A plan for a better debate with 1inChrist...

[Vikram]

Ignroant. He supports homosexuality.

Although I'm aware of the possibility that this might lead to a possible derailment, may I ask what prompts 1inChrist to state that someone who supports homosexuality is ignorant?

 

[farmermike]

I guarantee that 1inC "feels" that he is dishing out a K.O. blow in every post and winning the debate quite handsomely.

 

[1inChrist]

I guarantee that 1inC "feels" that he is dishing out a K.O. blow in every post and winning the debate quite handsomely.

I have shown that science is based on assumptions that have many philosophical problems.

 

[RamblingOnwards]

I have shown that science is based on assumptions that have many philosophical problems.

Everything relies on assumptions. I assume you are a real person, in spite of the fact that we have never met. We all assume that the other people on this board really do exist and are not simply constructs of our own mind. Most of us assume we are sane and are not suffering from hallucinations.

Science assumes very little. 'We do not claim that it is true, merely that it is useful'. The classic example - science does not state that unicorns do not exist, merely that that it won't theorise about them until such time as we do have evidence for them.

The assumption stated (the natural laws have not changed) is saying that until such time that we have any evidence to indicate that even one of these laws has ever changed in any way, it is useful to create models on the assumption that they don't. The models accurately explain what happened in the past, and they have (so far) accurately predicted future events. It's a good assumption because it is useful.

The assumption that natural laws may have changed (which, I take it is your position?) would need to be refined to 'natural laws may have changed, but not in any way that could be detected' in order not to contradict known facts. So what purpose is served in accounting for something that apparently doesn't have an effect anyway?

 

[Ashles]

I have shown that science is based on assumptions that have many philosophical problems.

No you haven't.

There's not really much I can add to that.

The assumptions science is based on have allowed us to construct all the devices we use today, and predict the behaviour of most aspects of our universe.

So any philosophical problems you raise 1inChrist are obviously the incorrect assumptions themselves.
Your assumptions would mean we would all still be sitting in caves trying to lick our own feet for nourishment. "Sure that bison was tasty and filling yesterday, but how do we know it will be today? Best we lick our feet to be on the safe side."


By the way (simply because I am bored):

Rock strata... fossils... any thoughts yet?

But if you could hurry your answer up a bit as our sun does have a finite lifespan.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I have shown that science is based on assumptions that have many philosophical problems.

Unfortunately, you haven't "shown" this to anyone else. Personally, I could do with a good laugh, so feel free to post on the topic. But maybe not on this thread, eh?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Even though Im a dreaded christian, my jury is out on the specifics of our lovely earth back in the day.

There's a Creationist critique of evolution in twenty-five chapters entitled Evolution-101, by "Dr" Jolly F. Griggs, available from a number of websites including www.creationism.org . It's a sort of compilation of Creationism's Greatest Hits. Have a look. WARNING: you'll want to check all the "Laws of Nature" he cites very carefully... to see if they exist, and if he's quoted them correctly. His "law of inertia" alone... but see for yourself.

For the pro-evolution view, I suggest Steve Jones' book: "Almost Like A Whale". He has had the brilliant idea of following the plan and argument of Darwin's own book exactly, but using the extra 150 years' worth of evidence. A good read.

I should be surprised if the jury "stays out" more than a few chapters into "Dr" Griggs. Because you have to think: if these are the best arguments they could come up with in 150 years of trying, then can there possibly be a good argument which no-one's thought of yet?

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Although I'm aware of the possibility that this might lead to a possible derailment, may I ask what prompts 1inChrist to state that someone who supports homosexuality is ignorant?

Because he's/she's a moronic bigot who still buys into the argument that homosexuality is an "abomination" without any proof as to why other than "tha Bible told me so."

It so much fun to watch anti-Catholic Fundies sling mud at other faiths that are really no less whacko than his own.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

You will be able to find one in a magical place called a LIBRARY. Unless... oh, you're American, aren't you?

I can hear 1inChrist now: "Libraries are the tool of the Prince of Lies!"

We obviously can't reason with the nimrod since, to him, reason is the product of Satan. Therefore, let's just stick with what works: Ridicule.

 

[joobie]

A komodo dragon is not the size of a dinosaur!

you did know that dinosaurs came in different sizes, didn't you? not all of them weighed 25 tons.

 

[Anders]

I have shown that science is based on assumptions that have many philosophical problems.

Well, the real world, aka, reality, don't care about philosophy, and science describe reality, no more no less.

Philosophy is an invention by humans in order to perhaps simplify or make the quite complex reality more understandable.

A dinosaur bone 70 million years old is a dinsaur bone regardless any philosphy.

 

[Yaotl]

A dinosaur bone 70 million years old is a dinsaur bone regardless any philosphy.

Unless you're a Creationist.

 

[Skep]

A dinosaur bone 70 million years old is a dinsaur bone regardless any philosphy.

Unless it's a 70 million year old dragon bone.

For some reason 1inC is willing to accept the veracity of competing mythologies but not the veracity of scientific evidence. So, at some point we may start digging up Minotaur bones next to Cyclopes bones--just don't call them dinosaurs.

Of course, as I know from my 1inC approved history course, the laws of physics don't apply in the past. So there is no reason to believe that the bible is true because it was written in the past. Heck, it was written back when the world was still literally Black and Whit--before color was invented. (Pre-Technicolor) I think 1inC may be Calvin's father on sabbatical...

 

[Mojo]

So there is no reason to believe that the bible is true because it was written in the past.

1inC has already asked us to make the assumption that all dating methods are

Originally posted by 1inChrist
WRONG. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, ok?

On that basis, how can we know how far in the past the Bible was written? Perhaps it's all a recent hoax perpetrated by creationists.

 

[Ashles]

Right, I'm putting my foot down here, I officially ban on this thread all discussion of the following topics:

Dragons
Radiocarbon dating
Homosexuality
Philosophy
Libraries
Jessica Simpson (just in case)
Satan (just in case)
Dragons (Technically the same point twice but I'm trying to emphasise how banned it is)
Materialistic theory versus any other theory

Allowed topics from hereonin:
Rock strata
Fossils (dinosaur and humans)
That's all


Tumbleweed on standby...

 

[Skep]

Right, I'm putting my foot down here, I officially ban on this thread all discussion of the following topics:

Dragons
Radiocarbon dating
Homosexuality
Philosophy
Libraries
Jessica Simpson (just in case)
Satan (just in case)
Dragons (Technically the same point twice but I'm trying to emphasise how banned it is)
Materialistic theory versus any other theory

Allowed topics from hereonin:
Rock strata
Fossils (dinosaur and humans)
That's all


Tumbleweed on standby...

Well, so much for a plan for a better debate with 1inC. That pretty much rules out anything he has to say. Better change the topic to "A plan for a better monolog with 1inChrist." I'd say you'll have to loose the tumbleweed...

 

[Skep]

1inC has already asked us to make the assumption that all dating methods are

On that basis, how can we know how far in the past the Bible was written? Perhaps it's all a recent hoax perpetrated by creationists.

or Karl Rove... (he's not on the banned list. I think he might qualify as a human fossil in some way...)

 

[skeptikat]

Now while it may be fun to have some to argue with I think we've all lost sight of the purpose of this thread.

The pattern I see is: 1inChrist posts... half a dozen people post responses and questions... 1inChrist posts a response to only one or two of those... another dozen people respond... another singular response from 1inChrist...

1inChrist may feel ganged up on, which is why so many points are left unaddressed.

I propose when a debate starts with this poster, we designate someone to respond, and everyone else stays on the sidelines... (or submits suggestions to the responder via PM) ... it'll be harder for 1inChrist to avoid the issues, that way.

Give the man a chance to make his case.

I could listen to him all night, it's the funniest thing I've heard in weeks.

 

[Ashles]

Yeah, but he NEVER ANSWERED THE INITIAL QUETION!

I propose when a debate starts with this poster, we designate someone to respond, and everyone else stays on the sidelines... (or submits suggestions to the responder via PM) ... it'll be harder for 1inChrist to avoid the issues, that way.

Fair enough, and when 1inChrist posts there are always going to be a lot of responses.

But my initial question was pretty clear, and it is the one question 1inChrist is avoiding like the plague.

He doesn't HAVE to respond to anyone, so why does he only choose to respond to other questions. He even agreed to respond to my question.

So (deep breath) 1inChrist ,why do human and dinosaur fossils not appear in the same rock strata?

(I really thought it would have taken a couple of extra questions to have stumped him this badly)

 

[Skep]

So (deep breath) 1inChrist ,why do human and dinosaur fossils not appear in the same rock strata?

(I really thought it would have taken a couple of extra questions to have stumped him this badly)

We know the answer to this one: Because [unmentionable (by your rules) supreme being] wants it that way. QED. Period. Don't argue with me because I'm right and you are idiots and this is not a discussion. etc, ad nauseum