Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

[joobz]

There is no multiple times, you just made this up because you can't name two that you can clearly explain with examples.

I didn't want to list them, because it would be derailing the thread. But, if you so desire...
1.) You claim that all of your threads aren't attempting to prove christianity is the true, but then you say that you are providing evidence in support of christianity...
2.) You posted this thread with the aire of increduility regarding the big bang theory, but then argue that it agrees with the bible.
3.) You argued that stringtheory was mere speculation (quoting Feynman in the process), but then ignoring the fact that if you actually agreed with Feynman's argument, you would be forced to agree that genesis is wrong.

Those are just three off the top my head. The last one is the one I was referring to.

This doesn't make sense, you just made it up. It's not logical.

Really? So what was your point behind quoting Richard Feynman?

Doesn't make sense.

What do you think The quote that Richard Feynman was saying?

You just made up the bold part.

Then explain to me:
Gen 1:11 --- fruit bearing trees.
Gen 1:20 --- sea-creatures and birds.
Gen 1:24 --- land critters.

how do you reconcile the fact that the order of emergence in the bible is in contradiction with what we know from the fossil record.

 

[joobz]

ETA: joobz you need to bring my exact statements in here and Fenyman's exact statements in and logically explain your reasoning.

No problem, considering I have already done so..

["The renowned physicist Richard Feynman said in a 1987 BBC interview,

"I think all this superstring stuff is crazy." He elaborated, "I don't like that they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything that disagrees with experiment, they cook up an explanation."]

Well, Richard Feyman is correct! If you have experimental evidence which contradicts a theory, that proves the theory is wrong(or at least needs adjustment). Feyman's point is that EXPERIMENT (observation of reality and the way the world IS) trumps theory.

The scientific evidence is that land animals occured before birds.

The genesis account (or Genesis theory if you will)
says birds occured before land animals.

Since, the theory disagrees with the evidence, that means the theory is wrong.



Your quote by Richard Feyman actually weakens your case.

 

[dahduh]

There is no multiple times, you just made this up because you can't name two that you can clearly explain with examples.

This doesn't make sense, you just made it up. It's not logical.

Doesn't make sense.

You just made up the bold part.

Hey DOC, I've cast this into a little ditty for you! (Sing to the tune of 'Jesus loves me so'):

There is no multiple times
You just made this up because
You can't na-ame two you can
Clearly expla-ain with samples.

(chorus)
Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
The bible tells me so

This doesn't make sense,
You just made it up you know
It's just not logical.
It just doesn't make sense.

(chorus)
Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
The bible tells me so

You just made up the bold part
You just went and made it up
You just made up the bold part
You disgusting hypocrite

(chorus)
Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
The bible tells me so

 

[DOC]

1.) You claim that all of your threads aren't attempting to prove christianity is the true, but then you say that you are providing evidence in support of christianity...

Once again you made something up. Where did I say the bolden part above.

 

[DOC]

Then explain to me:
Gen 1:11 --- fruit bearing trees.
Gen 1:20 --- sea-creatures and birds.
Gen 1:24 --- land critters.

how do you reconcile the fact that the order of emergence in the bible is in contradiction with what we know from the fossil record.

You forgot It says God "created" whales in the "same time period" as fowls. Science says whales came from land animals. Therefore you can't conclusively say that fowls came before land animals by reading Genesis. Therefore the 13 our of 14 we were talking about in this site:

http://www.mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html

Could now arguably be 14 out 14 sequences correct.

 

[joobz]

Once again you made something up. Where did I say the bolden part above.

um....

Anyway I never said the facts I present are "Proof" of Christianity.

 

[Fiona]

Once again you made something up. Where did I say the bolden part above.

Does this mean that all of your threads are attempts to prove Christianity is true, DOC?

 

[joobz]

You forgot It says God "created" whales in the "same time period" as fowls. Science says whales came from land animals. Therefore you can't conclusively say that fowls came before land animals by reading Genesis. Therefore the 13 our of 14 we were talking about in this site:

http://www.mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html

Could now arguably be 14 out 14 sequences correct.

I didn't forget that...
please quote where it says in genesis that whales were created at the same time as birds.

 

[wollery]

I didn't forget that...
please quote where it says in genesis that whales were created at the same time as birds.

Actually, it does, on day five.

1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

However, since DOC brought it up, whales did evolve from land animals, which aren't created until the next day;

1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

So, DOC, since you pointed out "science says" that whales and birds are evolved from land animals, and Genesis says that they were both created before land animals, where does that leave the Genesis account in terms of science?

All bible verses from skeptics annotated bible.

 

[wollery]

You forgot It says God "created" whales in the "same time period" as fowls. Science says whales came from land animals. Therefore you can't conclusively say that fowls came before land animals by reading Genesis. Therefore the 13 our of 14 we were talking about in this site:

http://www.mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html

Could now arguably be 14 out 14 sequences correct.

Still no response to my critique of that web-page yet DOC. And yet here you are, citing it again!

I find it rather rude of you to keep ignoring my responses. You ask me for a proper critique, and then ignore it when you get it. And you keep ignoring the posts in which I point it out. I know you read it, because you quoted and responded to a single line from it. So why so silent about the rest of it?

This sort of behaviour is exactly why people call you dishonest. An honest person would at least acknowledge that they read the post, before citing the web-page it critiques.

 

[joobz]

Actually, it does, on day five.

Well, I know that it is in the KJV. I was asking DOC to quote it. Mainly for the point you raised. That we know whales came from land animals, but god made land animals after whales and birds. My point was, His argument demonstrated two errors in genesis. And that those errors do not negate eachother.

 

[Lothian]

Could now arguably be 14 out 14 sequences correct.

but as you don't take the bible to be literally true the sequence can not be taken for the actual order in which Goddidit.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Hey DOC, I've cast this into a little ditty for you! (Sing to the tune of 'Jesus loves me so'):

There is no multiple times
You just made this up because
You can't na-ame two you can
Clearly expla-ain with samples.

(chorus)
Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
The bible tells me so

This doesn't make sense,
You just made it up you know
It's just not logical.
It just doesn't make sense.

(chorus)
Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
The bible tells me so

You just made up the bold part
You just went and made it up
You just made up the bold part
You disgusting hypocrite

(chorus)
Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
The bible tells me so

Thanks for the earworm. Now I'm going to have to sing "The Oompah-Loompah Song" to get rid of it.

 

[DOC]

Joobz, once again, you made a false derogatory statement about me by claiming I have contradicted myself. You lose credibility when you make multiple derogatory false statements about someone, even if they are unintentional.



Posted by joobz
1.) You claim that all of your threads aren't attempting to prove christianity is the true, but then you say that you are providing evidence in support of christianity...


AND

Posted by DOC
Anyway I never said the facts I present are "Proof" of Christianity.


AREN'T the same.

I can attempt to show one belief (Christiantiy) is more valid than other beliefs (Atheism) by presenting the facts.

This doesn't mean the facts I present are "Proof" of Christianity"

Joobz, once again, you need to be careful, and not "loosey goosey" with the facts, when you say something derogatory about someone, otherwise over time your credibility is lost.

 

[Fiona]

But there was no indication in your opening post that this was your intent, was there?

 

[DOC]

But there was no indication in your opening post that this was your intent, was there?

Please explain what you mean by "this".

 

[wollery]

Joobz, once again, you made a false derogatory statement about me by claiming I have contradicted myself. You lose credibility when you make multiple derogatory false statements about someone, even if they are unintentional.

And what happens to someone's credibility when they directly ask another person for a reasoned critique of their source, and then completely ignore that critique when it is given, whilst continuing to cite the source?

 

[Fiona]

I can attempt to show one belief (Christiantiy) is more valid than other beliefs (Atheism) by presenting the facts.

Well I was referring to that. I do realise this thread has come a long way and there has been a lot of drift, as is inevitable in such a lengthy discussion. All I am really trying to do is understand what it is you actually want to talk about. If you are trying to get an overview of the facts and to assess the extent to which they support one view or another then that is fine. But from the beginning it would have been helpful to have a summary (so far as anyone is able to give it) of what the theory actually is: both Christian and atheist. And then an agreement about what kind of facts are relevant to the competing theories. And then a sharing of what is known to be factual. And ultimately to some consensual view by that route. But you did not start like that. You started with questions which were essentially sociological in nature, for want of a better word. It is true that early on people started talking about what we should have addressed from the start but we are mired in what the actual competing theories say. I am sure one can get there in the end, but personally I wouldn't start from there if that is what I wanted to discuss. It looks a little strange to start with the kind of question you asked if this is what you wanted to get to. Maybe it just arrived here without that being your original intent, though.

 

[joobz]

Joobz, once again, you made a false derogatory statement about me by claiming I have contradicted myself. You lose credibility when you make multiple derogatory false statements about someone, even if they are unintentional.

I stand by the statement. You are playing a transparent sematantic game.

I can attempt to show one belief (Christiantiy) is more valid than other beliefs (Atheism) by presenting the facts.

This doesn't mean the facts I present are "Proof" of Christianity"

am I in living in crazy town???

Let's see:
1.) I can attempt to show one belief (DOC likes to wear women's clothes) is more valid than other beliefs (DOC likes to wear men's clothes) by presenting the facts.
2.) I never said that the facts I present are "proof" that DOC wears women's clothes.

HOw are the above two sentences not in direct opposition with eachother?

 

[Hokulele]

I can attempt to show one belief (Christiantiy) is more valid than other beliefs (Atheism) by presenting the facts.

Atheism isn't a belief, but a lack thereof.


But most people knew this already.