"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<c2cad3$p74$0@pita.alt.net>...
> Uzytkownik "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> >JERRY
> > My position is that the bible can't be a holy book because it fails
> > three critical tests that it needs to be considered inerrant. It
> > fails to be historically accurate. Two quick examples: archaeology
> > has shown that the biblical story of Joshua at Jericho could not have
> > happened. The walls weren't even up when Joshua and the Israelites
> > came through.
> >
> DAVEY
> So why is there an account in literature that there was then?
JERRY
Why is there an account of the twelve tasks of Hercules? Does the
fact that someone wrote down the myth and we still have it make it
true?
> DAVEY
> Surely the writer would have been laughed out of court?
JERRY
What court? Anyone can tell stories and the stories get passed on and
eventually they become myth.
> >JERRY
> > Pick your poison. We can then find out how well I know the bible. ;-)
> >
> DAVEY
> Why don't you take the post of the month for February off of
> www.usenetposts.com, which is Ariaan's walkthrough of Zecariah, and pick
> some holes in that?
JERRY
I've got a better idea. Since Ariaan decided to join in on the Tyre
thread with Jason over in alt.talk.creationism, why don't you
"stroll"over to the archives from that newsgroup and read the threads
yourself. You are the one making the claims that the bible is true.
I would like you to back it up or just admit that you don't know the
bible as well as I do. ;-)
> > >DAVEY
> > > We don't give empirical proofs.
> >
> > JERRY
> > That's because you have nothing but opinion to offer. That's the
> > reason your particular cult has over 2000 separate sects all claiming
> > to be based only on the bible. It's all just opinion, Davey, nothing
> > that can be backed up, but there is plenty of evidence against your
> > book, if you would just read it with a critical eye. I don't expect
> > you to, though. And that makes things more amusing for me. ;-)
> >
>DAVEY
> What you think is evidence is just the wishful thinking of a deluded mind
> and heart.
JERRY
No, actually, I back up my claims with documentation of evidence. I
don't use circular reasoning to try to use the bible to prove the
bible, and I don't offer base opinion as if it's fact. Well, right
now while I'm chatting with you on the subject of same-sex marriage I
don't have a problem with that. But the bible is my bailiwick.
Of course, if you don't understand science, most of what I give you to
read will roll right off your back. You may have a hard time keeping
up with it.
> > >DAVEY
> > > You obviously don't have an unbiassed opinion here, if you feel you are
> > > qualified to make me look stupid.
> >
> > JERRY
> > it doesn't take much qualification. I've read your postings.
>DAVEY
> Obviously you've read them the same way as you've read the Bible then.
JERRY
we can subject that claim to the test of a debate. Would you like to
affirm that "Resolved: the Destruction of the island city of Tyre was
accomplished in all details according to the prophecy of Ezekiel
chapter 26?"
>
> > > > >DAVEY
> > > > > Hardly. Marriage is a Creation ordinance. It was started with Adam and Eve.
> > > >
> > > > JERRY
> > > > Hardly. There is no evidence to support the bible as being true about
> > > > pretty much anything. There was no Adam and Eve. One of the reasons
> > > > I keep pointing out in alt.talk.creationism why theists fight so hard
> > > > against evolution in spite of the evidence against them is the
> > > > following:
> > >
> > > If there was no Adam and Eve, then was the first person to evolve from a
> > > monkey male or female? And without a partner, how did he/she carry on
> the line?
> >
> > JERRY
> > Straw man argument. I think a good college biology course is in order
> > for you, Davey. A good community college near you could help clear up
> > those misconceptions of evolution for you.
>DAVEY
> Will they tell me whether the first person to evolve from a monkey was male
> or female?
JERRY
They will show you why it's not a valid question. If you want to
debate evolution, you should probably learn what it is from someone
who isn't a creationist. You keep getting the incorrect story.
>
> > >
> > > > If evolution is true, there was no Garden of Eden.
> > > > If there was no Garden of Eden, there was no Adam and Eve.
> > > > If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no Fall from Grace.
> > > > If there was no Fall from Grace, there was no original sin.
> > > > If there was no original sin, then Jesus' sacrifice, if it existed at
> > > > all, is worthless
>
> > >DAVEY
> > > You'd think he would have not bothered with it then.
> >
> > JERRY
> > Who, God? You are assuming that the bible is true and that this deity
> > exists. Why not assume instead that all gods are constructs of man's
> > search for truths that he couldn't comprehend?
> >
> DAVEY
> Because that's not a very productive set of starting assumptions when
> they're not true.
JERRY
But what if they are? Occam's razor. The most simple explanation is
probably the most true one. It's much more likely than to assume that
every primitive culture that claimed the wonders of a deity in order
to explain what they didn't understand of the universe really did have
a god. Especially since they were all different, matching their own
cultures.
>
> > > DAVEY
> > > That's precisely why, by the way, I find it hard to understand people
> who say they are Christians believing in evolution.
> >
> > JERRY
> > I'm sure. But they don't necessarily accept the bible to be literally
> > true. They accept the simple truths that are couched in the mythology
> > without having to believe in a literal interpretation.
> >
>DAVEY
> How nice for them. I always wonder what kind of Resurrection they are expecting.
JERRY
Maybe they aren't. They may have read the bible more than you and
seen that Jesus said he would return for the Second Coming during the
lifetimes of the disciples. That would cause them not to believe
literally in the bible as you do.
> > >
> > > > Therefore, if evolution is true (and it is) then there is no reason to
> > > > believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, Davey.
>
> > >DAVEY
> > > Go on, show me a case where new information has observably entered a
> genome under observable conditions but without physically being put there.
> >
> > JERRY
> > Sure. It's called polyploidy. (I'm not gonna get technical with you
> > here as I don't think you will be up on the jargon). What happens in
> > polyploidy is that the "child" cell gets a duplicate copy of the
> > mother's "information." If the mother's information could be
> > expressed for the sake of simplicity as ABCDE, then the child cell
> > gets ABCDEABCDE. The second duplicate set of information then begins
> > to change and mutate as all information mutates.
> >
> > This is just one example of how additional information gets into the
> > cell. It's duplicate, but it's also ADDITIONAL.
> >
> DAVEY
> Doesn't add anything.
> It's duplication of old material.
> Like repeats on TV.
JERRY
It's additional information. It doubles the "information" in the
cell. Then, that duplicate information changes and mutates and
natural selection takes over. The main complaint that creationist
have is that it takes a designer to put new information into a cell,
to cause changes in the cell. we know that's not true, unless you
want to call Mother Nature (Natural Selection) as the designer.
> >JERRY
> > Now, if you really, really want to talk science, we can talk about how
> > the travesty called "Intelligent Design" actually confuses it's
> > disciples by using the word "information" indiscriminately. There are
> > two kinds of information. One is called Shannon information and the
> > other is called complexity. They both have different rules. I see
> > creationists, though, attempting to use the phrase "complexity" with
> > the same rules that apply to Shannon information.
>DAVEY
> But those are just game play rules that you lot have invented to try to foil
> creationists and wrap them up in niceties.
JERRY
Paranoid much? No, actually it's factual. If you bother to take a
good university biology class you can see for yourself.
> >
> DAVEY
> And yet people ignore the fact that there are great patches of missing parts
> of the fossil record. This is not dealing with evidence, this is glossing
> over it. The evidence is, fossils do not show a steady progession between
> species over time. Evolution hasn't dealt with that piece of evidence, just
> evolutionists have devised a way of arguing around it, redefining what
> science is supposed to be so that they can believe what they like.
JERRY
Really? Let's look at that claim. Suppose you have these numbers,
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10.
Looking at those numbers logically, you can see that you have
something missing. Can you see a pattern? Can you tell what numbers
are missing from looking at this? Of course you can. The numbers 5
and 8 are missing.
While we don't have many lines that have complete fossil histories, we
have a lot that are much like this: a missing piece here, a missing
piece there, but more than enough of the pieces to see the pattern and
see what appears to be missing.
your argument is what's called "The God of the Gaps," argument. There
is not a complete line of fossils to show so the assumption of the
creationist is that these gaps were done by the designer.
> >JERRY
> > But science doesn't work that way, Davey. In order to prove
> > Creationism true, you have to do the following:
> DAVEY
> Why do evolutionists think they have a monopoly on what science is?
JERRY
That's the great thing, Davey, NO ONE has a monopoly on what science
is. All they have to do is follow the scientific method and try to
figure things out based on the evidence.
> > JERRY
> > 1. Produce the Creator. Not just any creator but the Creator
> > specified in the bible.
> DAVEY
> Why is this science?
JERRY
If you want to claim a creator, you must establish evidence for this
creator. It makes perfect sense, Davey.
>DAVEY
>The Bible says that God will not be treated like that, and so what
was scientific about ignoring that piece of evidence?
JERRY
LOL. Are you trying to call the bible "evidence?" Based on what? I
can show you that the bible is not true on issues of history,
consistency and prophecy. If the bible isn't inerrant, how can it be
evidence of anything?
> > JERRY
> > 2. Produce evidence that the earth was created in just six days.
>DAVEY
> Show me a culture with a different week length? Now you, as a scientist,
> explain what other mechanism determines that other week lenths other than
> that ordained at creation have failed. Please posit the alternative
> explanations for them and prove them.
JERRY
Davey, it's not the length of the week that is at question here, it's
the evidence (or lack of) of the creation itself. Christian
creationists claim a six day creation. But, there is no evidence of
it.
>DAVEY
> That's how the acquisition of knowledge works.
JERRY
LOL. You aren't looking for evidence of creation, you are looking for
a rational explanation why your book of mythology is true. That is
not how the acquisition of knowledge works, Davey.
> DAVEY
> There is no proof of life arising by evolution. Please repeat, under
> controlled conditions, life emerging from some chemical soup.
>
> If you and your pseudoscientific cronies cannot do it, then don't ask us to
> believe it because it falls short of the standard of evidence you expect
> from us.
JERRY
one more reason you need to go back to university and take a biology
course. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life first
arose (called abiogenesis). Evolution is about how life changes and
adapts to survive once it's already here. Abiogenesis is totally
irrelevent to the topic of whether or not evolution is true or not.
> > JERRY
> > As for evidence for lack of god, you have that backward. It's the
> > theist who is making the supernatural claim when claiming the
> > existence of god. The skeptic doesn't have to prove that god doesn't
> > exist, since the burden of proof in claiming the supernatural is on
> > the theist.
> >
> DAVEY
> So you say. But there are no one-way streets in the question of burden of
> evidence.
JERRY
Well, yes there is. In the course of a debate, if I were to state
something supernatural, the burden of proof on it would be mine. In
the case of the existence of the god of the bible, all I have to say
is, I can prove the bible is not inerrant, Occam's razor demonstrates
that the natural form is much more likely, and the burden of proof for
the existence of god suddenly lands squarely on your shoulders, Davey.
>DAVEY
> This is the reasoning of antievolutionists masquerading as scientists. It
> was not the method of such giants as Galileo and Newton.
JERRY
Wrong on two counts, not one. (Boy, you really are struggling here,
Davey). First, Galileo and Newton weren't "antievolutionists," since
there was no theory of evolution at the time they lived. They did
live in a time that there was a strong belief in god, but their
experiments didn't rely on the supernatural, but on what was
observable, demonstrable, provable. The issue of the existence of god
was not a factor in any of their work. They assumed that a deity was
there, and that the rules were all set in place, but that god didn't
interfere in the natural laws that existed.
>DAVEY
> They were capable of lateral thinking, they didn't have to worry about
> one-way street burdens of proof like some criminal attorney trying to get
> his rich murderer client of the hook so that he can deduct the rest of his
> life to looking for the real killers on golf courses.
JERRY
You are getting things mixed up here, Davey. You and I are debating a
point, you claim something supernatural happened, you have the burden
of proof. Scientists working on research don't have a burden of proof
(at least until it comes time to publish, and then anyone else should
be able to take their research and reproduce what they have done)
because they aren't debating on anything. What they are researching
is natural, not supernatural. Scientists don't get involved trying to
test the existence of god because it can't be done. people believe if
they choose to believe.
> >
> > JERRY
> > LOL. No, they are trying to teach you that there are certain rules to
> > debate and you can't just try to debate the way you want.
>DAVEY
> P R E C I S E L Y.
>
> Hallelujah, you've understood and admitted something of vital importance.
>
> They are trying to control the way we are allowed to think and present
> thought, so as to bias against our arguments.
JERRY
No, Davey, what they are doing is following a formula that isn't
filled with opinion; claimants must show their evidence to support
their case. I have been debating in the Usenet forums for over 5
years now. I have NEVER seen a creationist have any support for their
case other than their opinion. well, in a debate over opinion, it
quickly becomes "Did not!" and "Did So!" and the discussion can't go
anywhere. I've watched theists be given very detailed evidence of a
point in a debate and then dismiss it as "opinion" either because they
didn't understand it or didn't want to. It wasn't opinion, it was
factual evidence, from peer reviewed journals.
> > JERRY
> > For example, I can go in and try to use my opinion in the bible as
> > evidence, but that starts from an assumption (that the bible is true)
> > that they aren't willing to grant me. I have to start back before
> > that and demonstrate the infallibility of the bible. If I can't
> > demonstrate the infallibility of the bible, then the bible cannot be
> > used as evidence for my claims.
> >
> > It's simply, it works. Of course, since your belief system is based
> > entirely on faith and you can't prove what you believe, it works
> > against you.
> >
> DAVEY
> Which is, of course, why they do it. But I'm not buying into that.
JERRY
of course you aren't. You have nothing to offer that kind of debate
since there is no evidence to support creation, there is no evidence
to support the bible being true and there is no evidence that you can
possibly produce to back up your claims in that kind of setting.
But since those debates are the debates of logic, that means you don't
have a case and they do.
>DAVEY
> At the same time, despite being so quasi-academic, they entertain people
> like Lenny Flank and Patrick James, who use vile insults and flaming to
> bully Bible believers so it's clear they don't even have confidence in the
> correctness of their approach, but need their own heavy mob to enforce it.
JERRY
I will agree that there is entirely too much flaming in the Usenet
groups, but to be honest with you Davey, I see just as much or more
coming from the theists as from the skeptics. A good example is your
buddy Jason who accused me of being a liar because my research didn't
prove he was right. He fared very badly in the debate and decided to
end the debate by flaming me.
> > > >
> > > DAVEY
> > > Nonsense. Let them have the tax and inheritance bits, I don't care, only
> > > don't call it marriage.
> >
> > JERRY
> > Why not? How does it hurt you if they are legally married?
> >
> DAVEY
> It downgrades marriage.
JERRY
In what way?
> > > DAVEY
> > > The last thing parents need in such time is the fact that their kid
> turned out queer rubbed under their noses. Have you no sympathy with them?
> >
> > JERRY
> > If they can't accept their kids for who they are, fuck 'em. The kid
> > is better off not having parents than to have someone who is so
> > bigoted as to deny them the ability to see the people they love.
> >
> DAVEY
> What nonsense.
JERRY
Not nonsense. Homophobes will kick their own children out of the
house and disown them for something they can't help. they are no kind
of parents.
> > > >
> > > DAVEY
> > > You didn't say a family, you said 'two people'.
> > > Two people aren't a family.
> >
> > JERRY
> > It was implied by the context of the subject matter. I think I see
> > your reading comprehension problem. You don't seem to be able to
> > handle abstract subject matter very well. Probably the reason you
> > accept the bible to be literally true, you can't read it any other
> > way. ;-)
> >
> > So, you are saying that man and wife aren't a family without kids?
> > Kids are absolutely required for someone to be in a family?
> >
> DAVEY
> Where kids required in yours when you were a kid?
>
> Would your mam and dad have been just as happy if you and any siblings had
> failed to cling to the wall of the uterus?
JERRY
Some days, yes. But the issue here is: can someone be a family if
they can't reproduce? I say they can. I know families that have
children via artificial insemination and raise their children just
fine
>
> > >
> > > > >DAVEY
> > > > > Allowing marriages that do not result in families the same status as
> those
> > > > > who do seems to me to downgrade the family in society.
> > > >
> > > > JERRY
> > > > So, you are in favor of not allowing matrimony for older couples who
> > > > don't have children? How about couples that can't have children? If
> > > > they are already married and then find out they will have to be
> > > > childless, they should be split up and not allowed to be married?
> > > >
> > > > is that what you mean?
>
> > >DAVEY
> > > No, it means they have to keep trying. Abraham didn't get a child off of
> > > sara until she was very old. She even laughed when God said she would
> have
> > > one and got a mild rebuke for laughing, and she shoulda known better,
> having
> > > been the wife of a patriarch, which is every girl's dream.
> > >
> > > That or Oligarch.
> >
> > JERRY
> > But if, say, the woman has had a hysterectomy and can't ever have
> > children, you don't believe she should be able to get married?
> DAVEY
> If someone can't have kids through no fault of their own, then, if they have
> a heterosexual marriage, they can adopt.
JERRY
What if they don't want to? Should their marriage be annulled?
> DAVEY
> Or they can go as a missionary couple to places where it's dangerous to have
> kids around.
JERRY
So, the only reason in your mind that anyone should get married is to
have kids? And if they can't have kids or if they choose not to, they
shouldn't be allowed to be married? At all?
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 |
|