrong.You have no idea what my arguments against the bible are in general because
you have been making up my side of the debate in one huge straw man. As I've said before, and as you
completely ignored, your bible doesn't even enter into it; it has exactly the same validity as every other religion's scripture.
All gods stand as unproven, and your invisible sky-daddy and your Big Book of Fairy Tales aren't a special case that gets special consideration.
I don't care one whit about your bible until you first prove that there's a reason to believe there's a divine entity of
any sort. Then and only then might it be worth trying to figure out which of the thousands of religious texts written might be relevant. What you've done is assumed your god and assumed your book. You can do that for yourself, but you can't assert that as self-evident proof.
You have handwaved away every piece of data that disagrees with your presupposition that your bible is correct by either simply ignoring them, or throwing out your favorite accusation, 'straw man'. That's not winning the argument, that's just blindly ignoring everything that disagrees with you.
Your position requires that everything we know about physics, chemistry, geology and biology be wrong. That is simply not plausible on the face of it, especially since your only "evidence" is that it needs to be that way for your bible is accurate. That's both circular and disingenuous. You need to prove your position, not assert it in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
If you want to prove creation over evolution,
you need to have that debate with biologists and paleontologists. If you want to prove
14C dating is inaccurate,
you need to have that debate with physicists and nuclear chemists. If you want to demonstrate that the Earth fell together out of a mudball 6,000 years ago,
you need to have that debate with geologists.
Bringing it here is cowardice. Bringing it here is your admission that you can
not support yourself in the presence of the actual experts in the field. You can't even support yourself in the presence of keen amateurs. No, I'm not a chemist, a physicist, a cosmologist, a biologist, a paleontologist, an archaeologist, a geologist or a geneticist, just a keen and reasonably well-read amateur. I
am an astronomer, which field fortunately relies as much on amateurs as it does the PhDs.
And unlike you, I respect the truth even when it's not convenient for me. I would have loved to use the cometary delivery theory of water against you, and I fully expected to be able to, but I looked up the current state of knowledge first because
truth matters. Because
observations matter. Because I don't get to just adhere to a theory because I like it. Also, your reaction to that datum demonstrated that
you yourself did not know about the current theories of where Earth's water came from, or you would have incorporated it from the start.
What that tells me is that no, you do
not actually know or care about the actual scientific findings. You've done no reading, no research, no anything. You just believe what you believe, and prop it up with snippets you've picked up here and there that can be twisted to support your presumptions.
I'm going to make it as simple as possible for you. If you want to prove that
your god exists, you need to demonstrate first that at least
a god exists, and you need to do that with concrete, repeatable, verifiable observations. You cannot simply assert your bible -- as soon as you do that, then it's perfectly valid to assert Zeus, Hera, Apollo and Ares
et al. on the basis of the Iliad, Allah on the basis of the Quran, Vishnu on the basis of the Rigveda, and Hogwarts on the basis of the Harry Potter series, and you're right back to square one, with nothing whatsoever demonstrated.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 10:54:18 AM
If, for instance, the Bible was not the source of the Nebular theory
Also, you have been corrected on this. Continuing to assert it makes you a deliberate liar.
Quote from: trdsf on July 23, 2018, 03:42:12 PM
Also, you have been corrected on this. Continuing to assert it makes you a deliberate liar.
He is a theist. He can't help himself. It would be like asking Trump to tell the truth--or to even recognize what the truth is. Every time he mentions the bible or his god he has to rely on lies; and the sad fact is he realizes this but persists in lying. But then, he is a theist.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 23, 2018, 04:49:38 PM
He is a theist. He can't help himself. It would be like asking Trump to tell the truth--or to even recognize what the truth is. Every time he mentions the bible or his god he has to rely on lies; and the sad fact is he realizes this but persists in lying. But then, he is a theist.
I think the average believer, in whichever faith, is more or less fundamentally honest, or at least prefers to avoid a deliberate deceit. Most probably never think in depth about what they believe, having been taught it so young that questioning it never comes to mind.
I don't know whether the Orange Disaster Area believes what he says or not. If the former, that should exclude him from office on psychological grounds; if the latter, it should morally and ethically exclude him considering the sheer number of unnecessarily self-aggrandizing lies he tells, lies told in the face of directly contradicting facts, not the typical day to day political lie most of us expect a politician to tell.
I think the average believer says he's a believer because that's what he is expected to say. Their religion stops there.
Quote from: trdsf on July 23, 2018, 07:19:27 PM
I think the average believer, in whichever faith, is more or less fundamentally honest, or at least prefers to avoid a deliberate deceit. Most probably never think in depth about what they believe, having been taught it so young that questioning it never comes to mind.
Agreed. Most Christians are nice, decent, sincere people. They haven't gone over this stuff in depth and often don't fully understand what they believe, what other religious people believe, where atheists are coming from, etc. But they mean well.
Apologetics, on the other hand, appeals a *certain* psychological profile that is decidedly less concerned with being correct than it is with seeming to be right. The ultimate goal is of course to exalt the tribe and the tribe's beliefs - whether it be the Vatican, the LDS church, or right-wing evangelicals. This relatively recent digital proselytizing against unbelief in the tribe's beliefs is just the latest incarnation of that pair of missionaries riding bikes and knocking at your door. It's actually quite sad when you start to think about it.
From my perspective Americans are religious ~1/168th of the week.
Quote from: trdsf on July 23, 2018, 07:19:27 PM
I think the average believer, in whichever faith, is more or less fundamentally honest, or at least prefers to avoid a deliberate deceit. Most probably never think in depth about what they believe, having been taught it so young that questioning it never comes to mind.
I don't know whether the Orange Disaster Area believes what he says or not. If the former, that should exclude him from office on psychological grounds; if the latter, it should morally and ethically exclude him considering the sheer number of unnecessarily self-aggrandizing lies he tells, lies told in the face of directly contradicting facts, not the typical day to day political lie most of us expect a politician to tell.
I agree that the average shepple is simply happy to believe and not think much about it.
As for Trump, I don't think he cares one way or the other if he is telling the truth or not. Which is why he can change a story the next day, and then add another element to it on the 3rd day. He simply does not care.
I really don't think a con-artist aka politician cares much for truth, other than seeming to speak the truth to those who expect to hear that their particular truth. I don't think of Bill Clinton or Donald Trump as being particularly theist George W maybe.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 23, 2018, 11:40:05 AM
Reminds me of this scene from Dumb and Dumber:
Remember guys, unknown = maybe!
Quote from: Hydra009Guy walking on water? Maybe!
Well this guy invented water, I supposed He could walk on it too.
Quote from: Hydra009Talking snake? Maybe!
Well you dont even know it was Satan speaking there, yet you claim you read the Bible.
Quote from: Hydra009Invisible Pink Unicorn? Maybe!
And build a straw man by throwing in some mythological animal (a pink one for the unicorn was a dino, but not pink)
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 23, 2018, 07:37:13 PM
Agreed. Most Christians are nice, decent, sincere people. They haven't gone over this stuff in depth and often don't fully understand what they believe, what other religious people believe, where atheists are coming from, etc. But they mean well.
Apologetics, on the other hand, appeals a *certain* psychological profile that is decidedly less concerned with being correct than it is with seeming to be right. The ultimate goal is of course to exalt the tribe and the tribe's beliefs - whether it be the Vatican, the LDS church, or right-wing evangelicals. This relatively recent digital proselytizing against unbelief in the tribe's beliefs is just the latest incarnation of that pair of missionaries riding bikes and knocking at your door. It's actually quite sad when you start to think about it.
And I do not even believe in a Church or denomination and am not a member of any church.
But I believe in the philosophy of God.
And you in the philosophy of the absence of God.
Just as I believe in Jesus as God, you are caught in a religion where you deny on the grounds of no evidence.
therefore you 'believe' in atheism.
Quote from: Baruch on July 23, 2018, 09:42:08 PM
I really don't think a con-artist aka politician cares much for truth, other than seeming to speak the truth to those who expect to hear that their particular truth. I don't think of Bill Clinton or Donald Trump as being particularly theist George W maybe.
Yeh, I loved it when some x senator said,
"But the people of the US of A did not vote for Trump for Sunday school teacher... they voted for him on border control and jobs!" Only the sour puss minority Democrat liberals are the ones crying and they now need to attack the man and forget the country.
and they started crying at the 'Hillarious victory party', and continue to cry now.
Stupid fools!
:cool:
MT, the fact that Trump won the election does not mean that we should shut up and take it up the ass when he does stupid and inhuman shit. In no democracy should that happen, and furthermore, when it was our boys in the White House, you lot never shut up about the stuff our guys did. So don't be a fucking hypocrite.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 24, 2018, 08:23:59 AM
So don't be a fucking hypocrite.
He's a christian--he can't help it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 24, 2018, 08:56:25 AM
He's a christian--he can't help it.
He doesn't want to.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 24, 2018, 08:23:59 AM
MT, the fact that Trump won the election does not mean that we should shut up and take it up the ass when he does stupid and inhuman shit. In no democracy should that happen, and furthermore, when it was our boys in the White House, you lot never shut up about the stuff our guys did. So don't be a fucking hypocrite.
I watch CNN and Fox in an attempt to see who the hypocrites are, and boy, the liberal media are really uneducated.
Just look at old Whoopi Goldburg when she showed her true colors.
Talking about liars, I dont find Trump lied at all, but dammit, when will you guys arrest Strzok, and Hillary?
The Democrats want to get rid of ICE for separating families, but they dont even know it is not Ice that does it.
They think it is fine to harass and victimize Republicans.
And you want to swear at anyone that loves the USA!
Great going Trump.
You are a Giant!
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 24, 2018, 10:25:09 AM
Talking about liars, I dont find Trump lied at all
Yup, we're done here. You do know what documentation (https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/) is, don't you? You know, that which demonstrates he's not just a liar (https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/), he's a fucking filthy liar (https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/)?
No, you don't. That was rhetorical. It does go a long way to explaining why you believe the dumb stuff you believe, though. You're completely disconnected from reality.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 24, 2018, 07:27:40 AM
Well this guy invented water, I supposed He could walk on it too.
Oh, okay. That makes sense.
Well, I'm convinced. From now on, I'm going to spread the truth of Christianity to everyone who hasn't heard it, which is pretty much just a single uncontacted tribe in the Pacific. Let's go!
*charters a seaplane from a guy with an eyepatch and a propensity to say antiquated words like "loosey-goosey" and "ruse"*
*lands at the island of Pikape, meets with Shaman-san, a squat man with a bowl haircut and lightning bolt tattoos on his cheeks*
Me: "So my friend told me about a guy who walks on water..."
Shaman: *interjects* "Physically impossible! Surface tension strong, but not that strong."
Me: "No, it makes sense because he invented water because uh..."
Shaman: "Your friend is like soft-headed baby who fall down cliff because he think he fly like myna bird. Balooney!"
Me: "Baloney?"
Shaman: "Yes. Cosmos-lord Carl Sage-Man bequeathed to us his balooney detection kit. We no know exactly what balooney is, but this smells balooney!"
Me: "Wait a sec, how are we talking to each other? You know English?"
Shaman: "We learn english from foreign epic about Lord Ash the Ageless, monster-master and Lord of Duels. By day, he roams the world capturing monster. By night, he calls upon his host to fight each other for glory and honor. He cares not from whom the blood flows, only that it flows. Moon red from him. One day he will catch all monster then unmake/remake the world."
Me: "Oookay, well, I'll be leaving now."
Shaman: "Say traditional goodbye."
Me: *crosses arms* "I don't want to"
Shaman: *menacingly* "Say and we not eat alive you maybe."
Me: "Team Rocket is blasting off again!" *runs for dear life into prop plane while spears whiz by*
*spear-damaged plane lifts off and shrinks until it's only a speck on the horizon, a speck that makes an audible chime as it disappears*
Come on, guys! You don't know what this guy (or girl) really thinks. It is here to pull your chain. If we were Trump supporters, Hillary would be he/she/it best pal. He cobbled his ideas about the bible and religion from many sources and probably none of its. He will simply say what pulls your chain. Do I get a strong whiff of troll? You betja. She's like the little boy who likes to stir up the hornets nest, but he knows he won't really get stung. He just wants to get everybody riled up.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 24, 2018, 11:24:33 AM
Oh, okay. That makes sense. From now on, I'm going to spread the truth of Christianity to everyone who hasn't heard it, which is pretty much just a single uncontacted tribe in the Pacific. Let's go!
*charters a seaplane from a guy with an eyepatch and a propensity to say antiquated words like "loosey-goosey" and "ruse"*
*lands at the island of Pikape, meets with Shaman-san, a squat man with a bowl haircut and lightning bolt tattoos on his cheeks*
Me: "So my friend told me about a guy who walks on water..."
Shaman: *interjects* "Physically impossible! Surface tension strong, but not that strong."
Me: "No, it makes sense because he invented water because uh..."
Shaman: "Your friend is like soft-headed baby who fall down cliff because he think he fly like myna bird. Balooney!"
Me: "Baloney?"
Shaman: "Yes. Cosmos-lord Carl Sage-Man bequeathed to us his balooney detection kit. We no know exactly what balooney is, but this smells balooney!"
Me: "Wait a sec, how are we talking to each other? You know English?"
Shaman: "We learn english from foreign epic about Lord Ash the Ageless, monster-master and Lord of Duels. By day, he roams the world capturing monster. By night, he calls upon his host to fight each other for glory and honor. He cares not from whom the blood flows, only that it flows. Moon red from him. One day he will catch all monster then unmake/remake the world."
Me: "Oookay, well, I'll be leaving now."
Shaman: "Say traditional goodbye."
Me: *crosses arms* "I don't want to"
Shaman: *menacingly* "Say and we not eat alive you maybe."
Me: "Team Rocket is blasting off again! *runs for dear life into prop plane while spears whiz by*
*spear-damaged plane lifts off and shrinks until it's only a speck on the horizon, a speck that makes an audible chime as it disappears*
Mousetrap's claim that a guy can walk on water (because he invented water) stopped me in my tracks. What do you say to that kind of doubling down defense? Defend an absurd claim by adding an equally absurd claim!
You are hit smack in the head with the realization that you are now trying to talk intelligently to a person with some kind of handicap. Call it Compulsive Obtusity Disorder. He has limited your options by either being or acting like he has no concept of what you are telling him, and he spews out something to confuse the issue even more.
So what do you do in a case like that? Well you could write a comedy sketch about what is happening. Good humor often intersects reality, and when the reality of a situation is already laughably absurd, you've got a good place to start. Of course the discussion is finished. Actually, it was finished long ago, but at least something entertaining happened.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 24, 2018, 11:42:16 AM
Do I get a strong whiff of troll?
Well duh??! Does a bear shit in the woods?
Quote from: SGOS on July 24, 2018, 11:56:02 AMMousetrap's claim that a guy can walk on water (because he invented water) stopped me in my tracks. What do you say to that kind of doubling down defense? Defend an absurd claim by adding an equally absurd claim!
Yeah, I thought that was so crazy that even a cargo cult would find it to be preposterous.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 24, 2018, 11:42:16 AM
Come on, guys! You don't know what this guy (or girl) really thinks. It is here to pull your chain. If we were Trump supporters, Hillary would be he/she/it best pal. He cobbled his ideas about the bible and religion from many sources and probably none of its. He will simply say what pulls your chain. Do I get a strong whiff of troll? You betja. She's like the little boy who likes to stir up the hornets nest, but he knows he won't really get stung. He just wants to get everybody riled up.
The only word in here that I object to is "thinks". ;)
Mousie's been skirting close to my troll/not-troll line for a couple days now; today the little squeaker finally tipped over into it. I have much better folks to interact with here than that waste of screen space.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 24, 2018, 09:48:03 AM
He doesn't want to.
Does anyone here still think this guy is from Johannesburg South Africa? Seems too much interested in American politics.
Quote from: SGOS on July 24, 2018, 11:57:27 AM
Well duh??! Does a bear shit in the woods?
Not polar bears...;-)
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 24, 2018, 11:42:16 AM
Come on, guys! You don't know what this guy (or girl) really thinks. It is here to pull your chain. If we were Trump supporters, Hillary would be he/she/it best pal. He cobbled his ideas about the bible and religion from many sources and probably none of its. He will simply say what pulls your chain. Do I get a strong whiff of troll? You betja. She's like the little boy who likes to stir up the hornets nest, but he knows he won't really get stung. He just wants to get everybody riled up.
Yeah, she's a real cun...uh...cunning linguist.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 24, 2018, 10:25:09 AM
I watch CNN and Fox in an attempt to see who the hypocrites are, and boy, the liberal media are really uneducated.
Just look at old Whoopi Goldburg when she showed her true colors.
I haven't thought about Whoopi in literally years. Since ST:TNG ended, in fact.
Quote
Talking about liars, I dont find Trump lied at all, but dammit, when will you guys arrest Strzok, and Hillary?
When will you? Seeing that your lot are in charge of the FBI and stuff. This tells me one of two things:
(a) Your guys are in cahoots with them...
â€"orâ€"(b) Hillary and Strzok didn't do anything.
Quote
The Democrats want to get rid of ICE for separating families, but they dont even know it is not Ice that does it.
Whoever does it is a terrible person, and whoever endorses it is a terrible person. Just sayin'.
Quote
They think it is fine to harass and victimize Republicans.
Well, what goes around comes around. And I'm sure you won't victimize Democrats now that you're in power. Nope. Nope. Nope.
Quote
And you want to swear at anyone that loves the USA!
No, just jingoist twits like you.
Quote
Great going Trump.
You are a Giant Ass!
Fixed for you. You're welcome.
"Well, what goes around comes around. And I'm sure you won't victimize Democrats now that you're in power. Nope. Nope. Nope."
Well, that is the only political movement in the US today. Competitive victimhood. So actually ... victimizing Democrats is good for them ... same as victimizing Republicans (I have seen both in my 60+ years). Too bad Hell is full.
Quote from: SGOS on July 24, 2018, 11:57:27 AM
Well duh??! Does a bear shit in the woods?
Well, I've had to a couple times. It's awkward and requires a lot of leaves.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 08:23:24 AM
Well, I've had to a couple times. It's awkward and requires a lot of leaves.
And it teaches you to recognize poison ivy.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 25, 2018, 08:25:04 AM
And it teaches you to recognize poison ivy.
Indeed it would. But I was a experienced in the woods and never used the wrong leaves. Did leave a tee shirt behind once though.
I was working on a Forest Service crew years ago. I can't remember what we were doing, but the job involved a lot of wandering around, and crossing over the paths of other crew members. I came to a log that had fallen across an opening I had to walk through. In front of the log was a disgusting pile of used toilet paper, so my shit alert censors kicked in. I studied the pile of toilet paper but didn't see a shit pile, so I carefully lifted a foot to span both the toilet paper and the log so I could proceed and stepped right into a shit pile on the other side of the log. It was one of those gooey sticky shits too, and of course I was wearing boots with the big Vibram lugs on the soles. Well you get the picture.
So I was whining about the incident when the crew met up again, and one of the members said it was his shit, and a debate over the proper way to shit in the woods ensued with me arguing that you should put the toilet paper with the shit, while the doo doo bandit defended shitting on one side of the log, and throwing the toilet paper in front of you. His reasoning was that you could give yourself a wipe, then study the shit on the toilet paper and conveniently drop the wad between your feet.
The debate was never resolved, as important as the issue was, because the focus of the debate was lost while everyone was laughing at me for stepping in someone's shit pile.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 08:31:51 AM
Indeed it would. But I was a experienced in the woods and never used the wrong leaves. Did leave a tee shirt behind once though.
You left a tshirt on your behind?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 25, 2018, 09:06:00 AM
You left a tshirt on your behind?
No I "used" my tee shirt on my behind and left it sort of buried under some leaves. LOL!