Print

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 19 2005, 06:30 PM)

Anyway, i think i proved my point earlier, you lied about the carbon dating, i will of course retract this if you can find the radiocarbon dated fossil experiment.

[puckSR]

QUOTE

Job 38:31
Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

This quote was used by Jehovah's Witnesses in the past to claim that Pleiades was the home of God.  I cant see how you might interpert this verse alone minus the orion to justify that it is the center of the universe.

Besides the other versus look like this in context.

QUOTE

Job 38
8:1  Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,   
38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?   
38:3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.   
38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.  (38:4-6)
The earth is set on foundations and does not move.

How many sons does God have?
When were the stars made?
38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;   
38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?   
38:8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?   
38:9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,   
38:10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,   
38:11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?   
38:12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;   
38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?   
38:14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.   
38:15 And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.   
38:16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?   
38:17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?   
38:18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.   
38:19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,   
38:20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?   
38:21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?   
38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,  God has snow and hail stored up to use later "in time of trouble."
38:23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?   
38:24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?   
38:25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;   
38:26 To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;   
38:27 To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?   
38:28 Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?   
38:29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?   
38:30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.   
38:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?   Does God live in the Pleiades?
Jehovah's Witnesses used to believe that God lives on the planet Alcyone in the Pleiades cluster. The only biblical justification for this was this verse and 2 Chr.6:21. This belief was clearly stated in "Reconciliation" (1928): "But the greatness in size of other stars or planets is small when compared with the Pleiades in importance, because the Pleiades is the place of the eternal throne of God." This is just one of many JW beliefs that has since died a quiet death and is no longer mentioned in the Watchtower.
38:32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
38:33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
38:34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?
38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are?
38:36 Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?   
38:37 Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,  "Who can stay the bottles of heaven?" Gosh, I don't know. I didn't even know there were any bottles in heaven.
38:38 When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?   
38:39 Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,   
38:40 When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?   
38:41 Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.

so why would he suddenly mention the middle of the universe inside a paragraph describing how powerless Job is?  
by the way check 38:33 where he seems to say that man cannot know the laws of heaven, and by laws he is most likely referring to physical laws.  So he says right after your fun lil quote that man cant know.  Which is fine, but he wasnt imparting knowledge

Also on your telegraph thing.  He didnt say anything about man sending a message with lightning, he is saying that lightning is his message.  Besides he is saying that man cant send lightning, so if he is talking about sending a message via electricity as you claim then he is saying we cant do it, and to do so would be taking power from him.  

Your methodology for determining meanings of ancient writings is somewhat bizarre, ive never heard of translated text being taken completely out of context to make a point.  Normally the context of the text is very important when referring to translated text.  You apparently though can derive deep meaning from a few words that were translated multiple time(oh and by pedophilic Priests too i might add)

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE

By the way you didnt even show from the Koran that they were baby eaters or that they ritualistically sacrificed christians, you just showed justification for them being bad. Thats fine, but you didnt make a liar out of me, unless i missed a baby eating passage.

Since you like to avoid your error, I will deal with it. I guess I am the bigger man for acknowledging my error. It did say things of violent war against christians, but you will just avoid that to be right.

You know what, I am not going to debate over what I feel is the truth. There is no need, as no two humans think identical. You can think what you want, and I will believe what I want. Just like your made up profile for what christians say about muslims, and I quote

QUOTE

If i were to believe what i have heard from people, i would think that the Muslims are a bunch of satan worshipping baby eaters, who pray to satan and ritualistically sacrifice Christians.

So you only think muslims would be baby eaters? You would think they worshiped satan? Those would not be Muslims my friend, any moron(even $ony zombies) know they worship Allah. So what was really said to you. I bet is was something similar to what I said from their holy book. You, on the other hand, proceeded to make a very askew statement to make your point.

Enjoy life my friend. Have a beer.   Have two. As I am very done with this debate over personal beliefs.

[damam]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 19 2005, 12:30 PM)

Science is fluid, we often make mistakes, and have to go back and re-evaluate and modify our ideas.  If you find a chink in the armor so to speak, we dont throw away the armor, we simply figure out why there exists a chink, and we fix it.

Since science is fluid, it is impossible to speak about absolute truths when using science.  At best you can only talk about what you do not know, or what you know is not true in absulute truths.  If I understand your definition of lieing correctly, than would not anyone who speaks of truths or with authority in science be lieing?  In all likely hood, the theory of the moment that you are touting will be adjusted.  Science never proves anything, it can only disprove ideas.  When someones idea has been around for a long enough time, a consensus scientists place a judgement on that idea saying it is true.  But science will never say it is true.  Truth, is an alien concept to science as is consensus.  And it will never be a source of authority, it is only an approach for inquirery and analysis.  So your statement seems to suggest that people who use science to tout truths are actually lieing all the time, re-adjusting their lies to fit a new changed circumstance, and then continue on that lie.

QUOTE

Science excludes pre-existing notions from the scientific method. This doesnt mean that the idea is wrong, it just means that you cant approach a problem with a solution already in hand.

When I was in college I read a study done on phds.  They were given bogus scientific evidence to support something that was not true, than asked to do an experiment that would demonstrate the ideas in the papers.  What they found was that an overwhelming percentage of phds would adjust their experiments, and falsely interpret the results of the experiment to match them up with the papers.  As this example shows, humans will always be the weakest link in science primarily because we often treat it as a religion and accept the results with a dogmatic type attitude.

When I use evolution to argue against creatonist, I always have an ace in the hole.  Since science is fluid, if creatonist are right, evolution will simply "evolve" to match up with creationist theory given enough time.

Also, since no one seemed to mention this, most of the major christian sects, atleast officially do not say evolution is wrong.  It is often the misinformed followers that do.  In my area, mormons are the best example of this.  Officially the LDS church has stated that evolution does not conflict with their religious beliefs, but the general population still does not buy it.  The LDS church has even gone as far as trying to get the scientific community rename evolution to "Change through time" since evolution carries such a stigma with it.

[puckSR]

The study of false science has recently reached alarming levels.  I completely agree.  I do however disagree with the idea that since science deals in absolutes, anyone touting scientific theory as fact is lying.  In the general since, nothing is fact.  Descartes argued this to great degree.  Science embraces the idea that what they think is fact today can change tomorrow.  In general i feel that fact is also a fluid concept.  

Nothing that we know from observation can be absolute.  This could all be an illusion of our senses.  Since science is based on observation alone, science can never be absolute.  The problem is that if we approach our world with this perspective, then fact, and undeniable and absolute are all very misleading terms.  

I am an engineer, and we engineers have a saying, close enough for all practical purposes.  The idea is that math deals with absolutes, in the real world, those concepts of mathematical absolutes dont apply.  We make approximations and in general they work.  Science does the same thing, when i say that science is fluid i mean this, that we give a solution that works.  This may not actually be the appropriate absolute truth, but it works in the system.  You have learned that all objects fall to earth with the same acceleration.  This is not entirely true, the difference is negligible, but different masses have different gravitational attraction.  

Of course, you dont need to know this, so no one bothers to explain.  

The point is that science is fact in the same way that the sky is blue is fact.  Its fact enough that it really cant be argued, the only thing that can be discovered is that the sky is green, but then we were still right the difference is... the sky looks blue, but is actually green.  It doesnt look green.  Just as in science, some underlying principle might change, but the overall results of science will still be valid.

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 20 2005, 01:40 AM)

The point is that you lied.  Now i am sure you didnt just make up the carbon dating thing for spite.  I am sure you had heard that somewhere, but lets be fairly reasonable and assume that it was probably told to you by another Christian.

If the information was given to me from another source, how did I lie?

QUOTE(puckSR)

It wasnt your fault, you dont have a background in physics, or math, or chemistry, or biology.

For a person in Science, you seem to make  many assumptions, not educated guesses. I would like to know in your infinite wisdom, how you made this hypothesis/educated guess. I for one, minor in Mathematics and major in Microcomputing Technology. I also have taken many of Physics courses.
If you made this guess based on anything presented in this thread, you have very poor judgement on what you can use. Someones personal/religious beliefs do not hold as a variable in Science.

QUOTE(puckSR)

There is no real science backing up creationism.

Wow, so you admit there is no Science backing up Evolution either? Everything in the Science of Evolution is an educated guess. A guess is not proof. There is no proof of Evolution. Why? ......................This brings me to a normal argument about the bible an creationism. The bible was written by man and therefore could have been altered by man. Science was devloped by man and has been altered by man.   In the end there is no argument as neither Science, or the Bible have solid proof/truth.

Here are some quotes from Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.(dont worry, i know you will doubt him)

QUOTE

http://incolor.inetn...rt/imp-107a.htm Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation, especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.

Science is knowledge -- that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it can only be believed.

Also

QUOTE

Sir Isaac Newton, a British scientist, once had a skillful mechanic make him a miniature replica of the solar system, with balls representing the planets geared together by cogs and belts so as to move in harmony when cranked. Later, Newton was visited by a scientist friend who did not believe in God.

      One day as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, his infidel friend stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits. Standing off a few feet he exclaimed, "My, what an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?"

      Without looking up from his book Newton answered, "Nobody!" Quickly turning to Newton, the infidel said, "Evidently you did not understand my question. I ask who made it?" Looking up, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the aggregation of the matter so much admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But then the astonished infidel replied with some heat, "You must think I am a fool! Of course someone made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is."

      Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder. "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system, whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"

Minnesota Technology; Oct. 1957

Read that a few times so you can grasp what is really being said in the end.

QUOTE(damam)

So your statement seems to suggest that people who use science to tout truths are actually lieing all the time, re-adjusting their lies to fit a new changed circumstance, and then continue on that lie.

I couldn't have said it better myself.  

Maybe before you continue to throw stones, you stop to realize, you have been lying just as much as anyone else.

[Statecowboy]

QUOTE(runawaywarthog @ Jul 18 2005, 05:54 PM)

i agree to that.

[damam]

QUOTE

I am an engineer, and we engineers have a saying, close enough for all practical purposes.

If I have understood your correctly, than you are speaking of relative truths.  Or the flip side to that is relative-lies.  One lie may have more evidence supporting it than another lie, but they are both still lies.  When does a lie become close enough to the truth to become the truth?  When it can be applied reliably?  Getting back to the example of evolution.  If your lie is "close enough for all practical purposes" then why is creationism not "close enough for all practical purposes."  Since their is no practical purposes or applications to either one in the first place

I am not a creationist, but I do not think that macro evolution is anywhere near the point where "Its fact enough that it really cant be argued . . . "

If I have followed you correctly, then the only thing I think you can really say to your christian friends is that you think everyone is lieing, but you think your lie is a closer approximation to the truth than their lie.  None-the-less you are lieing as well.

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 19 2005, 07:44 PM)

It is very very very clear that the statement is false, so here is my point, and listen up because this thread is not about religion versus science.  You did not speak the truth.  You publicly proclaimed a fact for which their was not truth.  Do not try to tell me it was an accident, because if you make such blatant accidents in your written words, then you shouldnt be writing.  You had most likely read somewhere the "fact" you stated, or heard it from a Christian friend.  This "fact" i can prove completely false, there is no doubt.  No scientist, be him Atheist or Christian Fundamentalist will argue that it was a false statement.  The point is, i will only say things i am sure of, you will say whatever is convenient.

I would get off my high horse if I were you.  If a fossil is carbon dated to begin with, it can't be millions of years old. Or did you forget how carbon dating works? Also, I want you to prove this "fact" as wrong since you still have not. Maybe you should count your lies within the above quote. Everything you said was a bend of the truth (aka lies) to fit your agenda. Once again, Who are you to throw stones?
http://www.answersin...Dino_tissue.asp
I would like to hear how you bend science to fit your agenda with this one. Why do I say this?

QUOTE

As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out, what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm is that the paradigm is not discarded but modified, usually by making secondary assumptions, to accommodate the new evidence.

Here are more links. Read, it does the mind good.
http://www.answersin...nosaurbones.asp
http://www.oklahoma..../dinosaurs.html
http://www.cryingvoi...adiodating.html
http://www.angelfire...rbondating.html
http://www.geocities...0/toadevol.html

QUOTE

Radioactive dates
Evolutionists claim that radioactive methods establish absolute ages for rocks. If they really believed that, they would accept the results of careful radiometric measurements no matter what the outcome. In practice, however, evolutionists accept radioactive dates when they agree with their evolutionary bias, and reject them when they don't.

QUOTE

The accuracy of this method is just catastrophic [6]. Just consider the following ridiculous findings[7]:

    * mortar from the 785 year old Oxford Castle in England was dated at 7,370 years old
    * freshly killed seals were dated at 1,300 years and seals dead for 30 years at 4,600 years
    * living snails being dated at 2,300 years old
    * new wood cut from growing trees after few days was dated at 10,000 years
    * muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk was dated to 24,000 years, while the the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb was established to be 17,200 years—a rather long living animal as it appears!
Conclusion

After the discovery of the radiocarbon dating method, scientists tried to correlate their results with the dates "established" a century before. But they have not been able to do so. Of thousands of measurements, they have been able to correlate only three. These three successes were enough to make the original century old fossil/strata dating "scientific". It is on this basis that evolutionists claim that the fossiliferous strata have been dated by radioactive minerals! 

Once again, I have yet to see you present one source of your information. Yet, you have done nothing but ask for sources. Before you speak of biased reports, you do understand anything written by a scientist would be considered biased?

Then there is the object of your lies that you have bended to be the truth. Just because a lie is closer to the truth, it does not become the truth.

[puckSR]

I may have misrepresented myself, after reading your newton anecdote.  I do believe in God, and i do believe he created everything.  But my definition of his miracle is much more powerful than yours.

You seem to be a man of philosphy, so i will bring up determinism.  I find it particularly interesting, but you may hate it, anyways.

What if god didnt say poof-here is everything

What if god did something much grander, what if God created one event.  One single subatomic act.  This act could be whatever you want to eventually define as the beginning causality of the universe.  God knows all, and he knew exactly how his action would effect everything else from now until the end of time.  You may not like determinism though.  So i will leave it alone

In other words, God didnt mold the earth out of clay 6000 years ago.  God created the laws that govern our universe.  He was responsible for the laws of physics, he was responsible for the laws of genetics.  He was responsible for all natural laws.  

Now lets get back to newtons story.  Any toy maker could create things that spin around, but only a divine being could create a universe where everything fell together just right for our world to exist.  

Now who has a more powerful idea of God?  Your instant mash potato God, or my evolve a potato from a lifeless chunk of matter God?

I honestly think you people insult God's intelligence

[puckSR]

QUOTE

After the discovery of the radiocarbon dating method, scientists tried to correlate their results with the dates "established" a century before. But they have not been able to do so. Of thousands of measurements, they have been able to correlate only three. These three successes were enough to make the original century old fossil/strata dating "scientific". It is on this basis that evolutionists claim that the fossiliferous strata have been dated by radioactive minerals!

QUOTE

carbon dating can only give thousands of years

http://www.christian...g/aig-c007.html

We really need to be careful to not refer to radioactive dating as carbon dating

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 20 2005, 06:06 PM)

I never heard that to be science it had to be proven, could you please explain that comment?actually you dont have to

Science is something that can be demonstrated and observed and repeated............thus proven. Otherwise it is no more than fiction or half-truth. Theories, which are an assumption based on limited information or knowledge.
Also, don't forget that the absolute of one persons definition of a word can differ from anothers.

QUOTE

I consider it a lie since you didnt validate the claim
ignorance is no excuse

I have yet to see you validate your claims. All I have seen from you is bends of my truth.

QUOTE

You seem to be a man of philosphy, so i will bring up determinism. I find it particularly interesting, but you may hate it, anyways.

Explain why I may hate it? What gave you the idea that I may believe free will doesnt exist? How could I hate something that was given to me by my creator? I have the say in whether to follow him. I can choose my own destiny. We have all been put here for a purpose. It is at our discretion if we fill that purpose or not.

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 20 2005, 06:18 PM)

Now who has a more powerful idea of God?  Your instant mash potato God, or my evolve a potato from a lifeless chunk of matter God?

I honestly think you people insult God's intelligence

Do you know what arrogance is? Creating theories does not make your idea of God any better than mine. You statement only proves your arrogance.

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 20 2005, 07:49 PM)

The theory of evolution can only be proven in the wild, because the hypothesis states that it occurs naturally.  So we have observed evolution in the wild.

Please provide proof that evolution occurs. Please, by all means show me where evolution has happend in the wild. I need to see it before my eyes, in the wild. Otherwise it is only a theory. I hope you understand the difference between evolution and adaptation. It is also funny that Dinosaur bones and dating them were found around the same time as the science of evolution came about.

[puckSR]

evolution came about in 1859
dinosaur bones have been discovered as far back as 2000 years ago
but the scientific recognition of dinosaurs came about in 1824
so a difference of about 30 years.  This of course would make sense, we find out that the world is much older than we thought, and we start to think about where it all came from.  Its interesting to note that this is also the same time when the idea of heat as energy was formed by Joule(before we thought it was a liquid), took the first photograph, and the theory of electromagnetic induction was developed.  I guess they were just really busy guys.

Whats your point?  That the discovery of dinosaurs might have changed our views on biology?

[Ween311]

QUOTE

For the hundredth time, what claim do you want validated?

That wasn't really the hundredth time.  Who is the liar now?