Jump to content


Photo

Gulo Gene


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
276 replies to this topic

#261 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 June 2009 - 07:03 AM

All those who claimed to find "scientific evidence" contradicting scripture had motives to do so. I would go further, for it's pretty clear that doing so was their goal. It does not say they were wrong because they were atheists. The last sentence you selected sums it up. They weren't unbiased.

There seems to be a large industry devoted to taking one single quote and classifying people as creationist, atheist etc. This classification is then used to decide whether they were infallible in all matters or to dismiss everything they wrote as 'bias'.

The truth is that people frequently are not entirely consistent throughout their lives, and the more thoughtful have sometimes changed position.

For an account of some important geologists, their beliefs and the evidence which influenced them, see:-
http://www.grisda.or...igins/09028.htm
In particular, scroll down slightly more than half way to the section on Agassiz and read about Buckland and Lyell's reaction.

#262 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 June 2009 - 01:32 PM

CTD I've just got through showing Ron that there's no such thing as Evogeology. Please don't make me go through it all again.

View Post

I'm not making you do anything. There's only one kind of "geology" which says things are millions and billions of years old, and it is false. It employs whatever assumptions it deems convenient, misinterprets evidence, reasons in circles, and flat-out ignores evidence selectively.

Everyone knows better than to fall for that. Rather than trying to put words in my mouth, why not address what I actually say? Or spare your reputation at least, by keeping mum?

Not familiar with "keeping mum" sorry.
I said I could reference several different schools of science to show an old earth. To that you responded.
"You'll have to misdefine 'science', that's what you'll have to do."
I'm not sure how saying archeaology is science is misdefining science. If you feel I've put words in your mouth perhaps you could rephrase this to make more sense.

I never said it was misdefining 'science' to include archaeology.

And you misrepresent the discussion. The words of mine which you quoted were in response to.

"Hang on, I thought we just got over the whole "geology isn't science" misunderstanding. Now you're saying geology, biology, archeology and paleontology doesn't fall under the definition of 'science'?"

I have not said any of that. Everyone knows I haven't. I will not pretend I did, and so long as you persist in playing this silly game, you can expect to be called on it. It's your own credibility will suffer.

Evolutionist perversions of several branches of science exist. It does not mean the branches themselves unscientific.

No offence CTD, but I really don't want to have to read through an entire forum to find your opinion on history. I was hoping for a simple explanation, which you have given. Perhaps now you could explain how one goes about "discovery" in history?

You don't have to read through the entire forum. You can follow the link I provided, and it'll take you straight to the thread.

I prefer to discuss topics in the appropriate thread. That way, when people are interested in reading about something or discussing it, they stand a good chance of finding the thread(s) where the discussions are taking place.

Sorry CTD, that wasn't what I was hoping to get across. My point was that you can't prove God did it, even if He did.

If that was your point, you might have included it, and you wouldn't have needed to contradict yourself.

Your new claim? It's absurd. We have threads discussing what can and cannot be proven. Shall I copy & paste some of the posts here, or can you be troubled to discuss topics in the threads where your assertions have already been debunked?

Scoffers themselves prove they already know God exists by their behaviour. Why so many silly games, insulting everyone's intelligence continually? Why the arguments-from-spam? Why waste so much time with utter nonsense? It is known that actions do not proceed without motive, and motives aren't always difficult to assess.

If you think nothing can be proven, we have threads about that. If you think history can't prove anything, the thread is there. If you think God is exempt from being discovered, why not discuss it in an appropriate thread?

A couple more suggestions:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2219

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2241

#263 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 June 2009 - 01:50 PM

As usual, confusion arises when one mixes apples with oranges. Experimental science is not history, and history is not experimental science. If a sister of mine eats a pie, and someone asks what happened to the pie, how is it incorrect to answer "my sister ate it"? How?

It is not incorrect. It is not unscientific. It is the most scientific answer one can give. To make such an accurate response off-limits is antiscientific. And if God eats a pie, it is accurate and scientific to acknowledge the fact. Just because He's God, you people think you can call the answer "unscientific"? Think again.

When you exclude God from ever doing anything, that's atheism. It doesn't matter whether you think you can convince fools you have an excuse. It doesn't matter if you actually can.

Because I didn't see your sister eat the pie, and I know that you too like pie. You may not be being completely honest with me.

You are funny. You classify the truth as unscientific because you didn't see it yourself. That is only valid if science only consists of that which you've seen with your own eyes? Bye bye evolutionism. Bye bye vast majority of science and history.

Of course not...if you can show that God did actually eat the pie, and you didn't sneak eat it while I wasn't looking.

You just said... Oh what does it matter? I don't think you care.

This is entirely based on your assumption you can prove God exists. Get back to me when you have the maths to do so.

Oh, math is now required? Do you require math to prove other things exist too? In that case, prove math exists.

No problem. Below is a link to Newton's laws. If you can show me where the laws include God I will indeed agree that Newton did not exclude God from them.

Newtons Laws - wikipedia

Regards,

Arch.

View Post

You seem to have forgotten the point you attempted to dispute. As always, I invite the readership to review the discussion and see for themselves.

Saying or believing God did something has no downside, scientifically speaking. It is claimed that "this will stop science", but history clearly says otherwise. Newton believed gravity was God's law, and he did a fine job investigating. The jokers who say stuff like that hate history, for it exposes them every time.

View Post



#264 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 12 June 2009 - 05:36 PM

Umm, the ancient Greeks weren't atheists Ron. They followed Zeus and a great deal of other Gods. I'm not entirely sure how they thought the universe began, but I doubt you'll have too much trouble finding out for yourself.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Ummm, I didn’t say “ancient Greeks” Archie. But, not all ancient Greeks believed in Zeus. Having said that, I agree, I won’t have much trouble finding facts. As long as I stick to reputable sources (meaning other than that malleable wiki site :blink: ).

#265 Arch

Arch

    Member

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

Posted 12 June 2009 - 05:45 PM

Ummm, I didn’t say “ancient Greeks” Archie. But, not all ancient Greeks believed in Zeus. Having said that, I agree, I won’t have much trouble finding facts. As long as I stick to reputable sources (meaning other than that malleable wiki site  :blink: ).

View Post


Ron, CTD and I were talking about Greeks in the historical sence. If you weren't refering to the Greeks of old then your question was completely irrelevent.

Oh, and if you do go and look up the history, do me a favour and double check it with Wiki. You might be surprised.

Regards,

Arch.

#266 Arch

Arch

    Member

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

Posted 12 June 2009 - 05:58 PM

"Because I didn't see your sister eat the pie, and I know that you too like pie. You may not be being completely honest with me."


You are funny. You classify the truth as unscientific because you didn't see it yourself. That is only valid if science only consists of that which you've seen with your own eyes? Bye bye evolutionism. Bye bye vast majority of science and history.

View Post


For all your talk of science you really know very little about it. Science is not limited to what one can physically see. In my example I was refering to not trusting you simply because you told me it was your sister. I would want to see evidence for myself. The best way would be if I saw her eat it yes. Alternatively you could show me the apple crums on her sweater. Or her teeth marks in the leftover pie. So no, science and evolution are still fine. It's only your methods that need refinement.

You just said... Oh what does it matter? I don't think you care.

View Post


Oh I do care. I just don't follow your logic is all.

Oh, math is now required? Do you require math to prove other things exist too? In that case, prove math exists.

View Post


Maths would be great, but any kind of actual proof would do. As for proving maths exists, I'd say that seeing it's application in thousands of experiements that have clearly worked shows it exists.

You seem to have forgotten the point you attempted to dispute. As always, I invite the readership to review the discussion and see for themselves.

"Newton believed gravity was God's law, and he did a fine job investigating."

View Post


That's fine. The point I wanted to make was that Newton didn't include God in his calculations. If he did he would have got gibberish. I still feel comfortable saying this.

Regards,

Arch.

#267 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 June 2009 - 08:23 PM

You are funny. You classify the truth as unscientific because you didn't see it yourself. That is only valid if science only consists of that which you've seen with your own eyes? Bye bye evolutionism. Bye bye vast majority of science and history.


For all your talk of science you really know very little about it. Science is not limited to what one can physically see. In my example I was refering to not trusting you simply because you told me it was your sister. I would want to see evidence for myself. The best way would be if I saw her eat it yes. Alternatively you could show me the apple crums on her sweater. Or her teeth marks in the leftover pie. So no, science and evolution are still fine. It's only your methods that need refinement.

View Post

What some people won't do to try to gin up excuses to claim a creationist "doesn't know about science"... :blink: Contradict yourself 'til the cows come home; I'll keep reporting what I observe.

Don't even try rewriting such recent and well-documented history. I said it's perfectly scientific to say "my sister ate the pie". I asked how it could be unscientific. You responded, big as day

Because I didn't see your sister eat the pie, and I know that you too like pie. You may not be being completely honest with me.

View Post

And you don't even know I like pie. It depends on which kind, actually.

And of course this is complete rubbish. Your disbelief has no bearing whatsoever on the scientific merit of the statement. There's some funny implications to that premise too, but we've had enough funny, and you've flip-flopped enough besides.

Ron, CTD and I were talking about Greeks in the historical sence. If you weren't refering to the Greeks of old then your question was completely irrelevent.

Oh, and if you do go and look up the history, do me a favour and double check it with Wiki. You might be surprised.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post

He won't be all that surprised if he checks competent sources. Atheism was advocated strongly by several of the "great" Greek philosophers. Can't say off the top of my head how much of a following they managed.

#268 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 June 2009 - 08:27 PM

CTD, you have said in the past that people post things with the idea that everyone is too lazy to go back and investigate for themselves. I'm still taken back by how often people try to revise history when history is engrained in type for all to see. :blink:

#269 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 June 2009 - 08:51 PM

Oh I do care. I just don't follow your logic is all.

View Post

You don't follow your own logic. And as for caring, I have a hunch if I'd said you care you've claimed you don't. You have established a consistent pattern of irrational contrariness.

Maths would be great, but any kind of actual proof would do. As for proving maths exists, I'd say that seeing it's application in thousands of experiements that have clearly worked shows it exists.

View Post

I see no numbers. You have not proven math using math. Were math required in order to prove everything, you'd be out of luck, wouldn't you?

So would everyone else.

That's fine. The point I wanted to make was that Newton didn't include God in his calculations. If he did he would have got gibberish. I still feel comfortable saying this.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post

Somehow I doubt there's much thought behind this assertion. I haven't seen too many folks making any such attempts, but I don't think it must result in gibberish. 1 + God > the world. I just composed that, and it makes perfect sense to me. 2 + I Am > Egypt isn't gibberish either.

I still have to wonder where you got the idea. We don't see too many entities included in equations. I don't recall Queen Mary, or George Washington, or Poseidon ever being named as constants. I don't see much hope for your proposed novelty to catch on, either.

#270 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 June 2009 - 09:09 PM

CTD, you have said in the past that people post things with the idea that everyone is too lazy to go back and investigate for themselves. I'm still taken back by how often people try to revise history when history is engrained in type for all to see. :blink:

View Post

I am too. It happens time after time, but each time is somewhat of a mild surprise. But one must understand how weak man is without God. Temptation can sometimes be resisted, but not always.

Also I suspect a good deal of the time, the internet persona is just considered a "throw-away". It is some sort of "badge of honour" among the deceitful to get themselves banned. Several factors come into play.

Sometimes I think they just try to stun us with... um... ...sub-optimal behaviour. There is also an old saying some may be familiar with, which starts "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance," and continues on to give advice consistent with much of what we often see.

I learned in earlier days the value of writing. I had a friend who was fond of deception, and changing stories. A time came when we were apart and exchanged letters. It was too easy to detect the inconsistencies once they were written down. It may be that some consider themselves "skilled", and frequently get away with these childish tricks in verbal exchanges. If they don't adapt, they'll quickly be "selected" in this environment.

#271 Arch

Arch

    Member

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

Posted 13 June 2009 - 01:10 AM

I see no numbers. You have not proven math using math. Were math required in order to prove everything, you'd be out of luck, wouldn't you?

View Post


You see no numbers? Try opening a science text book. Just about any will do. You'll see a great deal of numbers and you'll see how they match with what we observe in reality. I'm happy that this proves that maths exists.

As for proving everything, I know for certain I can't prove everything with maths, but there are some out there so brilliant I believe they can. I'm yet to find anything that can't be proved with maths.

1 + God > the world. I just composed that, and it makes perfect sense to me. 2 + I Am > Egypt isn't gibberish either.

View Post


I would have prefered you use Newton, because we know he's a reputable source, but we can work with this.

You see, these equations are indeed gibberish. Lets do some tests to check.

If 1 + God > the world then
1 > the world - God (doesn't make any sense to me)
0 > the world - 1 - God (still doesn't make sense)
1 + the world > - God (what's a negative God?)

How about the other equation

2 + I am > Egypt
2 > Egypt - I am (so...the number 2 would be greater than Egypt if God hadn't interfere there? Ha?)

Okay, that's enough being silly.

The problem is that God doesn't have a constant. You can't use Him as an algebratic equation. Which is why when you apply simple maths to your equation and try to reverse them (logically) you get gibberish.

I'm not convinved by your equations. Would you like to try again?

I don't recall Queen Mary, or George Washington, or Poseidon ever being named as constants. I don't see much hope for your proposed novelty to catch on, either.

View Post


Rofl CTD, you make me laugh too. You can't use any entity/person as part of an equation.

America + George Washington = X

What's X? I think this equation is just as silly as one with God in it.

Regards,

Arch.

#272 Arch

Arch

    Member

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

Posted 13 June 2009 - 01:21 AM

If you think nothing can be proven, we have threads about that. If you think history can't prove anything, the thread is there. If you think God is exempt from being discovered, why not discuss it in an appropriate thread?

A couple more suggestions:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2219

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2241

View Post


Sorry CTD, you have to remember I'm new here and I haven't had the oppertunity to go through every single thread. And if i don't know of their existence and you bring up a point I'll contend it here, as it's the only place I know where I discuss it.

If I do this and you're aware of another forum to discuss things, do as you did and give me some links.

I've read through some of these other forums and I feel that a lot of them have gone off topic. If it's possible, I'd prefer to start some old discussions anew with a new forum, after I've read the old ones of course. Is there any objections to this?

Regards,

Arch.

#273 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 June 2009 - 03:11 AM

You see no numbers? Try opening a science text book. Just about any will do. You'll see a great deal of numbers and you'll see how they match with what we observe in reality. I'm happy that this proves that maths exists.

As for proving everything, I know for certain I can't prove everything with maths, but there are some out there so brilliant I believe they can. I'm yet to find anything that can't be proved with maths.

Your statement of faith does not impress me. Math cannot be proven with math. It's not a matter of brilliance, either.

I would have prefered you use Newton, because we know he's a reputable source, but we can work with this.

You see, these equations are indeed gibberish. Lets do some tests to check.

If 1 + God > the world then
1 > the world - God (doesn't make any sense to me)
0 > the world - 1 - God (still doesn't make sense)
1 + the world > - God (what's a negative God?)

How about the other equation

2 + I am > Egypt
2 > Egypt - I am (so...the number 2 would be greater than Egypt if God hadn't interfere there? Ha?)

Okay, that's enough being silly.

When math is applied to real things, negative numbers don't work. There's no such thing as a negative apple, yet 3 apples + 6 apples is still greater than 2 apples.

Care to try again?

The problem is that God doesn't have a constant. You can't use Him as an algebratic equation. Which is why when you apply simple maths to your equation and try to reverse them (logically) you get gibberish.

I'm not convinved by your equations. Would you like to try again?
Rofl CTD, you make me laugh too. You can't use any entity/person as part of an equation.

View Post

It wasn't my idea. Review the thread and see who suggested it.

America + George Washington = X

What's X? I think this equation is just as silly as one with God in it.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post



#274 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 June 2009 - 03:32 AM

Sorry CTD, you have to remember I'm new here and I haven't had the oppertunity to go through every single thread. And if i don't know of their existence and you bring up a point I'll contend it here, as it's the only place I know where I discuss it.

If I do this and you're aware of another forum to discuss things, do as you did and give me some links.

I've read through some of these other forums and I feel that a lot of them have gone off topic. If it's possible, I'd prefer to start some old discussions anew with a new forum, after I've read the old ones of course. Is there any objections to this?

Regards,

Arch.

View Post

There's no harm in putting a derailed thread back on track, at least from the creationists' perspective. I've done it plenty of times. There are even occasions when threads are merged because a subsequent thread is redundant.

I encourage you and everyone else to become familiar with the older threads around here. There have been some outstanding discussions, and I cannot imagine the process failing to be educational.

Discussions between informed parties tend to be more productive than the other kinds, and as there is a no badgering rule here, I think taking enough time to post well (even if it means becoming reasonably informed) is very much in keeping with the intent of the management. A forum is not a chatroom.

#275 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 13 June 2009 - 06:07 AM

He won't be all that surprised if he checks competent sources. Atheism was advocated strongly by several of the "great" Greek philosophers. Can't say off the top of my head how much of a following they managed.

View Post


Careful CTD, Archie might catch on to the correlation and the relevance of the questions and comments. :)

#276 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 13 June 2009 - 06:28 AM

CTD, you have said in the past that people post things with the idea that everyone is too lazy to go back and investigate for themselves. I'm still taken back by how often people try to revise history when history is engrained in type for all to see. :)

View Post


Revisionist history has become the stock and trade of many who have a problem with truth and facts Adam. A fine example is Rudolph Bultmann’s attempt to change the historical value of the New Testament with the presuppositions he used in formulating form criticism. And, if you shout it long enough, loud enough, it will garner a following.

Atheists, agnostics, skeptics (unbelievers in general) have latched onto this as a way to tear down the Gospel without realizing the faults, misinterpretations, and historical rape of the New Testament it actually is. And this is simply because they don’t like it (but Jesus told us this would happen). You witness these attitudes smattered throughout this forum, being used as arguments because the “Uneducated” (I caught flack for using this term elsewhere) have not taken the time to educate them selves to the historical facts (or wipe the sleep-dust of ignorance from their eyes).

This laziness not only keeps them from learning the historical facts of the Historicity of the New Testament, but is the same lethargy you are talking about here Adam.

#277 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 June 2009 - 06:42 AM

I agree with what's being said about historic revisionism.

This thread has gone pretty far off topic. I recognize that I'm guilty of assisting the derail. :)

I'm going to close this thread as it seems the GULO gene discussion has been exhausted...





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users