Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sven · 07-31-2007, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyzer

Funny, those "bright, well-educated, well-trained people in their day" were well educated and well trained in the bible. In fact, the knowledge that Galileo and Copernicus had that the "bright, well-educated, well-trained people in their day" lacked came from (wait for it) SCIENCE.

OK. So they were trained inthe Bible. They were well read. And they were also trained in the science of Aristotle and Ptolemy and others. They were bright folks ... just like you. And they were wrong about something really huge.

Dave, Galileo was actually (one of) the first people in the Western world ever who did science (that is, he did experiments to test his thinking).
Aristotle and Ptolemy were not scientists, they did no experiments - they were philosophers.

IOW: As soon as someone really did science, an error of non-science (an error deeply rooted in misreading the bible as a scientific document) was exposed.

Think about it.

Pity is that you won't.

deadman_932 · 07-31-2007, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Deadman has a point. Not just the one on top of 'is nut either.

I am not a member of Stevie's august pinhead clan, although I'd be proud to be, you barmy antipodean kangaroo-buggererer. My skull is nicely brachycephalic, rather like a large melon, except it's a bit more squishy and has less seeds in it. But I bet it's tasty. At any rate, don't MAKE me start a war across the Tasman Sea while I'm fishing out there, because I will.

Worldtraveller · 07-31-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_932

Quote:

Deadman has a point. Not just the one on top of 'is nut either.

I am not a member of Stevie's august pinhead clan, although I'd be proud to be, you barmy antipodean kangaroo-buggererer. My skull is nicely brachycephalic, rather like a large melon, except it's a bit more squishy and has less seeds in it. But I bet it's tasty. At any rate, don't MAKE me start a war across the Tasman Sea while I'm fishing out there, because I will.

Mmmm...braaaiinnnnsssss [/zombie]

Oh yeah, the polls at 118-1-1.

But that's cuz we're all in on the conspiracy......

Steviepinhead · 07-31-2007, 02:36 PM

Dave, you apparently overlooked my query to you on the "History of UK (English Channel MegaFlood)" thread:

Quote:

And, once again, dave, where the heck do the "Flood" sedimentary layers start and stop? Forget, for now, trying to identify them all over the whole globe. Pick a spot--doesn't have to be Egypt, doesn't have to be the Grand Canyon, doesn't have to be the English Channel or the Eastern Washington scablands--but just pick any one spot and identify those layers.

Shouldn't be that hard, should it, given the scale of the catastrophe that you believe utterly dwarfed the Channel flood, and the Mediterranean flood, and the scablands flood, and the Black Sea flood?

I mean, all those other mega-floods seem to have laid down or carved through identi-frickin'-fiable layers.

Why didn't your immensely more catastrophic, non-local, non-regional, pan-global, gosh-awful FLOOD!!!! manage to do the same? Isn't that a question YOU ought to be addressing, davey?

(Admittedly, that was a lengthy post, so I've extracted just one of my many "issues." Please feel free to address the rest as you find the time, however! Hope lives on, "long after the thrill of living has gone," as the song says...)

So don't be bothered about all these folks trying to "force" you to address the layers in Egypt, or the Grand Canyon, or wherever. Places that you're admittedly unfamiliar with...

So you get to pick the spot, dave: it can be your favorite local road-cut, or your favorite foreign exotic geological spectacle--maybe something in Mexico, heh?

(Just don't pick one of the continental shields, where there's a real lack in the deep-sediment coverage, for reasons that you need not distract yourself with, right at the moment, though I do reserve the right to return to the issue, should you continue to grace us with your presence.)

mitschlag · 07-31-2007, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_932

Well, I don't know that I'm *really* wound up, Mike, but eh.

Quote:

Dave wrote:

Yet we have 100+ people here who WANT Genesis to be false, so they voted for him anyway. Interesting isn't it?

I do consider that last bit that I emphasized to be a personal insult , since I am one of the people that voted. I reject this notion that Dave can read my mind and make such an insulting, small-minded claim about me.

I care not how others may vote, but for me, I voted on the QUALITY OF THE ARGUMENTS.

I have no wish (trust me on this, afdave) for Genesis to be false or true as a historical record. That means as much to me as the truth or falsity of Beowulf as a historical record

(Whether I care about the truth of Genesis or Beowulf in a non-empirical way is another matter.)

And I care passionately about irrational attacks on the integrity of science.

As I asked previously in the poll results thread:

Quote:

afdave, I see two possible explanations, not mutually exclusive, for your failure:

* You didn't have a case

* You didn't present good arguments

What are your thoughts?

Satan is awaitin'

So, what are your thoughts?

Dave Hawkins · 07-31-2007, 02:37 PM

Quote:

What you fail to comprehend is that we would be delighted to learn we were wrong.

Mmmm ... right. I'll remember that.

deadman_932 · 07-31-2007, 02:37 PM

Quote:

But that's cuz we're all in on the conspiracy......

And you hate jebus and the bible and you're all going to hell , which is probably located in Australia, anyway. HAH! I WIN!! *does the superior dance*

mitschlag · 07-31-2007, 02:46 PM

The thing is, afdave, you have an emotional commitment to a literal take on the bible.

Of course you assume that those who do not share your emotional commitment must have an emotional commitment to an opposing position.

Try thinking about the possibility that there are not two opposing sides here. Could there be an unlimited number of sides?

Let's put on our thinking caps...

Constant Mews · 07-31-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

What you fail to comprehend is that we would be delighted to learn we were wrong.

Mmmm ... right. I'll remember that.

You should, because it's perfectly true. I'm a Christian, Dave. I'm not against the Bible. I'm very much pro-Bible. But I'm against sloppy thinking - and that is what you have presented.

And that's pretty much all you've presented. Do me a favor: make me feel proud to know you're a Christian by presenting actual evidence and logic for your position.

Remember: it's Christians who proved you are wrong. Think that through.

07-31-2007, 03:08 PM

[QUOTE=deadman_932;4663731]

Quote:

And you hate jebus and the bible and you're all going to hell , which is probably located in Australia, anyway. HAH! I WIN!! *does the superior dance*

Ka mate, ka mate...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2007, 02:46 PM	#508
mitschlag Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: United States east coast Posts: 58	The thing is, afdave, you have an emotional commitment to a literal take on the bible. Of course you assume that those who do not share your emotional commitment must have an emotional commitment to an opposing position. Try thinking about the possibility that there are not two opposing sides here. Could there be an unlimited number of sides? Let's put on our thinking caps...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.