patrick.net

Dan8267 says

If you don't believe that Christ is literally god and literally rose from the dead three days after dying, then you're not a Christian. It's pretty much a deal killer if you take everything in the Bible including the resurrection as metaphoric. Yeah, Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, that was a metaphor meaning that if you live a good life your ideas will live on. If that's the case, you're as atheistic as I am and Christianity is just a philosophy, not a religion

Dan: We agree on this point! Let's have a beer together.

Dan8267 says

This assertion is clearly disproven by the pointing out the fact that rape exists and we don't accept it, but rather we fight to prevent and stop it.

Right, we don't accept rape. And maybe we shouldn't accept religion either. Point taken.

My question is: why are some things acceptable, and other things not? Is there some scientific way to "prove" rape is wrong? I agree with you fully that rape is wrong. But I can't prove it scientifically. Or at least, I don't know how to prove it scientifically. I'm not aware of anyone else who's been able to prove it scientifically. Maybe you are smarter than the rest of us and can prove it scientifically.

Maybe my belief that rape is wrong is based on social consensus and groupthink? Maybe if I was raised in an isolated tribe that believed rape was ok I would have a different belief? (I'm not aware of any such tribe, I'm just asking a hypothetical question).

wthrfrk80 says

My question is: why are some things acceptable, and other things not? Is there some scientific way to "prove" rape is wrong?

Science deals with facts, not opinions. Even if the opinions are universally accepted, and even if the opinions are principles, they aren't facts. Whether or not god exists is a matter of fact, not opinion. Whether or not rape is evil is a matter of opinion, not fact. Now whether or not rape is evil is a very particular and important kind of opinion; it is an assumption of principle, but an assumption nonetheless.

You have to either take rape is evil a priori, or have some other a priori principle that concludes with rape is evil. For example, everyone owns his/her own body and a violation of one's body rights is evil.

Not all philosophical questions are subjects of science. However, all philosophical frameworks must be internally consistent, consistent with all laws of mathematics and logic, and may not contradict known facts including ones derived from science. So there are limits on philosophy.

Dan8267 says

Science deals with facts, not opinions. Even if the opinions are universally accepted, and even if the opinions are principles, they aren't facts. Whether or not god exists is a matter of fact, not opinion. Whether or not rape is evil is a matter of opinion, not fact.

I completely agree.

Dan8267 says

every opinion you have, every moral you have exists as neurological connections in your brain

What makes your neurological connections (i.e. your opinions) any more valid than my neurological connections (i.e. my opinions)? Both are at the mercy of the laws of physics.

Dan8267 says

Without a god, you can't justify that there is an absolute morality and therefore cannot cram your morality down other people's throats.

Than why are you cramming YOUR morality down other people's throats? Be consistent with your own philosophy.

Dan8267 says

When I respond line by line you complain about that. When I fail to respond to every batshit crazy thing you say, you complain about that too. Pick a lane.

Right. Unlike most of your out of context "responses," this was actually a direct question to you by name, which I repeated.

As for

Dan8267 says

That is because you are an idiot who thinks that anyone who can prove your wrong on something objective is arrogant.

Actually, in the interest of avoiding your childish pissing contest like style, I've never mentioned that I have a masters degree in Mathematics (from a group one university) and that I know a proof when I see one.

I've wasted far too much time on this already, but listen, even an informal proof has to be logically convincing. What you give is an emotion based "hand waving" argument.

And yes, your assertions are extreme

1) You assert there is no God, (a stronger position than you do not believe in God) even though belief in God is a belief you have no adult experience with. You therefore are not fit to even present a valid argument against something, when you don't know all of the forms it can take.

2) You thus limit your definition to what you believed when you were a child. This definition, and the definition that corresponds to a literal interpretation of the bible is that of fundamentalist Christians and children in mainstream religions. As far as I know, none of the most reputable institutions where priests and ministers are trained insist in taking everything in the bible literally as the word of God. That is they meet the secularists half way - acknowledging that the scriptures were written by men, but they believe that those men (usually) had divine inspiration.

That divinity in an adult view, is going to be something beyond comprehension, rather than a sky daddy that you so easily reject.

NOTE: I AM NOT DEFENDING THIS POSITION. Only noting that your proof that they are wrong is nothing more than an assertion from your your ego, at least as far as I can see.

Organized religion can not be analyzed independent of the evolution of civilization. You are correct about atrocities and, where humans used religion ( "God is on our side" ) as a justification for terrible actions. I agree with this, and with inherent problems with religion. But I see those as a reflection of where we are at in our social evolution, rather than a cause.

Furthermore,

- You do not and can not compare the harm done by belief in God and religion to the good done by religion. Another direct question: Can you acknowledge that anything good ever came from religion ?

- Your arguments assume that without religion, man would be more moral and ethical. For example you assume that if religions were to shrink to a level that the religious were an extreme minority in the world, that that would not be used by humans as we know them to be (in self interest), against those people.

Say there was small country with a lot of oil, and they were fundamentalists who believed that God was on their side, and we were 100% secularist (or better still atheist), believing we are enlightened morally and ethically and they are not, because they live under their dangerous delusions. Might that not be used to commit atrocities against them ?

Here, let me try to boil it down better.

The fact that there are atheist individuals who are morally and ethically superior to some "religious" individuals, is nothing like a proof that if all religion and all "spiritual beliefs" of all kinds were removed from humanity, that we would be better for it.

This is a belief, that you are very much entitled to have. But it is not anywhere close to being provable. This is why I have repeatedly said you are arrogant. This is the correct description, because you are not in fact an idiot (although I think you have some problems understanding context and complexity of the things you assert), in fact I'm sure you are very intelligent in many ways.

But your ego has you confused about the difference between wanting something to be true or subjectively being of the opinion that it is true, versus proving it to be true.

Christians are not of one particular view. This is just among mainstream Protestants (which is unfortunately smaller than envanglical and fundamentalist).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant

A 2008 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that only 22 percent of the 7,500 mainline Christians surveyed said the Bible is God's Word and is to be interpreted as literally true, word for word. Thirty-eight percent thought that the Bible is God's Word but is not to be taken literally, word for word. Twenty-eight percent said the Bible was not the Word of God but was of human origin.[27]

marcus says

Christians are not of one particular view. This is just among mainstream Protestants (which is unfortunately smaller than envanglical and fundamentalist).

"Mainline Protestantism" was a radical break from the Christianity of the previous 1900 years. They don't take any of the historic creeds seriously. See "Christianity and Liberalism" by Machen. Mainline protestantism is very far from Christianity. I'm not going to say that's good or bad, but it's a fact.

Mainstream protestants include Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Methodists, northern Baptists, most Lutherans, and most Presbyterians, as well as some smaller denominations.

Where I come from Catholics and the these Protestant groups make up all of the Christians, and your claim that they are very far from Christianity doesn't make sense to me.

That is modern Christianity. What, in your view, do they have to be evangelical or fundamentalist to be "real Christians ?"

liv4ever says

Scientists are not somehow immune from corruption are they ?

MAybe. And this would explain why there are even any scientists who conclude global warming is unrelated to human activity.

I would think that corruption in the science word, would manifest as some deserving people and institutions not getting funding and far less deserving institutions getting funding (because of connections).

But also corporations who hire scientists for the express purpose of coming up with a conclusion they want. But then that isn't real science, and it's usually transparent.

wthrfrk80 says

What makes your neurological connections (i.e. your opinions) any more valid than my neurological connections (i.e. my opinions)?

The only things that can make an opinion invalid are the following:
1. Self-contradiction.
2. Contradiction with other opinions held by the person, including consequences of the opinion contradicting other opinions held by the same person.
3. The opinion is based on faulty information that if corrected would change that persons opinion.

Absent that one person's opinion isn't more valid than another. However, an opinion could be in conflict with the laws of the state and some opinions are certainly more sociable than others and more conductive for the long-term prosperity of all people in society.

wthrfrk80 says

Than why are you cramming YOUR morality down other people's throats? Be consistent with your own philosophy.

To what are you referring? Being an atheist isn't a moral issue but one of correctness. Accepting evolution is not a moral issue but acceptance of a scientific fact. Convincing others that religion has been destructive throughout history is perhaps motivated by my morals as well as my sense of self-preservation of our species, but it is grounded in fact.

As for the outrage I expressed at the state's activities in violating human rights including torturing people, yes you could say that is a moral issue, but it is also an issue of human rights, and it right for citizens to hold governments accountable to human and civil rights violation. I don’t see what you are complaining about.

And certainly, people can and should debate moral issues to obtain greater enlightenment. What is wrong is forcing morality at the barrel of the gun, especially when it's false morality that thinly masks financial or political self-interest as in the case of the U.S. overthrowing Saddam.

Jason M. says

To the Fabian socialists pushing their Gaia one-world religion on the rest of us here

What are you talking about? This guy?

marcus says

I've never mentioned that I have a masters degree in Mathematics

Yeah, I'm confident enough to call bullshit on that. Your logical skills are simply too lacking for me to buy that you have a master's degree in mathematics. I'd test you on this, but whatever question I gave you, you could just look up online. Perhaps if we had a real-time chat….

marcus says

What you give is an emotion based "hand waving" argument.

No argument I have given is based on emotion. And quoting Wikipedia, as I have said many times, is a sign of intellectual laziness.

marcus says

You assert there is no God,

I have never asserted that there is no god. If you were a mathematician, you would realize this. I've concluded that there is no god using only the various definitions of god accept in the real world. See all my previous threads.

marcus says

even though belief in God is a belief you have no adult experience with. You therefore are not fit to even present a valid argument against something, when you don't know all of the forms it can take

What kind of dumb ass argument is that? A person isn't entitled to argue about the existence of god unless he has "an adult experience with god". So you can't argue about whether or not god exists unless your answer is yes. That's just plain retarded.

marcus says

You thus limit your definition to what you believed when you were a child.

I thus limit my definition? I've entertained every definition of god, even the bullshit vague ones designed to avoid discussion.

marcus says

Only noting that your proof that they are wrong is nothing more than an assertion from your your ego, at least as far as I can see.

If any of the proofs I have given are invalid, simply state the line that is invalid and why. This is what someone who actually has a MS in mathematics would do. But, of course, you cannot.

marcus says

You do not and can not compare the harm done by belief in God and religion to the good done by religion

I have shown numerous examples of great harm done by religion as these facts are indisputable. However, one can also show the harm that irrational faith does on an individual level. It is impossible to cite specific examples and separate how much harm is done by religion as oppose to faith in god by itself because all theists belong to some religion and have been brainwashed by it.

Sure, I could give examples of parents whose children have died because the parents believed that they should trust in god's will to save their children. But do you blame that on faith or religion?

In the very least, faith does nothing good and empowers the manipulation of the masses by dictators and corrupt politicians and priests. Faith fuels religion, and that is horrible in itself. Even without religion, faith would do nothing good and probably lead people into making bad decisions and electing malevolent leaders.

marcus says

Your arguments assume that without religion, man would be more moral and ethical.

I don't assume. I conclude. Religion has prevented mankind from discussing morality at an adult level for several thousand years. When the priest dictates morality from Bronze Age myths, there is no discussion. Without discussion there is no advancement. One only has to compare the achievements made in science versus those in the field of morality. There are no achievements in the field of morality.

marcus says

Say there was small country with a lot of oil, and they were fundamentalists who believed that God was on their side, and we were 100% secularist (or better still atheist), believing we are enlightened morally and ethically and they are not, because they live under their dangerous delusions. Might that not be used to commit atrocities against them ?

Atheists did not promote the second U.S. Iraq War under GW Bush. In fact, as a population atheists were most against the war and most skeptical of the intentions of the Bush administration.

GW Bush was the one who referred to the war as "a crusade" and stated "god told me to invade Iraq". 'nuff said. Your attempts to rewrite history through fantasies have no weight.

marcus says

The fact that there are atheist individuals who are morally and ethically superior to some "religious" individuals, is nothing like a proof that if all religion and all "spiritual beliefs" of all kinds were removed from humanity, that we would be better for it.

This is a straw man argument, not an argument I have made. The argument I make is that reasoning, not mythology, should be the basis of morality. The best moral guidelines are always written by those who rationally approach the problems of social living by attempting to understand the problems and find all possible solutions and then compare the solutions to find the optimal ones. Religion is incapable of doing this because it takes away power from the high ranking mystics and reduces morality to a subject that all people may contribute to, sort of like astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and every other science. The last thing the high ranking mystics want is to be out of a job.

marcus says

your ego

Keep beating off that dead horse.

Oh, and since you've been such a petulant arse, Marcus, kindly answer the question: Would you kiss Hank's ass?

liv4ever says

true science is 100% compatible with the Bible.

I take it that you are being sarcastic, right?

liv4ever says

Everyone here most likely agrees that the govts., banks etc. are out of control with corruption, no? Scientists are not somehow immune from corruption are they ?

If you're corrupt, which would you rather do?

1. Make millions of dollars a year by legally steal money from people as a banker or politician. Then you get fuck two different hot chicks every night in your Ferrari.

2. Make $20,000 a year doing the hardest fucking math and research of your life and spend your Friday nights watching the Discovery channel because no one dates science nerds.

Yeah, I'd say that people who enter science are a lot less corrupt than those who enter banking or politics. They may not be perfect, but no one enters the field of science for money or pussy.

liv4ever says

The earth is clearly older than 6000 years by a longshot. The seventh day is 6ooo years long and counting, so logically the other 6 "days" are longer than 24 hour days. The Bible does not specify how long they were.

Oh, so a day is not a day. Then why call it a day and why say the world was created in six days if the term "day" has no meaning. What's the point of using an undefined term of time in a description of the creation of the world? And why are all the details wrong like light being created for stars and plants coming into existence before the sun?

Christ, the Twilight movies make more sense.

liv4ever says

However, the mountains were not as tall in 2370 B.C. The force that the flood waters exerted on the flexing crust, caused the land masses to heave up.
That is why the tallest mountain range, the Himalayas, is also the youngest mountain range, and getting taller.

This is why people need to put down the Bible and pick up a book on plate tectonics or watch the Discovery Channel. The Himalayas formed by the land mass of India crashing into Asia 50 million years ago. The movement of India and all other land masses is driven by plate tectonics, which in turn is powered by the heat of Earth's cores, not some flood.

liv4ever says

That is why fossils of sea creatures are found EVERYWHERE.

Fossils of sea creatures are not found everywhere. They are found in deserts that used to be the bottom of lakes, seas, rivers, and other bodies of water. A swamp can turn into a desert or vice-versa over the course of tens of millions of years.

Dan8267 says

Yeah, I'm confident enough to call bullshit on that. Your logical skills are simply too lacking for me to buy that you have a master's degree in mathematics.

I'm sure Patrick or someone else could act in a fiduciary capacity and we can bet any amount you would like, as long as it is at least $1000 (make it worth my while, and the embarrassment that I already feel.)

Dan8267 says

marcus says

You assert there is no God,

I have never asserted that there is no god. If you were a mathematician, you would realize this. I've concluded that there is no god using only the various definitions of god accept in the real world.

wtf ?

Okay, so we dissagree on what God means and what it can mean. This is my point when I say you are asserting the nonexistence of something, based on the definition you choose which is not representative of most adult Christians I know. (and yes since it's outside your experience - you don't know what it is you are proving).

We are repeating ourselves.

Dan8267 says

If any of the proofs I have given are invalid, simply state the line that is invalid and why. This is what someone who actually has a MS in mathematics would do. But, of course, you cannot.

I have not done this more because you never even begin to prove what you say you do (you wave your hands and say "I've proved it").

I have done my best to drill down to the flaws in your reasoning. I have even acknowledged that if you want to narrowly define GOd in a childlike/fundamentalist way, than your assertion makes more sense, but even then you can't prove it.

And your "proof" in this very limited definition after stripping away all the tangential empty assertions boils down to:

"It's so far fetched that I don't have to prove the nonexistence, just like I don't have to prove that Leprechauns don't exist." There, "my proof is essentially that I don't have to prove it." wtf ?

Okay so more than 80% of Americans beleive in something that is so fantastically imaginary and you can prove it's false based primarily on how far fetched it is. (wave your hands some more here).

I gave you what was not your argument, but my substiutution for your totally nonexistant argument when I said:

marcus says

The fact that there are atheist individuals who are morally and ethically superior to some "religious" individuals, is nothing like a proof that if all religion and all "spiritual beliefs" of all kinds were removed from humanity, that we would be better for it.

To which you say:Dan8267 says

This is a straw man argument, not an argument I have made. The argument I make is that reasoning, not mythology, should be the basis of morality. The best moral guidelines are always written by those who rationally approach the problems of social living by ............

Okay, but is the world better off or not without religion or spritiuality ?And if so why ?

??What, just because you fantasize that everyone will:

Dan8267 says

rationally approach the problems of social living by attempting to understand the problems and find all possible solutions and then compare the solutions to find the optimal ones.

How do you prove this is what happens in the absence of religion and all "spirituality?"

You don't think they will find ways to obfuscate issues to have the solutions reflect their self interests ? Human collective intelligence doesn't magically sky rocket up when you remove spirituality.

You need to be back on ignore, but first please let me know whether you have the balls to put your money where you mouth is - although as the teenager in your parents basement, I know that you could never do that. You have said I lack integrity. Why don't you show a little integrity and backbone, and put some money where your mouth is ?

I promise you I will do it.

OH, but I get it, asserting someone lacks logic skills (just like Shrek) is a substitute for a real argument.

edit (this is well worth repeating):

marcus says

your ego has you confused about the difference between wanting something to be true or subjectively being of the opinion that it is true, versus proving it to be true.

I seem to recall you repeatedly saying things such as, "I'm the kind of person who admits when they are wrong.....this isn't about me winning.....I'm a computer programmer....see here's some of my code...you probably don't even understand it.....let me clarify quantum mechanics for you, I know it's a little off the subject....I seek the truth through reasoning...."

I understand what your opinion is, but you have no idea what it means to prove something.

Dan, why don't you change it to "I have a well thought out rationale for my opinion/beliefs, which I would be happy to share."

Instead, you claim to have "proof." This was an error, that you do not have enough integrity to admit.

marcus says

...

Marcus, as you are only repeating yourself instead of addressing all the points I have made or saying anything new, there is not point in me repeating myself. Simply read all my prior posts on this thread and others. I have already addressed everything you said.

liv4ever says

the context abundantly defines the term

It doesn’t quite answer my question of why the Bible even talks about there being six days of creation and one day of rest is day is some ambiguous measurement of time.

Here's the real reason the Bible talks about a seven day period. Long before the Bible was written, man looked up at the sky and saw seven celestial bodies that were significantly different from all the stars. They were: the sun, the moon, the Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. These are the only heavenly objects that you can see with the naked eye that are different from all the exo-solar stars. And guess what? There are exactly seven of them.

Because of this seven became a holy, magic number. This is how people in ancient Middle East and southern Europe thought about the universe. They thought numbers were magical. This isn't something we modern people take seriously, but the ancients certainly did.

Because of these seven celestial objects, there are seven days in the week starting with "Sun" day and "Moon" day. Christ, it's right in the names Sunday and Monday. The last day of the week is "Saturn" day or Saturday. The other days names got corrupted by various mythologies, but you get the point.

The week is a purely artificial time unit. The year is based upon the amount of time it takes for the Earth to revolve around the sun. The day is based on the apparent rising of the sun, which is due to Earth's rotation and revolution (sidereal time). The seven-day week, however, is based entirely on the ancient astronomical observation that there were seven different things visible in the sky to the naked eye. If you could see Uranus without a telescope, we'd have an eight-day week with your god resting on the eight.

[Note to all gigglers: Don't try to look at your anus through a telescope. First of all, it's anatomically impossible.]

Rather than looking in the Bible for the reasons we do things, you should look at the actual historical context, which is so much wider than the Bible. The Bible says its god created the world in six days and rested on the seventh simply because the seven-day week was already an ancient unit of measurement by the time the Bible was written. The Biblical writers were simply rewriting history to accommodate existing culture into their religion. It was a marketing ploy, plain and simple. And it worked. Till this day, people like you fall for it.

While we're discussing the issue of time, I might as well go over the 24-hour day. The ancients looked up in the night sky and divided it into twelve parts -- holy fuck, 12 is another holy number, gee, I wonder why? -- identified by 12 constellations called the 12 signs of the zodiac. Since these constellations appear to move as the Earth rotates, they divided the night into 12 units of time.

On average, day and night are equally long. So if you have 12 units of time for night, you should have 12 units of time for day, hence a total of 24 units. Christ almighty! That's the number of hours in a day! Coincidence? No. That's why we have a 24-hour day.

Since the hour is a long period of time, the ancients then divided it into smaller units. Base 60 was a popular numeric system because it makes integer arithmetic easy. 60 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60. That's awfully convenient when you don't have a calculator.

So the ancients divided the hour into units of 1/60th called "minute parts of an hour" or minutes. And that's where the word minute as a time unit comes from.

As the minute is still somewhat large, the ancients further divided the hour into "minute parts of the second order" or seconds, which are 1/(60^2) of an hour, hence the term seconds. If the ancients wanted to divide seconds into smaller parts, they would have formed the unit of time "thirds" which would have been 1/60th of a second.

See, it all makes sense if you know the history. Nothing makes sense if you get your history lesson from the Bible. The Bible isn't a historical text. It rewrites history. And the real history is far more interesting.

liv4ever says

Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see.

Ugh. [In best Darth Vader voice…] I find your lack of knowledge disturbing.

As I explained to Bap33…

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

Where is the moon from?

The moon formed when a planet hit Earth Mark I and destroyed both planets. From the debris of both planets formed Earth Mark II (the planet you are standing on) and the Earth's moon. The lesser dense material became the moon and the heavier material became Earth Mark II. Again, this is now well known and is easily researched on the Internet.

So you see, the amount of time it would take for light from the moon to reach the Earth was less than a second. When Earth Mark II and the moon were created by gravity, they were a lot closer than they are today and today the moon is only 1.35278483 light seconds away at its furthest. That means it only takes light 1.35278483 seconds to travel from the moon to the Earth. So nothing you are saying about the creation of the solar system makes sense.

Seriously dude, start watching PBS's Nova and the History Channel's The Universe. You'll learn a lot.

liv4ever says

Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb.

This is also factually wrong. Nuclear synthesis was long underway in the sun before Earth Mark I formed and certainly before Earth Mark II formed. Again, when your religion contradicts science or history, your religion is wrong.

liv4ever says

Plate tectonic theory broadly states that oceanic forces are in play, as well as the heat of earth's core. You left the part about the oceans out. Why?

Because the oceans have nothing to do with the absurd hypothesis that an alleged flood that took place a few thousand years ago are responsible for the formation of the Himalayas. The fact is the Himalayas are far too ancient. As I stated, they started forming 50 million years ago, well before humans came into existence.

Furthermore, a mere flood does nothing to increase the weight of the ocean or the forces the ocean puts on plates. And the oceanic effects on plate tectonics particularly in regards to the formation of the Himalayas are also spread over tens of millions of years, which hardly supports the notion that the Himalayas were formed by the Biblical flood or came after them. Put simply, there is no flood in human history that wiped out all land on the Earth. It's a made up story.

liv4ever says

wrong ... look at the cartoon at the top of this thread. Marine fossils and seashells are found everywhere, even on the highest mountains. The cartoon admits that.

Don't take cartoons literally. The purpose of a political cartoon is to make a political point, not to be a reference source for scientific facts.

Marine fossils are found in places that had water at one time. They are not haphazardly and evenly distributed all over the Earth. Furthermore, the specific species of the fossils indicate the environmental conditions at the time of fossilization, which is what tells paleontologists whether the body of water was a fresh water lake or part of the ocean, what the temperature of the water was, what kind of nutrients there were, how long ago the body of water existed, and a host of other details. Paleontology is a very precise science and most of the waterbeds are far older than mankind.

Helisoma scalare is characteristic of the fresh-water beds

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00000241/00001

They will learn how to build a sustainable terrarium by adding a waterbed, mixing their own soil and transplanting a small plant into their terrarium.

http://www.talkingscience.org/2010/09/lilliputian-landscaping/

PersainCAT says

to continue on correcting u Dan since your science is routinely wrong (or at least what i was taught as i got degrees in physics and astronomy)

Please provide citations to support your statements. I'll gladly correct any incorrect fact if scientific literature contradicts what I have said. However, I am not going to take the word of anyone on the Internet.

So please provide references. And don't use Wikipedia unless you want to make me laugh.

PersainCAT says

started only SHORTLY before Earth finished accumulating mass.

It seems strange to me that an astrophysicist would say anything like this. Clearly, the Earth is still accumulating mass as debris is always falling onto it. There is not point in the timeline of history where the Earth stopped accumulating mass. This should be obvious to someone with a degree in both physics and astronomy.

Also, is it just me, or does it seem like everybody on the Internet just happens to have advanced degrees in whatever subject they happen to be debating at the time. If we're talking about fire, suddenly everybody is a full fledged NYC fire fighter.

PersainCAT says

the next simplest reference is always Wikipedia

As I said, don't bother quoting Wikipedia unless you want me to laugh. No serious scientist would quote that source. For a proposition to be accepted by the science community, it must go through extensive peer review. Wikipedia is the opposite of science. As such, even mentioning Wikipedia as the basis for scientific fact is completely antithetical to the foundation of science and should be repugnant to anyone who takes science seriously.

PersainCAT says

Like
Jovain planet formation times
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2004IAUS..202..167W
discussion of blowing solar wind pre-nuclear fusion
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989A&ARv...1..291A
and lead u all the wa

I asked for a citation to uphold your statements including "Leading theories would be what u call your Earth Mark I formed BEFORE nuclear synthesis began." I did not ask for random links to articles returned from a Google search of "planetary formation theory".

PersainCAT says

Discussions of modeling formation slide 16 gives basic time line
(U Texas Austin)
http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/spring09/scalo/secure/301Sp09.LectCh15Pt1.pdf

This is the only link relevant to the discussion of whether or not the Earth formed before or after the sun started shining. And it fully supports what I said. Take a look at the following slides (the third is the slide 16 you referenced). Notice that each slide confirms that nuclear synthesis took place before the Earth Mark I formed and is in fact the very reason that the inner planets are rocky. Point, match, game.

But why stop there? Here's a video of a BBC documentary in which Bill Hartmann, the man who came up with the now accepted moon formation theory, describes the theory in detail. Notice that everything I said is confirmed by this video, straight from the horse's mouth. Can I get any more authoritative? Of course, someone who relies on Wikipedia wouldn't understand what a real reference is.

Compare what the video says to what I wrote and you'll see I'm pretty fucking accurate in my details. Perhaps you shouldn't call someone's bluff when they aren't bluffing.

Also, notice that big shinning sun in the background of the video rendering the formation of Earth Mark II? Yeah, the sun came first.

But what about Earth Mark I? Here's a another wonderful video showing the formation of Earth Mark I from the BBC documentary The Power of the Planet. Notice again, nice shiny sun in background. That sunlight comes from nuclear fusion.

So both your references and mine confirm everything I said.

PersainCAT says

FYI Dan i know its off topic, but tidal locking doesn't cause (and isn't caused by) the "dense" side of the Moon to point towards the earth. In fact the heavier side of the Moon actually points AWAY from the earth. Tidal locking is caused by the torque induced in the systems as the gravitational bulge changes during orbit.

Agreed. For more, see Why Doesn't the Moon Rotate? However, getting this one detail wrong hardly invalidates everything else I said. What is does show is that I'm willing to admit to error when one is pointed out. Good find.

I still stand by everything else I have said.

PersainCAT says

wikipedia can show u that or do u need real journal articles becasue wiki summarizes them to simply for u?

I need "real journal articles" because Wikipedia is full of lies and deliberately misleading information. That's the problem with a pseudo-populist source controlled by corporations, governments, and other organizations with a self-interest in controlling popular opinion for their own gains. Only fools trust Wikipedia.

Dan8267 says

he did address your points just not to enough of your liking becasue each statement isn't sourced with research. you do the same thing but its aparently valid, see

Marcus makes conjectures that have no evidence to support them. I make statements that are well supported and almost always reference them. If I'm explaining an entire subject matter, I don't reference every single sentence. But if I say anything that is contested, even by a fool like Marcus, I back it up with support. That's the difference.

And as I have just shown with the above video links, even when I give background information on a subject matter without copy-n-pasting from a source, I'm pretty damn accurate.

Dan8267 says

While we're discussing the issue of time, I might as well go over the 24-hour day. The ancients looked up in the night sky and divided it into twelve parts -- holy fuck, 12 is another holy number, gee, I wonder why? -- identified by 12 constellations called the 12 signs of the zodiac. Since these constellations appear to move as the Earth rotates, they divided the night into 12 units of time.

Forgot to mention... This is also the reason why there were 12 tribes of Israel and why Jesus had 12 apostles. Yep, if there had been 13 zodiac signs, Jesus would have had 13 apostles.

PersainCAT says

You know the nice thing about Wikipedia is they link u to journal articles, the only thing is u need to be able to read and understand to put them into context of what wiki says. Thats y its a nice source, becasue u have the articles handed to u.

The references used on Wikipedia are also designed to point you in one direction only. If an article is controlled by special interest, you can't trust the references to fair and balanced.

liv4ever says

that is not the point either. The earth was enshrouded with a watery canopy that light could not penetrate .

If you actually believe that the Bible is an accurate account of the formation of the Earth, the solar system, and/or the universe, you should give that fictitious physics degree back. Only a complete idiot would think that an ancient Bronze Age creation myth written by primitive men is an accurate account of the history of the universe.

liv4ever says

This "absurd hypothesis" is found in legends of antiquity coming from 6 continents as well as islands of the sea.

All primitive societies have myths about floods, fires, lightning, volcanoes, and earthquakes. You know, shit that happens that the primitive societies can't explain.

Are you saying the Biblical flood was real and Noah's arc was real, and it contained two of every animal? Go ahead, discredit yourself.

liv4ever says

The point is the earth is millions if not billions years old not 6000 years old according to the Bible and empirical scientific evidence.

So, you're going on the record as stating that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

Dan8267 says

liv4ever says

The point is the earth is millions if not billions years old not 6000 years old according to the Bible and empirical scientific evidence.

LOL, this thread had come a full circle. ;)

uomo_senza_nome says

LOL, this thread had come a full circle. ;)

It sure has, and in the process has shown just how irrational and unyielding to evidence and reason the faithful are. This is exactly why it should be illegal to expose children to religion. It's more dangerous than drugs and alcohol and damages the brain even more.

If mystics (priests, rabbis, etc.) weren't able to brainwash kids, few adults would accept anything as looney as everything said in this thread by the faithful.

Hopefully, it was at least entertaining to read.

liv4ever says

Some investigators have said that just 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles could have produced the great variety of species of these creatures that are known today. The ark had about 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) of usable space (77 freight train cars)—ample for the passenger list

There are an estimated 5,490 species of mammals in the world today. They didn't all evolve over the past few thousand years. The fossil record shows an extensive and long history of evolution.

The Arc myth is ridiculous even by fundamentalist standards. But you can't admit it's just a made up story. And part of that story is god creating the first rainbow during man's history. That seems like an awfully big change in the laws of physics. You'd think it leave some kind of effect we could observe like the big bang did with cosmic background radiation.

liv4ever says

i never said i had a degree ???

Sorry, you and PersainCAT are both so batshit crazy I confused the two of you.

thunderlips11 says

Contrast this with the assertion that believers should be able to drink poison to no effect.

"They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Mark 16:18

Yes, Jesus was very clear in how to test someone to see if they were a true believer.

Rather than wine (or water for mormons) christians should require the members of their congregations to drink a pint of Drano at each service. Not only would the survival of the true believers help to prove the truth of jesus's word, it would also have the benefit of weeding out the fakers.

liv4ever says

thunderlips11 says

Contrast this with the assertion that believers should be able to drink poison to no effect.

"They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Mark 16:18

The King James Version and other older translations present those verses as if they were part of the original text. The New Revised Standard Version, The New American Standard Bible, and The New King James Version note that those verses do not appear in most of the oldest manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel.

So... you are saying someone has been manipulating the word of god!

I don't believe it! God would strike them down!

Even it that was the case in this incidence, I am sure everything else is true!

liv4ever says

you have a valid argument but what are the facts ?

A study of the Isaiah text from the dead sea scrolls proved that this book had remained practically unchanged over a period of 1,000 years of hand copying.

"practically unchanged" being the pertinent observation here.

OK, sarcasm aside...

My argument:
"God" does not prevent the bible -- or his word -- from being altered by man. This being the case how can one trust the bible as being the "true" word of god.

Facts:
The bible can be mistakenly manipulated by those that wish to preserve the original text. Evidenced by the Isaiah text from the dead sea scrolls, there are many small differences between the dead sea scrolls and modern text. However, I think that we can agree that even with the small changes the message is "practically unchanged".

The bible can be purposely/maliciously manipulated in order to satisfy the desires of man. Evidenced by Mark 16:18 as per liv4ever's claims. Also, christian additions to the book of Job are good examples as well.

Well... there is my argument and the facts, and given the evidence that god is unable or unwilling to prevent changes to the bible we can't even be sure that the dead sea scroll of Isaiah was not manipulated before being sealed in the cave.

There is hope! There are many organizations our there that will help you to identify what in the bible is the true word and what is not. Also, they help you to understand the differences between what is meant to be taken literally and what should be taken as metaphor. There are payment plans to meet any budget. Many groups accept either a subscription or will even take bulk payments in exchange for this service!

WARNING!!! This is what happens when you choose not to believe in God...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/iCQ4QLFl01g

liv4ever says

Out of curiosity I just googled "evolution fraud" and got 33,000,000 results.

This is your worst argument yet. I hope you don't seriously view this as any kind of evidence one way or another.

Also, I went ahead and Googled "evolution fraud" and only got 30,700,000 results. Searching just "evolution" gives 604,000,000 results. So, about 5% of the results have some mention of fraud.

Performing the same searches in regards to "intelligent design" gives 2,430,000 with "fraud" and 13,900,000 without. So, about 17% of results mention fraud.

Hmmm... very... very... interesting... or not really. I think we can agree that these results mean absolutely nothing.

liv4ever says

Schools , on the other hand treat evolution theory as fact as well as t.v. and mainstream media when the issue clearly has not been settled ... why?

Because the preponderance of evidence supports evolution over intelligent design. Also, intelligent design is not science it is theology. They are totally different disciplines.

The only people who feel that the issue has not be settled -- actually they think the issue has been settled -- are those that want their theology to dictate what scientific research is available to others.

liv4ever says

either that or life got here by creation not evolution as the Bible said over 3500 years ago on page 1.

I know that you like to pick the version of the bible that best suites your views, but I am curious what version says life was put on this planet 3500 years ago?

liv4ever says

Evolution directly contradicts the basic theme of the whole Bible which says that all that God created was "very good".

Agreed.

liv4ever says

"Punctuated equilibrium" attempts to explain away the fact that the overwhelming majority of fossils indicate no transitional life forms.

Comments like these are one of the fundamental reasons why it is clear that people who adhere to intelligent design do not understand evolution. They seem to be always looking for the half-shark half-rabbit.

All life is a transitional life form. YOU are a transitional life form.

Also, belief in the bible and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Many christians are able to reconcile evolution with their faith. You seem like a person who enjoys intellectual stimulation. You would probably really enjoy gaining a better understanding of what evolution is really about and the evidence that supports it.

liv4ever says

oh really? then why are all the missing links still missing? Let me ask you this? If a pile of rubble was left lying on the ground, would you expect to come to come back Any amount of time later, no matter how long, and find a castle ? Evolution requires a greater leap of faith than the Bible's account.

The fossil record is full of transitional species both in the hominoid lines and the non-hominoid lines. If you want to find every single transitional species in Earth's history we need to take away all the money that goes to religion and use it to fund paleontology. Paleontologists make very little money and must constantly beg for research grants to fund their excavations. The fact that paleontologists have gathered so much evidence with such miniscule funding is a testament to how wonderful, dedicated, and hard-working they are.

But even without any fossil evidence, the genetic evidence is overwhelming. And if you disagree then organize protests to petition government to release all the people convicted of rape or murder using DNA evidence. We put people to death and exonerate people from crimes based on the science of genetics.

Evolution requires no leap of faith. The statement is even more ridiculous when you learn that corporations are now using applied evolution to develop new products like biological batteries by manipulating the genome of bacteria using evolution. To state that evolution is fake, or even possibly so, is akin to stating the laws of physics we use to keep satellites in orbit is complete bullshit. Funny how multi-billion dollar communication arrays can stay in orbit using only bullshit.

liv4ever says

Evolution theory remains after 100 years just that - theory.

No scientist would say anything so ignorant. A theory is not a guess. A theory is a conceptual framework which makes testable predictions. Once a theory is proven, it is still a theory because it can still be tested and retested. Once a theory, always a theory.

Theory does not mean guess, and a theory can be verified as true. Newton's theory of gravity is still a theory and always will be. It is also true beyond all doubt reasonable or otherwise.

No scientist would make the mistake of thinking that a theory is an unproven conjecture. There is no way you have a degree in physics or mathematics.

What's really sad it that I've already explained what a theory is several times on patrick.net. And you still get it wrong. This isn't a minor mistake. It demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how it works.

liv4ever says

Only now, most evolutionists reject Darwin's original assumptions and have very little agreement about anything.

Evolutionist? That's a new one to me. A cursory Google search shows that evolutionist is a derogatory term that creationist use to refer to those who accept the theory of evolution. Of course, every biologist accepts the theory of evolution. So the purpose of creationist coining and using the term evolutionist is to give the deliberately false impression that there is an actual debate in the scientific community about whether or not evolution is the correct theory for explaining the development and history of life.

There is no debate. The entire scientific community accepts evolution as the correct theory. It is widely said that nothing in biology makes sense except in terms of evolution.

To even use this term suggests that you are resorting to deliberate deception to support your myths.

PersainCAT says

you just disagree with them and say that journal articles arent a valid source now becasue wikipedia uses them

I would never say that. It is quite possible, and inevitable, that some Wikipedia articles will reference legitimate and respectable resources. What I have said is that you can't rely on Wikipedia references because the special interest groups controlling the article will cherry pick references that support the message they want the public to hear and will revert any reference that distracts from that message.

As such, Wikipedia does not even offer the benefit of pointing people to good sources of information. So people should just stick to Google search results. They aren't perfect by a long shot, but they are incalculably better than Wikipedia. And my quote in your response says exactly this.

thunderlips11 says

Also, as Dan stated above, the Judeo-Christian mythos has a lot in common with those "Wicked" Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. No doubt the ancient Canaanites borrowed "Magic" Numbers, Astrology, and basic myths from their neighbors.

Yep, this happens more so than most people are willing to acknowledge. All the myths of Judaism and Christianity are either blended with pagan myths or outright stolen from them.

Ever wonder why 666 is the mark of the beast? 6 is one less than 7, the holy number that came from 7 visible celestial bodies. And it is written three times because three is another one of those holy numbers. If there were 8 visible celestial bodies in our solar system, the mark of the beast would have been 777.

The entire Jesus myth was stolen from Horus. This was well stated in the clip from the movie Religulous.

liv4ever says

Darwin predicted that missing links would be found. He even said that his theory must be abandoned if no links were found.

That's the great difference between science and religion. Science accepts abandoning incorrect ideas. Religion does not because doing so would eliminate all of its power.

And the fact that you say there are no missing link files completely destroys your credibility.

liv4ever says

so you are confident that given enough time a pile of rubble will become a castle all by itself ? that is a long walk.

Perhaps if castles were made of organic molecules instead of rocks... That you would even make such an argument shows you speak from a position of ignorance, especially when you live in a time where almost all of man's knowledge is but a Google search away.

What you are talking about is abiogenesis, which is a separate subject from The Theory of Evolution. Evolution does not address the question of abiogenesis, however, chemistry does. And if you were a real physicist, you'd have no problem with The Chemical Theory of Abiogenesis.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/U6QYDdgP9eg

liv4ever says

thunderlips11 says

Most humans that live next to large bodies of water have flood legends:

your contentions support the biblical account.

Hardly. The Bible account says that a mere two animals makes a breeding population. Maybe that goes in your family, but it does not work in nature.

liv4ever says

how much would you bet on that mistaken notion.

Pascal's wager is a suckers bet.

liv4ever says

Plenty of scientists believe in creation.

Sure, apparently about 5% of scientists believe in creation. With the 10's or 100's of thousands of scientists 5% is plenty of people.

liv4ever says

the majority is not always correct, even if it is composed of scientists.

True, the trick though is to try and understand why the 95% believe what they do. What evidence is given to support an idea.

...and, how reliable is the theory...

liv4ever says

1. yes DNA works for crime investigation . However it works against the theory of evolution.

See... here is where your credibility starts to breakdown...

liv4ever says

Dan8267 says

Evolution requires no leap of faith. The statement is even more ridiculous when you learn that corporations are now using applied evolution to develop new products like biological batteries by manipulating the genome of bacteria using evolution.

That is way off, Dan. Do you work for Monsanto?Get ready to reap the whirlwind of that flawed scheme.

And, even more so here. Not much research is required to see that Dan is totally correct in that applied evolution is extensively used in both academic and corporate settings today. It is like you are telling shipping companies that their crazy spherical earth "theory" is all wrong and the bible indicates that the world is flat (which it does, BTW). All the while ship captains continue to use their "round earth theory" to great effect.

I know it is long, but here is a podcast -- of a great show, BTW -- that has a segment on how researchers reliable have used the evolution of the DNA in HIV to better understand the virus.

http://www.radiolab.org/2011/nov/14/

Another interesting note is that an understanding of evolution was required for 47 of the last 50 breakthroughs in medicine or physiology that lead to a Nobel Prize.

http://ncse.com/rncse/25/3-4/evolution-is-winner-breakthroughs-prizes

liv4ever says

Or are you not aware that there is very little agreement on your side, except that life had evolve because if it didn't that would mean that God must have created the universe, a thought they desperately avoid.

No, even assuming that evolution was totally wrong the logical conclusion does not have to be that god created the universe.
- Perhaps the universe popped into existence just as it is with no god involved at all.
- Or perhaps the universe has always existed just as it is today and there was no creation moment

Baring the above scenarios, if there was an intelligent designer(s) the designer may not be a "god", or may not be the christian god. This brings us back to Pascal's wager...

...if you believe in intelligent design, perhaps you better hedge your bets and start praying to as many gods as possible.

liv4ever says

The Question of how life got here is one of the most important questions.

I agree. While that question is never going to be resolved in an internet forum it is an important question.

Not only that, but I feel it is important to have civil contact/discussion with people who do not believe the same as yourself.

Also, I hate to nit-pick here, but...

GameOver says

humans are PRIMATES. Glorified MONKEYS who have lost our tails and most of our bodily hair.

Homosapiens did not lose the tails. The great apes lost the tails before they spawned us.

liv4ever says

Dan8267 says

Paleontologists make very little money

science is big business, college man. Welcome to the real world.

Paleontologists doing scientific research make a measly $40k/yr. Paleontologists working for oil companies looking for places to drill make around $140k/yr. Oil companies hire them for their knowledge of geology.

So, working for big oil would make a paleontologist over three times as much income as working on science. Working on science is a labor of love.

I will admit that I do confuse PerCat and liv4ever. Evidently all stupidity looks alike to me.

How one could possibly make the argument that genetic science contradicts evolution is beyond me, but it does prove a point that some irrational people want the benefits of science (curing diseases, high tech weapons, locking up rapist and murderers) but don't want to acknowledge that science is right. So they have to make up strange fantasy worlds to resolve the inherit conflict.