Jump to content


Photo

C S I


  • Please log in to reply
199 replies to this topic

#181 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 July 2009 - 11:20 AM

"Easy. It's the only one that makes predictions that have come true."
"How would you prove that "God "is true when most of the claimed processes cannot be observed?"
I hope you can see what I did there ;)

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


The difference between what I did, and what you did, is that religion "requires" faith in the unknown. Science however, requires empirical evidence. So the comparison does not work. Unless of course you would be willing to admit that it takes faith?

#182 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2009 - 05:53 PM

The difference between what I did, and what you did, is that religion "requires" faith in the unknown. Science however, requires empirical evidence. So the comparison does not work. Unless of course you would be willing to admit that it takes faith?

View Post


Wait, we're trying to explain to this alien that your religion is true, and the correct one. First you say that it makes accurate predictions, now you're saying it requires faith in the unknown. Either you know, or you don't know. Which is it?

Science requires empiracle evidence? Yes, that would be the predictions we were talking about. That's our evidence. So no, no faith required.

Regards,

Arch.

#183 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2009 - 05:54 PM

Hi Arch,

Your question is easy also.  And the answer is the same.  The bible makes many predictions (prophecies) that have come true hundreds of years later.  You see the religious realm is very much like science...

View Post


Aha, that's exactly the connection I was trying to make. I'm glad someone understands me ;)

Regards,

Arch.

#184 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 July 2009 - 11:54 PM

Wait, we're trying to explain to this alien that your religion is true, and the correct one. First you say that it makes accurate predictions, now you're saying it requires faith in the unknown. Either you know, or you don't know. Which is it?


So now you want religion to be science, or science to be religion? Did you see macro-evolution? Has anyone else? Then you have faith that micro to infinity makes macro. Because you are believing what you cannot see, which also means you have faith that it happened. Why? Produce the observable process then you can claim that you know for sure. If not, then you take it by faith. And if you still disagree, then you are promoting a double standard because you cannot explain why "your" unobservable claim is any better than ours.

Science requires empiracle evidence? Yes, that would be the predictions we were talking about. That's our evidence. So no, no faith required.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Macro-evolution has no empiracle evidence. If so, show us the process.

#185 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 July 2009 - 05:18 AM

So now you want religion to be science, or science to be religion? Did you see macro-evolution? Has anyone else? Then you have faith that micro to infinity makes macro. Because you are believing what you cannot see, which also means you have faith that it happened. Why? Produce the observable process then you can claim that you know for sure. If not, then you take it by faith. And if you still disagree, then you are promoting a double standard because you cannot explain why "your" unobservable claim is any better than ours.
Macro-evolution has no empiracle evidence. If so, show us the process.

View Post


And that is exactly the sticky wicket the atheist gets himself into during this argumentation. What’s amazing here is the wiggle room he attempts to create, an attempt at escape that would leave Houdini scratching his head and wondering.

The follow-up question to the statement “Macro-evolution has no empirical evidence” has yet to be answered anywhere in this forum. And I predict that it will not here either.

#186 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 July 2009 - 07:00 PM

So now you want religion to be science, or science to be religion?

View Post


No, I want you to realise that one is religion and the other is science. You can't have both in the same package. I have no problem with you telling Mr. Alien about your religion, just be honest and tell him it's based on faith, not fact.

It's the only one that makes predictions that have come true
-------------
religion "requires" faith in the unknown


So again, either you know it, or you don't. Which is it?

Did you see macro-evolution? Has anyone else?

View Post


No, but it has been observed.

Produce the observable process then you can claim that you know for sure. If not, then you take it by faith. And if you still disagree, then you are promoting a double standard because you cannot explain why "your" unobservable claim is any better than ours.
Macro-evolution has no empiracle evidence. If so, show us the process.

View Post


As Ron so cleverly says about faith, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Unless you live for several million years, there is no evidence that will ever convince you Ike.

Regards,

Arch.

#187 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 July 2009 - 03:47 AM

No, I want you to realise that one is religion and the other is science. You can't have both in the same package. I have no problem with you telling Mr. Alien about your religion, just be honest and tell him it's based on faith, not fact.


Can you prove that 100% of the Bible is based on 100% faith? I don't think you can. And if you could, everyone would convert to what you believe. But the problem is can you be covincing enough?

So again, either you know it, or you don't. Which is it?


It is the same as it is with science. Do you know "everything"? No? So you either know it or you don't. Science no more gives the knowledge of "everything", no more than religion can. So name one human being that exists on this planet that knows everything? No one? Then don't imply that some how science is better in this area by implying absolute knowledge. Because if the Bible were so easy to disprove, it would have been a long time ago.

No, but it has been observed.


Who got the Nobel Prize for the discovery?

As Ron so cleverly says about faith, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Unless you live for several million years, there is no evidence that will ever convince you Ike.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


1) When you cannot answer a question directly, you use the time god excuse (it takes to much time). What if I told you the reason you cannot observe God is because it takes to much time? What would make your ti excuse better than mine even though it's the same excuse used for two different subjects?

2) I can also say the same about you. There is no evidence that would convince you of a Creator because you "prefer" that one did not exist. And therefore reject al evidences as fraud.

This reminds me of a creation joke I heard one time that makes several points.

An atheist who believe in evolution dies and stands before God. God passes His judgement and the atheist yells out: We disproved you exist! So God asks: How? We created life which proves you wrong as the Creator of life. So God tells the Atheist to demonstrate how they created life.

The atheist was supplied with everything he requested to prove his claim. He was even allowed to call up the greatest scientific minds in the world to help him.

So while they were working on their project, one walk over to some area on the ground and bends over to scoop it up. God asks: What are you doing? The person replies: We are scooping up dirt to make life. God replies: I created that dirt, create your own.

Points made:

1) Even while standing before God, the atheist still rejected God.
2) The atheist challenged God like he was God "only" because he had created life. Creating life does not equal godship.
3) And even though God gave them all that they wanted, they still did not understand that to create something from nothing requires the power of God. So when they tried to take some dirt, God rejected that because to be truly a creator of life, you also have to create all the basics that make up life (including all matter). God did that. Science cannot.

This problem also shows up in the Big Bang. Where did the matter come from? No one in science knows, And if you use every possible answer, and go with the one that seems more likely. Guess what it points to? That matter is eternal,which means there is a eternal paralell universe. Which brings up the question of the eternal being, but that is taboo in science.

#188 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 July 2009 - 06:20 AM

Can you prove that 100% of the Bible is based on 100% faith? I don't think you can. And if you could, everyone would convert to what you believe. But the problem is can you be covincing enough?

View Post


I asked you whether or not you could prove to an unbiased bystander (eg. alien) that your religious beliefs are true. Instead of answering the question you ask me to show that all of the Bible is completely based on faith. I think it's polite to answer a question before starting to pose your own, especially when the relevance is hard to find.

It is the same as it is with science. Do you know "everything"? No? So you either know it or you don't. Science no more gives the knowledge of "everything", no more than religion can. So name one human being that exists on this planet that knows everything? No one? Then don't imply that some how science is better in this area by implying absolute knowledge. Because if the Bible were so easy to disprove, it would have been a long time ago.

View Post


Again, I've asked you to tell me which of these statements that you made do you believe to be true.

It's the only one that makes predictions that have come true
-------------
religion "requires" faith in the unknown


Instead of answering you say that I don't know everything. I most certainly don't know everything; neither does the scientific community. This is why I would present evolution as a theory, not an absolute. Would you do the same with religion? Or would you try and convince this alien that you are definitely right?

Who got the Nobel Prize for the discovery?

View Post


So the only science you believe is correct is that which wins Nobel Prizes? No that can't be right, otherwise you'd have to give up all your creationist beliefs...

There is a great deal of scientific work being done on a daily basis. Not all of it gets awards.

1) When you cannot answer a question directly, you use the time god excuse (it takes to much time). What if I told you the reason you cannot observe God is because it takes to much time? What would make your time excuse better than mine even though it's the same excuse used for two different subjects?

View Post


Lol, then I'd ask you how anyone knows of God. If he's unobservable then how did the Bible get written?

My 'time excuse' is better because despite the time it takes, I can still show evidence.

2) I can also say the same about you. There is no evidence that would convince you of a Creator because you "prefer" that one did not exist. And therefore reject all evidences as fraud.

View Post


There's plenty of evidence that could convince me. Would you like a list? I also noticed you didn't deny my accusation? :P

This reminds me of a creation joke I heard one time that makes several points.

View Post


I think the punch line needs work ;)

1) Even while standing before God, the atheist still rejected God.

View Post


So your theoretical atheist, who doesn't exist, stands before your God, who may exist, and rejects Him. I think the only real point this fabricated story makes is that your human is an idiot. If he doesn't think God exists why is he trying to prove it to Him? That's paradoxical and moronic.

I also don't know of an atheist who's soul reason for not believing in God is because he thinks we can create life ourselves. That would be an okay reason for rejecting scripture, but not a God.

2) The atheist challenged God like he was God "only" because he had created life. Creating life does not equal godship.

View Post


I think my above statement shows we're in agreement on this one :)

We've got majorly off-topic here Ike. I'd really prefer to try and go back to this unbiased alien character and see how you'd convince him your religion is true.

Regards,

Arch.

#189 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 July 2009 - 07:33 AM

I asked you whether or not you could prove to an unbiased bystander (eg. alien) that your religious beliefs are true. Instead of answering the question you ask me to show that all of the Bible is completely based on faith. I think it's polite to answer a question before starting to pose your own, especially when the relevance is hard to find.


I also think it's polite to remember what people say. I answered your question a few posts back. Something about predictions....

Again, I've asked you to tell me which of these statements that you made do you believe to be true.


Both.

Instead of answering you say that I don't know everything. I most certainly don't know everything; neither does the scientific community. This is why I would present evolution as a theory, not an absolute. Would you do the same with religion? Or would you try and convince this alien that you are definitely right?


I don't believe in craming down someone's throat what they choose not to believe. I give them what I know they make their choice. You? Would you imply or say you are difnitely right?

So the only science you believe is correct is that which wins Nobel Prizes? No that can't be right, otherwise you'd have to give up all your creationist beliefs...There is a great deal of scientific work being done on a daily basis. Not all of it gets awards.


Then you made my point for me. Having observed macro-evolution, being able to prove it, and make it retestable in a lab. Would win that person the Nobel Prize. But no one has, so your claim of observation of macro evolution is not correct now is it? You make the claim because you feel the need to sell an idea you cannot prove.

Lol, then I'd ask you how anyone knows of God. If he's unobservable then how did the Bible get written?

My 'time excuse' is better because despite the time it takes, I can still show evidence.


Evidence without an observable process is evidence that has to be interpretated. Which means it becomes a matter of opinion and not fact. Empiricle evidence, along with repeatable processes brings fact, not opinion of what "might" have happened.

There's plenty of evidence that could convince me. Would you like a list? I also noticed you didn't deny my accusation? :P


At least I'm honest, you?

I think the punch line needs work ;)


It was not meant to be "real" funny. Of course if you want an atheist mocking joke, I could probably fix it to your liking or disliking.

So your theoretical atheist, who doesn't exist, stands before your God, who may exist, and rejects Him. I think the only real point this fabricated story makes is that your human is an idiot. If he doesn't think God exists why is he trying to prove it to Him? That's paradoxical and moronic.


I don't think anyone needed to know the atheist did not exist, it was a joke, remember? But I have had atheist make a challenge to me and say they would believe if I met that challenge. Like answering a question about the flood. I did, and the atheist wiggle his way out of it. Like provide where the water went for the flood. He did not know it had been found, so trying to be smart. He stuck his foot in his mouth and was made a fool.

It's not my problem people make promises they cannot keep. But it is there choice to break them. That is why I take such things with a grain of salt, They are only as good as the person who makes them. Besides, a fake forced belief is not real. So neither would be the conversion.

I also don't know of an atheist who's soul reason for not believing in God is because he thinks we can create life ourselves. That would be an okay reason for rejecting scripture, but not a God.
I think my above statement shows we're in agreement on this one :)


I have had it said to me. And if you find life on mars, what will be the first thing most atheist will claim to a Christian? So life any other way does matter whether you believe it or not.

We've got majorly off-topic here Ike. I'd really prefer to try and go back to this unbiased alien character and see how you'd convince him your religion is true.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Just like I'd like to see you convince him of evolution using only empirical evidence and no animation. And also claim you have observed macro-evolution but cannot provide the actual process.

#190 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 28 July 2009 - 10:13 AM

"Easy. It's the only one that makes predictions that have come true."

View Post


Easy if you could only prove it Arch. The jury is still out on that one, particularly since evolution cannot predict anything.

"How would you prove that "God "is true when most of the claimed processes cannot be observed?"

View Post


The New Testament is chock full of eye-witness observations confirming these processes Arch.

I hope you can see what I did there ;)

View Post


Sure Arch, the clinical term is denial. And you did it quite well.

#191 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 July 2009 - 04:46 PM

I also think it's polite to remember what people say. I answered your question a few posts back. Something about predictions....

View Post


To which you then changed to "requires faith". Either you can prove it or you can't. If you think you can prove it then "predictions" is your answer. If you can't, then "faith" is your answer. All I know is:

"Both"

is contradictory, unless you are saying you have limited evidence, and it still requires a degree of faith?

I don't believe in craming down someone's throat what they choose not to believe. I give them what I know they make their choice. You? Would you imply or say you are difnitely right?

View Post


You just quoted me denying I would claim it as definitely right.

"I most certainly don't know everything; neither does the scientific community. This is why I would present evolution as a theory, not an absolute."

It's bad enough you aren't interested in reading what I've written, but if you're going to quote me you really should take the time.

Ultimately whatever evidence you present to this alien it will make a choice whether to believe you or not. I'm interested in what evidence you're going to present in order to try and convince it. Which brings us back to "predictions" or "faith".

Then you made my point for me. Having observed macro-evolution, being able to prove it, and make it retestable in a lab. Would win that person the Nobel Prize. But no one has, so your claim of observation of macro evolution is not correct now is it?

View Post


What on earth are you on about? I just said not all scientific endeavors receive Nobel Prizes, and you say this makes your point true. Re-read my post. It doesn't.

There's plenty of evidence that could convince me. Would you like a list? I also noticed you didn't deny my accusation?


At least I'm honest, you?

View Post


Again you've quoted me giving an explanation and just ignored it. There is evidence that would convince me, honest.

Are you admit nothing can convince you? What are you doing here then? Getting your jollies out of making people run around finding you evidence only to reject regardless? I'm sure you've made the claim evolutionists do this and how much it annoys you.

It was not meant to be "real" funny. Of course if you want an atheist mocking joke, I could probably fix it to your liking or disliking.

View Post


Some of the best jokes I've heard pay out on Australians. If a joke is funny, it's funny. I don't take them personally.

I have had atheist make a challenge to me and say they would believe if I met that challenge. Like answering a question about the flood. I did, and the atheist wiggle his way out of it.

View Post


Perhaps he didn't think your explanation was good enough?

I have had it said to me. And if you find life on mars, what will be the first thing most atheist will claim to a Christian? So life any other way does matter whether you believe it or not.

View Post


Are you asking me for my personal opinion, or what I think most atheists would say?

I can't speak for everyone, but personally if we found life on Mars the first thing I would do is run around hugging everyone saying "Oh my goodness! We're not alone!" I think I'd be too overjoyed to even stop and contemplate the religious implications for a week.

Just like I'd like to see you convince him of evolution using only empirical evidence and no animation. And also claim you have observed macro-evolution but cannot provide the actual process.

View Post


The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.


The processes are there, but that just leads us back to horses and water again.

Now it's your turn. Where are you taking me to drink? Predictions, faith, or a delicate balance of the two?

Regards,

Arch.

#192 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 July 2009 - 04:52 PM

Easy if you could only prove it Arch. The jury is still out on that one, particularly since evolution cannot predict anything.

View Post


Jury came back a few years ago, you may want to read the transcript. In summary, evolution is science, creationism is religion.

Oh, and you may want to find the forum about the predictive power of evolution. Quite interesting.

The New Testament is chock full of eye-witness observations confirming these processes Arch.

View Post


Which is a good start. How many of these observations are repeatable?

Sure Arch, the clinical term is denial. And you did it quite well.

View Post


What denial? I was asking questions. I didn't deny anything ;)

Regards,

Arch.

#193 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 29 July 2009 - 05:09 AM

Jury came back a few years ago, you may want to read the transcript. In summary, evolution is science, creationism is religion.

View Post


So, the verdict rendered is the final word (just because that particular decision ruled in your favor)? You may want to revisit the Dredd Scott decision Arch.

Oh, and you may want to find the forum about the predictive power of evolution. Quite interesting.

View Post

Are you saying “evolution” can predict things Arch? Is this what you are in fact saying?

I’ll predict that you’ll back peddle on that statement (or equivocate mightily).

Which is a good start. How many of these observations are repeatable?

View Post


Jesus repeated uncounted miracles, and did so numerous times over the entirety of His ministry, as observed by many. So many in fact, that One of the many witnesses (John the Apostle, and author of the Gospel of John stated “if all of these were written, there wouldn’t be enough books in the world to contain them” [paraphrasing]).

The Apostles of Jesus repeated uncounted miracles, and did so numerous times over the entirety of their ministries, as observed by many.

What denial? I was asking questions. I didn't deny anything 

View Post


You will undoubtedly attempt to deny my statements above (another prediction). But you have no solid ground to do so (except your denial).

#194 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 29 July 2009 - 07:16 PM

So, the verdict rendered is the final word (just because that particular decision ruled in your favor)? You may want to revisit the Dredd Scott decision Arch.

View Post


Of course it can be revisited. But you said the jury was still out. They're not. Until the next trial, "evolution is science, creationism is religion".

Are you saying “evolution” can predict things Arch? Is this what you are in fact saying?

I’ll predict that you’ll back peddle on that statement (or equivocate mightily).

View Post


I really hope you're not going to jump on the "evolution doesn't predict things, people use evolution to predict things" bandwagon. It's a common phrase and doesn't need to be torn apart for people to understand.

Unless you have another objection, yes I stand by my original statement.

Jesus repeated uncounted miracles, and did so numerous times over the entirety of His ministry, as observed by many.

View Post


So Jesus could repeat them. Can we? If yes, could I please see some? If not, does this really count as repeatable?

So many in fact, that One of the many witnesses (John the Apostle, and author of the Gospel of John stated “if all of these were written, there wouldn’t be enough books in the world to contain them” [paraphrasing]).

View Post


Strange then how few books there actually are of people bearing first hand witness to Jesus outside of the Bible, but that's another forum topic.

The Apostles of Jesus repeated uncounted miracles, and did so numerous times over the entirety of their ministries, as observed by many.
You will undoubtedly attempt to deny my statements above (another prediction). But you have no solid ground to do so (except your denial).

View Post


Na, not denying, just fence sitting :blink:

The only 'repeatable' miracles you can produce are so ancient it's hard to be swayed by them. Now, if you could show me a couple of modern day miracles, perhaps even performed by yourself (by yourself, through God), I would get off this fence.

Regards,

Arch.

#195 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 30 July 2009 - 05:08 AM

Of course it can be revisited. But you said the jury was still out. They're not. Until the next trial, "evolution is science, creationism is religion".

View Post


So the single judgment of a prejudicial court is the final say Arch? Creationism is no more a religion than evolutionism, regardless.


I really hope you're not going to jump on the "evolution doesn't predict things, people use evolution to predict things" bandwagon. It's a common phrase and doesn't need to be torn apart for people to understand.

View Post


Really? So you’re saying evolution can predict things?


Unless you have another objection, yes I stand by my original statement.
So Jesus could repeat them. Can we? If yes, could I please see some? If not, does this really count as repeatable?

View Post


Strange then how few books there actually are of people bearing first hand witness to Jesus outside of the Bible, but that's another forum topic.
Na, not denying, just fence sitting ;)

View Post


All it takes is two witnesses Arch. And these books contain many witnesses of Jesus. So, are you going to equivocate on the subject once again, and pretend that it isn’t justification?


The only 'repeatable' miracles you can produce are so ancient it's hard to be swayed by them. Now, if you could show me a couple of modern day miracles, perhaps even performed by yourself (by yourself, through God), I would get off this fence.

View Post


Are you ruling these repeated evidences out due to the historicity of the witnesses Arch? Is this another equivocation you are willing to make?

#196 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 30 July 2009 - 05:23 AM

So the single judgment of a prejudicial court is the final say Arch? Creationism is no more a religion than evolutionism, regardless.

View Post


Fair enough, your entitled to your opinion. None the less the court case has reached a verdict, and creation is religion, while evolution is science. Regardless of your opinions that remains unchanged.

Really? So you’re saying evolution can predict things?

View Post


Assuming you're taking that in context as a common use of speech and not literal, yes.

So Jesus could repeat them. Can we? If yes, could I please see some? If not, does this really count as repeatable?


You quoted this but didn't actually address it. I assume you just forgot to come back to it?

All it takes is two witnesses Arch. And these books contain many witnesses of Jesus. So, are you going to equivocate on the subject  once again, and pretend that it isn’t justification?

View Post


No, each book contained one 'witness' who claims a whole heap of other people also witnessed the event. Unless those other witnesses come forward they do not count.

And who says it only takes two witnesses? In a court case maybe, but we're talking about history here. If you only require two witnesses for proof of any historical event you would believe just about anything.

I've also done some brief looking into eye witnesses in court cases. They are extremely unreliable.

Are you ruling these repeated evidences out due to the historicity of the witnesses Arch? Is this another equivocation you are willing to make?

View Post


No, I'm ruling them out because I don't think you can repeat them. Your talking history, I'm talking repeatable science. If you think I'm wrong, show me a couple of modern day miracles, preferably at your request to God.

Regards,

Arch.

#197 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 30 July 2009 - 07:27 AM

Assuming you're taking that in context as a common use of speech and not literal, yes.

View Post

Common misuse of speech does not a correct assumption make Arch. And, the context of the message isn’t as though the connotation is of colloquialism (which isn’t allowed in formal papers, with the sole exception of this usage for some reason) or figure of speech. The context of the usual speech of some is referring, in context, of literal meaning.

You quoted this but didn't actually address it. I assume you just forgot to come back to it?

View Post

**Edit**Some how it got cut out during the process… Not only did Jesus repeat them, but the Apostles did as well. You seem to have the miraculous touch yourself, in order to dismiss out of hand these empirically witnessed historical events Arch. How is that?

No, each book contained one 'witness' who claims a whole heap of other people also witnessed the event. Unless those other witnesses come forward they do not count.

View Post

No, Arch, each book contained an eye witness (keeping in mind that it only takes two witnesses for a case to be made (and in these cases there were more than two), And these “eyewitnesses” also witnessed other eyewitnesses (and in many cases named the other eyewitnesses by proper name). This it self is admissible, as you well know. Therefore you are once again equivocating.

And who says it only takes two witnesses? In a court case maybe, but we're talking about history here. If you only require two witnesses for proof of any historical event you would believe just about anything.

View Post


Corroboration takes a minimum of two Arch. Quit equivocating.

I've also done some brief looking into eye witnesses in court cases. They are extremely unreliable.

View Post


Once again, you are equivocating Arch. The reliability of the eye witnesses are not in question in this case. If you can find some impeachable evidence, please provide it and quit quibbling about facts you cannot disprove.

#198 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 30 July 2009 - 04:48 PM

Common misuse of speech does not a correct assumption make Arch. And, the context of the message isn’t as though the connotation is of colloquialism (which isn’t allowed in formal papers, with the sole exception of this usage for some reason) or figure of speech. The context of the usual speech of some is referring, in context, of literal meaning.

View Post


This isn't a formal paper Dee. It's an internet forum with common people using common language. I hope you don't apply these standards to every informal situation; people will get miffed and stop talking to you, which would be unfortunate because you do have a lot to offer when you're not being retentive.

Pedantics aside, do you have any problem with me saying evolution is used to predict things.

**Edit**Some how it got cut out during the process… Not only did Jesus repeat them, but the Apostles did as well. You seem to have the miraculous touch yourself, in order to dismiss out of hand these empirically witnessed historical events Arch. How is that?

View Post


Hehe, I work with computers on a daily basis. I'm only too aware of them magically deleting things on you :P

Again, wonderful. Jesus could do them, Apostles could do them. Can you? Or anyone else in todays times? You have to understand I'm extremely skeptical of most things and when someone starts saying they can raise people from the dead alarm bells start going off.

If you could show me that you personally, or someone you knew could indeed perform such miracles at least 50% of the time I'd happily get off the fence, but until then I'll remain skeptical.

No, Arch, each book contained an eye witness (keeping in mind that it only takes two witnesses for a case to be made (and in these cases there were more than two), And these “eyewitnesses” also witnessed other eyewitnesses (and in many cases named the other eyewitnesses by proper name). This it self is admissible, as you well know. Therefore you are once again equivocating.

View Post


No, it's only admissible if the witnesses written about agree with the original eye witness. If they do then great you have a case, but you haven't specified as such yet.

Example: If I were to write a diary tonight that said today I went to the beach and saw Dee and Ron and Adam there. Together we saw a group of whales swimming by. Does this immediately make the three of you witness? Of course not, I could just be making it up. If we were to go to your blog and find that you had a very similar experience written down, then and only then would I be listing you as a witness.

Corroboration takes a minimum of two Arch. Quit equivocating.

View Post


Then feel free to be suckered in by any duo trying to con you. I'll remain skeptical until I see some actual evidence.

Once again, you are equivocating Arch. The reliability of the eye witnesses are not in question in this case. If you can find some impeachable evidence, please provide it and quit quibbling about facts you cannot disprove.

View Post


Why not? Do you honestly believe everything you hear/read as long as it's backed up by one other person? There are plenty of people out there that will try and swindle you. I prefer not to make it too easy for them.

Regards,

Arch.

#199 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 30 July 2009 - 05:34 PM

Wait, we're trying to explain to this alien that your religion is true, and the correct one. First you say that it makes accurate predictions, now you're saying it requires faith in the unknown. Either you know, or you don't know. Which is it?

Science requires empiracle evidence? Yes, that would be the predictions we were talking about. That's our evidence. So no, no faith required.


Thats why evolution is a religion,Arch.

It's only able to equivocate in the absence of evidence,which is'nt even a good religion,because most religions at least stick to same story and at least don't make themselves look foolish clutching at straws.

#200 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 09 August 2009 - 09:40 PM


Science requires empiracle evidence? Yes, that would be the predictions we were talking about. That's our evidence. So no, no faith required.


Thats why evolution is a religion,Arch.

It's only able to equivocate in the absence of evidence,which is'nt even a good religion,because most religions at least stick to same story and at least don't make themselves look foolish clutching at straws.

View Post


Ha? I said evolution make predictions. You then turn around and say evolutionists are avoiding making statements. How on earth does this logic follow?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users