whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Evolution & Creationism => Topic started by: blue_spiral on August 23, 2013, 01:03:19 AM

Title: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: blue_spiral on August 23, 2013, 01:03:19 AM

My father told me tonight that scientists are afraid to admit that there is a god.

This came up because he was afraid to try kangaroo meat. He said they are rodents and I told him they are actually marsupials, but then I made a joke about him starting to believe evolution.

He had apparently had a bad day today and it made him very upset even though I was just trying to be funny.

I partly didn't think there would be a problem with it because I know in the past he has conceded that many things about evolution are hard to deny.

We also had a short discussion a few days ago about the existence of god, and while it ended abruptly, it went very well (nobody got angry) and he got beaten pretty soundly, over which I'm sure he has been agonizing ever since. We are both very alike and overly analytical lol.

Tonight he ended up saying things like, "that car and this car may have a similar build but that doesn't mean they evolved from each other, but you can't deny they had a creator."

I wish I was more knowledgeable regarding all things science, but all I really have is a basic and sometimes shaky understanding of evolution, the universe, etc.

I could, however, see that his knowledge of the subject isn't all that more advanced than mine (which is saying a lot because he studies and retains information better than I do, and he understands and loves science for the most part)

What would you wise people have said in response, and where would you send him (and me!) to find information that is somewhat easy to understand.

I recall a website being talked about, "talkorigins" or something? Is that the name of it?

Thanks for your help, all!




Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wright on August 23, 2013, 01:38:31 AM
Hey, blue_spiral. A few links to evolution / science resources that I've found helpful...

http://www.talkorigins.org/ (http://www.talkorigins.org/) Talkorigins is a great site, as is http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/), their index to creationist claims.

This, http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ (http://www.transitionalfossils.com/) is a listing of well-evidenced fossil lineages, as well as some clarification of what exactly is meant by "transitional" in terms of fossils and evolution.

As to what I would have said in that situation, it probably would have been something like: "We know that humans design and make cars, we can go and see for ourselves people doing just that at every stage in the process. Aside from humans using selective breeding and direct genetic alteration, we don't see any deliberate agency changing living things. Instead, we see undirected processes like mutation and natural selection effecting changes in the short and long term."

Glad that you and your dad can have civil discussions about something he finds controversial. Hopefully he's willing to consider changing his views at least somewhat; many theists have no problem accepting evolution. Best of luck to you both!

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: William on August 23, 2013, 02:33:57 AM
Tonight he ended up saying things like, "that car and this car may have a similar build but that doesn't mean they evolved from each other, but you can't deny they had a creator."

Cars have to have a designer and also a manufacturer because they don't make offspring either sexually or by vegetative reproduction.  Variation in new car models has to be deliberately conceptualised, developed, and produced by a "creator" such as Ford or Ferrari (not God btw). 

In living things the source of variation is not deliberate - it simply arises through a natural process where random mutations (from molecular damage and mistakes in reproduction) get into the DNA code.  Most mutations have a negative effect (often lethal), some are neutral, and a tiny few improve adaptation (or sexiness in some cases).  No "creator" is required, nor does it fit with the idea of a God-like creator because so much of the variation is lethal, and so many species go extinct because their "design" could not cope with changes in the environment.  It's reasonable to expect that a God-like creator would get most things right, not most things wrong ;)

In my experience scientists are not afraid of God.  Some are afraid of the broader meaning and consequences of scientific discoveries.  When science can explain something that religion previously told us was due to God's "hand" e.g. lightning, diseases, earthquakes etc then the discoveries undermine faith and the authority of religions that previously told us they had the correct explanations.

The truth is that religion is afraid of science - and for good reason :police: :police: because religion is being forced to concede that its scriptures are wrong on just about every subject where science bothers to shine its light.  The earth isn't the centre of the universe, donkeys don't talk, there are no archaeological records of the Exodus, the dispersion of animal species does not fit with Noah's Ark story.

Now while I was typing this answer I see Wright has covered much of the same ground as me, and he has given you excellent links.
I also suggest looking at the inspirational new scientific work showcased by a site such as:
http://www.newscientist.com/
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: eartheconomyspirit on August 23, 2013, 03:41:35 AM
Just say Dad, I don't believe in devils and angels and all that jazz. But I do believe in love. Let's just agree on that and let me know if you're ever struggling with your faith, I am only to happy to offer a helping hand. Think of it as killing the debate with kindness.

Why waste time on an argument that thousands before you have. Makes no sense. :-)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wright on August 23, 2013, 09:29:44 AM
Just say Dad, I don't believe in devils and angels and all that jazz. But I do believe in love. Let's just agree on that and let me know if you're ever struggling with your faith, I am only to happy to offer a helping hand. Think of it as killing the debate with kindness.

Not a bad approach.

Why waste time on an argument that thousands before you have. Makes no sense. :-)

Because he evidently doesn't see it as a waste of time. That's his call to make.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 23, 2013, 10:04:29 AM
Actually, William, you're incorrect about mutations.  Most are neutral and thus have no real effect on the organism in question.  Only a minority have a net positive or negative effect.  For a mutation to have an effect at all, it has to happen in a part of DNA which is expressed.  But most DNA is never expressed, to the best of my knowledge.

Nonetheless, this does not contradict your point about the difference between cars and people.  Cars do not have a mechanism which allows them to reproduce, or to vary themselves for that matter.  Thus, the only explanation for the existence of a car is that someone created it.  But since humans do have a inborn reproductive capacity that also allows for significant variation, there is no real comparison between a car and a person in that respect.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on August 23, 2013, 11:12:32 AM
Comparing something purely mechanical (including electronic) with life and then drawing conclusions requires ignoring certain realities. The reason cars have a designer is that there is no mechanism in nature, at least that we have here on earth, to create functional machines that are otherwise inert. That is, not alive. Nature can't create them, nature can't reproduce them. Living things, on the other hand, do have the capability of evolving and reproducing, and therefore they are very different.

And our functionality (or disfunctionality, depending on who is measuring what) is a byproduct of past evolution, not design. We are an end-product (well, not really, we are an inbetween product between early mammals and the mammals to come over the next few million or billion years), and whatever characteristics we have just happen to be, because that is where we are on the evolutionary ladder, not because some fantastic being molded us out of dirt or ribs a few millennia ago.

Acknowledging that there are many scientists who believe in a god, those that do not can hardly hate god, being as he doesn't exist.  If any of them are like me, they are none too excited about dark-aged thinking and voluntary ignorance, as exhibited by all those religions that try to spoil the view of the universe. But there is no hate involved, vis–à–vis the god idea. That would be a waste of time.

The gathering of more accurate knowledge will always challenge preconceived ideas. Which is usually uncomfortable for people. Especially those who prefer that their world be set in stone and simple. Should you choose to continue challenging your father, blue_spral, you may occasionally push him to his limits. You need to be sure you want to do that with someone you love, and to be prepared for less than optimal consequences. Consider broaching the subject of god in little bits and pieces, rather than trying to do it all in one fell swoop.

Because you're probably too young to know what a fell swoop is. Which may mean that your youth has you placing too much importance on being right, which isn't always absolutely necessary when you are with someone you love.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: William on August 23, 2013, 11:14:46 AM
Actually, William, you're incorrect about mutations.  Most are neutral ...

Thanks for that Jaimehlers, I do love being wrong sometimes because it makes me learn  :)
In this case I submit we may both be right  :laugh:
My thinking is this: If a deleterious mutation results in cell death (germ cell line), or failure of fertilization, or spontaneous abortion, or death before reproductive age ... how do we detect and measure that particular mutation?  It expunged itself before it could be counted.  On the other hand, neutral mutations we can detect aplenty - simply because they survive.

For a mutation to have an effect at all, it has to happen in a part of DNA which is expressed.  But most DNA is never expressed, to the best of my knowledge.
Yes the DNA that is "expressed" is fairly critical - even though there is some codon redundancy that can tolerate a few hits without altering the expressed product. (And this is of great help in measuring rates of mutation and the evolutionary distance between species.)
However, the idea that "most DNA is never expressed" is now being seen in a very different light.  Although much of this DNA is not transcribed, it still plays a vital role in the regulation of gene expression and appears to be highly conserved (so the integrity of its encoded info must be critical): 
Quote
However, many types of noncoding DNA sequences do have important biological functions, including the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences. Other noncoding sequences have likely, but as-yet undetermined, functions. (This is inferred from high levels of homology and conservation seen in sequences that do not encode proteins but, nonetheless, appear to be under heavy selective pressure.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA
So it appears the DNA that is "never expressed" is indeed used in the expression machinery and as such is vulnerable to mutations that can disrupt cell functions in lethal ways.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: blue_spiral on August 23, 2013, 06:16:10 PM
Thanks for the replies!

I used to have a response to the watchmaker argument but I don't remember what it was lol.

I ended up having an IM conversation with my mom later in the evening, where I addressed the idea of scientists being afraid of god. She argued that she knows scientists that believe in god, etc. etc. and by the end of the conversation she changed the subject in confusion.

I'm sure she discussed that conversation with my dad so I got to get some points in. But it's likely to come up again :)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Nam on August 23, 2013, 06:56:07 PM
I know a Physicist who's a Roman Catholic. There are many scientists who believe in a god/s. Being a scientist doesn't make one an automatic atheist.

-Nam
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Mooby on August 23, 2013, 10:14:45 PM
When humans design things, we use top-down, bottom-up, and iterate design:

Top-down design: I want to make something that drives.  I'll need wheels, somewhere to sit, a way to steer, etc.  *Makes car*

Bottom-up design: I have a car.  I think it would be better with/without a horn.  *Adds/removes horn*

Iterative design: I invented a touch screen.  I'm going to put it on the car radio.  And this phone.  And this tv.  And this oven.  And this GPS.  Let's just go ahead and roll it out to all electronics.


Evolution is a bottom-up mechanism.  Every organism must either mutate its own traits or inherit it from an ancestor.  If sharks develop cartilage that is resistant to cancer, it does not get rolled out to humans.  Animal eyes do not get rolled out to squids; they have to develop their own independently.  Creatures do not spring into existence out of nowhere; they must come from a prior species.


So, if this was a world of creation, we would expect to see evidence of top-down design, bottom-up design, and iterative design.  If this was a world produced by evolution, we would only expect to see evidence of bottom-up development.

We only have evidence of bottom-up development.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: William on August 24, 2013, 06:17:28 AM
^^That's pretty good Mooby I almost gave it a +1 except that your version of "Bottom up" still involves intent.

Bottom-up design: I have a car.  I think it would be better with/without a horn.  *Adds/removes horn*

Mutation and natural selection have no intent - they're not planning to go somewhere in particular. 

Niches open up in nature - variation happens and eventually one of your "bottom up" variants finds itself in a happier fit within the niche, and passes on its genes to progeny that prosper in that niche.  Then eventually further variants upon that group find themselves in an even better fit with the resources and threats of the niche, and so on for generations until they can no longer interbreed with their ancestral strains.  It's a process that never stops, never arrives at a final intended destination, and has no idea what's coming next.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Azdgari on August 24, 2013, 06:52:40 AM
Blue_spiral, since others (including a god-believer) have answered your questions regarding evolution, I am curious about the explanation to something in your post...in the same spirit as the title of this thread:

Why is/was your father afraid of knowledge?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 24, 2013, 07:53:04 AM
Actually, William, note that when he gave that example, he was only talking about when humans designed things (which means it would include intent).

Evolution/natural selection works as follows:
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: William on August 24, 2013, 08:01:17 AM
Actually, William, note that when he gave that example, he was only talking about when humans designed things (which means it would include intent).

 :) This time you are right and I'm wrong. Sorry Mooby. And thanks Jaimehlers.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Mooby on August 24, 2013, 01:24:18 PM
Actually, William, note that when he gave that example, he was only talking about when humans designed things (which means it would include intent).

 :) This time you are right and I'm wrong. Sorry Mooby. And thanks Jaimehlers.
No worries. I should have been more clear: design can be a bottom-up process, and evolution can be a bottom-up process, but the former has intent while the latter doesn't. In our observations it can be difficult to tell exactly the difference between bottom-up design and bottom-up evolution, but the absence of evidence of other types of design that we would expect would be used by a competent, efficient designer leads much lower support to a design process.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: One Above All on August 24, 2013, 04:37:08 PM
The answer to this question is the same as the one to the question "Why are atheists afraid of/angry at god?", and that answer is: They aren't.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: This Is Me on August 29, 2013, 10:58:09 PM
Yes, Talk Origins Archives is a extremely informative site. Explore around there, and gain understanding of macroevolution, microevolution and each of their components until you are able to explain it. Once you can explain it (even to yourself), you know you are ready to explain it to someone else.  :) It is so awesome you can have a civil discussion on such a tender subject of conflicting with ones faith. Find things in science that he can relate to, that shows science working in the same manner when it comes to evolution. Good Luck !!!
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wright on August 29, 2013, 11:41:26 PM
Welcome to the forum, This Is Me.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: blue_spiral on September 08, 2013, 02:28:01 AM
I know a Physicist who's a Roman Catholic. There are many scientists who believe in a god/s. Being a scientist doesn't make one an automatic atheist.

-Nam

I personally know two Mormon scientists, off the top of my head.

We were discussing the topic of science and she was trying to make the argument that science supports god claims with the fact that scientists can be religious.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: William on September 08, 2013, 07:55:08 AM
...gain understanding of macroevolution, microevolution and each of their components until you are able to explain it.

TiM, in a nutshell can you describe any differences between macroevolution and microevolution?   I have trouble with that one myself.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: zvuv on November 10, 2013, 12:18:22 PM
Atheists are not obliged to explain the origin or the diversity of life.  If you don't feel like defending the Theory of Evolution just say "I don't know"  and just because you think you do, doesn't mean you are right.  There are many things we don't know and many things in the past,  such as gravity,  have been mysterious until a natural explanation was eventually found.   Just because you can't explain something doesn't give the other person a license to fill the gap with a supernatural explanation.  (Argument From Ignorance - a classic fallacy)

IMO it is usually not worth arguing Evolution with most believers, not on an individual leve.   You will have to struggle against their mangled misconception of the theory,  it's counter intuitive and defies  "common sense"  and you have to know quite a bit to be able to answer all the "facts" they will find on the Creationist sites.

Cars themselves do not reproduce.  They are perhaps analogous to a seedless fruit.  However, mechanical designs  and aesthetic styles do show clear lineages and there is a selection process at work.  Engineers and  designers   build on previous successes and abandon  failures.   A careful examination of the history of the automobile  will likely show a marked pattern of   experimentation, selection and inheritance but at a more abstract level than is found in living creatures.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on November 12, 2013, 08:10:57 PM
Most mutations have a negative effect (often lethal), some are neutral, and a tiny few improve adaptation (or sexiness in some cases).
You never did get around to showing the evidence to support your assertion that most mutations have negative effects (either harmful or lethal).  Given that the discussion with DT went off the rails around that time, this isn't surprising.  So I figure this topic might be better for continuing that discussion.

What you showed is that people in Ukraine, after the Chernobyl disaster, have an unsustainably high rate of lethal and harmful mutations - which, given the natural population decrease there, argues against the number of lethal mutations being anywhere near as high in a healthy population of humans.  Indeed, your statement above is almost a direct quote (http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Weaknesses/essential_weaknesses.htm) of the typical creationist argument regarding mutations.  "Most all mutations are detrimental, a few are neutral, and extremely few if any are clearly beneficial."

Now, the mere fact that creationists repeat an argument does not make it wrong.  What makes it wrong is that the argument for a high number of deleterious mutations is not supported by actual scientific studies regarding genetic mutations.

http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full (http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full) - "The average mutation rate was estimated to be ~2.5 × 10?8 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation" and "Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3."  Now, granted, they are using a conservative estimate, which means it could be (and likely is) higher, but...3/175 is less than 2%.  Tripling that rate for the sake of argument results in a 5% rate of deleterious mutations, which is not nearly high enough to justify your (or creationists') argument that most mutations have a negative effect.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/newton/math501/fa2007/adaptivemutrate_science07.pdf (http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/newton/math501/fa2007/adaptivemutrate_science07.pdf) - "Given the estimates for the overall mutation rate in E. coli (30) and its genomic deleterious
mutation rate (1), our estimate of Ua implies that 1 in 150 newly arising mutations is beneficial and that 1 in 10 fitness-affecting mutations increases the fitness of the individual carrying it."  What this says is that the rate of deleterious mutations in E.coli is 1/30, and the rate of beneficial mutations is 1/150, which accounts for 6/150 mutations.  The rest, therefore, must be neutral.

The implications are clear.  The mutation rate follows a bell curve[1] rather than an asymptomatic one[2], at least under normal circumstances on Earth (meaning, there are no environmental factors which push the mutation rate up).  Furthermore, even if the mutation rate is increased due to environmental factors (such as the ones that hold in Ukraine, today), there is no reason to expect that the proportion of beneficial/neutral/deleterious mutations would change - only the total mutation rate.  This still leads to a higher number of deleterious mutations, and since a single lethal mutation overrides all other mutations in terms of viability...

By the way, I do understand the point you were trying to make about lethal mutations removing themselves from the gene pool.  The problem is that new mutations always crop up, in every generation, and some of those will be lethal.  While it's certainly true that lethal mutations aren't conserved, that means nothing as far as new lethal mutations are concerned, and all it takes is one.  My point is that you shouldn't conclude that since lethal mutations aren't conserved, then it doesn't matter how many there are.  Because as you showed with the post-Chernobyl Ukranians, a high enough number of lethal mutations threatens the long-term survival of a species.
 1. a low number of deleterious mutations, a high number of neutral mutations, and a low number of beneficial mutations
 2. a high number of deleterious mutations, a moderate/low number of neutral mutations, and a low number of beneficial mutations
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: zvuv on November 12, 2013, 10:08:34 PM
..... a high enough number of lethal mutations threatens the long-term survival of a species.

I remember reading an interesting article on this subject.  Based on mathematical simulations of evolution, it argued that life is only possible within a rather narrow temperature change.   Too cool and information is preserved too well and the population cannot produce mutations fast enough to adapt to change,  too hot and mutations occur so rapidly that the fertility rate plummets due to lethal mutations.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Fiji on November 13, 2013, 04:24:45 AM
...gain understanding of macroevolution, microevolution and each of their components until you are able to explain it.

TiM, in a nutshell can you describe any differences between macroevolution and microevolution?   I have trouble with that one myself.

That's like asking "what's the difference between a cent and a euro?" Lots of cents make a euro, only difference with evolution is that with money, you know ahead of time when you'll get a euro. In evolution, it might be 100 generations or 1000 or more still.

btw, I once saw this documentary that did say cars could reproduce on their own ... no, wait, that might have been one of my son's Disney movies  :laugh:
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Graybeard on November 13, 2013, 06:40:31 AM
<rant>Part 1.

“Why are scientists afraid of God?” is one of those silly questions that people ask if they have never bothered thinking about what it is that they have just said.

Assume that you are a scientist, someone at the cutting edge of discovery, and there is a god of some sort. What is it that you are doing that might upset that god? There are priests and apologists who seek to discover the nature of this god and speculate on his nature – they seem to think that this god approves of them. You are doing the same thing, aren’t you?

You look back in history and, for the previous 200 years, no scientist has been attacked by any god. Why should you worry? What is it that scientists do that would upset a god?

Your discoveries and those of your colleagues will lead to the conclusion that there probably is a god, there probably is a god but it isn’t the one you thought it was, or that there probably isn’t one. Nobody has ever been struck down by a god for any of these conclusions. Even the Bible contains no reference to being struck down by gods for a lack of belief – apparently the Judeo-Christian god inspires men to do his dirty work – he himself remains aloof from this.

Could it be that the scientists secretly know that they are cheating in some way? If so, why do their discoveries work? If they work and there is a god, surely, that they work is a sign of that god’s approval?

In short, can someone explain why a scientist should be afraid of a god?

Part 2.

ID is simply garbage. It has no choice but to admit evolution of some sort. I am assuming that they are happy with e.g. the cat family which consists of everything from lions to domestic cats. However, if any of these interbreed, the offspring is infertile, so how come the species as a whole made it through time? There must have been every species to start with and yet evolution is visible within the scientific record.

And this is where their trouble arises:

Imagine something that does have a designer -> a car.

What they will not accept is that, in the case of the car:
In The Beginning there were ores and then
there was wood and then
there was fire and then
there were round logs and then
there were wheels and then
there were metals and then
there was steam and
then there was oil and then
there was electricity and
then we had a car and then
there were electrical valves and then
there were transistors and then
there were CPUs and these were put in cars.

So everything goes back to what was chemical molecules.

Their question is, “How did something as complex as an engine management CPU come into existence? It is irreducibly complex! Do you just think it evolved?!!! Why would it evolve if there was no car to fit it? Obviously it was created!!!111!! Jesus invented the car!”

The problem they have is that they start at a point at which a complex creature is already there and complex, and ask how a complex organ “just appeared” or why a particular adaptation exists when that adaptation has only one function which is associated with that animal’s ability to live.

And all they need do is ask, “What came before this?”

Species: We can show that hippos are related to whales and dolphins, whereas the hyrax (Le:11:5) is related to the elephant (behemoth.) So here we have different species coming from one. (Checkmate, godbotherers!)

Does anyone see the similarity between IDers’ arguments and maintaining that the earth is flat?
</rant>
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Mrjason on November 13, 2013, 07:10:18 AM

Does anyone see the similarity between IDers’ arguments and maintaining that the earth is flat?


Yes, It's a matter of failing to grasp the concept of perspective.

Fortunately the clergy are on hand to explain the basics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U)

once they get this they can move on to the more complex;

[wiki]Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution[/wiki]
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: William on November 14, 2013, 08:43:53 AM
You never did get around to showing the evidence to support your assertion that most mutations have negative effects (either harmful or lethal). 

 ;D  ;D  ;D  Jaimehlers , actually I did  ;)   ... quite substantially more than two weeks ago, and under some pressure being away OS with difficult internet access.  But I can see that the "Impossibility Argument" was a hectic thread, so I completely understand that you missed my posts, and thus never did me the courtesy of a response.

BTW I've had a careful look at the references you've linked here in this thread.  Perhaps you should too  ;) 
Hint - think about:
By the way, I do understand the point you were trying to make about lethal mutations removing themselves from the gene pool. 
Test that insight I gave you against the references you quoted  ;)
 
Now I'm busy catching up with work and priorities after a month away from home.  I hope to respond to your post here in detail on the weekend.  Although you might decide to retract some parts of it in the meantime  ;) 
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: William on November 14, 2013, 08:48:30 AM
So I figure this topic might be better for continuing that discussion.

Okay, fair enough, I know it's very hard to read everything posted for your particular attention on WWGHA, so here is a repeat of my careful responses to you that you didn't see and so didn't reply to:

First
Oh, you're just talking about human reproduction?  Next time, specify that.  I was talking about animal reproduction in general and the effects on generational levels of organisms....

Quick reply.  Jaime I don't need to restrict myself to human reproduction to show that your generalisations about "fecundity" are simplistic and don't necessarily hold up in nature. Contrary to your statement:
Actually, it is a response to environmental pressures.  The fecundity of a species tends to change depending on the kind of pressure a species faces; if food is short, organisms become less fecund, whereas if predators or disease hit a species hard, they become more fecund.

Predation on birds - very common finding that realised fecundity drops - another example of the exact opposite to what you said  :) It's because breeding activities are disrupted during nest defence, and eggs and chicks are taken.  The impacts carry on for many generations - basically for as long as the predation pressure remains.  Relief only comes if the birds depart the scene to nest in an entirely different location or find nest sites out of reach of the predators, or if the predator numbers decline or they move on to happier hunting grounds.

Anyway, I'm still conceding that point, because there are mechanisms that work as you said they do :)

The Chernobyl disaster was only a single generation ago, though - what was it, 1986?  There simply hasn't been time for the increased likelihood of offspring deaths to have the effects I predicted on fecundity.  Give it a generation or two - ....

This is also not quite right. Humans don't reproduce in generational batches. There is a continual procession of people reaching reproductive age since Chernobyl.  Many of those reaching peak reproductive age are already now "second generation".  Yet the local decline in realised fecundity continues.  It is not local fecundity that will "respond".  It is the purging effects of negative selection coupled with migration from other areas that will eventually make it appear like a fecundity "response". 

But remember, I'm conceding your point about fecundity :)

Second

Part two.

Before Jaimehlers and I continue with ‘friendly fire’ debating, and to avoid getting caught up in tangential issues like “fecundity”, let me attempt to summarise the issue.

1) Creationists say that harmful mutations tend to destroy genetic information, and therefore cannot lead to complexity.

2) I agree with the first part of that, but not the second part.

3) Jaimehlers  says the creationists are wrong on both counts. Jaimehlers says that neutral mutations are more common than harmful mutations, and carrying those neutral mutations eventually allows for complexity to develop.

4) I disagree with Jaimehlers that neutral mutations are more common. I've explained that it only looks like that because previous neutral mutations can persist for long periods.  Whereas with new mutations the majority are deleterious. My rationale is that negative selection is constantly purging deleterious mutations (mainly by killing things or making them infertile), and when inherent population fecundity restores the population numbers the genes with good and neutral mutations are amplified. 

5) I also say that building on neutral mutations is only one pathway to complexity - there are several more.  Probably easier pathways are by gene duplication (then through random changes to the less conserved redundant gene copy), and accidental acquisition of large amounts of DNA from other species. (I'm not sure if Jaimehlers agrees with me on this, but he probably does because it's classic evolution theory.)

6) Jaimehlers has called me out to support my claim that bad mutations are more common. (I will do my best with this shortly.)

7) The reason I'm being so pedantic about all this is that creationists 'know' they are right about the destructive bias of random mutations, and the challenge in that for building complexity. Denying this does our case no favours - sure there are good examples of point mutations leading to novel function, but it's not very common.  I say the better way to deflate the creationist bubble is to admit the limitations of mutation but understand the population dynamics (negative selection and fecundity) and all the other powerful mechanisms that do give rise to complexity, sometimes even relying on the destruction caused by mutations to whittle away the scaffold upon which complexity was built. 

I hope I’ve summed that up okay Jaimehlers.  Anything to add?

Third

Part three (maybe the last).

Jaimehlers has contradicted me here and in another thread, when I claimed most mutations are harmful.  Quite rightly, Jaimehlers has asked me to support my statements.

Theoretical is fine.
Actually, let me ask you a question.  How high do you think the rate of lethal mutations is?  A ballpark estimate is fine.

Rather than me doing a mildly educated guess, here is some evidence from greater experts than I'll ever be:

Quote
One of the earliest theoretical studies of the distribution of fitness effects was done by Motoo Kimura, an influential theoretical population geneticist. His neutral theory of molecular evolution proposes that most novel mutations will be highly deleterious, with a small fraction being neutral. Hiroshi Akashi more recently proposed a bimodal model for DFE, with modes centered around highly deleterious and neutral mutations. Both theories agree that the vast majority of novel mutations are neutral or deleterious and that advantageous mutations are rare, which has been supported by experimental results. One example is a study done on the distribution of fitness effects of random mutations in vesicular stomatitis virus. Out of all mutations, 39.6% were lethal, 31.2% were non-lethal deleterious, and 27.1% were neutral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Harmful_mutations

Quote
Because more DNA changes are harmful than are beneficial, negative selection plays an important role in maintaining the long-term stability of biological structures by removing deleterious mutations. Thus, negative selection is sometimes also called purifying selection or background selection.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Negative-Selection-1136

A paper involving human genetics quotes:
Quote
The difference in the number of rare vs. common alleles was used to estimate that 79–85% of amino acid-altering mutations are deleterious (Kimura 1983).
http://www.genetics.org/content/158/3/1227.full.pdf
(I did not look into the original Kimura reference – busy travelling with slow limited internet access – happy to get into that when I’m back home with proper internet next week.)
Quote
One study on the comparison of genes between different species of Drosophila suggests that if a mutation does change a protein, this will probably be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Harmful_mutations

And the reference for the wiki quote above says:
Quote
Our analysis suggests that approximately 95% of all nonsynonymous mutations that could contribute to polymorphism or divergence are deleterious, and that the average proportion of deleterious amino acid polymorphisms in samples is approximately 70%.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17409186

So the findings in different species and study methodologies confirm what I’m saying about most mutations being harmful.  Of course many factors impact these studies and not all results can be perfectly adjusted for them. Dominant lethals, by their lethal nature, just don’t present themselves for study.   Recessive lethals get purged in bottlenecks or bouts of local inbreeding. Some deleterious mutations can “surf” to higher frequencies on local waves of fecundity. Some are held in relatively stable polymorphisms by competing pressures e.g. the famous sickle cell anaemia example you quoted.

But the key to understanding the problem of damage caused by point mutations is that many genes make proteins (or regulate them). Proteins are not genetic information – they are 3D products that need to operate in a 3D molecular environment in which they’ve already adapted over many generations through natural selection. So structural proteins are quite sensitive to amino acid substitutions that alter their 3D structure, and in enzymes the 3D structure is particularly critical to catalytic function.  It’s easier to stuff up the optimised 3D fit of folded proteins than it is to have changes with no effect or enhancements.  But negative selection works steadily to cleanse the problems .

Quote
Furthermore, mutating an amino acid to a residue with significantly different properties could affect the folding and/or activity of the protein. There is therefore usually strong selective pressure to remove such mutations quickly from a population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitution_matrix

All of this is before we get into more serious forms of mutation such as insertions, deletions, and (depending on your definition of “mutation”) chromosomal aberrations.

Jaimehlers, are you content with this, or do you need further clarification?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: William on November 14, 2013, 09:25:18 AM
My point is that you shouldn't conclude that since lethal mutations aren't conserved, then it doesn't matter how many there are.  Because as you showed with the post-Chernobyl Ukranians, a high enough number of lethal mutations threatens the long-term survival of a species.

This is incoherent.  Please have another go to clarify - so I can answer you.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: William on November 14, 2013, 10:20:47 AM
At the huge risk  :-[ of boring people with repetition:
7) The reason I'm being so pedantic about all this is that creationists 'know' they are right about the destructive bias of random mutations, and the challenge in that for building complexity. Denying this does our case no favours - sure there are good examples of point mutations leading to novel function, but it's not very common.  I say the better way to deflate the creationist bubble is to admit the limitations of mutation but understand the population dynamics (negative selection and fecundity) and all the other powerful mechanisms that do give rise to complexity, sometimes even relying on the destruction caused by mutations to whittle away the scaffold upon which complexity was built. 

Do you - all atheists - know the killer arguments to counter the creationist case against the real destructive tendency of random mutation?

1) Negative selection.
2) Fecundity.
3) Gene duplication.
4) Escape from adaptive conflict.
5) Neutral mutations - accumulative (plus drift).
6) Advantageous mutations (plus positive natural selection.)
7) Founder effects - including gene surfing.
8) Sexual selection.
9) Acquisition of organelle genomes.
10) Acquisition from viral mechanisms.
 
(There's more but the 10 above is enough to show up the nong of creationists  :) )
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Jag on November 14, 2013, 11:20:37 AM
^^^Excellent recap William, thank you for gathering this all together in one place. I'm copying the entire thing FFR.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 16, 2013, 07:14:02 PM
Some scientists are scared to death of God. For proof, ask them to mention the word "God" in science class and watch their screaming, yelling, and faces become red with anger.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: William on November 16, 2013, 07:22:58 PM
^ Perhaps you are mistaking fear of God with despair and anger about stupidity.

But really, I've never witnessed scientists doing what you describe - more roll-eyes and face-palms and shaking-heads at the ignorance theism will bring to any classroom.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 16, 2013, 07:35:48 PM
^ Perhaps you are mistaking fear of God with despair and anger about stupidity.

But really, I've never witnessed scientists doing what you describe - more roll-eyes and face-palms and shaking-heads at the ignorance theism will bring to any classroom.

if it's so stupid, why are they afraid to teach it?

Seems to me they are scared children will like that explanation better and abandon evolution belief.

if they were so confident children will just laugh it, they should have no problems teaching it.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on November 16, 2013, 07:44:16 PM
^ Perhaps you are mistaking fear of God with despair and anger about stupidity.

But really, I've never witnessed scientists doing what you describe - more roll-eyes and face-palms and shaking-heads at the ignorance theism will bring to any classroom.

if it's so stupid, why are they afraid to teach it?

Teach what?

Quote
Seems to me they are scared children will like that explanation better and abandon evolution belief.

if they were so confident children will just laugh it, they should have no problems teaching it.

Teach what?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on November 16, 2013, 07:48:46 PM
My point is that you shouldn't conclude that since lethal mutations aren't conserved, then it doesn't matter how many there are.  Because as you showed with the post-Chernobyl Ukranians, a high enough number of lethal mutations threatens the long-term survival of a species.

This is incoherent.  Please have another go to clarify - so I can answer you.
Explain what you are having trouble with and I'll be glad to clarify, but I frankly have no idea what you are finding incoherent in this segment of my post.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on November 16, 2013, 07:53:09 PM
BTW I've had a careful look at the references you've linked here in this thread.  Perhaps you should too  ;) 
Hint - think about:
By the way, I do understand the point you were trying to make about lethal mutations removing themselves from the gene pool. 
Test that insight I gave you against the references you quoted  ;)
Instead of trying to hint at what you think I'm getting wrong, you will have to tell me what that is.  I realize you might have done so already in your follow-up post (I haven't read it yet - I'm taking care of the short posts first), but simply assuming that if I read it over a bit more, I will suddenly realize what you are talking about, is a bad way to argue.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: William on November 16, 2013, 08:15:28 PM
My point is that you shouldn't conclude that since lethal mutations aren't conserved, then it doesn't matter how many there are.  Because as you showed with the post-Chernobyl Ukranians, a high enough number of lethal mutations threatens the long-term survival of a species.

This is incoherent.  Please have another go to clarify - so I can answer you.
Explain what you are having trouble with and I'll be glad to clarify, but I frankly have no idea what you are finding incoherent in this segment of my post.

Dominant lethals are rapidly removed by negative selection. They can play no further part in anything that is living and reproducing.  Recessive lethals are held in check - and weeded out when homozygous.  The fact that something is alive and reproducing means it contains no dominant lethals and a low number of recessive lethals under strong negative selection pressure in the population.   

Sub-lethals and mildly deleterious mutations are another matter - but you never mentioned them - they can persist for longer and affect fitness at a population level.

The Chernobyl example was mainly to illustrate that your understanding of fecundity is incomplete.  If the population surrounding Chernobyl could be isolated and forced to inbreed it would decline for many generations but whether it would go extinct is not certain - negative selection may eventually cleanse it sufficiently.  It won't work like that however, mainly because of migration, both in and out of the affected population.     

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 16, 2013, 08:18:31 PM
^ Perhaps you are mistaking fear of God with despair and anger about stupidity.

But really, I've never witnessed scientists doing what you describe - more roll-eyes and face-palms and shaking-heads at the ignorance theism will bring to any classroom.

if it's so stupid, why are they afraid to teach it?

Seems to me they are scared children will like that explanation better and abandon evolution belief.

if they were so confident children will just laugh it, they should have no problems teaching it.

Why teach non-science in the science classroom. And if they did, what sort of test questions could they come up with?

Non-science quiz:

1. Some people say that life is intelligently designed. Their evidence for this claim is:
a. They think they are right
b. They've been told they are right
c. They hope they are right
d. All of the above.

2. Some people believe the planet is only 6,000 years old. To back up this claim, they:
a. Go into a tizzy if you disagree
b. Make up evidence
c. Threaten you will hell if you don't agree.
d. All of the above.

I'd go on, but I think that covers just about everything. If I remember right, you're not big on the 6,000 year old earth thing (I may be wrong, its hard to keep theists straight around here, because there are so many different kinds), but even if you agree that the earth is older, science teachers would still have to teach the young earth version too, because, hey, some people think it is true.

Of course, teachers would also have to cover the subject of the flat earth, jet contrails that are being used to seed our minds with nano-particles that will control us, astrology, moon landing hoaxes and other pet theories. Because there would no longer be any standards to adhere to, which would open the door to every foolish thought ever conceived. I myself was hoping we could limit such gross misperceptions to those within the republican party.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on November 16, 2013, 08:23:05 PM
I will be splitting this post up into three responses so as to keep them straight.

I could have sworn I posted a response to this.  I remember reading it, and I remember working on a response.  Oh, well, nothing for it but to try again.

Predation on birds - very common finding that realised fecundity drops - another example of the exact opposite to what you said  :) It's because breeding activities are disrupted during nest defence, and eggs and chicks are taken.  The impacts carry on for many generations - basically for as long as the predation pressure remains.  Relief only comes if the birds depart the scene to nest in an entirely different location or find nest sites out of reach of the predators, or if the predator numbers decline or they move on to happier hunting grounds.
Granted, this is sometimes true.  And there are limits to the effects of fecundity - it simply can't cope with environmental pressures that are too great.

Quote from: William
This is also not quite right. Humans don't reproduce in generational batches. There is a continual procession of people reaching reproductive age since Chernobyl.  Many of those reaching peak reproductive age are already now "second generation".  Yet the local decline in realised fecundity continues.  It is not local fecundity that will "respond".  It is the purging effects of negative selection coupled with migration from other areas that will eventually make it appear like a fecundity "response".
I did some further reading, and the problem at Chernobyl is due to radiation poisoning, not genetic mutations.  In essence, it's due to iodine-131 and cesium-137, both of which were absorbed from the environment into the human body, and caused long-term radiation poisoning[1], the effects of which include cancer and infertility.  So it is simply not relevant to your point about lethal mutations being scrubbed out of the gene pool.
 1. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Appendices/Chernobyl-Accident---Appendix-2--Health-Impacts/ (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Appendices/Chernobyl-Accident---Appendix-2--Health-Impacts/)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on November 16, 2013, 08:40:55 PM
The Chernobyl example was mainly to illustrate that your understanding of fecundity is incomplete.  If the population surrounding Chernobyl could be isolated and forced to inbreed it would decline for many generations but whether it would go extinct is not certain - negative selection may eventually cleanse it sufficiently.  It won't work like that however, mainly because of migration, both in and out of the affected population.
And as I just got done showing, the problems with the Chernobyl incident were due to radiation poisoning, not genetic mutations.  As an IAEA faq on Chernobyl shows[1], while mutations did happen in plants and animals (presumably including humans), the real effects are due to radioactive elements entering the body (such as thyroid cancer) rather than genetic mutations.  Not only that, but the article you linked does not break down why the population is expected to decrease.  It certainly implies that it's due to the effects of nuclear contamination, but that's not nearly enough in and of itself.  There are a lot of factors that go into population reduction.
 1. http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml (http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: William on November 16, 2013, 08:47:20 PM
..and infertility.  So it is simply not relevant to your point about lethal mutations being scrubbed out of the gene pool.

Jaimehlers, stop being so stubborn on this, it's getting hilarious  ;D

How do you think "radiation poisoning" causes a reduction in fertility? 
It doesn't only kill sperms ready and waiting to go. It creates LETHAL mutations in germ line cells too - that either kill the germ line stem cells themselves or generate defective sperm cells that can't compete, and many that can still compete carrying lethal mutations - so that even if they get to the ovum the result is lethal!!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The same happens to a lesser extent in ova -  but many more sperms are manufactured so it's noticed more in sperm count.

If a gamete is not viable, due to lethal mutations received from either the sperm or ovum, that goes directly into the calculation of low fertility - get it yet? ;D

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on November 16, 2013, 09:16:23 PM
Before Jaimehlers and I continue with ‘friendly fire’ debating, and to avoid getting caught up in tangential issues like “fecundity”, let me attempt to summarise the issue.

1) Creationists say that harmful mutations tend to destroy genetic information, and therefore cannot lead to complexity.

2) I agree with the first part of that, but not the second part.

3) Jaimehlers  says the creationists are wrong on both counts. Jaimehlers says that neutral mutations are more common than harmful mutations, and carrying those neutral mutations eventually allows for complexity to develop.
I need to clarify something here.  Creationists do not just claim the above; they also claim that harmful mutations are more common than other kinds of mutations.  It is this that I am primarily objecting to, although I also object somewhat to the statement that harmful mutations tend to destroy genetic information.  The only harmful mutations which actually destroy genetic information are ones that result in the death of an organism before it is capable of reproduction.  Other lethal mutations (such as sickle-cell anemia, which tends to cause death around or after age 30) actually help to preserve genetic information, since they increase the likelihood of a human surviving long enough to reproduce.

Quote from: William
4) I disagree with Jaimehlers that neutral mutations are more common. I've explained that it only looks like that because previous neutral mutations can persist for long periods.  Whereas with new mutations the majority are deleterious. My rationale is that negative selection is constantly purging deleterious mutations (mainly by killing things or making them infertile), and when inherent population fecundity restores the population numbers the genes with good and neutral mutations are amplified.
The problem with your argument is that deleterious mutations can also persist for long periods of time.  This is because most deleterious mutations have a very minor effect[1] (in essence, they fall on the 'back' half of the bell curve), which effectively means that they do not significantly affect the fitness of an organism.  Even if most mutations are in fact deleterious, there is no reason to conclude that the majority or even a significant minority are deleterious enough to affect an organism's fitness.

Quote from: William
5) I also say that building on neutral mutations is only one pathway to complexity - there are several more.  Probably easier pathways are by gene duplication (then through random changes to the less conserved redundant gene copy), and accidental acquisition of large amounts of DNA from other species. (I'm not sure if Jaimehlers agrees with me on this, but he probably does because it's classic evolution theory.)
Also, since humans have two sets of genes, a harmful mutation that is not expressed is available for further mutation to act on.

Quote from: William
6) Jaimehlers has called me out to support my claim that bad mutations are more common. (I will do my best with this shortly.)

7) The reason I'm being so pedantic about all this is that creationists 'know' they are right about the destructive bias of random mutations, and the challenge in that for building complexity. Denying this does our case no favours - sure there are good examples of point mutations leading to novel function, but it's not very common.  I say the better way to deflate the creationist bubble is to admit the limitations of mutation but understand the population dynamics (negative selection and fecundity) and all the other powerful mechanisms that do give rise to complexity, sometimes even relying on the destruction caused by mutations to whittle away the scaffold upon which complexity was built.
The problem is, there is no reason to conclude that a deleterious mutation is necessarily destructive, as you evidently do.  It's certainly true that some of them are, but the key is how much of an effect the mutation actually has - a mutation that has a small effect, whether bad or good, is simply not going to affect the fitness of an organism by very much.  Not only that, but whether a mutation is beneficial or detrimental often depends on the environment.  That's why variability is important, and why deleterious mutations often do persist for long periods of time.

I will, of course, not contest your statement that sufficiently harmful mutations can and do purge themselves from the gene pool.  My point is that most mutations do not fall into that category.
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on November 16, 2013, 09:28:56 PM
Jaimehlers, stop being so stubborn on this, it's getting hilarious  ;D
Your attitude is not helping matters any.  I do not appreciate being condescended to, even when it is inadvertent.  And it is rapidly becoming far less inadvertent.  Now, maybe you meant to come across as humorous, but it is not coming across that way.

Quote from: William
How do you think "radiation poisoning" causes a reduction in fertility? 
It doesn't only kill sperms ready and waiting to go. It creates LETHAL mutations in germ line cells too - that either kill the germ line stem cells themselves or generate defective sperm cells that can't compete, and many that can still compete carrying lethal mutations - so that even if they get to the ovum the result is lethal!!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
And how do you propose to tell whether it was actual damage to a sperm or ova, or a genetic mutation in that sperm or ova, that caused it to die?  This is a very relevant question - you cannot simply assume that infertility in Ukraine is primarily, or even significantly due to lethal mutations.  Some, yes.  But how much of it was in the general population due to radioactive isotopes of iodine, strontium, and cesium that were released into the environment, and how much of it was in the 'liquidators', the people who actually helped clean up the results of the incident?

Quote from: William
The same happens to a lesser extent in ova -  but many more sperms are manufactured so it's noticed more in sperm count.

If a gamete is not viable, due to lethal mutations received from either the sperm or ovum, that goes directly into the calculation of low fertility - get it yet? ;D
Again, how do you intend to show that something was not viable due to lethal mutations, as opposed to being not viable due to radiation poisoning?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on November 16, 2013, 10:08:46 PM
Rather than me doing a mildly educated guess, here is some evidence from greater experts than I'll ever be:

Quote
One of the earliest theoretical studies of the distribution of fitness effects was done by Motoo Kimura, an influential theoretical population geneticist. His neutral theory of molecular evolution proposes that most novel mutations will be highly deleterious, with a small fraction being neutral. Hiroshi Akashi more recently proposed a bimodal model for DFE, with modes centered around highly deleterious and neutral mutations. Both theories agree that the vast majority of novel mutations are neutral or deleterious and that advantageous mutations are rare, which has been supported by experimental results. One example is a study done on the distribution of fitness effects of random mutations in vesicular stomatitis virus. Out of all mutations, 39.6% were lethal, 31.2% were non-lethal deleterious, and 27.1% were neutral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Distribution_of_fitness_effects
I corrected your link, incidentally.  You linked to the wrong part of the wiki.

Also, since the example you linked refers to a virus, and the example just below it refers to yeast (both of which have substantially higher mutation rates than humans do), it doesn't do a whole lot for your argument, especially in light of this, two paragraphs down:  "In summary, it is generally accepted that the majority of mutations are neutral or deleterious, with rare mutations being advantageous; however, the proportion of types of mutations varies between species. This indicates two important points: first, the proportion of effectively neutral mutations is likely to vary between species, resulting from dependence on effective population size; second, the average effect of deleterious mutations varies dramatically between species.[53] In addition, the DFE also differs between coding regions and non-coding regions, with the DFE of non-coding DNA containing more weakly selected mutations.[53]"

In short, even deleterious mutations can be expressed as neutral ones, such as those that have no noticeable effect on an organism's fitness, or ones that are simply not expressed (due to being recessive).

Quote from: William
Quote
Because more DNA changes are harmful than are beneficial, negative selection plays an important role in maintaining the long-term stability of biological structures by removing deleterious mutations. Thus, negative selection is sometimes also called purifying selection or background selection.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Negative-Selection-1136
Granted, but you should note that the only thing it actually says is that there are more harmful changes than there are beneficial.  It says nothing at all about neutral mutations.

Quote from: William
A paper involving human genetics quotes:
Quote
The difference in the number of rare vs. common alleles was used to estimate that 79–85% of amino acid-altering mutations are deleterious (Kimura 1983).
http://www.genetics.org/content/158/3/1227.full.pdf
(I did not look into the original Kimura reference – busy travelling with slow limited internet access – happy to get into that when I’m back home with proper internet next week.)
Quote
One study on the comparison of genes between different species of Drosophila suggests that if a mutation does change a protein, this will probably be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Harmful_mutations
Granted, but these refer to a specific kind of mutation - ones that change amino acids.  Moreover, the point I raised before about different organisms having different proportions of deleterious-to-neutral-to-beneficial mutations and different mutation rates applies here as well, since this appears to refer to flies rather than larger multicellular organisms.

Quote from: William
And the reference for the wiki quote above says:
Quote
Our analysis suggests that approximately 95% of all nonsynonymous mutations that could contribute to polymorphism or divergence are deleterious, and that the average proportion of deleterious amino acid polymorphisms in samples is approximately 70%.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17409186
Which, again, refers to flies.

Quote from: William
So the findings in different species and study methodologies confirm what I’m saying about most mutations being harmful.  Of course many factors impact these studies and not all results can be perfectly adjusted for them. Dominant lethals, by their lethal nature, just don’t present themselves for study.   Recessive lethals get purged in bottlenecks or bouts of local inbreeding. Some deleterious mutations can “surf” to higher frequencies on local waves of fecundity. Some are held in relatively stable polymorphisms by competing pressures e.g. the famous sickle cell anaemia example you quoted.
The problem is, the studies you've referred to have been about a particular kind of virus, yeast, and flies.  All of which are prone to high rates of mutation, never mind the caveat I keep mentioning that those rates can easily differ between organisms.

Besides, I brought up a rather serious point in an earlier post (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25342.msg583111.html#msg583111) regarding human mutation.  Specifically, a study that stated that there were approximately 175 mutations per diploid genome (in humans), and that a conservative estimate of the deleterious mutation rate was 3 (out of 175).  To elaborate on that, I looked for other studies.  One stated that...here, I'll just quote the abstract.

Quote
It has been suggested that humans may suffer a high genomic deleterious mutation rate. Here we test this hypothesis by applying a variant of a molecular approach to estimate the deleterious mutation rate in hominids from the level of selective constraint in DNA sequences. Under conservative assumptions, we estimate that an average of 4.2 amino-acid-altering mutations per diploid per generation have occurred in the human lineage since humans separated from chimpanzees. Of these mutations, we estimate that at least 38% have been eliminated by natural selection, indicating that there have been more than 1.6 new deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation. Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate, indicating that the effects of deleterious mutations may have combined synergistically. Furthermore, the level of selective constraint in hominid protein-coding sequences is atypically low. A large number of slightly deleterious mutations may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9950425 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9950425)

It is also very important to note that organisms such as viruses, yeast, and flies, are often used for genetic studies because they have an extremely high reproductive rate, which means that a high mutation rate is survivable.  Humans, on the other hand, have a tiny fraction of this rate.  So you simply cannot compare the mutation rate in humans (and other long-lived animals with low reproductive rates) to that of organisms that have extremely high reproductive rates.  What that means is that the rate of deleterious mutations you cited in those other studies would not be survivable by humans - as noted in the two studies I linked, the rate of new deleterious mutations in human beings is 1-3 per generation.

Quote from: William
But the key to understanding the problem of damage caused by point mutations is that many genes make proteins (or regulate them). Proteins are not genetic information – they are 3D products that need to operate in a 3D molecular environment in which they’ve already adapted over many generations through natural selection. So structural proteins are quite sensitive to amino acid substitutions that alter their 3D structure, and in enzymes the 3D structure is particularly critical to catalytic function.  It’s easier to stuff up the optimised 3D fit of folded proteins than it is to have changes with no effect or enhancements.  But negative selection works steadily to cleanse the problems.
Granted, but at the same time, these proteins are more flexible than you seem to think they are.  It's the receptor site that matters with a protein, not so much the general shape of the protein.  So a mutation that affects some part of the general structure is not as likely to screw up the protein as one that affects the receptor site.

Quote from: William
Quote
Furthermore, mutating an amino acid to a residue with significantly different properties could affect the folding and/or activity of the protein. There is therefore usually strong selective pressure to remove such mutations quickly from a population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitution_matrix
Granted, no argument with this part.

Quote from: William
All of this is before we get into more serious forms of mutation such as insertions, deletions, and (depending on your definition of “mutation”) chromosomal aberrations.

Jaimehlers, are you content with this, or do you need further clarification?
Actually, I'd like it if you would address the points I raised in my earlier post (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25342.msg583111.html#msg583111 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25342.msg583111.html#msg583111)) as well as this one.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: William on November 16, 2013, 10:11:11 PM
I need to clarify something here.  Creationists do not just claim the above; they also claim that harmful mutations are more common than other kinds of mutations.  It is this that I am primarily objecting to, ...

Then take your objection up with the scientists who are saying it.  To be honest Jaimehlers you are tiring me - I actually don't have time to engage in a piss-ant debate with you, I have urgent and productive things to do right now.

I've explained my case and brought you evidence as I promised - so here are some quotes for you to digest:

Quote
From protozoans to mammals, evolution has created more and more complex structures and better-adapted organisms. This is all the more astonishing as most genetic mutations are deleterious.
....
The great majority of mutations are deleterious. "Due to selection individuals with more favourable genes reproduce more successfully and deleterious mutations disappear again," explains the population geneticist Richard Neher, leader of an independent Max Planck research group at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Tübingen, Germany.
http://phys.org/news/2012-08-populations-survive-deleterious-mutations-scientists.html


Quote
Mutation is the ultimate source of all the genetic variation on which selection may act; it is therefore essential to evolution. Mutations carry a large cost, though; almost all are deleterious, reducing the fitness of the organisms in which they occur  
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Reinhard.Buerger/04WhitlockBuerger.pdf

Quote
"Most mutations are harmful," said UNM Associate Professor Vaishali Katju, who is the grant's principal investigator. "They are the ultimate cause of most of our heritable diseases and yet, they also provide the genetic fodder for the origin of the wonderful diversity of life we observe all around us. Without mutations, there is no evolution.
http://phys.org/news/2013-11-unm-spontaneous-mutations-implications-biology.html#jCp

Quote
Previous site-directed mutagenesis studies have shown that most random nucleotide substitutions are strongly deleterious in animal and plant ssRNA viruses. ....  After performing similar experiments with phage Q?, we confirm  that ssRNA viruses are extremely sensitive to mutation in general. Roughly speaking, the probability that a random single nucleotide substitution is lethal for an ssRNA virus is one third or higher, while viable mutations reduce fitness by 10–13% on average. .... Concerning the shape of the distribution, viable mutations of small effect are more abundant that those of large effect.
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000742

Quote
This work represents a study of the distribution of mutational effects on fitness for an RNA virus using explicit single-nucleotide substitutions. On average, mutations were deleterious even when lethals were ignored. 
http://personales.upv.es/sfelena/PNAS.pdf

Quote
Because deleterious mutations are much more common than beneficial ones, evolution under this relaxed selection will inevitably lead to a decline in the mean fitness of the population
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7412/full/488467a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120823

Quote
Most Mutations in the Human Genome are Recent and Probably Harmful
Fast population growth has littered our genomes with five times as many rare gene variants as would be expected.
...
Using several techniques to gauge the effects of these mutations, which are the most common type of variant in the human genome, Akey estimated that more than 80 percent are probably harmful to us.
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/julyaug/07-most-mutations-in-the-human-genome-are-recent-and-probably-harmful



Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on November 16, 2013, 10:39:08 PM
What makes you think I don't have better things to do than spend hours writing posts?  I really, really resent it when I go to a lot of time and effort to try to respond to your points, only to have you tell me that you have better things to do than "engage in a piss-ant debate with me".  If you didn't have time for this, then you shouldn't have taken it up with me in the first place.

You seem to be of the opinion that since you explained your case and brought evidence, that that's all you have to do, and that if I still disagree, then you don't have any obligation to go any further.  In short, your opinion is sacred, and if I'm not swayed by it, you have better things to do with your time than to reading what I actually wrote.  Instead, just dumping more quotes on me.

I spent nearly two and a half hours taking the time to respond to posts of yours that I missed, and this is what I get.  Nothing but an insulting affectation of superiority, which you've been displaying all along.  I can ignore that with people who are too ignorant to realize just how bad that looks, but you're neither stupid nor ignorant.  I was willing to put up with it as long as it looked like we were getting somewhere, but you basically just told me to fuck off - that your opinion being right is too important to you to be worth taking the time to even read over what I wrote, let alone seriously responding to it.

I have better things to do than deal with that kind of smug arrogance.  Have a good evening.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: William on November 17, 2013, 01:31:54 AM
What makes you think I don't have better things to do than spend hours writing posts? 

Jaimehlers, my entire house was flooded, and it's still raining. Everything is water damaged - I'm taking photos and making lists for the insurance assessors. I'm taking short breaks between working on things. I've just come off my roof where I've been working in the rain to do emergency repairs to my roof.  While I was up there I thought about your STONEWALLING on this topic - it made my blood boil - lucky I was up there and not at my computer.

Back in post #7 on this very thread, on August 23, after being contradicted by you, I gave you an nice polite reply with a solid explanation of my point. 
Instead of accepting it as an olive branch or debating my point it you've carried on repeating your mistakes and niggling on other threads and then moved it back here.

See here:

Actually, William, you're incorrect about mutations.  Most are neutral ...

Thanks for that Jaimehlers, I do love being wrong sometimes because it makes me learn  :)
In this case I submit we may both be right  :laugh:

See, it wasn't me who started this fucking stupid debate - it was you!  And you continued niggling away in face of scientific consensus to the contrary and the evidence I've spent my valuable time finding to educate you, both while I was travelling overseas and now while dealing with a home flood situation.

And you have the cheek to smite me!!!!  You are too big for your know-it-all boots.

You didn't even have the guts to apologise for saying:
You never did get around to showing the evidence to support your assertion that most mutations have negative effects (either harmful or lethal).
- when I had brought evidence, SUBSTANTAILLY, TWO WEEKS earlier, and then had to quote it all back here for you.

That's poor form.  Your pride has got the better of you.

I will address the problems with your only substantial reference, and your faulty interpretation of it.
http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full
Funny that so many of the scientists I quoted in post #46 haven't been swayed by that article either  :?
At this time I simply have much more important things to do.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: William on November 17, 2013, 03:44:53 AM
The problem is, the studies you've referred to have been about a particular kind of virus, yeast, and flies.

Firstly, what makes you think viruses, yeast and flies are not relevant to the topic of mutation and evolution.  Are you for real? :o

Secondly, you didn't even read that same post and the array of evidence I carefully collected for you from different species INCLUDING HUMAN genetics!!!!:
A paper involving human genetics quotes:
Quote
The difference in the number of rare vs. common alleles was used to estimate that 79–85% of amino acid-altering mutations are deleterious (Kimura 1983).
http://www.genetics.org/content/158/3/1227.full.pdf

Now tell me who is blowing off who?

Tell me seriously, why should I even bother helping you through your little patch of ignorance and stubbornness on this topic!

Do you have the humility to apologise when you are wrong! 
Why don't you read what I posted - long before you went to the smite button. 
Is your mind open to learning from somebody else?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: William on November 17, 2013, 06:40:25 AM
And as I just got done showing, the problems with the Chernobyl incident were due to radiation poisoning, not genetic mutations.  As an IAEA faq on Chernobyl shows[1], while mutations did happen in plants and animals (presumably including humans), the real effects are due to radioactive elements entering the body (such as thyroid cancer) rather than genetic mutations.   Not only that, but the article you linked does not break down why the population is expected to decrease.  It certainly implies that it's due to the effects of nuclear contamination, but that's not nearly enough in and of itself.  There are a lot of factors that go into population reduction.
 1. http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml (http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml)

Wow! :o  Jaimehlers is the fear of being wrong so bad that it is now affecting your brain?  You are attempting to SHIFT THE GOALPOAST again but again it is a FAIL.

What else but emotion, rather than logic, could make you think thyroid cancer from "radiation poisoning" does not involve mutations?  Have you ever heard of somatic mutations?  Thyroid cancer is caused by both somatic and germ line mutations. Both classes are mutations - and harmful mutations at that.

Please spare me and yourself this nonsense!

Quote
Most thyroid cancers are considered sporadic, meaning that the damage to the genes occurs after a person is born and there is no risk of passing on the gene to a person's children. Inherited thyroid cancers are less common (about 10%) and occur when gene mutations are passed within a family from one generation to the next.
http://www.cancer.net/all-about-cancer/genetics/genetics-thyroid-cancer

Quote
Most cancers are thought to be caused by mutations in DNA, perhaps triggered by chemicals or radiation, which go unrepaired and build up over a person's lifetime. The mutations eventually lead to uncontrolled cell proliferation.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/14/genetic-map-cancer-mutation-disease

Quote
Papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) is the most common thyroid malignancy, representing ~80% of all cases. In PTC, mutations of genes encoding effectors of the MITOGEN-ACTIVATED PROTEIN KINASE (MAPK) PATHWAY are central to malignant transformation. In 70% of all cases rearrangements of the genes encoding the receptor tyrosine kinases RET or NTRK leading to expression of constitutively active fusion proteins, as well as activating-point mutations of RAS or BRAF, are found. In any given PTC, mutation only occurs in a single component of the MAPK pathway, supporting the idea that constitutive functional activation of any of these effectors alone is sufficient to foster development of PTC.[1]

..... Prior exposure to ionizing radiation during childhood predisposes to development of PTC with RET rearrangements and, to a lesser extent, with NTRK or BRAF intrachromosomal inversions. ..... Thus, somatic mutation of BRAF is the most common early genetic event causally associated with development of PTC in adult patients without a history of radiation exposure.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/530479

No more red herrings, okay Jaimehlers? :-\   Stick to the issue where you, not me, started the argument: Are most mutations harmful or not?

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on November 17, 2013, 01:36:50 PM
Jaimehlers, my entire house was flooded, and it's still raining. Everything is water damaged - I'm taking photos and making lists for the insurance assessors. I'm taking short breaks between working on things. I've just come off my roof where I've been working in the rain to do emergency repairs to my roof.  While I was up there I thought about your STONEWALLING on this topic - it made my blood boil - lucky I was up there and not at my computer.
Then why didn't you say that?  Something like, "I don't have time to respond right now because my house flooded" would have gone over a lot better than the way you actually responded.  The way you came across was like it wasn't worth spending time time to even read my posts, even though you had time to post more links.

For what it's worth, you have my sympathy regarding the flooded house.  At this point, I want you to focus on that and not on me.  Don't worry about responding further until after you've gotten that taken care of.

Quote from: William
Back in post #7 on this very thread, on August 23, after being contradicted by you, I gave you an nice polite reply with a solid explanation of my point. 
Instead of accepting it as an olive branch or debating my point it you've carried on repeating your mistakes and niggling on other threads and then moved it back here.
Actually, I did accept it as an olive branch and said nothing more on it to you.

You are the one who, in that other thread, decided to take things up with me on this point, and it went from there.  So don't you now try to blame me for it because of something that happened months ago.

Quote from: William
See, it wasn't me who started this fucking stupid debate - it was you!  And you continued niggling away in face of scientific consensus to the contrary and the evidence I've spent my valuable time finding to educate you, both while I was travelling overseas and now while dealing with a home flood situation.

And you have the cheek to smite me!!!!  You are too big for your know-it-all boots.
If you're this upset, you should take the time to calm down.

And in answer to your accusation, yes, I brought up a point months ago in this topic - but chose to leave it be after you responded.  The actual argument we're engaged in came about because of the "Impossibility (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25383.msg577999.html#msg577999)" topic.  I was responding to something DrTesla said; you replied to part of my response and stated that I'd put a bit of a fallacy.  I responded to that, and it went from there.  Don't attempt to pin blame based on something that I said months ago when there wasn't anything said after that for two full months.

Quote from: William
You didn't even have the guts to apologise for saying:
You never did get around to showing the evidence to support your assertion that most mutations have negative effects (either harmful or lethal).
- when I had brought evidence, SUBSTANTAILLY, TWO WEEKS earlier, and then had to quote it all back here for you.
I missed most of what you wrote in that topic because I take breaks when things start to get too heated.  I am not superhuman and I do make mistakes.  This is part of why I'm suggesting that you take the time to calm down - because you're upset about other things, and that's flooding over onto this, making you much more upset than you would otherwise be.

You got upset because of something I said, I got upset because of something you said.  Just calm down and let it pass - it's not worth losing your temper over.  Especially if you're already upset over other things.  I had to deal with my apartment being partially flooded once.  I didn't even come onto the site until it was all over, because I didn't want my temper over that spilling over onto someone else.

Quote from: William
That's poor form.  Your pride has got the better of you.
Nope.  I have a tendency occasionally to accept what someone says and not respond to it - the old "silence means assent" maxim.  I can see where that might seem dismissive, and I apologize for that.

Quote from: William
I will address the problems with your only substantial reference, and your faulty interpretation of it.
http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full
Funny that so many of the scientists I quoted in post #46 haven't been swayed by that article either  :?
This doesn't mean anything in and of itself.  There's more reasons than what you suggest for why those scientists might not have accounted for the article I linked, or even commented on it in their own articles.  There's so much scientific work being done, even in a single field, that simply keeping up with it all would be a full-time job by itself, and they have actual work to do as well.  Not only that, but most of those (the ones I linked and the ones you linked) are articles on particular scientific studies that those people actually performed.  While they might refer to other studies in them, for the most part they're going to focus on reporting the actual results they came up with.

Quote from: William
At this time I simply have much more important things to do.
You're still making the same mistake that you made before.  If you have much more important things to do, then do them.  Don't take on such a rude and dismissive tone with other people here because of problems in your real life.  Deal with the problems first, then come back and deal with the people here.  If you need to take a break from them, play a video game, read a book, go for a walk, or something along those lines.

I will respond to your other posts later on.  Part of it is because I do have things I want to take care of - though nothing as disastrous as a flooded house, thankfully.  And part of it is to hopefully give you time to deal with your real-life problems so you don't have to try to deal with them and me at the same time.  Even when I do respond later on, don't worry about trying to get back to me until you've dealt with those problems and their repercussions.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 19, 2013, 03:21:52 AM
Ermahgurd, each one of your posts gets larger and more complex.

To OP, last time i checked, no scientists are afraid of something that does not exist.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: screwtape on November 19, 2013, 11:49:07 AM
Some scientists are scared to death of God. For proof, ask them to mention the word "God" in science class and watch their screaming, yelling, and faces become red with anger.

This is incoherent (and really, really stupid).  First you mention scientists, then you speak of science class.  Scientists do not necessarily teach science class.  Science teachers are not necessarily scientists.  Which group is your target?

Secondly, you being talking about them being "Scared to death".  Then, in the next sentence you speak of them being "red with anger".  Which is it, fear or anger?

Third, why should they mention "gods" in science class?  Science is about empirical observation and explanation.  Almost all god botherers admit you cannot get empirical observations of their god.  So, it does not seem to me god has any place in science class.

Last, I've never in my life seen a scientist or science teacher act in fear or rage at the mere mention of god.  I doubt you have either.  So, I'm coming right out and calling you a liar. 

I will retract that and apologize if you substantiate your claim.  That would require you showing that significant portion of scientists or science teachers have done what you claim.  If you cannot do this, you will retract it.

Remember the 8th (or 9th, depending which version you pick) comandment - you shall not lie.  Your lies will make baby jesus send you to hell.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Nam on November 19, 2013, 01:05:33 PM
^ Perhaps you are mistaking fear of God with despair and anger about stupidity.

But really, I've never witnessed scientists doing what you describe - more roll-eyes and face-palms and shaking-heads at the ignorance theism will bring to any classroom.

if it's so stupid, why are they afraid to teach it?

Seems to me they are scared children will like that explanation better and abandon evolution belief.

if they were so confident children will just laugh it, they should have no problems teaching it.

Why are you so afraid to learn anything about Evolution that doesn't come from a religious viewpoint?

-Nam
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Astreja on November 19, 2013, 01:43:30 PM
if it's so stupid, why are they afraid to teach it?

I don't see fear, Skeptic; I see "What the **** does this have to do with science?"

If you want to change the situation, here's what you have to do:  Come up with a testable hypothesis that explains what "God" is and how it created the universe.  Not only will you have science; you might even get the Nobel Prize.

Now, if you'll excuse Me, I have some course materials to write up for some of the other ID units:


Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Jag on November 19, 2013, 03:07:43 PM
^ Perhaps you are mistaking fear of God with despair and anger about stupidity.

But really, I've never witnessed scientists doing what you describe - more roll-eyes and face-palms and shaking-heads at the ignorance theism will bring to any classroom.

if it's so stupid, why are they afraid to teach it?
If it's so stupid, why would anyone teach it? Why would a teacher teach stupid on purpose? Ok, to be fair I can come up with reasons to do so - but all of them include making clear in the end that "the stupid" was for illustrative purposes only which is not what you are proposing.
Quote
Seems to me they are scared children will like that explanation better and abandon evolution belief.
And it seems to me that once again, you are making stuff up to support your ideas. Do you really mean the things you type?
Quote
if they were so confident children will just laugh it, they should have no problems teaching it.
I sincerely hope you were homeschooled. It's the only explanation I can come up with that would explain your shocking ignorance over teaching methods.

Your suggestions, frankly, are a waste of already limited time and resources. Keep religion in the home - that way whatever crazy crackpot sh!t the parents can come up with can be reinforced by them and them alone, and they can just teach their own kids to ignore anything the instructors say that contradicts their personal Jesus doctrine. Problem solved for real and within legal limits.

See how simple it is to just follow the law and solve a non-existent problem by not trying to stuff "god" into science education - by not insisting that religion be included in science teaching? That you even think this is a reasonable idea demonstrates how much you don't grasp about science and the scientific method - so here's the most basic primer I could find: Steps of the Scientific Method (http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml)

Come on skepdude, open that mind a tiny bit and learn a little so you get something out of all your time here.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on November 19, 2013, 03:28:33 PM
Firstly, what makes you think viruses, yeast and flies are not relevant to the topic of mutation and evolution.  Are you for real? :o
I did not say that.  I said that they are prone to high rates of mutation - and that rates of mutation can differ greatly between species.  Short-lived organisms that reproduce frequently have a much higher mutation rate than long-lived organisms that reproduce very infrequently.  Viruses, yeast, and flies fall into the former category; humans (along with most mammals) fall into the latter.  Using examples of the former to prove a high rate of lethal mutations doesn't necessarily apply to the latter.

Quote from: William
Secondly, you didn't even read that same post and the array of evidence I carefully collected for you from different species INCLUDING HUMAN genetics!!!!:
Actually, I did read it.  It is possible that I missed something - as I said earlier, I do make mistakes, such as when I'm writing a lengthy response (or several lengthy responses, as was the case here).  Even checking it over doesn't necessarily mean that I catch everything.  But I did read your entire post.

Quote from: William
Now tell me who is blowing off who?
I did not blow you off.  I thought I had responded to everything you wrote.  It's certainly possible that I missed or misread something, but that is not the same thing as blowing you off.  Which you did in this post:  http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25342.msg583856.html#msg583856 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25342.msg583856.html#msg583856)

Having to deal with a flooded house is a good reason to not respond to a series of posts.  It is not a good reason to respond to them by ignoring virtually everything I wrote and post more links.  Though I will give you credit for going back and rectifying the situation.

Quote from: William
Tell me seriously, why should I even bother helping you through your little patch of ignorance and stubbornness on this topic!
I am not ignorant on this subject.  Where do you get off accusing me of ignorance, especially since I've posted my own information on this subject?  That illustrates a very serious problem.  You are assuming that I am ignorant, and therefore that I have to be 'helped' to become not ignorant.  But that is not the case.  As long as you continue to assume that my responses here are due to stubborn ignorance, we're not going to get anywhere.

Quote from: William
Do you have the humility to apologise when you are wrong!
In fact, I have apologized for mistakes I've made in the past.  What about you?  Are you willing to acknowledge that part of this problem is due to your own assumption that I'm ignorant on this subject, and the condescending attitude you've thus adopted?

Quote from: William
Why don't you read what I posted - long before you went to the smite button.
I gave you a smite because of the condescending and dismissive attitude you displayed here:

Then take your objection up with the scientists who are saying it.  To be honest Jaimehlers you are tiring me - I actually don't have time to engage in a piss-ant debate with you, I have urgent and productive things to do right now.

I've explained my case and brought you evidence as I promised - so here are some quotes for you to digest:
This came across quite clearly that you didn't feel it was worth your time to even bother responding to what I wrote.  As far as I'm concerned, you deserved that smite - not because you had other things you needed to do (I'll certainly admit that dealing with a flooded home is more important than responding to someone on a website, though it would have been nice if you would have actually said that), but because you threw a bunch more links at me even though you had more "urgent and productive things to do".

How that came across was, "I have other things to do right now, so I'm not going to read or respond to your post - but here's a bunch of links that I think you should read".  Think about how that comes across - you're too busy to actually read what I wrote, but you're not too busy to find more stuff that you think I should read.

Quote from: William
Is your mind open to learning from somebody else?
Of course it is.  I did learn things from what you wrote.  But learning things from you doesn't mean I'm going to discard other things I've learned and absorb whatever you say like a sponge.

----

I separated the link to the paper you quoted because I didn't want to risk it getting lost in the middle of the rest of my post.

Quote
The difference in the number of rare vs. common alleles was used to estimate that 79–85% of amino acid-altering mutations are deleterious (Kimura 1983).
http://www.genetics.org/content/158/3/1227.full.pdf
The mistake I made here was addressing both this and the follow-up link to the Wikipedia page on harmful mutations at the same time.  So I will be addressing it specifically.

It is worth quoting some other remarks from this paper.

Quote
WHILE the fixation of adaptive mutations may be viewed as the crux of Darwinian evolution, it has long been argued that the majority of DNA changes that accumulate over time are not adaptive but neutral, fixed by stochastic fluctuations in a finite population (Kimura 1983).
...
The proportion of mutations that are deleterious has been estimated from both allozyme and DNA divergence data.  Negative selection prevents deleterious mutation from reaching common frequencies and so should produce an excess of rare variation.  In humans, the number of rare (<0.5%) allozyme alleles is much greater than expected under neutrality in an equilibrium population (Kimura 1983).

This is where your quote comes in.  Kimura's argument was basically that the number of rare variations was too high, and thus was likely produced by a much higher proportion of deleterious mutations (thus the estimate that 79-85% of amino acid mutations were deleterious).  However, the paper goes on to say:

Quote
However, a recent increase in human population size can also account for the excess of rare variants. Negative selection also lowers the ratio of amino acid to synonymous divergence between populations and this ratio can be used to estimate the proportion of amino acid-altering mutations that are deleterious. Divergence of 46 genes among hominid species was used to estimate that 38% of amino mutations are deleterious (Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999).
It does note that this might be an underestimate, though.

In short, I'm beginning to wonder if you read the whole paper.  If you had, you would have realized that it goes into a lot of detail about the study that Fay, Wickoff, and Wu performed, and is an attempt to show a more up-to-date estimate of the deleteriousness of amino-acid mutations, rather than relying on those from older studies - which is what you quoted from the study.

Given the complexity of the study, I'm just going to try to focus on the latter part - where they discuss their findings.  It seems that they do, in fact, estimate that roughly 80% of amino-acid mutations are deleterious (thought that includes all categories from slightly to lethally).  Indeed, they estimate that there are hundreds of deleterious amino-acid mutations in each individual - suggesting that most deleterious mutations are not sufficiently harmful to kill off the individual carrying them.  This is probably due to a combination of factors, such as whether the mutations occur on coding or or non-coding fragments of DNA, whether the deleterious mutations actually have an effect due to environmental changes, and just how deleterious the mutation actually is.

In short, it isn't enough just to show that deleterious mutations are common[1].  You need to show that deleterious mutations that have lethal effects are common, a much more challenging proposition.  It's also important to note that a mutation that is deleterious under some circumstances can be neutral under others and even beneficial under some - thus helping to account for how mutations in general seem to be neutral even though they are classified as deleterious.  Another factor is so-called 'silent' mutations, mutations that are either not expressed or are expressed in a way that doesn't make a noticeable difference in function.

One thing I didn't see in the study that I would be very interested to find is whether they were just testing mutations that made a noticeable difference, or whether they were testing all mutations.  I'll freely admit that most mutations that are expressed are probably going to be deleterious - so the question is whether mutations that are not expressed would be considered deleterious or not.
 1. I'll certainly admit that based on this study, it appears that they are much more common than I gathered from other things I'd read.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Dante on November 19, 2013, 04:14:15 PM
Seems to me they are scared children will like that explanation better and abandon evolution belief.

What does liking an explanation have to do with what's true? I'm sure children would like the explanation that the moon is made of cheese better too, but that doesn't make it correct. I'm sure you like the explanation that you get to live forever, but that's not true either.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on November 19, 2013, 04:51:48 PM
Agreed, Dante.  Science isn't a popularity contest.  It isn't about what people like better, it's about figuring out how things actually work and what's actually real.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Fiji on November 20, 2013, 02:09:55 AM
Can you imagine a world where science WAS a popularity contest ...

Principal: "Ok people, we have the curriculum for this year. This year dinosaurs coexisted with ninjas. The Apollo program WAS an effort to collect an alien artifact from the moon. And Electricity is due to gnomes."
Science teacher: "Gnomes? How?!"
Principal: *leafs through his papers* "Apparently, first they collect the underpants, then ... something ... then electricity."
Science teacher: "Oh Thor! If you'll excuse me ... " *opens window*
Principal: *as the science teacher is leaping through it, the principal calls after him* "Gravity is due to fearies pushing you down!"
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on December 04, 2013, 01:21:03 PM
Some scientists are scared to death of God. For proof, ask them to mention the word "God" in science class and watch their screaming, yelling, and faces become red with anger.

Give specifics and documentation of these occurrences, because I do not believe you. If you said they facepalmed at the idiocy...well that would be believable.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: SevenPatch on December 04, 2013, 06:57:47 PM
A lot of very interesting points made in this thread with a few exceptions (I'm looking at you skeptic54768!).  Off Topic, I think I disagree with almost everything I've read that was posted by skeptic54768.  I think that is weird.  For fun I'm going to try to find something I agree with him/her on.  I do give credit to the persistence and tenacity of skeptic54768 though.  Thinking about it, I find it both admirable and depressing at the same time.

Here is my own take/perspective on the question "Why are scientists afraid of god?" (hopefully it is unique and haven’t missed it already having been discussed):

I think it has to do with conformity.  It isn’t god that scientists fear, it is the feelings and thoughts of loved ones, family and friends that believe in god that is feared.  I speak from experience on this as I have family members and friends who I would prefer not know that I don’t believe in god.  I wouldn’t lie to them if they asked me, but they’ve never asked if I believe in god.  I imagine I might try to avoid answering the question at all, but I wouldn’t say I believed when I don’t.

So while god likely doesn’t exist the idea of god does exist.  The idea of god is very powerful.  The Islam idea of god inspired people to hijack planes and crash them into buildings.  The Christian idea of god inspired the crusades as well as burning people at the stake.  The idea of god also inspires good as well, I know Christians who do charity work and donate to good causes because they believe that is what their god would want.

Of course, the thing about the good deeds, is a person can do good things and help others without a god.  Once people realize there is no afterlife, life becomes far more precious and killing others or oneself become entirely different.

I view religion as very dangerous, and I fear the idea of god.



Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 04, 2013, 07:02:12 PM
Seven patch, remember, god is always good, so all those things are good things.

Okay, i am pulling your leg, welcome to the forum, nice first post.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: SevenPatch on December 04, 2013, 07:21:49 PM
Ah yes I know what you mean :)

Thanks. 

Actually I'm looking forward to having 3 posts, I have an interesting thought I was wondering if others have had and was going to start a new thread for discussion.  I've searched a number of forums and I wasn't able to find any discussions about it.  I'm sure some philosopher wrote about this idea but I am not very knowledgeable on the subject of philosophy. 

Anyway, that will have to wait until tomorrow.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 04, 2013, 07:31:30 PM
Welcome SevenPatch.

Sorry about the Skeptic thing. Most of us are considering suicide right now to get away from his strange ability to both repeat himself and say nothing. I did a google search and found that this talent of his is not actually a skill. But he keeps using it.

I keep asking him if he is clear on any concept, but apparently he isn't able to formulate an answer. Which, ironically, answers the question.

Most of our theists are able to tell us enough about themselves that we can argue points without wondering what the f**k the other guy is talking about. Skeptic's religious view (I've got christianity exactly right, you guys should be able to see that, and you should be following me right now, I don't understand why you aren't, and quit asking for details because I'm too special for that) would be getting old, except we don't know enough about it to be bored. We know enough about him to be bored though.

We'll find better theists soon, I promise.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: magicmiles on December 04, 2013, 07:52:29 PM
Ah yes I know what you mean :)

Thanks. 

Actually I'm looking forward to having 3 posts, I have an interesting thought I was wondering if others have had and was going to start a new thread for discussion.  I've searched a number of forums and I wasn't able to find any discussions about it.  I'm sure some philosopher wrote about this idea but I am not very knowledgeable on the subject of philosophy. 

Anyway, that will have to wait until tomorrow.

Welcome. I look forward to reading your new thread.

Unfortuantely we don't have any members here with much knowledge of philosophy, but we do have some pretty intelligent laymen.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: median on December 04, 2013, 08:27:51 PM

Welcome. I look forward to reading your new thread.

Unfortuantely we don't have any members here with much knowledge of philosophy, but we do have some pretty intelligent laymen.

Unfortunately, you are severely mistaken. I have two degrees in Philosophy and have been studying the subjects for over 17 years. Sorry!
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: magicmiles on December 04, 2013, 08:37:19 PM

Welcome. I look forward to reading your new thread.

Unfortuantely we don't have any members here with much knowledge of philosophy, but we do have some pretty intelligent laymen.

Unfortunately, you are severely mistaken. I have two degrees in Philosophy and have been studying the subjects for over 17 years. Sorry!

Ahh. Oopsy daisy. Please accept my apologies.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wright on December 04, 2013, 09:02:45 PM
I don't see much evidence of scientists or science teachers being "scared" of god. I see them avoiding controversy that could and has resulted in school districts being expensively sued for violating the US Constitution. I see their exasperation at having to waste valuable class time confronting evangelizing students. That I see.

We know enough about him to be bored though.

Ditto.

Welcome to the forum, SevenPatch.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 07, 2013, 06:24:48 PM
<rant>

Species: We can show that hippos are related to whales and dolphins, whereas the hyrax (Le:11:5) is related to the elephant (behemoth.) So here we have different species coming from one. (Checkmate, godbotherers!)

</rant>

 "hyrax" translated as "Coney" in my KJV bible. What translation are you using for this? Anyway Lev11:5 is a dietary restriction concerning an animal with undevided hooves. To say a horse relative, maybe. I can't go with elephant though.

The behemoth mentioned in Job 40:15 his tail is like a cedar tree and the chief (as in king of the Jungle) of all God made... I can't say this animal is even related to the other you mention let alone the elephant.

Also with a tail like a cedar tree, it can't actually BE an elephant. I don't see 2 animals coming from one here.

This is a little embarrassing. As Mod I have removed 2 posts of yours that had nothing but the quote of one of Greybeard's posts and no comment from you. I assume this was a glitch with the "post" button.
GB Mod
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 07, 2013, 06:39:10 PM
sorry about post #71. Not sure how that happened. anyway, dad's question. I think to say they fear God is wrong. To admit they have no answers is the true fear. To ever admit science is only creating more questions and problems on a molecular and cellular level where evolution is concerned is the real fear. Look at the "tree of life" I can buy a branch when the roots or even the trunk can be explained as possible.

try this link for an example. some of this a bit heady and there are a few remarks I could have done without but this was still a good read.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Nam on December 07, 2013, 09:43:10 PM

Welcome. I look forward to reading your new thread.

Unfortuantely we don't have any members here with much knowledge of philosophy, but we do have some pretty intelligent laymen.

Unfortunately, you are severely mistaken. I have two degrees in Philosophy and have been studying the subjects for over 17 years. Sorry!

If you think about it, most of the atheists here (including me) studies philosophy every day: [wiki]Glossary_of_philosophy[/wiki].

:)

-Nam
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on December 07, 2013, 09:58:23 PM
To admit they have no answers is the true fear. To ever admit science is only creating more questions and problems on a molecular and cellular level where evolution is concerned is the real fear.

No it is well know that "I don't know" is that starting point of progress. Stop thinking in agendas and think with common sense. Furthermore, yes answers come up with more questions is also well know. However, each progressive layer firms up the TOE, just not the mechanics behind it completely. This isn't a fear, it is an accepted nature of all questioning.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 08, 2013, 03:05:17 AM
To admit they have no answers is the true fear. To ever admit science is only creating more questions and problems on a molecular and cellular level where evolution is concerned is the real fear.

No it is well know that "I don't know" is that starting point of progress. Stop thinking in agendas and think with common sense. Furthermore, yes answers come up with more questions is also well know. However, each progressive layer firms up the TOE, just not the mechanics behind it completely. This isn't a fear, it is an accepted nature of all questioning.

Did you even read the link I posted?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: The Gawd on December 08, 2013, 09:39:23 AM
Did you even read the link I posted?
Micro/macro evolution has already been defeated. Surprised you would post it. "macro-evolution" is "micro-evolution" over time...
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 08, 2013, 10:37:26 AM
Did you even read the link I posted?
Micro/macro evolution has already been defeated. Surprised you would post it. "macro-evolution" is "micro-evolution" over time...

so the answer is no, you did not read it. the paper this link points to goes much deeper micro vs macro.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: The Gawd on December 08, 2013, 11:36:29 AM
so the answer is no, you did not read it. the paper this link points to goes much deeper micro vs macro.
Once they started on macro/micro I knew they did not know anything and were speaking outside their area of expertise. If you feel they have something of value to offer then paraphrase it and I may go back, however, their credibility is shot off of the initial point they tried to make.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: RED_ApeTHEIST on December 08, 2013, 11:54:31 AM

so the answer is no, you did not read it. the paper this link points to goes much deeper micro vs macro.

I tried to read it, but when I got to the 5th debunked claim (no evidence for the evolution of the eye) I couldn't take it anymore and had to stop for a few  minutes.  My second attempt showed me a plethora of mistaken claims advocated as truth, willful misinterpretation of terms to advance a point and repeated instances of "if you don't know exactly how X works then all of evolution is wrong!" I did finsh reading it though.


This article is far too large to  be addressed in a single post.Why don't you point out exactly which part of it that you feel supports your point and it can be discussed by the group.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: median on December 08, 2013, 06:35:16 PM
To admit they have no answers is the true fear. To ever admit science is only creating more questions and problems on a molecular and cellular level where evolution is concerned is the real fear.

No it is well know that "I don't know" is that starting point of progress. Stop thinking in agendas and think with common sense. Furthermore, yes answers come up with more questions is also well know. However, each progressive layer firms up the TOE, just not the mechanics behind it completely. This isn't a fear, it is an accepted nature of all questioning.

Did you even read the link I posted?

Please don't post massive articles that make numerous claims (which are false btw), expecting to stump us with it. Post one or two points, in your own words, and let's discuss it. Otherwise, the effort is futile.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: abbysometh1ng on December 08, 2013, 07:06:37 PM
I know that I'm back-tracking a bit in this thread, but as a science teacher in a public school, I thought I could add a little to that end of this discussion.  My field is biology, but I am currently teaching physical science.  I know that in many schools, if the school board is religious or if they are bombarded by a campaign to teach ID or creation science by the community, ugly things can happen in a science classroom.  I'm not referring to a teacher yelling or ranting; what I see is an avoidance of addressing the fact of evolution at all.  Teachers in my state are lucky that we have State Standards that require evolution to be taught, but not all states spell it out unambiguously.  They are instructed to "teach the controversy" as if "alternate theories" have equal weight. 

When I student taught under a biology teacher in a small town high school, years ago, the teacher was explaining an aspect of evolution when one of her students asked her in front of the class if she actually believed that organisms evolved into other organisms.  She replied that she just had to teach this because of the Standards, but that she believed in creationism.  I was appalled and lost so much respect for her. In one sentence, she undermined everything she was teaching about science.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 08, 2013, 07:48:43 PM
ok one topic... This one is not from the paper I linked to though. The termite. A termite eats only wood. However it can't, on it's own, digest cellulose. If it can't digest it's food it dies. Inside the termite is another organism that makes an enzyme that breaks down the cellulose so the termite can digest it. This organism is also an anaerobe. If it were exposed to the oxygen outside the termite it would die. Neither one of these organisms can live without the other. my question is simple. Which evolved first?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on December 08, 2013, 08:30:26 PM
To admit they have no answers is the true fear.
And why would they be afraid of that?  Scientists are perfectly willing to let anyone who asks know that science isn't about discovering answers in the first place, it's about figuring out how things work.

Quote from: harbinger77
To ever admit science is only creating more questions and problems on a molecular and cellular level where evolution is concerned is the real fear. Look at the "tree of life" I can buy a branch when the roots or even the trunk can be explained as possible.
Again, why would they be afraid of that?  Science isn't about discovering perfect answers.  Answers don't really do anything for you - it's questions that matter.

ok one topic... This one is not from the paper I linked to though. The termite. A termite eats only wood. However it can't, on it's own, digest cellulose. If it can't digest it's food it dies. Inside the termite is another organism that makes an enzyme that breaks down the cellulose so the termite can digest it. This organism is also an anaerobe. If it were exposed to the oxygen outside the termite it would die. Neither one of these organisms can live without the other. my question is simple. Which evolved first?
I have no idea which evolved first.  However, the likelihood is that both evolved separately until they became symbiotes, and then continued evolving based on their new symbiotic relationship.  It's little different from the way that mitochondria evolved until they hooked up with cells.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: median on December 08, 2013, 08:39:29 PM
ok one topic... This one is not from the paper I linked to though. The termite. A termite eats only wood. However it can't, on it's own, digest cellulose. If it can't digest it's food it dies. Inside the termite is another organism that makes an enzyme that breaks down the cellulose so the termite can digest it. This organism is also an anaerobe. If it were exposed to the oxygen outside the termite it would die. Neither one of these organisms can live without the other. my question is simple. Which evolved first?

This question is ill formed and represents a common misconception about what evolution actually is. Things do not "evolve first". All life forms are continuously evolving all the time. So far as I've read, the question of how termites evolved is not exactly known quite yet. Doesn't that just stink that sometimes we don't know things? The bigger problem though, is when because we don't know someone says, "Science can't explain it so God did it!" This is a common logical fallacy (Argument from Ignorance/Incredulity). If we don't know something yet, then we should admit it and stop there. Not just posit a god of the gaps.

In case it hasn't already been noted, evolution is supported by lots of other evidence (fossil record and distribution, speciation, genetics, etc). So bringing up one thing that you cannot particularly "see" is not a problem for evolutionary biology. Have you studied biology to any significant degree?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Graybeard on December 08, 2013, 08:44:14 PM
"hyrax" translated as "Coney" in my KJV bible. What translation are you using for this?

I am disappointed that you ignored the majority of my rant[1] and chose to think that the 'coney' reference is to rabbits, it is a mistake by the writer.

From Easton's Bible Dictionary
Quote
Coney  (Heb. shaphan; i.e., "the hider"), an animal which inhabits the mountain gorges and the rocky districts of Arabia Petraea and the Holy Land. "The conies are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks" (Prov. 30:26; Ps. 104:18). They are gregarious, and "exceeding wise" (Prov. 30:24), and are described as chewing the cud (Lev. 11:5; Deut. 14:7).   The animal intended by this name is known among naturalists as the Hyrax Syriacus. It is neither a ruminant nor a rodent, but is regarded as akin to the rhinoceros. When it is said to "chew the cud," the Hebrew word so used does not necessarily imply the possession of a ruminant stomach. "The lawgiver speaks according to appearances; and no one can watch the constant motion of the little creature's jaws, as it sits continually working its teeth, without recognizing the naturalness of the expression" (Tristram, Natural History of the Bible). It is about the size and color of a rabbit, though clumsier in structure, and without a tail. Its feet are not formed for digging, and therefore it has its home not in burrows but in the clefts of the rocks. "Coney" is an obsolete English word for "rabbit."
So you see that the nearest that the writers of KJV1611 could get to this creature, whom they did not know, was “coney”, or “rabbit”, but it isn’t a rabbit. I’ve seen these critters and they’re cute. (I've never eaten one though.)

Here’s a picture of one:

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zgHkNL5Tsgk/UQiMTV_zzVI/AAAAAAAAHPI/0-oVzGeWNRo/s400/524_file_hyrax_Boulton.jpg)

The caption reads
Quote
8.  Hyrax - This little guy looks like he would be a rodent, but his true relatives are actually much more surprising!  Weighing between about 5 and 10 pounds, the hyraxes are actually fairly closely related to the members of the family Proboscidea, or the elephants and their relatives!  The extant hyraxes have their own family, Hyracoidea, but their ancient ancestors are thought to have branched into the extant hyraxes, the elephants and kin, and most likely the manatee and its relatives!  Hyraxes are found exclusively in Africa and the Middle East.

I am always disappointed when atheists know so much more about the Bible than so-called Christians.
 1. I assume that you agree with it and have now seen the error of your ways
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on December 08, 2013, 08:53:05 PM
To admit they have no answers is the true fear. To ever admit science is only creating more questions and problems on a molecular and cellular level where evolution is concerned is the real fear.

No it is well know that "I don't know" is that starting point of progress. Stop thinking in agendas and think with common sense. Furthermore, yes answers come up with more questions is also well know. However, each progressive layer firms up the TOE, just not the mechanics behind it completely. This isn't a fear, it is an accepted nature of all questioning.

Did you even read the link I posted?

"Debunking Evolution" being the title, I immediately knew it to be bullshit. Why would I bother with what I know will be a load of agenda laden creationist crap?

But I did glance within the first paragraph... the term microevolution is a creationist falsehood akin to saying pennies cannot add up to dollars.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wright on December 08, 2013, 08:54:20 PM
ok one topic... This one is not from the paper I linked to though. The termite. A termite eats only wood. However it can't, on it's own, digest cellulose. If it can't digest it's food it dies. Inside the termite is another organism that makes an enzyme that breaks down the cellulose so the termite can digest it. This organism is also an anaerobe. If it were exposed to the oxygen outside the termite it would die. Neither one of these organisms can live without the other. my question is simple. Which evolved first?

Evolution is a process that acts continually and simultaneously on all organisms, so asking "which evolved first" is a bit nonsensical. In the case of termites and their cellulose-digesters, both evolved independently but found a mutually-beneficial relationship. It would have been only marginally useful at first, but any variation that offers an organism an advantage in surviving long enough to beget the next generation will be selected for.

Creationists seem to have a hard time grasping that evolution proceeds in gradual increments, not dramatic leaps and bounds. Keep in mind that the major morphological changes (like the development of birds from their dinosaur ancestors) took place over multiple millions of years, with successive generations looking little different from each other. Only looking back from our current perspective does time seem to compress.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on December 08, 2013, 09:57:54 PM
Did you even read the link I posted?
It's the kind of tripe you get from creationists who simply don't have a good understanding of how evolutionary biology works.  Instead, they try to claim that variation only goes so far and no further (which just so happens to fit with what they want to believe), and so expound on that, while missing (or ignoring) the relevant points that would contradict their preexisting beliefs.  Take the point the author tried to make about bacteria - that no matter how many generations of bacteria happen, they always remain bacteria.

Except scientists have already observed single-celled organisms making the transition into multicellular ones[1].  The difference between single celled and multicellular organisms is hard to overstate - a single celled organism has to be able to do everything itself, whereas multicellular ones can differentiate, having cells that specialize in some activity or another.  Another important fact is that bacteria have the most potential to evolve, meaning that all existing life probably was initially single-celled bacteria, some of which happened to evolve in ways that led to the different forms of life which filled different niches.
 1. http://www.geekosystem.com/single-celled-to-multicellular/ (http://www.geekosystem.com/single-celled-to-multicellular/)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on December 08, 2013, 10:01:02 PM
Did you even read the link I posted?
It's the kind of tripe you get from creationists who simply don't have a good understanding of how evolutionary biology works.  Instead, they try to claim that variation only goes so far and no further (which just so happens to fit with what they want to believe), and so expound on that, while missing (or ignoring) the relevant points that would contradict their preexisting beliefs.  Take the point the author tried to make about bacteria - that no matter how many generations of bacteria happen, they always remain bacteria.

Except scientists have already observed single-celled organisms making the transition into multicellular ones[1].  The difference between single celled and multicellular organisms is hard to overstate - a single celled organism has to be able to do everything itself, whereas multicellular ones can differentiate, having cells that specialize in some activity or another.  Another important fact is that bacteria have the most potential to evolve, meaning that all existing life probably was initially single-celled bacteria, some of which happened to evolve in ways that led to the different forms of life which filled different niches.
 1. http://www.geekosystem.com/single-celled-to-multicellular/ (http://www.geekosystem.com/single-celled-to-multicellular/)

Even the Farro Island House Mouse is a witnessed speciation of a macroscopic mammal in 250 years.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 08, 2013, 10:01:56 PM
sorry about post #71. Not sure how that happened. anyway, dad's question. I think to say they fear God is wrong. To admit they have no answers is the true fear. To ever admit science is only creating more questions and problems on a molecular and cellular level where evolution is concerned is the real fear. Look at the "tree of life" I can buy a branch when the roots or even the trunk can be explained as possible.

try this link for an example. some of this a bit heady and there are a few remarks I could have done without but this was still a good read.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Scientists love questions, they're what fuels intellectual discourse, and the thirst for answers. You could say the Science can't exist without questions.

Yes annoying questions from a 4 year old tend to grate on peoples nerves, but actual honest questions about how things work, and why they do are the life blood of science.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: RED_ApeTHEIST on December 08, 2013, 10:44:34 PM
ok one topic... This one is not from the paper I linked to though. The termite. A termite eats only wood. However it can't, on it's own, digest cellulose. If it can't digest it's food it dies. Inside the termite is another organism that makes an enzyme that breaks down the cellulose so the termite can digest it. This organism is also an anaerobe. If it were exposed to the oxygen outside the termite it would die. Neither one of these organisms can live without the other. my question is simple. Which evolved first?

Most likely the termites ancestors could digest cellulose but not very efficiently. Then at some point the termite's ancestors started carrying around said bacteria in their guts to be more efficient. Because they no longer needed to manufacture the enzymes  themselves, mutations that took away their own ability to manufacture them were no longer selected against. In fact, self producing said enzymes was now a drain on the termites resources and may have been selected against. At the same time the bacteria that breaks down the cellulose would have become more and more suited to living in the termites. They eventually got so good at living insode the termites that they stopped being able to live outside.

When you have trouble figuring out how an animal evolved, remember that the animals ancestors may have had organs and adaptations that their decedent does not.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 09, 2013, 02:01:05 AM
If i recall correctly, termites evolved from cockroaches.
So i think it is likely that cockroaches inherited the bacteria, then evolved into termites.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 09, 2013, 02:04:38 AM
You're right about the termite thing, but I'm having trouble pinning down the origin of the bacteria.
From Wikipedia:
"Termites are a group of eusocial insects that, until recently, were classified at the taxonomic rank of order Isoptera (see taxonomy below), but are now accepted as the infraorder Isoptera, of the cockroach order Blattodea"

EDIT:
However I think it's more appropriate to say that they share common ancestry.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 09, 2013, 02:06:20 AM
I can only assume that the bacteria allowed cockroaches to digest cellulose easily?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 09, 2013, 02:08:19 AM
I can only assume that the bacteria allowed cockroaches to digest cellulose easily?

I haven't found anything on cockroaches having bacteria, and since cockroaches tend to be scavengers of food scraps, I don't see why they would require it. However that does not exclude that possibility, but in light of the evidence I'm more comfortable with Red's postulation.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 09, 2013, 02:10:09 AM
Facedesk

Just read over that post, yeah, that makes more sense.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 09, 2013, 02:13:32 AM
Heh, live and learn ;P
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: The Gawd on December 09, 2013, 06:39:33 AM
harbinger,

instead of simply ignoring that your link apparently has been refuted by science and posing new questions, what you ought do is adjust your 'belief' to coincide with reality. What you are doing is trying to hang on to beliefs despite the facts. As usual, what we suggest here is go to a peer reviewed scientific source (yes, this rules out your creationist sources) and learn what the actual theory of evolution is.

Furthermore, when you decide to question evolution (which is fine) try to ask the same question of ID or creationism. What sense does it make to create a termite that cant digest its food source then to make a bacteria to assist in that action, instead of just making the termite able to digest the wood? Its one of the more dumb things I ever heard. When you start to question creationism the way that you attempt to question evolution, creationism is revealed as extremely silly. Evolution answers the questions perfectly.

Whats intelligent about putting a breathing pipe next to an eating pipe?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 09, 2013, 07:34:30 AM
sorry about post #71. Not sure how that happened. anyway, dad's question. I think to say they fear God is wrong. To admit they have no answers is the true fear. To ever admit science is only creating more questions and problems on a molecular and cellular level where evolution is concerned is the real fear. Look at the "tree of life" I can buy a branch when the roots or even the trunk can be explained as possible.

try this link for an example. some of this a bit heady and there are a few remarks I could have done without but this was still a good read.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

OK, I have read your article though, oddly, I ma not convinced by its arguments.

The theory of evolution (ToE) developed to explain the evidence found from live animals and from those found fossilised as well as the analysis of DNA and so on. You can read about all the evidence and read about what has been found here (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/evolution/). Now the thing is that the theory has taken into account all the evidence we have. You will be aware that fossils re presdent a tiny fraction of the animals and plants that lived as, of course, the right geology is needed for the bodies to be preserved. now, naturally, if something is found that doesn't fit the pattern of the existing evidence then, of course, there will have to be changes in the theory but that hasn't happened in the over 100 years since Darwin.

Now, the article you posted is from someone who has a bias one way - believes in a creator god - and who would like to unseat the ToE by writing alone. I don't think either you or I would be surprised to find that this isn't going to happen. A Theory of Creation (ToC) would need to consider all the evidence we have and to encompass it whilst describing what we ought to be able to find that would show that ToC was the correct answer. No one, to date, has even attempted that since each writer of articles etc. seem to think that knocking at the edge of ToE is enough to kill it. It hasn't so far.

ToC would require an additional 'person' to be involved in it - a creator. All the talk in Intelligent Design about looking to see if something might have been created always fails the final test of showing that there is an existent being who did the creating.An old book, however much it is revered, is not evidence for anything but itself. We need evidence of a creator directly and to date nothing has appeared. So we have -

EITHER

a. the very simplest of 'life forms' maybe only molecules replicate and, as chance has it change and if successful in the environment where they are carry the change on into other generations. Gradually, over millions of years complex life forms appear and we are one of them

OR

b. God did it! Yep, he created everything and that's why we are are here now.

Now, enter Occam, razor in hand. He looks at these two possibilities... He notices that the only difference between the two is an additional person, the creator... He weilds his razor and lops... The creator as unnescessary is gone. The simpler solution remains.

Oh, Harbinger, a question for you to answer -

Why did your creator make so many large animal only to kill them later? You know the dinosaurs, the mamoths etc.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Add Homonym on December 09, 2013, 08:45:29 AM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7638/

BTW, obligate anaerobes get killed by oxygen, but normal anaerobes can survive it.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 09, 2013, 02:01:46 PM
harbinger,

instead of simply ignoring that your link apparently has been refuted by science and posing new questions, what you ought do is adjust your 'belief' to coincide with reality. What you are doing is trying to hang on to beliefs despite the facts. As usual, what we suggest here is go to a peer reviewed scientific source (yes, this rules out your creationist sources) and learn what the actual theory of evolution is.

Furthermore, when you decide to question evolution (which is fine) try to ask the same question of ID or creationism. What sense does it make to create a termite that cant digest its food source then to make a bacteria to assist in that action, instead of just making the termite able to digest the wood? Its one of the more dumb things I ever heard. When you start to question creationism the way that you attempt to question evolution, creationism is revealed as extremely silly. Evolution answers the questions perfectly.

Whats intelligent about putting a breathing pipe next to an eating pipe?

that one is simple. To show us it couldn't have evolved. Neither would have survived evolution while waiting for the other. I'll give you "at least not as we understand it at this point"

all the creation speaks of the Glory of God.. it says so in my old book. (yes that's a joke... almost)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 09, 2013, 02:03:22 PM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7638/

BTW, obligate anaerobes get killed by oxygen, but normal anaerobes can survive it.

this one is proven to be killed by oxygen.. nice try though :)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 09, 2013, 02:10:41 PM
ok one topic... This one is not from the paper I linked to though. The termite. A termite eats only wood. However it can't, on it's own, digest cellulose. If it can't digest it's food it dies. Inside the termite is another organism that makes an enzyme that breaks down the cellulose so the termite can digest it. This organism is also an anaerobe. If it were exposed to the oxygen outside the termite it would die. Neither one of these organisms can live without the other. my question is simple. Which evolved first?

Most likely the termites ancestors could digest cellulose but not very efficiently. Then at some point the termite's ancestors started carrying around said bacteria in their guts to be more efficient. Because they no longer needed to manufacture the enzymes  themselves, mutations that took away their own ability to manufacture them were no longer selected against. In fact, self producing said enzymes was now a drain on the termites resources and may have been selected against. At the same time the bacteria that breaks down the cellulose would have become more and more suited to living in the termites. They eventually got so good at living insode the termites that they stopped being able to live outside.

When you have trouble figuring out how an animal evolved, remember that the animals ancestors may have had organs and adaptations that their decedent does not.

I like this one. or the cockroach ate it THEN became the termite... interesting enough.

You have still started with a branch. what about the root. look into the odds of ANY DNA stand happening by chance.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jdawg70 on December 09, 2013, 02:19:17 PM
You have still started with a branch. what about the root. look into the odds of ANY DNA stand happening by chance.
My confidence that you understand anything about probability is rather low, but I've been wrong about people in the past.  Perhaps you could start with your methodology for determining what the odds are for 'ANY DNA stand happening by chance' and we can go from there.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: RED_ApeTHEIST on December 09, 2013, 02:25:27 PM
ok one topic... This one is not from the paper I linked to though. The termite. A termite eats only wood. However it can't, on it's own, digest cellulose. If it can't digest it's food it dies. Inside the termite is another organism that makes an enzyme that breaks down the cellulose so the termite can digest it. This organism is also an anaerobe. If it were exposed to the oxygen outside the termite it would die. Neither one of these organisms can live without the other. my question is simple. Which evolved first?

Most likely the termites ancestors could digest cellulose but not very efficiently. Then at some point the termite's ancestors started carrying around said bacteria in their guts to be more efficient. Because they no longer needed to manufacture the enzymes  themselves, mutations that took away their own ability to manufacture them were no longer selected against. In fact, self producing said enzymes was now a drain on the termites resources and may have been selected against. At the same time the bacteria that breaks down the cellulose would have become more and more suited to living in the termites. They eventually got so good at living insode the termites that they stopped being able to live outside.

When you have trouble figuring out how an animal evolved, remember that the animals ancestors may have had organs and adaptations that their decedent does not.

I like this one. or the cockroach ate it THEN became the termite... interesting enough.

You have still started with a branch. what about the root. look into the odds of ANY DNA stand happening by chance.

Don't change the goal posts on me. I addressed the portion of the article that you said was troubling you. That was all my previous post set out to do. Don't act like a brief explanation of symbiosis should stand as an argument for all of evolution. The gradual development of the first DNA molecules is a completely separate area of discussion.

 Before moving over there, we should reach an accord about the plausibility of the evolution of seemingly difficult things like eyes, gut symbiotes  and wings. One of these things has been demonstrated to be plausible by me here, and the others have be demonstrated elsewhere on this forum. Will you concede that evolution can be credited with the ability to produce these seemingly "irreducible" complexities, or do you need more information?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: The Gawd on December 09, 2013, 06:31:30 PM
harbinger,

instead of simply ignoring that your link apparently has been refuted by science and posing new questions, what you ought do is adjust your 'belief' to coincide with reality. What you are doing is trying to hang on to beliefs despite the facts. As usual, what we suggest here is go to a peer reviewed scientific source (yes, this rules out your creationist sources) and learn what the actual theory of evolution is.

Furthermore, when you decide to question evolution (which is fine) try to ask the same question of ID or creationism. What sense does it make to create a termite that cant digest its food source then to make a bacteria to assist in that action, instead of just making the termite able to digest the wood? Its one of the more dumb things I ever heard. When you start to question creationism the way that you attempt to question evolution, creationism is revealed as extremely silly. Evolution answers the questions perfectly.

Whats intelligent about putting a breathing pipe next to an eating pipe?

that one is simple. To show us it couldn't have evolved. Neither would have survived evolution while waiting for the other. I'll give you "at least not as we understand it at this point"

all the creation speaks of the Glory of God.. it says so in my old book. (yes that's a joke... almost)
There is something about change over time that you either refuse to understand or cant understand. I suggest doing actual research.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: median on December 09, 2013, 06:47:47 PM

that one is simple. To show us it couldn't have evolved. Neither would have survived evolution while waiting for the other. I'll give you "at least not as we understand it at this point"

all the creation speaks of the Glory of God.. it says so in my old book. (yes that's a joke... almost)

Ad hoc. Do you always side with your assumed 'holy' book when it conflicts with science?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: median on December 09, 2013, 06:48:58 PM

I like this one. or the cockroach ate it THEN became the termite... interesting enough.

You have still started with a branch. what about the root. look into the odds of ANY DNA stand happening by chance.

Have you ever heard of the Argument from Incredulity Fallacy?[1]
 1. you should look it up if not
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Nam on December 09, 2013, 07:03:23 PM

I like this one. or the cockroach ate it THEN became the termite... interesting enough.

You have still started with a branch. what about the root. look into the odds of ANY DNA stand happening by chance.

Have you ever heard of the Argument from Incredulity Fallacy?[1]
 1. you should look it up if not

He should talk to skeptic, he's a master genius in that.

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on December 09, 2013, 09:11:27 PM
that one is simple. To show us it couldn't have evolved. Neither would have survived evolution while waiting for the other. I'll give you "at least not as we understand it at this point"
Since life almost certainly originated underwater, there would have been no need for a breathing pipe in the first place.  Lungs and nostrils almost certainly developed from whatever it is that aquatic organisms use to scavenge oxygen from water.  In short, there's no reason to accept your facile explanation as having any basis in fact.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: nogodsforme on December 09, 2013, 09:44:04 PM
No, no, no! Breathing air is required by the holy god! Fish are not really alive-- they are just faking it. And amphibians are like bisexuals-- they need to effing make up their minds.

My god is perfect, got that? Any mistakes are in the eye of the beholder-- an eye that could not possibly have evolved, btw. Don't show me any light sensitive cells on plants that turn towards the sun, either. Plants are atheists and will burn in hell.

All non-evolved, intelligently-designed specially-created life has to breathe air, even if it means we choke and drown sometimes.  Small price to pay to show how awesome my god is! Well, maybe not so small when a child chokes or drowns, but at least they go straight to heaven. If they are Christian children, that is. Where is my anti-Darwin punch pillow?  &)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 09, 2013, 09:51:21 PM

I like this one. or the cockroach ate it THEN became the termite... interesting enough.

You have still started with a branch. what about the root. look into the odds of ANY DNA stand happening by chance.

Have you ever heard of the Argument from Incredulity Fallacy?[1]
 1. you should look it up if not

I'm not trying to make people mad here. just calling it like I see it. That being said I have a feeling you all won't like where I take this.

Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.

Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.

Conclusion: Not-P.

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies
in the unstated major premise. If a state of
affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't
follow that it is false; it may only mean
that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no
one has yet managed to imagine how a state
of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that
no one will ever be able to.

Keep reading I changed it up a bit :)

Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how God could be so.

Major premise (unstated): If God, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how God could be so. (or at least how to prove one way or the other)

Conclusion: Not- God

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies
in the unstated major premise. If a person lacks FAITH in a state of affairs, it doesn't
follow that it is false; it may only mean
that FAITH is limited. (or absent) Moreover, if no
one has yet managed THE FAITH TO SEE how a state
of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that
no one will ever be able to.

This is a perfect statement. It can go both ways and clearly demonstrates how it takes faith (here referred to as imagination) to be both an atheist as well as an evolutionist.

Your faith is in science. Mine is in God. I have personal evidence to build a faith in God. You choose to imagine anything but God. This is where we differ. Don't get into this part though. Rather admit, short of introducing you personally to my friend God, you would reject whatever I offer. For some of you a personal introduction would still not be enough.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 09, 2013, 09:58:30 PM
No, no, no! Breathing air is required by the holy god! Fish are not really alive-- they are just faking it. And amphibians are like bisexuals-- they need to effing make up their minds.

My god is perfect, got that? Any mistakes are in the eye of the beholder-- an eye that could not possibly have evolved, btw. Don't show me any light sensitive cells on plants that turn towards the sun, either. Plants are atheists and will burn in hell.

All non-evolved, intelligently-designed specially-created life has to breathe air, even if it means we choke and drown sometimes.  Small price to pay to show how awesome my god is! Well, maybe not so small when a child chokes or drowns, but at least they go straight to heaven. If they are Christian children, that is. Where is my anti-Darwin punch pillow?  &)
WOW... and I'm the bigot?
What may I ask is the point of this tantrum as it offered nothing to the conversation.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: mrbiscoop on December 09, 2013, 10:09:28 PM

I like this one. or the cockroach ate it THEN became the termite... interesting enough.

You have still started with a branch. what about the root. look into the odds of ANY DNA stand happening by chance.

Have you ever heard of the Argument from Incredulity Fallacy?[1]
 1. you should look it up if not

I'm not trying to make people mad here. just calling it like I see it. That being said I have a feeling you all won't like where I take this.

Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.

Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.

Conclusion: Not-P.

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies
in the unstated major premise. If a state of
affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't
follow that it is false; it may only mean
that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no
one has yet managed to imagine how a state
of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that
no one will ever be able to.

Keep reading I changed it up a bit :)

Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how God could be so.

Major premise (unstated): If God, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how God could be so. (or at least how to prove one way or the other)

Conclusion: Not- God

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies
in the unstated major premise. If a person lacks FAITH in a state of affairs, it doesn't
follow that it is false; it may only mean
that FAITH is limited. (or absent) Moreover, if no
one has yet managed THE FAITH TO SEE how a state
of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that
no one will ever be able to.

This is a perfect statement. It can go both ways and clearly demonstrates how it takes faith (here referred to as imagination) to be both an atheist as well as an evolutionist.

Your faith is in science. Mine is in God. I have personal evidence to build a faith in God. You choose to imagine anything but God. This is where we differ. Don't get into this part though. Rather admit, short of introducing you personally to my friend God, you would reject whatever I offer. For some of you a personal introduction would still not be enough.
If you can't dazzle with brilliance then baffle with bullshit.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 09, 2013, 10:10:39 PM
No, no, no! Breathing air is required by the holy god! Fish are not really alive-- they are just faking it. And amphibians are like bisexuals-- they need to effing make up their minds.

My god is perfect, got that? Any mistakes are in the eye of the beholder-- an eye that could not possibly have evolved, btw. Don't show me any light sensitive cells on plants that turn towards the sun, either. Plants are atheists and will burn in hell.

All non-evolved, intelligently-designed specially-created life has to breathe air, even if it means we choke and drown sometimes.  Small price to pay to show how awesome my god is! Well, maybe not so small when a child chokes or drowns, but at least they go straight to heaven. If they are Christian children, that is. Where is my anti-Darwin punch pillow?  &)
WOW... and I'm the bigot?
What may I ask is the point of this tantrum as it offered nothing to the conversation.

Not really a tantrum, just a sarcastic tirade to demonstrate the absurdity of your claims.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 09, 2013, 10:13:28 PM

I like this one. or the cockroach ate it THEN became the termite... interesting enough.

You have still started with a branch. what about the root. look into the odds of ANY DNA stand happening by chance.

Have you ever heard of the Argument from Incredulity Fallacy?[1]
 1. you should look it up if not

I'm not trying to make people mad here. just calling it like I see it. That being said I have a feeling you all won't like where I take this.

Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.

Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.

Conclusion: Not-P.

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies
in the unstated major premise. If a state of
affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't
follow that it is false; it may only mean
that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no
one has yet managed to imagine how a state
of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that
no one will ever be able to.

Keep reading I changed it up a bit :)

Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how God could be so.

Major premise (unstated): If God, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how God could be so. (or at least how to prove one way or the other)

Conclusion: Not- God

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies
in the unstated major premise. If a person lacks FAITH in a state of affairs, it doesn't
follow that it is false; it may only mean
that FAITH is limited. (or absent) Moreover, if no
one has yet managed THE FAITH TO SEE how a state
of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that
no one will ever be able to.

This is a perfect statement. It can go both ways and clearly demonstrates how it takes faith (here referred to as imagination) to be both an atheist as well as an evolutionist.

Your faith is in science. Mine is in God. I have personal evidence to build a faith in God. You choose to imagine anything but God. This is where we differ. Don't get into this part though. Rather admit, short of introducing you personally to my friend God, you would reject whatever I offer. For some of you a personal introduction would still not be enough.
If you can't dazzle with brilliance then baffle with bullshit.

say what you will. It fits. :)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wright on December 09, 2013, 10:20:56 PM
WOW... and I'm the bigot?
What may I ask is the point of this tantrum as it offered nothing to the conversation.

Sarcasm can be difficult to convey over the internet. Nonetheless, the  &) smiley is usually a good indicator of such.

And yeah, it was a bit of a rant. Thing is, harbinger77, we atheist regulars here are only human and sometimes lose patience with being confronted by the same long-discredited fallacies and objections creationists bring against evolutionary theory. It gets boring and irritating, even when the creationist is honestly asking those questions (and fairly often they aren't asking, just trolling us).

That said, I personally don't think you're trolling. But you haven't brought anything new to the debate; thus far all I see is incredulity and playing turnabout wordgames.

You asked for how a particular symbiotic relationship could have evolved. I and others gave you examples of how evolution might explain it.

Now you're claiming we have "faith" in science. No. What we have is an expectation, based on the observation that the scientific method works. Our expectation is based on actual evidence. If you want your religious views given equivalent respect, then produce equivalent evidence.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 09, 2013, 10:27:31 PM
Your faith is in science. Mine is in God. I have personal evidence to build a faith in God. You choose to imagine anything but God. This is where we differ. Don't get into this part though. Rather admit, short of introducing you personally to my friend God, you would reject whatever I offer. For some of you a personal introduction would still not be enough.

Make no mistake about it. If he ever showed up on my doorstep, he would get a ear full. He would be asked point blank how it is that he, a perfect being, made humans nicer than he is. And why. He would be asked why he has played absentee parent for these last many thousands of years, and why he made it so easy to think that he didn't exist. He would be asked why the suffering of the innocent was of no concern, and why he allowed the mighty and powerful and selfish to predominate and damage. He would be asked where he was during the inquisition and the holocaust, where he was during hurricanes and tsunami's, where he was when every child ever murdered was dying.

And he would be asked why he thought he was so great. Why did he demand worship when all he offered in return was an old book and old men with old ideas. Why he didn't keep up with the transformation of humans from shepherds to astronauts. And he would be asked why he made the earth look different than one would expect if his story were true. And why he allowed so many deviations from whatever it was he originally intended. And why the Adam and Eve thing was so frickin' important, and why he wasn't able to handle the errors of human ways in a different manner other than flooding the place, and why he let his people wander around lost for 40 years. He would be asked why he was afraid of iron chariots.

And more.

He would have a lot to answer for before he dared ask me to worship him.

But if he doesn't exist, well, you know, never mind.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 09, 2013, 10:28:21 PM
No, no, no! Breathing air is required by the holy god! Fish are not really alive-- they are just faking it. And amphibians are like bisexuals-- they need to effing make up their minds.

My god is perfect, got that? Any mistakes are in the eye of the beholder-- an eye that could not possibly have evolved, btw. Don't show me any light sensitive cells on plants that turn towards the sun, either. Plants are atheists and will burn in hell.

All non-evolved, intelligently-designed specially-created life has to breathe air, even if it means we choke and drown sometimes.  Small price to pay to show how awesome my god is! Well, maybe not so small when a child chokes or drowns, but at least they go straight to heaven. If they are Christian children, that is. Where is my anti-Darwin punch pillow?  &)
WOW... and I'm the bigot?
What may I ask is the point of this tantrum as it offered nothing to the conversation.

Not really a tantrum, just a sarcastic tirade to demonstrate the absurdity of your claims.

Yeah that... some of that was even a quote huh? Whatever makes you feel good, sir.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 09, 2013, 10:42:09 PM
Yeah that... some of that was even a quote huh? Whatever makes you feel good, sir.

Let me ask you something harbinger, are you willing to be proven wrong? Can your understanding of evolution and science be expanded? Or are you just rejecting both out of shear principle?

If you can't accept the possibility when presented with evidence, quit using that computer, house, car, plumbing, everything man-made. Because guess what: It was done using a scientific discipline, and using/owning them shows your support of the scientific process. Like it or not, Evolution is one of, if not the most, substantiated scientific theories in all of science. It even has several other scientific fields backing it up. Evolution is more than smoke and mirrors like people like you tend to claim, It's an important aspect of our lives. If it weren't for our knowledge of evolution vaccines wouldn't exist, Polio would still be a common occurrence, smallpox would still be a problem, malaria would still be a problem all over.

Evolution, while it can't be proven to be absolutely true, is the best possible explanation for the phenomena observed. Accept it or not, like it or not, it's real, and it's important that we understand how it works.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on December 09, 2013, 10:44:38 PM
I'm not trying to make people mad here. just calling it like I see it. That being said I have a feeling you all won't like where I take this.
Actually, having read it, I'm not really impressed.  Your logic has a fatal flaw in it.

Quote from: harbinger77
Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.

Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.

Conclusion: Not-P.
Irrelevant.  If P exists, it does not matter that one can not imagine how it could be so.  And if P does not exist, then it does not matter that one can imagine how it could be so.  That's why one can't rely on being able to imagine how something might exist, or not being able to imagine how it might exist.

Quote from: harbinger77
As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies in the unstated major premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able to.
Accurate, so far as it goes.  But nowhere do you mention or even acknowledge that the converse is also true.  If a state of affairs is possible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is true.  Furthermore, this illustrates the fatal flaw I mentioned.  This logic doesn't tell us a thing about whether P actually exists or not.  This is why evidence is so important, and why we can't just rely on logic and philosophy to tell us about the universe.

Quote from: harbinger77
Keep reading I changed it up a bit :)

Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how God could be so.

Major premise (unstated): If God, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how God could be so. (or at least how to prove one way or the other)

Conclusion: Not- God
As before, irrelevant.

Quote from: harbinger77
As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies in the unstated major premise. If a person lacks FAITH in a state of affairs, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that FAITH is limited. (or absent) Moreover, if no one has yet managed THE FAITH TO SEE how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able to.
As before, this has a fatal flaw - it doesn't actually tell us whether God really exists or not.  Moreover, it cannot tell us that either.  It simply talks about someone having 'faith' (in actuality, having imagination)

Quote from: harbinger77
This is a perfect statement. It can go both ways and clearly demonstrates how it takes faith (here referred to as imagination) to be both an atheist as well as an evolutionist.
No, it is a badly flawed statement, as you are conflating 'faith' with imagination.  I can imagine lots of things, but my ability to imagine them doesn't mean I have faith that they really exist.

Quote from: harbinger77
Your faith is in science.
Incorrect.  I have no 'faith' in science.  I never have had any and I never will have any.  I understand how the scientific process works too well to have 'faith' in it.

Quote from: harbinger77
Mine is in God. I have personal evidence to build a faith in God.
Which you conveniently can't show to anyone else, meaning it isn't useful in any way, shape, or form except to validate a belief you already hold.  You can't even show us that your evidence really exists, rather than it being the product of your own imagination - indeed, your earlier conflation of faith and imagination strongly implies that it is.

Quote from: harbinger77
You choose to imagine anything but God. This is where we differ. Don't get into this part though. Rather admit, short of introducing you personally to my friend God, you would reject whatever I offer. For some of you a personal introduction would still not be enough.
Incorrect.  If you had real, solid evidence that supported your belief, something you could actually share, it would make your argument a lot more convincing.  Instead, all you have is flawed logic and personal 'evidence' that doesn't exist for anyone besides you.  What you need to understand is that this isn't about competing imaginations.  I don't 'imagine' the evidence that shows that science works, so your comparison fails.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 09, 2013, 11:00:10 PM
Your faith is in science. Mine is in God. I have personal evidence to build a faith in God. You choose to imagine anything but God. This is where we differ. Don't get into this part though. Rather admit, short of introducing you personally to my friend God, you would reject whatever I offer. For some of you a personal introduction would still not be enough.

Make no mistake about it. If he ever showed up on my doorstep, he would get a ear full. He would be asked point blank how it is that he, a perfect being, made humans nicer than he is. And why. He would be asked why he has played absentee parent for these last many thousands of years, and why he made it so easy to think that he didn't exist. He would be asked why the suffering of the innocent was of no concern, and why he allowed the mighty and powerful and selfish to predominate and damage. He would be asked where he was during the inquisition and the holocaust, where he was during hurricanes and tsunami's, where he was when every child ever murdered was dying.

And he would be asked why he thought he was so great. Why did he demand worship when all he offered in return was an old book and old men with old ideas. Why he didn't keep up with the transformation of humans from shepherds to astronauts. And he would be asked why he made the earth look different than one would expect if his story were true. And why he allowed so many deviations from whatever it was he originally intended. And why the Adam and Eve thing was so frickin' important, and why he wasn't able to handle the errors of human ways in a different manner other than flooding the place, and why he let his people wander around lost for 40 years. He would be asked why he was afraid of iron chariots.

And more.

He would have a lot to answer for before he dared ask me to worship him.

But if he doesn't exist, well, you know, never mind.

I'll change nothing, but this may come across as angry or hateful. I don't mean either. I do stand by my statements though.

ALL of this assumes that when He showed up you didn't first require an endless list of proof.

 However, If (I give ya that) the bible is correct you will fall on your face unable to speak. There will be no doubt who is before you. You will ask no questions. He won't ask for your worship. He is God and you just will worship Him. To think you would even attempt to give the God of the universe "an ear full" very arrogant on your part. This also shows you have quite a small view of what God must be in order to even BE God.

Read the book of Job. In His mercy, He answered all your questions there. The answer starts with who do you think you are o man!

I would like to point out You have a heck of a list of questions you've thought to ask a God you believe so strongly doesn't even exist. I find that interesting.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 09, 2013, 11:11:01 PM
I would like to point out You have a heck of a list of questions you've thought to ask a God you believe so strongly doesn't even exist. I find that interesting.

Do you really think that Christians are the only ones with vivid imaginations?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 09, 2013, 11:26:35 PM
I was personally healed of GERD. My wife was healed of a Life thretning heart condition. Both of these were conditions that should have required surgery to repair. The before condition is documented for both of us. My Wife's after condition is documented by a heart specialist. There was NO treatment of any kind for either condition. Yet praise God, it's gone!
This may be the best I can do for some dude online though.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: RED_ApeTHEIST on December 09, 2013, 11:39:30 PM
I was personally healed of GERD. My wife was healed of a Life threatning heart condition. Both of these were conditions that should have required surgery to repair. The before condition is documented for both of us. My Wife's after condition is documented by a heart specialist. There was NO treatment of any kind for either condition. Yet praise God, it's gone!
This may be the best I can do for some dude online though.

That sounds amazing. What was the name of this heart specialist? I would like to keep an eye out for the award winning paper he will write about the first ever documented, verifiable miracle.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 09, 2013, 11:45:14 PM
I'll change nothing, but this may come across as angry or hateful. I don't mean either. I do stand by my statements though.

ALL of this assumes that when He showed up you didn't first require an endless list of proof.

 However, If (I give ya that) the bible is correct you will fall on your face unable to speak. There will be no doubt who is before you. You will ask no questions. He won't ask for your worship. He is God and you just will worship Him. To think you would even attempt to give the God of the universe "an ear full" very arrogant on your part. This also shows you have quite a small view of what God must be in order to even BE God.

Read the book of Job. In His mercy, He answered all your questions there. The answer starts with who do you think you are o man!


Though we shouldn't we can, indeed, move mountains:

(http://static.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/MOUNTAIN-TOP-DEMOLITION-1.jpg)

We can't make whales yet, but we're now at least able to make meat:

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21583241-worlds-first-hamburger-made-lab-grown-meat-has-just-been-served (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21583241-worlds-first-hamburger-made-lab-grown-meat-has-just-been-served)

Who do I think I am. It doesn't matter, but right now I'm a critic.

Who does your god think I am? Dirt. Literally and figuratively. Even if I was a christian,he would think I am nothing. In my semi-long life, I have seen many a christian friend go through a variety of hells, from cancer to fatal car wrecks to murdered parents. While I have cruised through life with none of those things. I'm an atheist. I can see how a real go would treat me like dirt. But if his followers have no noticeable advantages, then he is treating them exactly the same way. If not worse.

If real, he's the one with an ego. A giant ego, an insatiable ego that demands faith in the in the face of totally contrary evidence, the insatiable ego for whom being worshipped is more important than the worshippers. The christian world is formed around him is like a Monty Python sketch gone bad, with silly rules and bumbling actors and, sadly, bad lines. Which is why nobody is laughing.

Being impressed by nothing is not very impressive. Yet christians insist that they must be right, because by golly they just have to be. Otherwise they wouldn't' be able to exist in this world. Which means that the only tool they have to survive is their imagination, and they have to spend their every waking minute fending off information to the contrary.

Who am I. It may be relevant after all. I'm you're worst nightmare. I'm informed and educated and not tied to a preconceived notion of what reality is. So I ask questions and demand honest answers, even when I don't like them. I seek rather than hide, I appreciate knowledge, and I am not one who demands that others must accept my unsubstantiated version of the truth.

Who are you? Better not answer that. Your head would explode. You're better off inside that tiny box that your beliefs allow you to cruise around in. You think you're in a philosophical Ferrari, but you're actually in a pedal car.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: nogodsforme on December 10, 2013, 12:05:43 AM
I was personally healed of GERD. My wife was healed of a Life threatning heart condition. Both of these were conditions that should have required surgery to repair. The before condition is documented for both of us. My Wife's after condition is documented by a heart specialist. There was NO treatment of any kind for either condition. Yet praise God, it's gone!
This may be the best I can do for some dude online though.

That sounds amazing. What was the name of this heart specialist? I would like to keep an eye out for the award winning paper he will write about the first ever documented, verifiable miracle.
We frequently get Christians here who tell us that god does not intervene in human affairs anymore, which is why we have famines and childhood leukemia and traumatic brain injuries with no sign of god. Not to mention those annoying amputees who just stubbornly refuse to grow back limbs anywhere near a cell phone camera. So, how did you get so special as to have god help you and our wife out?

Please tell us how to get in touch with god, so we can refer him to where he is most needed. I am quite happy, have a great job, nice home and loving family. My wonderful atheist life is complete and I have no need of supernatural assistance.  However, I have several good friends-- some are struggling immigrants, and others live in third world countries-- who are much more deserving than me, who are devoutly religious and who are eagerly waiting for some of that loving attention that you have received.

I am hardly a bigot against religious folks. I was raised in a strict Christian home and know the drill quite well. I teach college students and am so even-handed and respectful that my Muslim students think I am Muslim. Read my posts-- mostly I am kinda funny, down-to-earth and nerdy. But I do get tired of watching people wasting time and money on useless feel-good supernatural sh!t, while denying the science that actually works.

Any input on those light sensitive cells that evolved into the various kinds of eyes we find in nature? Or are plants really the instruments of Satan?  ;)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on December 10, 2013, 12:27:00 AM
However, If (I give ya that) the bible is correct you will fall on your face unable to speak. There will be no doubt who is before you. You will ask no questions. He won't ask for your worship. He is God and you just will worship Him. To think you would even attempt to give the God of the universe "an ear full" very arrogant on your part. This also shows you have quite a small view of what God must be in order to even BE God.
I have to disagree here, strongly.  There's a concept you need to get through your head, it's called speaking truth to power.  What it means is being willing to say what's necessary, even though you might get in trouble for it, simply because it is necessary.  Doesn't matter if it's your boss, the President of the United States, the Supreme Overlord of the Universe, or even God.  Even Caesar had a slave behind him in his chariot, whispering, "this too shall pass" when he was cheered by the multitudes of Rome.

Now, it's true that not everyone is capable of doing that - but I would think a god would be able to recognize just how much a treasure such a person would be.  And yet you call it arrogance?  The only arrogance here is that which I see coming from you, declaring that someone who you don't even know would fall on their knees and worship a god merely because he is a god.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Astreja on December 10, 2013, 12:31:12 AM
I was personally healed of GERD. My wife was healed of a Life thretning heart condition. Both of these were conditions that should have required surgery to repair. The before condition is documented for both of us. My Wife's after condition is documented by a heart specialist. There was NO treatment of any kind for either condition. Yet praise God, it's gone!

Uh, Mr. Harbinger, sir -- I happen to work in a large hospital.  I type medical reports for various specialists.  I can say with confidence that you are flat-out wrong about there being no treatment for GERD.  I can provide anecdotal evidence of My own successful treatment of same a decade ago, without surgery and with an inexpensive H2 antagonist that is available over-the-counter in just about every pharmacy in town.  I can also come up with literally dozens of peer-reviewed papers outlining treatment best practices for the condition. 

And if you would be so kind to provide Me with the exact medical name of your wife's heart condition, I think we could come up with a few dozen more peer-reviewed papers suggesting treatment strategies for that as well.

Seriously, stay away from the "medical miracle" stories while you're at WWGHA.  I take a special interest in debunking them.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: SevenPatch on December 10, 2013, 07:57:37 PM
try this link for an example. some of this a bit heady and there are a few remarks I could have done without but this was still a good read.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I see a lot of conversation has occured since this post, however I would like to comment on this link provided.

harbinger77, you really didn't do yourself any favors by posting this link.  I skimmed through it and counted several points which have been debunked.  I would guess that the entire link you posted is false.  The problem with anti-evolutionists is they don't understand evolution. 

Why don't you try reading about evolution and attempt to understand it for yourself before you start reading anti-evolution lies?   After all, if evolution is clearly false then understanding it and proving that it is false should be very easy.  I suspect that you are afraid.  You are afraid that you will fail and conclude that evolution is indeed a valid observation of how nature works.  So you rely on others to support your pre-existing perspective.

Even complex and convincing falsehoods can be proven false.  This is why the link you posted fails in accomplishing anything, it is one big complex and convincing falsehood which has been proven false repeatedly for the last several decades.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 10, 2013, 10:00:06 PM
try this link for an example. some of this a bit heady and there are a few remarks I could have done without but this was still a good read.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I see a lot of conversation has occured since this post, however I would like to comment on this link provided.

harbinger77, you really didn't do yourself any favors by posting this link.  I skimmed through it and counted several points which have been debunked.  I would guess that the entire link you posted is false.  The problem with anti-evolutionists is they don't understand evolution. 

Why don't you try reading about evolution and attempt to understand it for yourself before you start reading anti-evolution lies?   After all, if evolution is clearly false then understanding it and proving that it is false should be very easy.  I suspect that you are afraid.  You are afraid that you will fail and conclude that evolution is indeed a valid observation of how nature works.  So you rely on others to support your pre-existing perspective.

Even complex and convincing falsehoods can be proven false.  This is why the link you posted fails in accomplishing anything, it is one big complex and convincing falsehood which has been proven false repeatedly for the last several decades.

fair enough. As you have skimmed through and know at least some of the points and that they have been proven false. Would you care to post said "lie" so that I'll know the point(s) you're talking about, and a link that may provide the information that debunks it?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: nogodsforme on December 10, 2013, 10:19:21 PM
First three links after typing "evolution" into the google machine:

Search Results
Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution?

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at ...
?
Evolution - PBS
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/?

The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet.

Understanding Evolution
evolution.berkeley.edu/?

Teaching the science and history of evolutionary biology, from the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science ...
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on December 11, 2013, 10:30:21 AM
If you can't dazzle with brilliance then baffle with bullshit.

What he is doing is engaging in Underwear Gnomes Theism:


(1)Find one thing that science is unclear on(or is too difficult to the Theist to understand)
(2) Shrug
(3) Declare that Young Earth Creation and the Bible is true


And the worst thing is when (1) is solved, you find a different (1)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: SevenPatch on December 11, 2013, 10:02:59 PM
try this link for an example. some of this a bit heady and there are a few remarks I could have done without but this was still a good read.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I see a lot of conversation has occured since this post, however I would like to comment on this link provided.

harbinger77, you really didn't do yourself any favors by posting this link.  I skimmed through it and counted several points which have been debunked.  I would guess that the entire link you posted is false.  The problem with anti-evolutionists is they don't understand evolution. 

Why don't you try reading about evolution and attempt to understand it for yourself before you start reading anti-evolution lies?   After all, if evolution is clearly false then understanding it and proving that it is false should be very easy.  I suspect that you are afraid.  You are afraid that you will fail and conclude that evolution is indeed a valid observation of how nature works.  So you rely on others to support your pre-existing perspective.

Even complex and convincing falsehoods can be proven false.  This is why the link you posted fails in accomplishing anything, it is one big complex and convincing falsehood which has been proven false repeatedly for the last several decades.

fair enough. As you have skimmed through and know at least some of the points and that they have been proven false. Would you care to post said "lie" so that I'll know the point(s) you're talking about, and a link that may provide the information that debunks it?

I appreciate that you are interested in discussion.

There are two fronts in truly understand how absurd the link you posted is.

First, as I suggested, learning about what the actual claims of evolution are, learning about what the evidence of evolution is and properly understanding it all.  You’ll have to set aside any pre-existing understandings you might have (save them for later).  It is difficult to understand something if you simply dismiss or ignore certain things about what you are trying to understand.

Here are some links to help you understand the theory of evolution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnQe0xW_JY4&list=SP3EED4C1D684D3ADF
-   I know this is long even though it is supposed to be a crash course (I watched all the videos, very informative even if it does move very quickly).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
-   Wikipedia has some good information.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
-   Berkeley has a website dedicated to understanding the theory of evolution.

Keep in mind, everything we understand today about the theory of evolution is based on over 150 years of investigation, research, testing, verification and use of the scientific method by thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people in many fields of science.  All of these people have or had different backgrounds and specialized areas of expertise.

Secondly, once you understand the theory of evolution and examine the claims of anti-evolutionists you begin to see a pattern of misunderstanding and outright lies which are often repeated over and over again.  These misunderstandings and outright lies are repeated so often that there are websites that have just about all the false claims from anti-evolutionists documented thoroughly and debunked equally as thorough.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution


In regards to any one of the specific points, I’ll just look at one lie at random. 

Lie:  The “Tree of Life” is falling

This section goes into horizontal gene transfer and how it is supposedly dismantling the Tree of Life.  HGT has not caused the Tree of Life to fall, which makes a claim otherwise a lie.  Actually what HGT is doing is uncovering new evidence which advances our understanding of the Tree of Life and rearranges it to a more accurate picture.

Here are some links were you can learn about horizontal gene transfer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/focus/genetransfer/index.html

Here is a link to the article (http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885 ) which is actually quote mined by your original link.  The article doesn’t even refute evolution, rather it supports it and only aims to form a different looking “tree of life” based on the research done by Kevin Peterson.  The article also provides a reasonable counter argument to the conclusions that Peterson has arrived at, which has to do with mircroRNA losses.  This is typical in science, Scientists examine evidence, propose hypothesis, predictions are made based on those hypothesis’s and then tested.  Evidence and methods are examined and reviewed.  HGT is a very new hypothesis within the theory of evolution. 

If you were wondering, yes this claim is documented and debunked by talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB822.html). talkorigins also has the earliest known claim related to HGT which was back in 2003 from darwinismrefuted.com.  Ironically, many of the same points in your link are similar to the darwinismrefuted.com article, although I don’t believe it is a direct copy (the title is close though).
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 13, 2013, 02:54:19 AM
I was personally healed of GERD. My wife was healed of a Life thretning heart condition. Both of these were conditions that should have required surgery to repair. The before condition is documented for both of us. My Wife's after condition is documented by a heart specialist. There was NO treatment of any kind for either condition. Yet praise God, it's gone!

Uh, Mr. Harbinger, sir -- I happen to work in a large hospital.  I type medical reports for various specialists.  I can say with confidence that you are flat-out wrong about there being no treatment for GERD.  I can provide anecdotal evidence of My own successful treatment of same a decade ago, without surgery and with an inexpensive H2 antagonist that is available over-the-counter in just about every pharmacy in town.  I can also come up with literally dozens of peer-reviewed papers outlining treatment best practices for the condition. 

And if you would be so kind to provide Me with the exact medical name of your wife's heart condition, I think we could come up with a few dozen more peer-reviewed papers suggesting treatment strategies for that as well.

Seriously, stay away from the "medical miracle" stories while you're at WWGHA.  I take a special interest in debunking them.


I do not deny that you are absolutely correct. I never said there is no treatment available. There are treatments and surgeries as I stated to fix both conditions. To Fix GERD requires diet and lifestyle changes I was never interested in. A pill a day forever (That's what the dr told me)or surgery. I did none of these. I had NO TREATMENT. Unless tums is a treatment that cures?

My wife had NO TREATMENT. Unless the 2 Eccos and the 1 pep talk from the Dr was a treatment? 1 pep talk because the second time she was amazed. Never saw this before she said. Her heart condition required surgery. There was no other treatment even discussed. It's a shame in this world if you have no insurance you don't get treatment. We are lucky to get the bare minimum in the E.R. You should know that though. Then again maybe you and I just disagree on what "treatment" really is?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 13, 2013, 03:33:52 AM
However, If (I give ya that) the bible is correct you will fall on your face unable to speak. There will be no doubt who is before you. You will ask no questions. He won't ask for your worship. He is God and you just will worship Him. To think you would even attempt to give the God of the universe "an ear full" very arrogant on your part. This also shows you have quite a small view of what God must be in order to even BE God.
I have to disagree here, strongly.  There's a concept you need to get through your head, it's called speaking truth to power.  What it means is being willing to say what's necessary, even though you might get in trouble for it, simply because it is necessary.  Doesn't matter if it's your boss, the President of the United States, the Supreme Overlord of the Universe, or even God.  Even Caesar had a slave behind him in his chariot, whispering, "this too shall pass" when he was cheered by the multitudes of Rome.

Now, it's true that not everyone is capable of doing that - but I would think a god would be able to recognize just how much a treasure such a person would be.  And yet you call it arrogance?  The only arrogance here is that which I see coming from you, declaring that someone who you don't even know would fall on their knees and worship a god merely because he is a god.

I happen to be one of those who will speak to power. I got that one through my head while serving in the Army Infantry. It took a while to learn tact, so I got into trouble a lot early on.

when i said "If(I'll give you that) the bible is correct..." that was the lynch pin of the whole statement. Read revelation. It will tell you what you will do when you see him in all Glory. I don't need your theories of how mere men act one to another.

maybe what you need to "get through your head" Is God is Other. He will not act as a mere man would. when in His Presence you will not be so bold. He is more than your finite mind could ever dream of. As for ego. He is GOD. Not "a god" THE GOD. There is none greater. I anyone has right to an ego as you call it, would it not be THE GOD?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on December 13, 2013, 12:33:44 PM
I happen to be one of those who will speak to power. I got that one through my head while serving in the Army Infantry. It took a while to learn tact, so I got into trouble a lot early on.
Yet apparently, despite this, you think God is so amazingly awesome that everyone in the world will instantly fall down on their knees and worship.

Quote from: harbinger77
when i said "If(I'll give you that) the bible is correct..." that was the lynch pin of the whole statement. Read revelation. It will tell you what you will do when you see him in all Glory. I don't need your theories of how mere men act one to another.
But since the Bible being true is the lynch-pin of your statement, it serves as its fatal weakness as well.  You see, the Bible has to actually be true for that to matter.  So I simply don't care what the Bible says what people will do when they see God appear in all glory, or whatever.  There's enough inaccuracies and outright falsehoods in the Bible that there's no reason at all for me to accept that to begin with - or anything else conveyed in Revelation.

Leaving that aside, I'm not the kind of person to fall on my knees and instinctively worship anything, whether god or human.  Certainly not based on the ravings of an exile with a grudge against the Roman Empire, close to two thousand years ago.

Quote from: harbinger77
maybe what you need to "get through your head" Is God is Other. He will not act as a mere man would. when in His Presence you will not be so bold. He is more than your finite mind could ever dream of. As for ego. He is GOD. Not "a god" THE GOD. There is none greater. I anyone has right to an ego as you call it, would it not be THE GOD?
Frankly, I don't care about your opinion of God's majesty, because it's based on your reading of the Bible, what you've heard from other Christians, and whatever else you've dreamed up in your own mind.  The Bible is not a reliable source, and the other stuff is purely subjective and thus not meaningful.  Who are you to tell me what I should or should not believe about the nature of God?  Assuming he even exists in the first place.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Jag on December 13, 2013, 01:34:37 PM
I was personally healed of GERD. My wife was healed of a Life threatning heart condition. Both of these were conditions that should have required surgery to repair. The before condition is documented for both of us. My Wife's after condition is documented by a heart specialist. There was NO treatment of any kind for either condition. Yet praise God, it's gone!
This may be the best I can do for some dude online though.

That sounds amazing. What was the name of this heart specialist? I would like to keep an eye out for the award winning paper he will write about the first ever documented, verifiable miracle.

Did I overlook the reply to this, or has there not been one yet?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on December 13, 2013, 01:38:50 PM
I got that one through my head while serving in the Army Infantry.
along with a fair amount of shrapnel it seems.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: SevenPatch on December 13, 2013, 01:51:27 PM
maybe what you need to "get through your head" Is God is Other. He will not act as a mere man would. when in His Presence you will not be so bold. He is more than your finite mind could ever dream of. As for ego. He is GOD. Not "a god" THE GOD. There is none greater. I anyone has right to an ego as you call it, would it not be THE GOD?

What if the only question that could and would be asked was "should I worship you THE GOD"?

If the answer is yes, then that would mean what exactly?  What does THE GOD gain from being worshiped?  Is THE GOD insecure?

- Now if some one refuses to worship THE GOD, what then?  Hell would prove some kind of insecurity.  I have to assume THE GOD is perfectly secure, so ...

The answer will be no.  THE GOD knows why THE GOD would not be worshiped and would not desire, need or accept worship.

The only god that desires, needs, accepts or even expects worship would be an imperfect one.  An imperfect god does not deserve worship.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 13, 2013, 03:46:20 PM
Worship that is demanded is not worship at all. It is enforced reverence. When you toss in penalties too gruesome to mention, then you are simply talking about enslaved conformity.

I'm not interested. Luckily, I don't have to be. And luckier yet, I realize that.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: SevenPatch on December 13, 2013, 04:33:41 PM
maybe what you need to "get through your head" Is God is Other. He will not act as a mere man would. when in His Presence you will not be so bold. He is more than your finite mind could ever dream of. As for ego. He is GOD. Not "a god" THE GOD. There is none greater. I anyone has right to an ego as you call it, would it not be THE GOD?

What if the only question that could and would be asked was "should I worship you THE GOD"?

If the answer is yes, then that would mean what exactly?  What does THE GOD gain from being worshiped?  Is THE GOD insecure?

- Now if some one refuses to worship THE GOD, what then?  Hell would prove some kind of insecurity.  I have to assume THE GOD is perfectly secure, so ...

The answer will be no.  THE GOD knows why THE GOD would not be worshiped and would not desire, need or accept worship.

The only god that desires, needs, accepts or even expects worship would be an imperfect one.  An imperfect god does not deserve worship.

harbinger77, 

You are right about a few things.  THE GOD will not act as a mere mortal.  THE GOD is more than my mind, your mind or any ones mind could possibly comprehend on many levels.  Atheists already understand this.  I have found that some theists don't understand this and often try to apply mortal desires, needs and/or characteristics to a being that would be beyond such flaws. 

An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving THE GOD has no use for worship, revenge, hate, impatience, intolerance, ignorance, arrogance, greed, lust, ego or any flaw exhibited by humans.

EDIT: Spelling
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: The Gawd on December 14, 2013, 09:12:12 AM
What if the only question that could and would be asked was "should I worship you THE GOD"?

If the answer is yes, then that would mean what exactly?  What does THE GOD gain from being worshiped?  Is THE GOD insecure?

- Now if some one refuses to worship THE GOD, what then?  Hell would prove some kind of insecurity.  I have to assume THE GOD is perfectly secure, so ...

The answer will be no.  THE GOD knows why THE GOD would not be worshiped and would not desire, need or accept worship.

The only god that desires, needs, accepts or even expects worship would be an imperfect one.  An imperfect god does not deserve worship.
Yes worship The Gawd
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 14, 2013, 08:29:12 PM
I was personally healed of GERD. My wife was healed of a Life threatning heart condition. Both of these were conditions that should have required surgery to repair. The before condition is documented for both of us. My Wife's after condition is documented by a heart specialist. There was NO treatment of any kind for either condition. Yet praise God, it's gone!
This may be the best I can do for some dude online though.

That sounds amazing. What was the name of this heart specialist? I would like to keep an eye out for the award winning paper he will write about the first ever documented, verifiable miracle.

Did I overlook the reply to this, or has there not been one yet?

I deem the question as both spiteful and patronizing. I ignored it. So no, it was never answered.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Aaron123 on December 14, 2013, 08:50:52 PM
I deem the question as both spiteful and patronizing. I ignored it. So no, it was never answered.

So you're not going to name the heart specialist, thus denying us the ability to verify your story?

So it's just a matter whenever we believe your words?  Funny how that works.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Jag on December 14, 2013, 09:29:34 PM
I deem the question as both spiteful and patronizing. I ignored it. So no, it was never answered.

Is this what we should expect from you if we question your statements? Because that's going to make discussion rather difficult.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 14, 2013, 11:12:42 PM
I deem the question as both spiteful and patronizing. I ignored it. So no, it was never answered.

How is asking for you to provide the name of the doctor spiteful and patronizing? It's a standard question.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on December 14, 2013, 11:34:55 PM


I deem the question as both spiteful and patronizing. I ignored it. So no, it was never answered.

And an archeologist found the bones of Jesus and records that the newtestament was a prank. However, if you ask me the name of said archeologist I will find that spiteful and patronizing and will ignore it.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: RED_ApeTHEIST on December 15, 2013, 02:23:48 AM
I was personally healed of GERD. My wife was healed of a Life threatning heart condition. Both of these were conditions that should have required surgery to repair. The before condition is documented for both of us. My Wife's after condition is documented by a heart specialist. There was NO treatment of any kind for either condition. Yet praise God, it's gone!
This may be the best I can do for some dude online though.

That sounds amazing. What was the name of this heart specialist? I would like to keep an eye out for the award winning paper he will write about the first ever documented, verifiable miracle.

Did I overlook the reply to this, or has there not been one yet?

I deem the question as both spiteful and patronizing. I ignored it. So no, it was never answered.

That question would only be spiteful and patronizing if the person who asked it knew that you could not answer. I don't have any way of knowing whether or not you can answer it. I suspected that you were feeding us a line and can not provide the name of any  specialist, but I wasn't certain.

Now you have a choice. Either provide the name of the specialist and some form of verification of your story, or dodge the request and prove that you are lying. Remember the fact that this was documented by a specialist was Your claim. Will you stand by it?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: naemhni on December 15, 2013, 06:24:44 AM
I was personally healed of GERD. My wife was healed of a Life threatning heart condition. Both of these were conditions that should have required surgery to repair. The before condition is documented for both of us. My Wife's after condition is documented by a heart specialist. There was NO treatment of any kind for either condition. Yet praise God, it's gone!
This may be the best I can do for some dude online though.

That sounds amazing. What was the name of this heart specialist? I would like to keep an eye out for the award winning paper he will write about the first ever documented, verifiable miracle.

Did I overlook the reply to this, or has there not been one yet?

I deem the question as both spiteful and patronizing. I ignored it. So no, it was never answered.

OK, in that case, let me try.

Harbinger77, your stories about GERD and the heart condition are quite remarkable and unlike anything I have ever heard of in the field, though I admit to not being a medical professional.  I would like to hear more details about them, both for my own edification and to review with other medical professionals for second opinions.  Please tell me the names of the doctors involved so I can talk to them.  (Of course, you will need to provide them with permission to discuss your cases with me due to confidentiality laws; I'll discuss that with the doctors first, as I'm sure they will insist I do.)

I understand you may be disgruntled at being challenged on such matters, but you need to understand that you are making a rather extraordinary claim, and atheists tend to be skeptical about claims of the miraculous.  If you refuse to back up these claims with any kind of evidence that skeptics can review, you should be prepared to have your claims rejected.  Please understand it is nothing personal.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 15, 2013, 05:48:09 PM
I deem the question as both spiteful and patronizing. I ignored it. So no, it was never answered.

So you're not going to name the heart specialist, thus denying us the ability to verify your story?

So it's just a matter whenever we believe your words?  Funny how that works.

If I told you the Dr's name what good would it do? How exactly would you verify the story? We have not given permission to release the records. If you called Her she wouldn't tell you about it. I assume there will be no written paper publish w/o our knowledge either. Why should she even write a paper? There was no medical break through to pass on to help others. What is there to report? Would you believe it anyway?

 I know of a few cases in my own church alone where people were healed, and NOT treated in any way. There have been no papers written. I don't know why. Again, would you believe it anyway??

 I don't care if you all like me nor is there some other motive. I certainly don't think this story will melt your heart and you may "give your life to Christ." or something. This was just an answer to one of the questions on this site. The real question is for what logical reason would I dishonor God (even if I am deluded He's real to me) by telling you a lie??

Her condition was heart valve disease...
more exactly
Mitral regurgitation AND
tricuspid regurgitation
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: nogodsforme on December 15, 2013, 06:10:55 PM
The purpose, well, one purpose of publishing the information would be to have a documented case of possible supernatural healing. Which, thus far, the world does not have.

As you say, harbinger, the healing is not replicable, so has no medical value. But if there was indeed a serious medical condition that was healed without treatment, it should be documented and studied.

Because trying to figure out if supernatural forces really exist and affect people in some way is a scientific question that we are all interested in. Not to mention the fact that it would provide evidence that your religious beliefs have some truth value, something we also don't have.

Gathering knowledge is always useful, even when you can't sell it or make people happy with it.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: naemhni on December 15, 2013, 06:20:06 PM
Harbinger, please do not make claims if you cannot or will not back them up.  Apart from the fact that it's a complete waste of time, it's also against the forum rules.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Aaron123 on December 15, 2013, 06:37:25 PM
If I told you the Dr's name what good would it do? How exactly would you verify the story? We have not given permission to release the records. If you called Her she wouldn't tell you about it. I assume there will be no written paper publish w/o our knowledge either. Why should she even write a paper? There was no medical break through to pass on to help others. What is there to report? Would you believe it anyway?

 I know of a few cases in my own church alone where people were healed, and NOT treated in any way. There have been no papers written. I don't know why. Again, would you believe it anyway??

 I don't care if you all like me nor is there some other motive. I certainly don't think this story will melt your heart and you may "give your life to Christ." or something. This was just an answer to one of the questions on this site. The real question is for what logical reason would I dishonor God (even if I am deluded He's real to me) by telling you a lie??

Her condition was heart valve disease...
more exactly
Mitral regurgitation AND
tricuspid regurgitation

All of your excuses sounds just like that; excuses.  If we could have confirmation of the story, we could at least acknowledge that the gist of it was true, even if we didn't agree on the supernatural part.  But we're not even getting that.  Without any means of verifying your story, why should I assume it to be true?  After all, anyone can claim they had a supernatural healing.  All they have to do is type the words.  I can do it too.

"I had an ulcer, but my doctor, with the help of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, cured me!"

See how easy that is?

It's not a good idea to go around believing in any old thing people say.  There has to be some means of verifying things.  Usually, we get that.  Yet, when it comes to the supernatural, we never get that.  Why not break the cycle and provide the means for verification?  If you're concerned that we won't buy it, that should get you thinking.  After all, the supernatural has had thousands of years to provide healings.  Healings that should be well documented, undisputed, with no questions that they ever occurred.  Healings that should be well studied by the scientific community.  Yet, we get none of that.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jdawg70 on December 16, 2013, 01:38:21 PM
If I told you the Dr's name what good would it do? How exactly would you verify the story? We have not given permission to release the records. If you called Her she wouldn't tell you about it. I assume there will be no written paper publish w/o our knowledge either. Why should she even write a paper? There was no medical break through to pass on to help others. What is there to report? Would you believe it anyway?

 I know of a few cases in my own church alone where people were healed, and NOT treated in any way. There have been no papers written. I don't know why. Again, would you believe it anyway??

 I don't care if you all like me nor is there some other motive. I certainly don't think this story will melt your heart and you may "give your life to Christ." or something. This was just an answer to one of the questions on this site. The real question is for what logical reason would I dishonor God (even if I am deluded He's real to me) by telling you a lie??

Her condition was heart valve disease...
more exactly
Mitral regurgitation AND
tricuspid regurgitation
Providing the relevant information may or may not be persuasive.  That depends on the nature of the information and data.

Refusal to provide the relevant information, however, is often very telling.

Don't worry about what's in my perpetual motion machine - trust me, it works.  Don't worry about what the composition is of my snake oil - trust me, it will heal you.  Don't worry about itemized line items - trust me, your government is using your tax dollars the way they should be used.

I do have fantastic powers.  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Tero on December 16, 2013, 03:04:48 PM
Us scientists have broken god antennas. No reception.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Astreja on December 17, 2013, 01:25:47 AM
Did a quick literature search on mitral valve regurgitation.  Among its symptoms are shortness of breath, fatigue, heart palpitations, and fluid build-up.  It's often discovered when a heart murmur is heard, or is seen on an echocardiogram.  There are numerous causes, including certain medications, uncontrolled high blood pressure, aging, and various infections including rheumatic fever and myocarditis.

Severe mitral valve regurgitation may require valve surgery, but milder cases often respond to blood pressure medications (including diuretics and ACE inhibitors), a low-sodium diet, weight loss, cutting out alcohol, cigarettes and caffeine, exercising, and generally having a healthy lifestyle.

MVR is most concerning if the patient has other heart conditions such as a previous heart attack or irregular heart rhythm, but many cases require only lifestyle adjustments.

Because rheumatic fever can damage the mitral valve, it's important to promptly treat Streptococcus infections such as Strep throat.

Disclaimer:  I am not a doctor, but I do work in the medical field.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 17, 2013, 01:36:30 AM
Severe mitral valve regurgitation may require valve surgery, but milder cases often respond to blood pressure medications (including diuretics and ACE inhibitors), a low-sodium diet, weight loss, cutting out alcohol, cigarettes and caffeine, exercising, and generally having a healthy lifestyle.

In other words, this "impossible to cure" disease....can be cured by simply being healthy.

9_6
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jtk73 on December 17, 2013, 01:12:45 PM
He won't ask for your worship. He is God and you just will worship Him.

So Yahweh wants mindless puppets. Got it.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: G-Roll on December 17, 2013, 02:02:13 PM
He won't ask for your worship. He is God and you just will worship Him.

So Yahweh wants mindless puppets. Got it.

19 And all the people said to Samuel, “Pray for your servants to the Lord your God, that we may not die, for we have added to all our sins this evil, to ask for ourselves a king.” 20 And Samuel said to the people, “Do not be afraid; you have done all this evil. Yet do not turn aside from following the Lord, but serve the Lord with all your heart. 21 And do not turn aside after empty things that cannot profit or deliver, for they are empty. 22 For the Lord will not forsake his people, for his great name's sake, because it has pleased the Lord to make you a people for himself. 23 Moreover, as for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord by ceasing to pray for you, and I will instruct you in the good and the right way. 24 Only fear the Lord and serve him faithfully with all your heart. For consider what great things he has done for you. 25 But if you still do wickedly, you shall be swept away, both you and your king.”
1 Samuel 12
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 18, 2013, 02:40:38 AM
Did a quick literature search on mitral valve regurgitation.  Among its symptoms are shortness of breath, fatigue, heart palpitations, and fluid build-up.  It's often discovered when a heart murmur is heard, or is seen on an echocardiogram.  There are numerous causes, including certain medications, uncontrolled high blood pressure, aging, and various infections including rheumatic fever and myocarditis.

Severe mitral valve regurgitation may require valve surgery, but milder cases often respond to blood pressure medications (including diuretics and ACE inhibitors), a low-sodium diet, weight loss, cutting out alcohol, cigarettes and caffeine, exercising, and generally having a healthy lifestyle.

MVR is most concerning if the patient has other heart conditions such as a previous heart attack or irregular heart rhythm, but many cases require only lifestyle adjustments.

Because rheumatic fever can damage the mitral valve, it's important to promptly treat Streptococcus infections such as Strep throat.

Disclaimer:  I am not a doctor, but I do work in the medical field.

I notice 2 things here:
#1 You only researched, or at least posted, one of the two conditions. You ignored the worst one. was that willful? Would tricuspid regurgitation not be an "other heart condition?"

The Dr did talk to my wife about her smoking. Standard Dr stuff. In fact it was the whole pep talk I mentioned. She did try to quit too. She lasted about a day. I suppose that was the total of her "lifestyle change." We don't exercise, we smoke, we eat fried salty foods and we both love our morning coffee. She even supplements with stacker3. She has no weight to loose. we hadn't drank in at least a year before she was diagnosed. We live a generally unhealthy, yet sober, lifestyle.

#2 Of all that responded to this post not a single one has addressed this question.
For what logical reason would I dishonor God (even if I am deluded, He's real to me) by telling you a lie?? Why would I endanger my own salvation for a cool story?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: RED_ApeTHEIST on December 18, 2013, 09:24:26 AM
#2 Of all that responded to this post not a single one has addressed this question.
For what logical reason would I dishonor God (even if I am deluded, He's real to me) by telling you a lie?? Why would I endanger my own salvation for a cool story?

Your running on a few assumptions here.

1: You assume that others know that lying will endanger your salvation. Different people follow Christianity differently and lying is more taboo for some than for others

2: You assume others  think you are purposefully lying. I, personally, am of the opinion you are merely incorrect.

3: You assume that everyone here is operating under the assumption that you are a rational actor. People often act irrationally, so you cant use rationality as a perfect predictor of their actions.


Also, I'd like to note that providing that doctor's name or some other proof beyond your word would put the axe to this line of inquiry very quickly.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 18, 2013, 10:14:09 AM
Well, I think it should be up to Harbinger to tell what he feels happy telling us. Medical records are personal things after all as is his anonymity (and that of the rest of us.) However -

1. Harbinger appears to be right on the cusp of a convincing proof of the existence of his god. For cure to serious heart disease to happen miraculously  is much more significant that a cancer disappearing (because there are natural remissions). Producing the evidence for this would be very strong evidence for belief.

2. In principle at least, Harbinger may have a way to help people get cured in this way - through prayer and faith. If this is the case, and we need to find out more first, Harbinger, by not publishing this remarkable cure is denying such a cure to others - maybe many others - who will die early as a result.

On the other hand, it is safer to make a claim and keep quiet. Actually, I find it interesting that, despite pep talks, Harbinger and his wife are not eating a healthy diet. After all, their god might not be so kind another time if they wreck their own bodies with salt and a lack of veg and fruit. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25413939)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 18, 2013, 10:31:31 AM
#2 Of all that responded to this post not a single one has addressed this question.
For what logical reason would I dishonor God (even if I am deluded, He's real to me) by telling you a lie?? Why would I endanger my own salvation for a cool story?

Christians, other theists, even atheists go around lying all the time.

Some more so than others *cough* theists *cough*.

Unless you have some form of documentation, no one will believe you here, unless its something really trivial, like "I ate a cake".

The Dr did talk to my wife about her smoking. Standard Dr stuff. In fact it was the whole pep talk I mentioned. She did try to quit too. She lasted about a day. I suppose that was the total of her "lifestyle change." We don't exercise, we smoke, we eat fried salty foods and we both love our morning coffee. She even supplements with stacker3. She has no weight to loose. we hadn't drank in at least a year before she was diagnosed. We live a generally unhealthy, yet sober, lifestyle.

Jesus Christ, not to be rude, but get off your ass, eat some fruit/veg, and run around the city for a few hours! (i must commend the lack of alcohol though *applause*)

Harbinger, please understand that "miracle healing from a disease" is not very miraculous...

People around the world survive from amazing damage, from being almost cut in half, to having drills lodged in their skull.

Do not dare try to say you were magically healed by some omnipotent being, when people around the world are dying from almost anything, malaria, starvation, terrorism, snakes, blunt trauma, stomach ulcers, etc.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 18, 2013, 10:34:37 AM

Harbinger, please understand that "miracle healing from a disease" is not very miraculous...

People around the world survive from amazing damage, from being almost cut in half, to having drills lodged in their skull.

Do not dare try to say you were magically healed by some omnipotent being, when people around the world are dying from almost anything, malaria, starvation, terrorism, snakes, blunt trauma, stomach ulcers, etc.

Yet even Jesus appears to have been rather limited in healing people and only treated a very few. Maybe god only rewards some people with a healing - the one's whose worship he likes. Other who don't do so well, or who worship another god just have to put up.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 18, 2013, 10:37:04 AM
If that were true, god would not be all loving...
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 18, 2013, 10:51:28 AM
If that were true, god would not be all loving...

... or perhaps not all-powerful. Maybe he in't powerful enough to cure everyone who needs acure so only a few get one...
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 18, 2013, 10:58:06 AM
Or that.

Which would raise the question on just how "powerful" god is.

Or, being that god can apparently make the universe, but not cure diseases, perhaps he can only make stuff, and not fix is XD.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 18, 2013, 11:05:19 AM
Well this raises the old Epicurius dilemma! It seems to me that the 3 omni god ought to be able to heal, ought to want to heal and have the power to heal. If any of those are missing, well.... what do you call him?

I'd say,.... IMAGINARY!
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Astreja on December 18, 2013, 11:11:31 AM
I notice 2 things here:
#1 You only researched, or at least posted, one of the two conditions. You ignored the worst one. was that willful? Would tricuspid regurgitation not be an "other heart condition?"
It was not wilful; it was an oversight on My part.  My apologies for not addressing both at the same time.

They are both valvular conditions, and there are many similarities in the treatment.  The tricuspid regurgitation also responds to diuretics, but these have to be used judiciously to avoid volume depletion.  The problem is "driven" by the right side of the heart, and has many of the same causes and remedies, including lifestyle improvement.  Mild cases usually don't require treatment.  The caveat with this one is to be on the lookout for a liver tie-in, as it often coexists with ascites and other severe complications of cirrhosis.

The bottom line here is that it does not appear that anything overwhelmingly miraculous happened.  I rather think you should be thanking the medical profession at least as much as you thank your god, as mortals have to work much harder to do the work of omnipotent beings.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jdawg70 on December 18, 2013, 11:13:57 AM
Well this raises the old Epicurius dilemma! It seems to me that the 3 omni god ought to be able to heal, ought to want to heal and have the power to heal. If any of those are missing, well.... what do you call him?

I'd say,.... IMAGINARY!
Bah.  This is easily addressed.  You might want to put a helmet on so that it doesn't make a mess when I blow your mind:

MYSTERIOUS WAYS
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 18, 2013, 11:16:38 AM
Well this raises the old Epicurius dilemma! It seems to me that the 3 omni god ought to be able to heal, ought to want to heal and have the power to heal. If any of those are missing, well.... what do you call him?

I'd say,.... IMAGINARY!
Bah.  This is easily addressed.  You might want to put a helmet on so that it doesn't make a mess when I blow your mind:

MYSTERIOUS WAYS

AAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: SevenPatch on December 18, 2013, 11:17:13 AM
#2 Of all that responded to this post not a single one has addressed this question.
For what logical reason would I dishonor God (even if I am deluded, He's real to me) by telling you a lie?? Why would I endanger my own salvation for a cool story?

As others have stated, we don't think you are knowingly lying to us (well I can't speak for others but at least I don't).  It's more likely that you are lying to yourself and you believe the lie completely and faithfully.  The lie is warm and comfortable, like being snuggled in a blanket in front of the fireplace on a cold snowy night.

Your position is one of arrogance.  Why do you deserve this miracle and other good decent more deserving people don't receive the same miracle?

Don't worry, give up the blanket and come outside.  It's not actually cold or snowing.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 18, 2013, 11:17:52 AM
MYSTERIOUS WAYS

MY BRAIN....BLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGG
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: SevenPatch on December 18, 2013, 11:27:32 AM
Well this raises the old Epicurius dilemma! It seems to me that the 3 omni god ought to be able to heal, ought to want to heal and have the power to heal. If any of those are missing, well.... what do you call him?

I'd say,.... IMAGINARY!
Bah.  This is easily addressed.  You might want to put a helmet on so that it doesn't make a mess when I blow your mind:

MYSTERIOUS WAYS

I can imagine the worldwide press conference now by scientists.


Scientist: "Well its official, we in the scientific community have discovered and confirmed MYSTERIOUS WAYS.  Everyone can stop trying to understand anything as we now know that MYSTERIOUS WAYS is the answer.  Any questions can be answered as MYSTERIOUS WAYS.  So there will be no Q and A for this press conferance.  Thank you and good night!"
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on December 18, 2013, 01:29:29 PM
My response?  "Mysterious ways" is just an excuse to avoid having to explain anything.  Cause and effect can sometimes be mysterious, so does that mean when we can't immediately discern a cause-effect relationship, that we should assume that it's mysterious and leave it at that?  Of course not.  Same goes with other things we don't immediately understand.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: xyzzy on December 18, 2013, 01:48:11 PM
My response?  "Mysterious ways" is just an excuse to avoid having to explain anything.  Cause and effect can sometimes be mysterious, so does that mean when we can't immediately discern a cause-effect relationship, that we should assume that it's mysterious and leave it at that?  Of course not.  Same goes with other things we don't immediately understand.

Indeed. But isn't it fascinating that in religion "mystery" is an acceptable answer, and a thought stopping one at that. Yet, outside of that influence, "mystery" can become a catalyst to exploration, discovery, and knowledge?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on December 18, 2013, 02:07:00 PM
My response?  "Mysterious ways" is just an excuse to avoid having to explain anything.  Cause and effect can sometimes be mysterious, so does that mean when we can't immediately discern a cause-effect relationship, that we should assume that it's mysterious and leave it at that?  Of course not.  Same goes with other things we don't immediately understand.

Indeed. But isn't it fascinating that in religion "mystery" is an acceptable answer, and a thought stopping one at that. Yet, outside of that influence, "mystery" can become a catalyst to exploration, discovery, and knowledge?

Let's be fair; there's a lot of theist literature talking about those 'mysterious ways' and trying to explain them. Heck pretty much ALL theist literature is about that. So just to say it is "thought stopping" isn't accurate and is actually a straw man.

I liken it to the invention of electric light. It was discovered that running a current though an exposed wire caused it to glow. However, said glowing wire would quickly oxidize and melt. Much thought was put into what wattage, thickness, and alloy could still acheive the glow without the short lived aspect. Nothing worked.

That is until someone came up with the concept of putting the wire in a vacuum so it wouldn't oxidize that any progress was made.

In this analogy 'God' is air. The writings of Theists on the Mysterious ways are the equvalent of someone still working on electric light based on wire glow...but not bothering about vacuum because they insist there's something wrong with concept of 'no air.'










 
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: xyzzy on December 18, 2013, 02:22:47 PM
Let's be fair; there's a lot of theist literature talking about those 'mysterious ways' and trying to explain them. Heck pretty much ALL theist literature is about that. So just to say it is "thought stopping" isn't accurate and is actually a straw man.

It's good to be corrected. I've not come across anything that didn't try to resolve a mystery with a mystery. Could you please point at some that you think are better reads than others?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on December 18, 2013, 03:42:34 PM
Let's be fair; there's a lot of theist literature talking about those 'mysterious ways' and trying to explain them. Heck pretty much ALL theist literature is about that. So just to say it is "thought stopping" isn't accurate and is actually a straw man.

It's good to be corrected. I've not come across anything that didn't try to resolve a mystery with a mystery. Could you please point at some that you think are better reads than others?

They are really just obfucations and wonderings about the possible nature of the Emperors New Robes, really. Descarte and Kant make some valient efforts, but.....
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: nogodsforme on December 18, 2013, 04:56:23 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa--- screech to a halt! Did harbinger just tell us that god healed his wife and his health problems, but neither of them were able to get god to help them follow the doctor's simple instructions about smoking, exercise and diet? These folks have a hotline to god--and are addicted to greasy foods and cancer-causing ciggies?

Now I am nobody's perfect example; I struggle with health problems and carry the extra pounds like the other 60% of overweight Americans. But hell, do I go around claiming to be best buds with the creator of the universe? I admit that I have to do it all on my own, the diet and the exercise, and it is not easy.

So, what about this makes sense?  :?



Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 22, 2013, 07:38:11 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa--- screech to a halt! Did harbinger just tell us that god healed his wife and his health problems, but neither of them were able to get god to help them follow the doctor's simple instructions about smoking, exercise and diet? These folks have a hotline to god--and are addicted to greasy foods and cancer-causing ciggies?

Now I am nobody's perfect example; I struggle with health problems and carry the extra pounds like the other 60% of overweight Americans. But hell, do I go around claiming to be best buds with the creator of the universe? I admit that I have to do it all on my own, the diet and the exercise, and it is not easy.

So, what about this makes sense?  :?

That happened a long time ago.. quite a bit of energy has been put into that one...
 we prayed for healing. Not help to eat right and exercise more. I don't expect it to be something you understand. I don't even know what made us worthy of this blessing. It still happened though. Praise God!
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 22, 2013, 07:39:47 PM
may I suggest the ability to delete my own messed up posts...
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 22, 2013, 07:46:28 PM
harbinger77, there is a reason admins disable deleting comments, as an admin myself (not here), I have it disabled because it accomplishes nothing, and is usually done by people who wish to censor themselves. Doing so causes the entire thread to become disjointed and confusing.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: magicmiles on December 22, 2013, 07:50:22 PM
may I suggest the ability to delete my own messed up posts...

review carefully prior to hitting 'post'. Even after doing that, you can amend the post for a certain amount of time afterwards, and effectively delete the post by simply typing "post removed".
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Ivellios on December 23, 2013, 07:44:45 PM
Well this raises the old Epicurius dilemma! It seems to me that the 3 omni god ought to be able to heal, ought to want to heal and have the power to heal. If any of those are missing, well.... what do you call him?

I'd say,.... IMAGINARY!
Bah.  This is easily addressed.  You might want to put a helmet on so that it doesn't make a mess when I blow your mind:

MYSTERIOUS WAYS

The Whore of Babylon's name is Mystery. Rev 17:5 That's the reason thier god works in "mysterious ways." Jer 10:1-4 Describes a Christmas tree and later details it being part of worshipping the Babylonian god Baal. Someone did a bait and switch on them, and they never even realized it.

Harbinger, you'd learn all kinds of things about your religion if you'd actally take the inititive, and read the bible cover to cover, instead of only reading the passages you're told to.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 23, 2013, 11:25:42 PM
Well this raises the old Epicurius dilemma! It seems to me that the 3 omni god ought to be able to heal, ought to want to heal and have the power to heal. If any of those are missing, well.... what do you call him?

I'd say,.... IMAGINARY!
Bah.  This is easily addressed.  You might want to put a helmet on so that it doesn't make a mess when I blow your mind:

MYSTERIOUS WAYS

The Whore of Babylon's name is Mystery. Rev 17:5 That's the reason thier god works in "mysterious ways." Jer 10:1-4 Describes a Christmas tree and later details it being part of worshipping the Babylonian god Baal. Someone did a bait and switch on them, and they never even realized it.

Harbinger, you'd learn all kinds of things about your religion if you'd actally take the inititive, and read the bible cover to cover, instead of only reading the passages you're told to.

Lol... You assume much, sir.

First...
the healing thing. I have addressed it from my own personal life. I've also seen many healed in my church. One of those was cystic fibrosis. Not my fault you don't wanna believe that either.

second...
That's the reason I don't have a christmas tree. I don't even celebrate Christmas in any way that you would recognize it. Satan clause is a fat bearded lie and has no place in my home. Yes, I tell my children that too. What we do is more like a birthday party for Jesus. In anticipation, I'll answer your next question. Jesus was more than likely born June 22 give or take. Why Dec 25? Thank the UNholy roman empire for that one.

third...
I read and study my bible and all things related daily. I have read it cover to cover. I took that initiative long ago.

I've amassed a small library since I was saved. that library includes 5 bibles. Not counting the children's bibleS for the kids. Who also read almost daily. Never told asked or even suggested that they should by the way. I also no longer count the one that fell apart from being read and carried to much. I have never counted the KJV with mormon foot notes or the other books that go with it. oh and the HUGE one that belonged to my grandmother.

finally...
The catholic church pushes a false doctrine that only those anointed by God may properly understand the txt. I believe that's because once a catholic reads the Bible they see they are lied to and become protestant. Maybe this is what your "only what you are told to" statement is connected to?

again in anticipation...
I will reject any verse from the new world translation or the NIV. One is JW translation and the other was translated by 3 devil loving humanist witches. I challenge the your default argument of verse comparison amongst the various translations.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 24, 2013, 12:39:29 AM
Lol... You assume much, sir.

First...
the healing thing. I have addressed it from my own personal life. I've also seen many healed in my church. One of those was cystic fibrosis. Not my fault you don't wanna believe that either.

second...
That's the reason I don't have a christmas tree. I don't even celebrate Christmas in any way that you would recognize it. Satan clause is a fat bearded lie and has no place in my home. Yes, I tell my children that too. What we do is more like a birthday party for Jesus. In anticipation, I'll answer your next question. Jesus was more than likely born June 22 give or take. Why Dec 25? Thank the UNholy roman empire for that one.

third...
I read and study my bible and all things related daily. I have read it cover to cover. I took that initiative long ago.

I've amassed a small library since I was saved. that library includes 5 bibles. Not counting the children's bibleS for the kids. Who also read almost daily. Never told asked or even suggested that they should by the way. I also no longer count the one that fell apart from being read and carried to much. I have never counted the KJV with mormon foot notes or the other books that go with it. oh and the HUGE one that belonged to my grandmother.

finally...
The catholic church pushes a false doctrine that only those anointed by God may properly understand the txt. I believe that's because once a catholic reads the Bible they see they are lied to and become protestant. Maybe this is what your "only what you are told to" statement is connected to?

again in anticipation...
I will reject any verse from the new world translation or the NIV. One is JW translation and the other was translated by 3 devil loving humanist witches. I challenge the your default argument of verse comparison amongst the various translations.

Rejecting specific translations does little to help you, here is the one about the tree from the King James Version:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+10%3A1-4&version=KJV

Feel free to look at the different translations, other than the wording, nothing changes.

It's rich that you accuse him of assuming too much when you yourself, make a massive amount of assumptions, most of the demonstrably wrong.

EDIT: I noticed you mentioned [wiki]Cystic Fibrosis[/wiki], can you provide documentation on this miraculous recovery? Because surely it would have been all over the news, it's incurable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis#Management).
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Ivellios on December 24, 2013, 12:41:39 AM

Lol... You assume much, sir.

First...
the healing thing. I have addressed it from my own personal life. I've also seen many healed in my church. One of those was cystic fibrosis. Not my fault you don't wanna believe that either.

When The Apostles, fearing for thier very lives of spies and false believers ask Jesus how to tell a true believer from a false one, Jesus replies that everyone that believes will be able to, not only perform the same miralcles he did, but ones even greater. Despite all the miraculous healings since Jesus, each and every one has left just as much evidence as if it was done by a charlatan.

second...
That's the reason I don't have a christmas tree. I don't even celebrate Christmas in any way that you would recognize it. Satan clause is a fat bearded lie and has no place in my home. Yes, I tell my children that too. What we do is more like a birthday party for Jesus. In anticipation, I'll answer your next question. Jesus was more than likely born June 22 give or take. Why Dec 25? Thank the UNholy roman empire for that one.

You actually know more than the typical Christian. As per the Birth, I've heard beginning of April to the Feast of Booths, as his birth fufilling God living among his people. Plus, any earlier or later, too cold to be out tending sheep.

third...
I read and study my bible and all things related daily. I have read it cover to cover. I took that initiative long ago.

I've amassed a small library since I was saved. that library includes 5 bibles. Not counting the children's bibleS for the kids. Who also read almost daily. Never told asked or even suggested that they should by the way. I also no longer count the one that fell apart from being read and carried to much. I have never counted the KJV with mormon foot notes or the other books that go with it. oh and the HUGE one that belonged to my grandmother.

Ironic. It was reading the bible that opened my eyes, that it could not possibly come from an All-Knowing, All-Loving God, but superstitious, racist, warmongering, sexist, bronze age goat herders.

finally...
The catholic church pushes a false doctrine that only those anointed by God may properly understand the txt. I believe that's because once a catholic reads the Bible they see they are lied to and become protestant. Maybe this is what your "only what you are told to" statement is connected to?


No. Catholics don't even read the bible. The have a big one out, opened to a page on a stand somewhere in the house, but not read. During mass, they pull out an accessory book and read along from that one that has what the priest says normal font and what the people say in bold. It has a listing of verses that it's supposedly pulled from, but I never swiped one to compare it.

I was raised via two religions depending on which parent had custody at the time. The other was protestant and they do love thier scripture memory and reading thier bible. They state, "We read the entire Bible every X years," and you're expected to take it on faith that that actually happens. It does not. You read 1/2 of a chapter of Jeremiah when he's trapped in that well, after that lesson, then "you've [magically] read all of Jeremiah and Lamentaions." I also noticed other books being missed. 1/2 Exodus, All of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronmy, etc. That's why they bounce around. You expect them to take you there later, but they never do. During service they would have us pull out our bible and read a passage, then continue with the sermon. Since the sermons were so boring, I'd just keep reading. Then I'd hear the pastor take the verse out of context because he would just look at the one verse that supports his stance, ignoring how it's used in the passage. The Chrisistins that I know and grew up with, the only times they open thier bibles is when they're told to by thier minister or the devotional they're using for thier quiet time, read that/those key verse(s) and close it back again.

Those are the types of christians those churches want.

again in anticipation...
I will reject any verse from the new world translation or the NIV. One is JW translation and the other was translated by 3 devil loving humanist witches. I challenge the your default argument of verse comparison amongst the various translations.

Well, I don't believe in a devil, people can be devilish, but an actual devil, no. Do you have problems with black cats and flying broomsticks? There is no such thing as magic. The salem witch trials had nothing to do with witches. Someone said witch about thier political opponents and the ignorant gullible masses believed it and caused a tragedy.

I heard the KJV had King James' edits to promote his agenda and that the NIV was closer to the original manuscripts. Honestly, I have the NIV, 1611 KJV, 1560 Geneva and Student Bible. Honestly, if you get a version that's copyrighted, it's had it's contents changed, that's why copying an entire book or 1,000 words is considered plagerism. After all, "God's word" is open source, no one can copywrite 'his' word and sell for profit.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 24, 2013, 02:05:14 AM
Lol... You assume much, sir.

First...
the healing thing. I have addressed it from my own personal life. I've also seen many healed in my church. One of those was cystic fibrosis. Not my fault you don't wanna believe that either.

second...
That's the reason I don't have a christmas tree. I don't even celebrate Christmas in any way that you would recognize it. Satan clause is a fat bearded lie and has no place in my home. Yes, I tell my children that too. What we do is more like a birthday party for Jesus. In anticipation, I'll answer your next question. Jesus was more than likely born June 22 give or take. Why Dec 25? Thank the UNholy roman empire for that one.

third...
I read and study my bible and all things related daily. I have read it cover to cover. I took that initiative long ago.

I've amassed a small library since I was saved. that library includes 5 bibles. Not counting the children's bibleS for the kids. Who also read almost daily. Never told asked or even suggested that they should by the way. I also no longer count the one that fell apart from being read and carried to much. I have never counted the KJV with mormon foot notes or the other books that go with it. oh and the HUGE one that belonged to my grandmother.

finally...
The catholic church pushes a false doctrine that only those anointed by God may properly understand the txt. I believe that's because once a catholic reads the Bible they see they are lied to and become protestant. Maybe this is what your "only what you are told to" statement is connected to?

again in anticipation...
I will reject any verse from the new world translation or the NIV. One is JW translation and the other was translated by 3 devil loving humanist witches. I challenge the your default argument of verse comparison amongst the various translations.

Rejecting specific translations does little to help you, here is the one about the tree from the King James Version:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+10%3A1-4&version=KJV

Feel free to look at the different translations, other than the wording, nothing changes.

It's rich that you accuse him of assuming too much when you yourself, make a massive amount of assumptions, most of the demonstrably wrong.

EDIT: I noticed you mentioned [wiki]Cystic Fibrosis[/wiki], can you provide documentation on this miraculous recovery? Because surely it would have been all over the news, it's incurable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis#Management).

My stance against Christmas and the christmas tree has NOTHING to do with the version the txt can be found in. Or even really the Bible. The verse in question though did start me exploring the pegan traditions. You missed the point.
As for The various translations I only reject the translators involved as I know one group had an agenda and I have a good enough suspension for the other. For the record, I have read most of the NIV.

As for making assumptions. I made none. please point them out if I did. and the material to prove I'm wrong. I have been here long enough to know the arguments out there. I both anticipated and answered the questions before they were asked to save time. You have demonstrated me correct in the anticipation on 2 counts. One of which I didn't answer, but I will now.

cystic fibrosis... It's not just incurable, it's deadly. I have never mentioned it before because the child in question is not mine so no I can't give documentation. Not a chance.
However, you are still left with the same question you wouldn't touch before. Considering the consequences before my Almighty Father, For what logical reason would I lie about it, or my friend for that matter?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 24, 2013, 02:50:44 AM
Lol... You assume much, sir.

First...
the healing thing. I have addressed it from my own personal life. I've also seen many healed in my church. One of those was cystic fibrosis. Not my fault you don't wanna believe that either.

second...
That's the reason I don't have a christmas tree. I don't even celebrate Christmas in any way that you would recognize it. Satan clause is a fat bearded lie and has no place in my home. Yes, I tell my children that too. What we do is more like a birthday party for Jesus. In anticipation, I'll answer your next question. Jesus was more than likely born June 22 give or take. Why Dec 25? Thank the UNholy roman empire for that one.

third...
I read and study my bible and all things related daily. I have read it cover to cover. I took that initiative long ago.

I've amassed a small library since I was saved. that library includes 5 bibles. Not counting the children's bibleS for the kids. Who also read almost daily. Never told asked or even suggested that they should by the way. I also no longer count the one that fell apart from being read and carried to much. I have never counted the KJV with mormon foot notes or the other books that go with it. oh and the HUGE one that belonged to my grandmother.

finally...
The catholic church pushes a false doctrine that only those anointed by God may properly understand the txt. I believe that's because once a catholic reads the Bible they see they are lied to and become protestant. Maybe this is what your "only what you are told to" statement is connected to?

again in anticipation...
I will reject any verse from the new world translation or the NIV. One is JW translation and the other was translated by 3 devil loving humanist witches. I challenge the your default argument of verse comparison amongst the various translations.

Rejecting specific translations does little to help you, here is the one about the tree from the King James Version:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+10%3A1-4&version=KJV

Feel free to look at the different translations, other than the wording, nothing changes.

It's rich that you accuse him of assuming too much when you yourself, make a massive amount of assumptions, most of the demonstrably wrong.

EDIT: I noticed you mentioned [wiki]Cystic Fibrosis[/wiki], can you provide documentation on this miraculous recovery? Because surely it would have been all over the news, it's incurable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis#Management).

My stance against Christmas and the christmas tree has NOTHING to do with the version the txt can be found in. Or even really the Bible. The verse in question though did start me exploring the pegan traditions. You missed the point.
As for The various translations I only reject the translators involved as I know one group had an agenda and I have a good enough suspension for the other. For the record, I have read most of the NIV.

As for making assumptions. I made none. please point them out if I did. and the material to prove I'm wrong. I have been here long enough to know the arguments out there. I both anticipated and answered the questions before they were asked to save time. You have demonstrated me correct in the anticipation on 2 counts. One of which I didn't answer, but I will now.

cystic fibrosis... It's not just incurable, it's deadly. I have never mentioned it before because the child in question is not mine so no I can't give documentation. Not a chance.
However, you are still left with the same question you wouldn't touch before. Considering the consequences before my Almighty Father, For what logical reason would I lie about it, or my friend for that matter?

The tree was only an example, as to why you would lie? There are plenty of reasons, however I never called you a liar, all I asked for was documentation, as it WOULD be documented if someone is cured of an incurable genetic disorder.

And it's not necessarily deadly, it can be managed. These days, thanks to modern medicine, people with CF are living longer, with the median age in 2009 being observed as mid-30s[1].

EDIT:
The closest thing I could find to corroborate your story is this:
http://www.cbs8.com/story/22409135/local-cystic-fibrosis-treatment-called-a-miracle

And, it doesn't corroborate it at all, for one thing the children are 12 and 7, for another it's recent, and lastly the children are not cured.
 1. http://www.cff.org/aboutcf/faqs/#What_is_the_life_expectancy_for_people_who_have_CF_(in_the_United_States)? (http://www.cff.org/aboutcf/faqs/#What_is_the_life_expectancy_for_people_who_have_CF_(in_the_United_States)?)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 24, 2013, 03:00:17 AM
As for making assumptions. I made none. please point them out if I did. and the material to prove I'm wrong. I have been here long enough to know the arguments out there. I both anticipated and answered the questions before they were asked to save time. You have demonstrated me correct in the anticipation on 2 counts. One of which I didn't answer, but I will now.

I decided to handle this in a separate post.

These are your assumptions:
Please use this google url I generated on you for evolution in particular
https://www.google.com/#q=site:whywontgodhealamputees.com+harbinger77+evolution

You assume that people are attacking or patronizing you when you are asked to provide sources for your "information," you never provide them, when pressed you get defensive then try and perform a bait and switch in order to get the attention off your mistake.

You also assume that there is this mass conspiracy in science to completely get rid of a god, when that is NOT the goal of science, you also assume we have "faith" in science, when in reality it's more of a justified confidence. You also assume that we won't fact check you when you decide to post definitions.

Quit assuming, I don't like being made into an ass, and i'm sure you don't either.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 24, 2013, 03:38:22 AM

Lol... You assume much, sir.

First...
the healing thing. I have addressed it from my own personal life. I've also seen many healed in my church. One of those was cystic fibrosis. Not my fault you don't wanna believe that either.

When The Apostles, fearing for thier very lives of spies and false believers ask Jesus how to tell a true believer from a false one, Jesus replies that everyone that believes will be able to, not only perform the same miralcles he did, but ones even greater. Despite all the miraculous healings since Jesus, each and every one has left just as much evidence as if it was done by a charlatan.

second...
That's the reason I don't have a christmas tree. I don't even celebrate Christmas in any way that you would recognize it. Satan clause is a fat bearded lie and has no place in my home. Yes, I tell my children that too. What we do is more like a birthday party for Jesus. In anticipation, I'll answer your next question. Jesus was more than likely born June 22 give or take. Why Dec 25? Thank the UNholy roman empire for that one.

You actually know more than the typical Christian. As per the Birth, I've heard beginning of April to the Feast of Booths, as his birth fufilling God living among his people. Plus, any earlier or later, too cold to be out tending sheep.

third...
I read and study my bible and all things related daily. I have read it cover to cover. I took that initiative long ago.

I've amassed a small library since I was saved. that library includes 5 bibles. Not counting the children's bibleS for the kids. Who also read almost daily. Never told asked or even suggested that they should by the way. I also no longer count the one that fell apart from being read and carried to much. I have never counted the KJV with mormon foot notes or the other books that go with it. oh and the HUGE one that belonged to my grandmother.

Ironic. It was reading the bible that opened my eyes, that it could not possibly come from an All-Knowing, All-Loving God, but superstitious, racist, warmongering, sexist, bronze age goat herders.

finally...
The catholic church pushes a false doctrine that only those anointed by God may properly understand the txt. I believe that's because once a catholic reads the Bible they see they are lied to and become protestant. Maybe this is what your "only what you are told to" statement is connected to?


No. Catholics don't even read the bible. The have a big one out, opened to a page on a stand somewhere in the house, but not read. During mass, they pull out an accessory book and read along from that one that has what the priest says normal font and what the people say in bold. It has a listing of verses that it's supposedly pulled from, but I never swiped one to compare it.

I was raised via two religions depending on which parent had custody at the time. The other was protestant and they do love thier scripture memory and reading thier bible. They state, "We read the entire Bible every X years," and you're expected to take it on faith that that actually happens. It does not. You read 1/2 of a chapter of Jeremiah when he's trapped in that well, after that lesson, then "you've [magically] read all of Jeremiah and Lamentaions." I also noticed other books being missed. 1/2 Exodus, All of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronmy, etc. That's why they bounce around. You expect them to take you there later, but they never do. During service they would have us pull out our bible and read a passage, then continue with the sermon. Since the sermons were so boring, I'd just keep reading. Then I'd hear the pastor take the verse out of context because he would just look at the one verse that supports his stance, ignoring how it's used in the passage. The Chrisistins that I know and grew up with, the only times they open thier bibles is when they're told to by thier minister or the devotional they're using for thier quiet time, read that/those key verse(s) and close it back again.

Those are the types of christians those churches want.

again in anticipation...
I will reject any verse from the new world translation or the NIV. One is JW translation and the other was translated by 3 devil loving humanist witches. I challenge the your default argument of verse comparison amongst the various translations.

Well, I don't believe in a devil, people can be devilish, but an actual devil, no. Do you have problems with black cats and flying broomsticks? There is no such thing as magic. The salem witch trials had nothing to do with witches. Someone said witch about thier political opponents and the ignorant gullible masses believed it and caused a tragedy.

I heard the KJV had King James' edits to promote his agenda and that the NIV was closer to the original manuscripts. Honestly, I have the NIV, 1611 KJV, 1560 Geneva and Student Bible. Honestly, if you get a version that's copyrighted, it's had it's contents changed, that's why copying an entire book or 1,000 words is considered plagerism. After all, "God's word" is open source, no one can copywrite 'his' word and sell for profit.

thank you. I feel it's kind of rare that I'm not outright attacked. I do appreciate what seems to be a
respectful attitude.
I wish that you would have grown up in only one church. One with proper discipleship and serious bible
study. Serious Christians demonstrating a serious relationship with Jesus. As you point out there was no
church discipline. Your church along with to many others and yes, even my own was/is filled with Lazy
Lukewarm Christians. It drives me crazy! From your description can I guess? Did you attended a baptist
service? Was it also one of those KJV only ones too? Please, don't take that the wrong way I was in
those shoes as a child. sometimes baptist sometimes catholic. I'm just curious.
As for the sheep issue I know people like to play that cold weather card but in the middle east the rainy
season is just ending. They would be out grazing this time of year. Average Bethlehem temps for Dec are
around 42. Here's an interesting link discussing this.
http://spofga.org/wrtk/2013/myth_too_cold_for_shepherds.php
The winter thing is a strawman. Not that it makes Dec birth correct mind you. The real answer is in the
stars of the wise men. The stars they followed aligned perfectly around June 22 2bc.
Honestly one of the reasons I guessed KJVonly type churches, Aside from attending one, Was the copyright
thing. It's a popular argument among the KJV ONLY crowd. Most of those are baptist. First, most who
claim to have a 1611 Don't. most churches who claim to use one... don't. Most use plain KJV or worse yet
the NKJV. The spelling in 1611 is all crazy. v for u and double ss all over. It makes it kind of hard to
read. that being said the Original 1611KJV IS in fact copyrighted. Here is a picture of it.
http://unsettledchristianity.com/2010/07/copyright-issues-and-the-kjv-1611/
As for Geneva I have little knowledge on it. other than history.

NiV look at the progressive changes made every few
years. Maybe you can see how it started as one thingand has slowly become something else. In the meantime I'll reasearch a bit more and remember the witch's name. I'll get back to ya.
last thing I have played in the  ocult too magic is very real.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 24, 2013, 03:45:23 AM
harbinger77, you have not been attacked.
Name one time you've been attacked and provide a link.
And would you please address both of my posts.

EDIT:
I'm going to address your signature:
Quote
Rom1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
You do realize that scientists are NOT professing themselves to be wise right? In fact they're doing the exact opposite, they always admit they don't know all the details.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 24, 2013, 04:06:54 AM
As for making assumptions. I made none. please point them out if I did. and the material to prove I'm wrong. I have been here long enough to know the arguments out there. I both anticipated and answered the questions before they were asked to save time. You have demonstrated me correct in the anticipation on 2 counts. One of which I didn't answer, but I will now.

I decided to handle this in a separate post.

These are your assumptions:
Please use this google url I generated on you for evolution in particular
https://www.google.com/#q=site:whywontgodhealamputees.com+harbinger77+evolution

You assume that people are attacking or patronizing you when you are asked to provide sources for your "information," you never provide them, when pressed you get defensive then try and perform a bait and switch in order to get the attention off your mistake.

You also assume that there is this mass conspiracy in science to completely get rid of a god, when that is NOT the goal of science, you also assume we have "faith" in science, when in reality it's more of a justified confidence. You also assume that we won't fact check you when you decide to post definitions.

Quit assuming, I don't like being made into an ass, and i'm sure you don't either.

Ohhh I see other posts not this one.
Your link only gave me a cute picture. no quotes though.

It was not an assumption on the science thing. you have a speck of evidence and imagine the rest.. belief in things unseen or untested... that's faith. I am also confident in my faith. I may oversimplify but I don't assume.

attacking and patronizing,.. sources of info? You must mean medical records? it's the only thing I was asked and unable to provide. It was just the one dude I said that about. if you read the quote you would see it. the question was valid yes. the nature was patronizing. why do you think you defended it NOT the one who asked when i called it what it was.
 want to see this bait and switch thing you mention.
are you ever going to address tricuspid regeneration?

I don't know where you got the science conspiracies thing... but ok. I would say society not science. That you can quote and that is not an assumption it's in the news.

I slipped once explained my blunder and have corrected my action since. I never assumed no one would fact check... unless I link to something Christian. I link anyway, because I want to be wrong on that one.

why do my testimonies make you so mad?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 24, 2013, 04:16:07 AM
As for making assumptions. I made none. please point them out if I did. and the material to prove I'm wrong. I have been here long enough to know the arguments out there. I both anticipated and answered the questions before they were asked to save time. You have demonstrated me correct in the anticipation on 2 counts. One of which I didn't answer, but I will now.

I decided to handle this in a separate post.

These are your assumptions:
Please use this google url I generated on you for evolution in particular
https://www.google.com/#q=site:whywontgodhealamputees.com+harbinger77+evolution

You assume that people are attacking or patronizing you when you are asked to provide sources for your "information," you never provide them, when pressed you get defensive then try and perform a bait and switch in order to get the attention off your mistake.

You also assume that there is this mass conspiracy in science to completely get rid of a god, when that is NOT the goal of science, you also assume we have "faith" in science, when in reality it's more of a justified confidence. You also assume that we won't fact check you when you decide to post definitions.

Quit assuming, I don't like being made into an ass, and i'm sure you don't either.

Ohhh I see other posts not this one.
Your link only gave me a cute picture. no quotes though.

It was not an assumption on the science thing. you have a speck of evidence and imagine the rest.. belief in things unseen or untested... that's faith. I am also confident in my faith. I may oversimplify but I don't assume.

attacking and patronizing,.. sources of info? You must mean medical records? it's the only thing I was asked and unable to provide. It was just the one dude I said that about. if you read the quote you would see it. the question was valid yes. the nature was patronizing. why do you think you defended it NOT the one who asked when i called it what it was.
 want to see this bait and switch thing you mention.
are you ever going to address tricuspid regeneration?

I don't know where you got the science conspiracies thing... but ok. I would say society not science. That you can quote and that is not an assumption it's in the news.

I slipped once explained my blunder and have corrected my action since. I never assumed no one would fact check... unless I link to something Christian. I link anyway, because I want to be wrong on that one.

why do my testimonies make you so mad?

1) I'm not mad, why do you think that?
2)
Quote
Your link only gave me a cute picture. no quotes though.
You're a liar, yes I said it, a liar: (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21757902/harbinger77.png)

Now could you actually address what I said? You know what I mean by information, news reports. I DON'T want or need medical records, I even specifically said NEWS.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 24, 2013, 04:21:12 AM
harbinger77, you have not been attacked.
Name one time you've been attacked and provide a link.
And would you please address both of my posts.

EDIT:
I'm going to address your signature:
Quote
Rom1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
You do realize that scientists are NOT professing themselves to be wise right? In fact they're doing the exact opposite, they always admit they don't know all the details.

the signature...
i'm surprised that rode so long with no comment. In the context the verse is about idolatry.  never meant it to refer to science. to me it goes with the NO Atheists

not attacked... I'll link you a few really harsh and undeniable ones from graybeard shortly. I understand you see  differently, but you made some kind of google history of my comments for the purpose of attacking perceived assumptions. Just read my posts. I'm generally gang raped on these threads. It's cool though there are a few decent people around here. Hate will not move me. you can quote that too :)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 24, 2013, 04:24:38 AM
see calling me a lier... that's an attack. you have no clue what popped up on my screen.... Maybe you don't know my OS? I'm using a mobil OS. How can you know what works on it in order to justify calling me a lier?

You do come accross angry. That's why I asked.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 24, 2013, 04:25:51 AM
harbinger77, you have not been attacked.
Name one time you've been attacked and provide a link.
And would you please address both of my posts.

EDIT:
I'm going to address your signature:
Quote
Rom1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
You do realize that scientists are NOT professing themselves to be wise right? In fact they're doing the exact opposite, they always admit they don't know all the details.

the signature...
i'm surprised that rode so long with no comment. In the context the verse is about idolatry.  never meant it to refer to science. to me it goes with the NO Atheists

not attacked... I'll link you a few really harsh and undeniable ones from graybeard shortly. I understand you see  differently, but you made some kind of google history of my comments for the purpose of attacking perceived assumptions. Just read my posts. I'm generally gang raped on these threads. It's cool though there are a few decent people around here. Hate will not move me. you can quote that too :)

Well quite obviously you're wrong about the No atheists bit, I never bought into Christianity, and I was raised southern baptist, I stopped going to church after the age of 8 when I told my mother that under no uncertain terms was I going to go to church again.

I personally have never attacked you, if you can provide a link to an instance of greybeard attacking you, that's cool, but you've done your share of attacking and dodging as well, so don't think you're innocent.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 24, 2013, 04:26:37 AM
see calling me a lier... that's an attack. you have no clue what popped up on my screen.... Maybe you don't know my OS? I'm using a mobil OS. How can you know what works on it in order to justify calling me a lier?

You do come accross angry. That's why I asked.

Regardless of what type of OS you're running that link goes to the same place, Google has seamless integration, and no calling you a liar is not an attack.
I'm a developer, so I'm pretty certain I know what popped up on your screen, if you were unable to properly go to that link then it speaks poorly for google. I personally use mobile OSes on a regular basis, so I can say with confidence that that link lead you to where it was supposed to.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 24, 2013, 04:35:38 AM
this one was recently posted... don't think I ever talked to this dude even...




My comment about being thankful not seeking Ugabuga. Why can't you just be thankful you given life? Without father I wouldn't be here. In my case father was abusive so I thankful not knowing that type  childhood.
No matter the circumstance there always something be thankful for.
As why should you seek Ugabuga? unlike your John father In this case Ugabuga given you much. Your life, sun, stars, food, fish even. He didn't walk out. He gave everything you.. even King Agga, his son, tasted our death. Providence, common grace, be thankful. :)

That's what you sound like to me. An ignorant savage bowing down before your volcano god.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 24, 2013, 04:40:19 AM
this one.tells.me. I'm possessed by satan only one of the many from graybeard... I wouldn't have said these things but i could never get away with it if I did.

biased absolutely! narrow minded concerning God? Yes sir!
Dear me... You do know that God hates you, right?

Let us crack open KJV1611 and ask ourselves, "Who does God hate?" but first let us look at what Jesus says: You proclaim your faith loudly, yet does not Jesus warn,

"Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
M't:7:22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
M't:7:23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

And now, a couple of sins that you seem to wallow in; sins that are abhorrent to God. He hates people like you:

The Proud (Romans 1:30), Boasters (Romans 1:30),

So, what is this "hate"? Why, it is the doctrine of reprobation or God's "HATE" and this involves eternal retribution or the everlasting punishment in Hell forever. The description is given in Leviticus 20:13,23, Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5, Malachi 1:1-3, Romans 9:11-13, Matthew 7:13,23, John 12:39-40, 1 Peter 2:8, Jude 4, Revelation 13:8, 20:15, 21:27, etc.

Yet you mindlessly, and happily ignoring the Word of the Almighty, The Lord of Hosts, (and paradoxically) you spit in His Perfect Face and boast of your faith and humility. You scream how humble you are from the roof-tops. You call for others to see how much you love God.

Is this right? Can it be true? It certainly seems so. I'm with God on this one. It is disgusting.

So, as you fry for all eternity, I and the other atheists here, having been modest and truly humble hoping only for "reasonable people to be heard (see the Sermon on the Mount), will sit with Jesus and look down and laugh as Satan and his Devils anally rape you in the pit of darkness and fire for all eternity. We, like poor Lazarus will peer down on you and we will laugh with Jesus.

I am really glad I am not you, for you the Afterlife will be torture without end and the presence of God will have deserted you for ever.

Worse still: as if your sins were not black and evil enough, you say you are biased... and yet Jesus tells us to "Judge in righteousness."

Jesus does not say, “Start hating, don't listen to reason but spit out your own one-sided, personal bile." No... He does not do that.  Yet you do it. I am so, so sad for you.

You will never see your family in heaven. You will never know joy. You will never sit at God’s right hand.

Look, Harbinger, I’m the last person to say this but I really feel the presence of Satan in your soul, your prideful, dark and wizened soul, the soul that festers with conceit, bias and pride within your breast and forces you to proclaim how much better you are than others. I cannot understand why all that Jesus has ever said is, to you and your dark master, no more than so much dross.

I hear you say you talk to God... and someone talks back... I am afraid that everything points to your being deceived. The voice you hear is that of Satan and his minions.

It cannot possibly be the Voice of Jesus. Jesus would never, ever, tell you to write such things.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 24, 2013, 04:42:04 AM
2quick examples... I could go on. Do you still hold that I am NEVER attacked?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 24, 2013, 04:43:05 AM
Harbinger, your demon is confusing you, seek help from allah.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 24, 2013, 04:45:28 AM
harbinger77, neither of those were attacks, he was highlighting the flaws in your religion.
Greybeards goal was to get you to think critically, not attack you.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 24, 2013, 04:47:28 AM
Its almost predictable that theists will go "that was a attack!" when you state almost anything mildly,factually, bad about their religion...
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 24, 2013, 04:51:19 AM
see there's an allah comment... lol they are all over.. people just can't help it I guess...

anyway, I believe even without reading my own comments I remember enough that I have addressed each one you presented. could you point to the one I missed please? I would be happy to address it. Thank you.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 24, 2013, 04:53:35 AM
see there's an allah comment... lol they are all over.. people just can't help it I guess...

That's not an attack harbinger, you seem to think that anything said against you in jest is an attack. Your hypersensitivity will only cause you problems in the long run.

anyway, I believe even without reading my own comments I remember enough that I have addressed each one you presented. could you point to the one I missed please? I would be happy to address it. Thank you.
Provide links for each of your claims please, only then will I consider my post addressed.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 24, 2013, 04:54:45 AM
Its almost predictable that theists will go "that was a attack!" when you state almost anything mildly,factually, bad about their religion...

really.. I was called a lier.. not related to religion. Did you even read what I called an attack? no facts related to religion. I can take what ever fact you want to put out. I can respond respectfully. I even try hard to do it.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 24, 2013, 04:55:51 AM
Its almost predictable that theists will go "that was a attack!" when you state almost anything mildly,factually, bad about their religion...

really.. I was called a lier.. not related to religion. Did you even read what I called an attack? no facts related to religion. I can take what ever fact you want to put out. I can respond respectfully. I even try hard to do it.

Calling you out for lying is NOT attacking you.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 24, 2013, 04:57:05 AM
see there's an allah comment... lol they are all over.. people just can't help it I guess...

You dare say Allah is an attack?

You will never get your virgins!....or were they raisins? I don't know.

No seriously dude, simply saying something you do not like is NOT an attack.

Saying "Hey harbinger, you stupid dirty minge dickhead, you suck balls while i raped your mother" IS an attack.

Disclaimer: Insult not intended.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 24, 2013, 04:57:53 AM
Calling you out for lying is NOT attacking you.

I checked that link you sent, and can confirm that it is not what he claimed it was.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 24, 2013, 05:01:49 AM
Saying "Hey harbinger, you stupid dirty minge dickhead, you suck balls while i raped your mother" IS an attack.

Disclaimer: Insult not intended.

Do you now understand what an attack is harbinger77? If so we need to get back on topic, nearly a full page and a half dedicated to this is getting old
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 24, 2013, 05:06:46 AM
That's not an attack harbinger, you seem to think that anything said against you in jest is an attack. Your hypersensitivity will only cause you problems in the long run.

I agree I pass over lots of childish garbage. It's just funny. I wouldn't say these things. If I did though I would be gang raped. Since I'm a Christian it's ok to break the rules and just be a jerk to me.. and everyone laughs. just as I thought it would be I accept it. Not mad at all but lets be honest here. There are fair debates and then there are people who just want to be mean to the Christian who is louder than the rest... it comes with the territory no need to deny it.

I don't lie I'm glad it works for you though. It didn't for me. The only way you can be justified in calling me a lier is to have seen what my phone pulled up... but you didn't.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 24, 2013, 05:09:46 AM
I don't lie I'm glad it works for you though. It didn't for me. The only way you can be justified in calling me a lier is to have seen what my phone pulled up... but you didn't.

Can you tell me what Mobile OS, and which browser you're using? I'm guessing an iPhone with IOS7 and Safari, but I could be wrong.
But if I'm right, I know you're wrong about where it sent you.
But if I'm wrong, and you're using either Windows Phone 7/8 and IE, or Android with Chrome, Opera, or Firefox, you're still wrong.

I think I covered the most common ones.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 24, 2013, 05:11:41 AM
I agree I pass over lots of childish garbage. It's just funny. I wouldn't say these things. If I did though I would be gang raped. Since I'm a Christian it's ok to break the rules and just be a jerk to me.. and everyone laughs. just as I thought it would be I accept it. Not mad at all but lets be honest here. There are fair debates and then there are people who just want to be mean to the Christian who is louder than the rest... it comes with the territory no need to deny it.

Not a single person here has attacked you seriously (refer to my satirical insult).

I don't lie I'm glad it works for you though. It didn't for me. The only way you can be justified in calling me a lier is to have seen what my phone pulled up... but you didn't.

Being that several members has verified that the link works, and that Google does not change no matter what OS you are using, you lied.

And now you are derailing this thread because of your own issues.

To be on topic, do you know any scientists who are afraid of god? Or anyone for that reason?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 24, 2013, 05:14:37 AM
back on topic... your link didn't work and your screen shot is just that. it's no help to me. The ONLY thing I have been asked to provide that I coudn't was related to healing... I believe I have addressed the other issues.. corrrect?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 24, 2013, 05:15:09 AM
back on topic... your link didn't work and your screen shot is just that. it's no help to me. The ONLY thing I have been asked to provide that I coudn't was related to healing... I believe I have addressed the other issues.. corrrect?

Links please.

EDIT:
Don't think I didn't notice you completely dodged my Mobile OS and Browser question, because I did, and you're not very sly. As a developer I have to deal with multiple platforms, including Windows Phone, IOS, Android, and a few others such as WebOS (Palm, HP, and LG) and I tend to do some browsing while using them, and I can confirm personally that Google links work universally, but if you wish to prove me wrong once and for all provide a screenshot of your browser, most mobile OSes provide a way to take one.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 24, 2013, 05:16:05 AM
I personally would like to know about this "healing"  >:D
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 24, 2013, 05:29:18 AM
I'll take that as a yes...
I have addressed both these issues. The CF child is not mine and as far as know it wasn't on the news. I have nothing to provide for a friend's child.

 I don't plan to run off to the news on my personal healing either or my wife. so, I'm sorry I can provide nothing. If you think this makes me a lie. I don't care. My intention wasn't to impress anyone. It happens everyday and nothing I gave, even a news report, would make you less than skeptical and you know it.

here is one it's not mine but it's a healing.
http://m.christianpost.com/news/i-believed-god-would-heal-me-and-he-did-says-man-cured-of-inoperable-cancer-video--103568/

and lots of links on this page...
http://www.stickyj.com/share.html

and more here..
http://www.healedbygod.com.au/

why do you need mine?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 24, 2013, 05:37:46 AM
Anything more...err...believable?

Not to be a bother, but people with dire (although still curable) sickness getting better is no indication of an omnipotent, omnipresent, all good god.

Unless you want to make the claim that god allows the 99% of terminally ill patients die.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 24, 2013, 05:43:25 AM
I'll take that as a yes...
I have addressed both these issues. The CF child is not mine and as far as know it wasn't on the news. I have nothing to provide for a friend's child.

 I don't plan to run off to the news on my personal healing either or my wife. so, I'm sorry I can provide nothing. If you think this makes me a lie. I don't care. My intention wasn't to impress anyone. It happens everyday and nothing I gave, even a news report, would make you less than skeptical and you know it.

here is one it's not mine but it's a healing.
http://m.christianpost.com/news/i-believed-god-would-heal-me-and-he-did-says-man-cured-of-inoperable-cancer-video--103568/

and lots of links on this page...
http://www.stickyj.com/share.html

and more here..
http://www.healedbygod.com.au/

why do you need mine?
That was a no, actually.
Also none of those links are credible.

Seriously? A site selling jewelry? Are you jerking my chain?

Edit:
You know if you just provided a link to a site where the bias wasn't written in the domain name, I might be more inclined to believe you, otherwise don't even bother, just say "I don't have proof" and move on, it's less effort.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 24, 2013, 05:48:02 AM
Seriously? A site selling jewelry? Are you jerking my chain?

(http://scranton.mylittlefacewhen.com/media/f/rsz/mlfw4563_small.jpg)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 24, 2013, 05:49:27 AM
Seriously? A site selling jewelry? Are you jerking my chain?

(http://scranton.mylittlefacewhen.com/media/f/rsz/mlfw4563_small.jpg)

XD, that was actually entirely unintended, but I'll take it.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 24, 2013, 05:55:15 AM
So harbinger? Anything yet?

I'm not holding my breath, so take your time.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Ivellios on December 24, 2013, 07:20:11 AM

thank you. I feel it's kind of rare that I'm not outright attacked. I do appreciate what seems to be a
respectful attitude.
I wish that you would have grown up in only one church. One with proper discipleship and serious bible
study. Serious Christians demonstrating a serious relationship with Jesus. As you point out there was no
church discipline. Your church along with to many others and yes, even my own was/is filled with Lazy
Lukewarm Christians. It drives me crazy! From your description can I guess? Did you attended a baptist
service? Was it also one of those KJV only ones too? Please, don't take that the wrong way I was in
those shoes as a child. sometimes baptist sometimes catholic. I'm just curious.

Southern Baptist. You state that it would have been better if I was able to stay only exposed to one... however, in order to find the truth in something, you have to listen to more than just one side.

As for the sheep issue I know people like to play that cold weather card but in the middle east the rainy
season is just ending. They would be out grazing this time of year. Average Bethlehem temps for Dec are
around 42. Here's an interesting link discussing this.
http://spofga.org/wrtk/2013/myth_too_cold_for_shepherds.php
The winter thing is a strawman. Not that it makes Dec birth correct mind you. The real answer is in the
stars of the wise men. The stars they followed aligned perfectly around June 22 2bc.

Will have to look into this more. Will have to leave for work when I post this.

Honestly one of the reasons I guessed KJVonly type churches, Aside from attending one, Was the copyright
thing. It's a popular argument among the KJV ONLY crowd. Most of those are baptist. First, most who
claim to have a 1611 Don't. most churches who claim to use one... don't. Most use plain KJV or worse yet
the NKJV. The spelling in 1611 is all crazy. v for u and double ss all over. It makes it kind of hard to
read. that being said the Original 1611KJV IS in fact copyrighted. Here is a picture of it.
http://unsettledchristianity.com/2010/07/copyright-issues-and-the-kjv-1611/

Already mentioned that I know King James did some fiddling with it. The funky spelling had to do with Olde Englifh. You know, when J was pronounced as a 'w' and some other wierd[1] stuff.

As for Geneva I have little knowledge on it. other than history.

I got it, because it's considered the most accurate translation, if you can excuse the old english.

NiV look at the progressive changes made every few
years. Maybe you can see how it started as one thingand has slowly become something else. In the meantime I'll reasearch a bit more and remember the witch's name. I'll get back to ya.
last thing I have played in the  ocult too magic is very real.

Hung out with some pagans for a while, because I wanted to see this "magic" first hand. Was disappointed, seemed to be all woo.
 1. to a modern english speaker
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on December 24, 2013, 11:30:22 AM
That's not an attack harbinger, you seem to think that anything said against you in jest is an attack. Your hypersensitivity will only cause you problems in the long run.

I agree I pass over lots of childish garbage.

That's not what he said. That's the opposite of what he said. Pointing to the holes in your argument, taking things and using your line of reasoning to illustrate how they could be used to support what we agree to be untrue is not 'childish garbage'
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on December 24, 2013, 11:31:54 AM

You know if you just provided a link to a site where the bias wasn't written in the domain name, I might be more inclined to believe you, otherwise don't even bother, just say "I don't have proof" and move on, it's less effort.

So true.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 24, 2013, 10:13:34 PM

You know if you just provided a link to a site where the bias wasn't written in the domain name, I might be more inclined to believe you, otherwise don't even bother, just say "I don't have proof" and move on, it's less effort.

So true.

 Honestly, I wish I could. Your request is illogical though. Tell me, if the very topic is "I was healed by God." How is the site where the topic is discussed not going to be biased?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 24, 2013, 11:21:11 PM
Perhaps you can find an unbiased scientific website with verifiable evidence of a magical god healing which was going to be 100% fatal, with placebos, other gods prayers and several volunteers?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 25, 2013, 12:36:18 AM
Perhaps you can find an unbiased scientific website with verifiable evidence of a magical god healing which was going to be 100% fatal, with placebos, other gods prayers and several volunteers?
This, 100% this.
It is not illogical for me to request documentation for the precise instance you're talking about. Because if it really happened, someone somewhere is really, really rich now.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 25, 2013, 12:38:04 AM
If prayer healing were proven to work, all people would have to do would say "God please heal me", and poof, better than sunshine.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 25, 2013, 07:44:35 AM

You know if you just provided a link to a site where the bias wasn't written in the domain name, I might be more inclined to believe you, otherwise don't even bother, just say "I don't have proof" and move on, it's less effort.

So true.


Honestly, I wish I could. Your request is illogical though. Tell me, if the very topic is "I was healed by God." How is the site where the topic is discussed not going to be biased?

Biased? Biased because people ask for evidence? Hardly. The fact is that although quite a lot of people claim to be healed,good evidence of this is severely lacking. Now, if people could be healed by god - and it had been shown to be the case - why would we have hospitals? They would be unnecessary as god would be called upon to heal the sick AND he would do it.

On the  hand, there have been quite a few cases where devout Christians have refused medical help for their children and have instead prayed at their bedsides only to see their child die of, say, diabetes which could have been easily diagnoses and treated by a doctor.

Its all about evidence not bias. If you ca n really show that god heals people show it - becaue no one else has managed that!
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 25, 2013, 11:08:15 AM
Perhaps you can find an unbiased scientific website with verifiable evidence of a magical god healing which was going to be 100% fatal, with placebos, other gods prayers and several volunteers?
This, 100% this.
It is not illogical for me to request documentation for the precise instance you're talking about. Because if it really happened, someone somewhere is really, really rich now.

I'll answer at least 3 posts with this one...

I don't know how you think the simple request for evidence is what I I meant as biased. Or even in it's self illogical.
None of you answered the question I asked either. Why am I ridiculed and said to be "dodging the issue" If I don't at least attempt to answer a question, yet mine rarely receive an answer?

I do plan to give this a try. I doubt I can satisfy all points of the request though.
The problem is that science wouldn't say "healed by God" the very topic implies a biased view. Does it not? To request this type of information and want some reference to God being part of the subject, then rejecting it because you think it's "biased" because the person chose to acknowledge God, that's the illogical part. We all know science would say "I don't know, before they acknowledge God even if the healing was unexplainable. We all agree science and God don't quite mix.

If prayer healing were proven to work, all people would have to do would say "God please heal me", and poof, better than sunshine.

The hard part is that you can't just live any-o-way you want and expect God to work in your life. at least you said please though. Manners are always nice in my opinion :)

Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity:

in·iq·ui·ty /i?nikwit?/
Noun:
Immoral or grossly unfair behavior
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 25, 2013, 11:41:34 AM
harbinger, please start posting links to your definitions so we can independently verify for ourselves.

Also, asking for documentation is NOT the same as asking for evidence, so quit equivocating. You are dodging the issue, and simply saying "I don't have documentation" is plenty, but you refuse to admit it.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 25, 2013, 01:15:26 PM
Just a place to start. I'm sure if I keep digging I can find more. I think the links got better as I kept looking and refining my search. This is at least the second time I have researched and found related materials with ease after being challenged as though there was nothing to be found.

 I'm curious.
A question to everyone:
Do you dismiss shomething as bunk and therefore never bother to research the topic or have you researched the topic and then with an educated mind dismiss the topic as bunk?

This one has an (admited supposed) Dr. friend who made a comment....

holyspiritactivism.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/medically-unexplained-healing-from-rare-neurological-disorder/

This one is a secular magazine article written by an obviously unbelieving Nigel Barber, Ph.D.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201103/faith-healing-shouldnt-work-it-does

This one is written about a Dr. who after her research for a book now believes in miracles.

quote: "Dr. Jacalyn Duffin doesn't believe in God, but she does believe in miracles"

http://www.renewedpriesthood.org/ca/hpage.cfm?Web_ID=1419

here is another one didn't read more than the main page, but I will. Starting now even. supposedly a collection of documented healings.

http://documentedhealings.com/

quote: "These weren’t something I read about, these were all documented miracles on real people I met and saw myself.... It seems the media is either deaf to telling these amazing stories or the world just isn’t listening (or both),"

and another...
An article, I only scanned over it. I believe it's about the Dr who wrote a book to document unexplained healing.

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientifically-documented-miracles.html?m=1

quote: " The Casdroph book goes into great detail on every case. Since these were not the actual patients of Casdroph himself, there are three tiers of medical data and opinion; Casdroph himself and his evaluation of the data, several doctors with whom he consulted on every case (and they vary from case to case), and the original doctors of the patients themselves.

 quote: "Not all of them were totally healed immediately. But all the cases were either terminal or incurable and all of them, within a year, returned to full health and pain free existences."
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 25, 2013, 01:55:23 PM
harbinger, please start posting links to your definitions so we can independently verify for ourselves.

Also, asking for documentation is NOT the same as asking for evidence, so quit equivocating. You are dodging the issue, and simply saying "I don't have documentation" is plenty, but you refuse to admit it.

normally when I define a word I just google it...

in·iq·ui·ty /i?nikwit?/
Noun:
Immoral or grossly unfair behavior

http://www.google.com/m?q=define+iniquity&client=ms-opera-mini-android&channel=new

And the documentation is what you expect to prove the case. most people would agree that the documentation is therefore the evidence that you are asking for... Where is the disconnect in this logic?

Are you referring to my personal case and lack of documents or my friends case, or just healing in general?
Either one I have freely admitted in my friends case not my child. I have nothing, and no way to get anything. In my wife's case I could obtain the documents but you, or anyone else, would not believe it anyway. Why should I go out of my way for you? In my own case I've said from the start that I never went back to the Dr to waste the money on verification. Why should I?
I have said all of this from the start. Since.this was my stated position from the start, How has this been "dodging the issue?"

As for generalized healing I have submitted 7 links or so (didn't count) 3 In the the first post went largely unread.
How has this been "dodging the issue?"
If you would just admit there is no amount of external documentation nor evidence that would convince you of God's healing... maybe we could get someplace on the possibility of unexplained healing.

one morning my 1yo son had a green snotty nose. normally means infection. He had a fever that started while in the church daycare. Rather than rush home we just took him to service with us. He was prayed over and anointed with oil. His fussy attitude changed in minutes by the time service was over the nose was dry and the fever was broken. Can you explain this? I know I can't.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 25, 2013, 02:09:39 PM
We don't know everything, so there are mysteries. In the medical world, doctors don't know what causes all disease, so it should be no surprise that we also don't know what cures us sometimes.

So while, yes, it is possible that god is occasionally intervening, it is also possible that other, deity-free things happen. A chemical imbalance that arises mysteriously and causes a named disease then finds its own balance and the disease dissipates. Exposure to some harmful substance is halted and the problem it is causing goes away. If we don't know what happened in the cases Harbinger linked to, then we also don't know who or what to credit the recovery to.

If there were a pattern, it would help. A pattern of people from one religion getting better and nobody else improving, for instance. A pattern of prayers being answered at a predictable rate. If the mysteriously healed problem was a bit more obvious in the first place (lie our standard amputee question, or hernias, or the gangrenous legs of diabetes sufferers, then I might be a bit more impressed. But as it is, having an occasional 'healing' when we don't understand the causes in the first place, while wonderful for the patient, is not necessarily the sign of intervention from up on high.

If we ever get to the point where we fully understand any given disease and then watch the impossible happen in front of doctors, that might be worth discussing. But as long as we are still in the dark about the causes of many conditions, we have to be careful about who or what to credit when someone is cured.

But as long as diseases appear arbitrarily, arbitrary cures are no sign of anything other than a reversal of fortune. And if a god is occasionally doing such things, but not curing childhood leukemia or halting birth defects like Downs Syndrome or MD, he isn't going to get any kudos from me anyway.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: G-Roll on December 25, 2013, 02:56:09 PM
one morning my 1yo son had a green snotty nose. normally means infection. He had a fever that started while in the church daycare. Rather than rush home we just took him to service with us. He was prayed over and anointed with oil. His fussy attitude changed in minutes by the time service was over the nose was dry and the fever was broken. Can you explain this? I know I can't.

I think you should look into why your family is constantly sick. Most of the posts of yours I have read state that either you or one of your family members was/is sick. Perhaps an investigation into that is in order so your god doesn’t have to heal you guys constantly?  ;)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 25, 2013, 03:01:43 PM
I have to agree with ParkingPlaces, people becoming healthy of common curable ailments isn't likely to raise my eyebrow, one that isn't so common but curable might spark my interest, but not likely to make me believe a god intervened.

However you didn't claim either of those things in the instance I'm wanting documentation on, which is someone being healed of Cystic Fibrosis, THAT would make me VERY interested, which I am, but you are refusing to provide documentation on that one isolated incident, which makes me doubt it's validity.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 25, 2013, 03:19:00 PM
We don't know everything, so there are mysteries. In the medical world, doctors don't know what causes all disease, so it should be no surprise that we also don't know what cures us sometimes.

So while, yes, it is possible that god is occasionally intervening, it is also possible that other, deity-free things happen. A chemical imbalance that arises mysteriously and causes a named disease then finds its own balance and the disease dissipates. Exposure to some harmful substance is halted and the problem it is causing goes away. If we don't know what happened in the cases Harbinger linked to, then we also don't know who or what to credit the recovery to.

If there were a pattern, it would help. A pattern of people from one religion getting better and nobody else improving, for instance. A pattern of prayers being answered at a predictable rate. If the mysteriously healed problem was a bit more obvious in the first place (lie our standard amputee question, or hernias, or the gangrenous legs of diabetes sufferers, then I might be a bit more impressed. But as it is, having an occasional 'healing' when we don't understand the causes in the first place, while wonderful for the patient, is not necessarily the sign of intervention from up on high.

If we ever get to the point where we fully understand any given disease and then watch the impossible happen in front of doctors, that might be worth discussing. But as long as we are still in the dark about the causes of many conditions, we have to be careful about who or what to credit when someone is cured.

But as long as diseases appear arbitrarily, arbitrary cures are no sign of anything other than a reversal of fortune. And if a god is occasionally doing such things, but not curing childhood leukemia or halting birth defects like Downs Syndrome or MD, he isn't going to get any kudos from me anyway.

A very fair and even response. Thank you. I even agree with you. The human body on it's own is awesome, Capable of things we may never understand. I have to ask though did you go to and read from the links I posted? Some of these are documented cases of cancer. The Dr told some of them, "You are going to die. I can't help you." Though we don't fully understand how cancer works I think it's fair to say it won't just go away. forgive my simplification, the way you said it was eloquent. Especially if the body's immune system is in such a weakened state, or the cancer has spread to a degree That death is imminent. I at least, have a hard time buying that to be the case.

As for the lack of pattern may I suggest the Christian or Taoist or whatever, for arguments sake, could be the issue. I think the mistake in the thinking lies in the fact that scientifically speaking the faith of each believer is not a constant and therefore will not always produce the same results. Resulting in an apparent lack of pattern. To see a pattern I think we would need to focus on an individual subject rather than the community as a whole.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 25, 2013, 03:41:29 PM
While you you may be right, Harbinger, is showing us the odd occasions where medicinc e cannot explain the recovery of someone from an illness - cancer or anything else - that lack of knowledge does not allow the one further step which I suspect you would like to take. Medicine cannot explain this, so 'god did it'. If there is not meduical explanation of a cure that's where things stand until we understand more about the disease in question.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 25, 2013, 03:44:03 PM
I have to agree with ParkingPlaces, people becoming healthy of common curable ailments isn't likely to raise my eyebrow, one that isn't so common but curable might spark my interest, but not likely to make me believe a god intervened.

However you didn't claim either of those things in the instance I'm wanting documentation on, which is someone being healed of Cystic Fibrosis, THAT would make me VERY interested, which I am, but you are refusing to provide documentation on that one isolated incident, which makes me doubt it's validity.

I agree with your reason for rejecting my claim. I don't know what you expect a third party to do though. I think if it was my son I may very well go public. Then again I don't know... it's a tight spot. This man chooses not to, and I respect that.
As I have said before subjecting this boy to medical testing on the scale of a lab rat, the secular backlash, or even christian praise wouldn't be in his best interests. Nor would it give us a tool to fight CF in others. So at the end of the day, what's the point?  To help you believe perhaps?? You either will or won't this comes from the heart not the head. If documented healings is really what you want to read I gave several links. One of those is a book you could read. I ask again, why do need MY documents when there are plenty both able and  willing to post theirs online?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 25, 2013, 03:58:48 PM
While you you may be right, Harbinger, is showing us the odd occasions where medicinc e cannot explain the recovery of someone from an illness - cancer or anything else - that lack of knowledge does not allow the one further step which I suspect you would like to take. Medicine cannot explain this, so 'god did it'. If there is not meduical explanation of a cure that's where things stand until we understand more about the disease in question.

I agree with a stalemate... all this agreeing... are we having a christmas miracle... lol

  While I would love to be able to state see, God did it. I can't. I only want to point out some things happen that we can't explain. mysterious healing leaves room, even as parking places admitted, for it to be possible God has intervened. For arguments sake the other side has room too though the odds would be astronomical.
As for taking that step Only one of us can do that.. and it's not me.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Astreja on December 25, 2013, 04:01:48 PM
...one morning my 1yo son had a green snotty nose. normally means infection. He had a fever that started while in the church daycare. Rather than rush home we just took him to service with us. He was prayed over and anointed with oil. His fussy attitude changed in minutes by the time service was over the nose was dry and the fever was broken. Can you explain this? I know I can't.
I think you should look into why your family is constantly sick. Most of the posts of yours I have read state that either you or one of your family members was/is sick. Perhaps an investigation into that is in order so your god doesn’t have to heal you guys constantly?  ;)

Harbinger, I'd query an allergy to mould or some other environmental or food allergen.  You might want to keep an eye on this.  Be on the lookout for contaminants in your home, in the daycare, or both.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 25, 2013, 04:38:19 PM
Another question would be why do some people never need such miracles? I'm 62, and other than one small surgery with a night in the hospital (and I understand they do the same thing today (35 years later) laproscopically, and you're out the same day, the occasional cold, and what was then standard list of childhood diseases, now preventable by inoculation, I've never had any notable health problems. I haven't needed a miracle.

On the other hand I've known many a christian for whom a miracle would have saved them or their children or their sanity, and they got none of that.

What good are miracles if they don't happen often enough to do any good? And what good are miracles if you don't even need them?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 25, 2013, 04:44:14 PM
Come on, Parking Places, miracles are there to convince the faithful to keep putting money into the collection. They aren't there to heklp sufferers!
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 25, 2013, 04:45:43 PM
^^^Hey, the only exercise I get these days is jumping to conclusions, wheels. But it keeps me healthy enough to not need miracles.  ;)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 25, 2013, 04:47:42 PM
Right! Enjoy the jumping!
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Quesi on December 25, 2013, 06:55:42 PM

one morning my 1yo son had a green snotty nose. normally means infection. He had a fever that started while in the church daycare. Rather than rush home we just took him to service with us. He was prayed over and anointed with oil. His fussy attitude changed in minutes by the time service was over the nose was dry and the fever was broken. Can you explain this? I know I can't.


Do you know that 3-4 million children die per year of starvation or complications arising from malnutrition?  And yet god took time out of his busy schedule to cure your son's snotty nose?   

Really?  Do you really believe that? 

Do you believe that there were not fervent prayers for any of these millions of dead children?  Or did their parents and loved ones and congregation members pray the wrong way?  Or was your god testing the parents?  To see how they would hold up? Or punishing them?  Did Jesus need to call all these little souls home because he just really needs a steady flow of fresh little souls to keep him company? 

Think about it.  Really.  Think about it.

What was it about the prayers for your son's snotty nose that got god's attention?  What made your son's snotty nose more special than all the bodies of little children wasting away from malnutrition?     
 
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Nam on December 25, 2013, 08:11:13 PM
really.. I was called a lier.. not related to religion. Did you even read what I called an attack? no facts related to religion. I can take what ever fact you want to put out. I can respond respectfully. I even try hard to do it.

I am a person who, I think many here can agree, that knows how to "attack" people.

If I said that it is idiotic of you to misspell such a minor and insignificant word as "lier", would that be me attacking you or would it be that I said you are an idiot for misspelling "lier" be me attacking you?

An "attack" is defined as a person taking an aggressive action against another. Calling someone an idiot is aggressive against that person. Stating what one says is idiotic is against the words stated rather than the person. The aim is at the statement (words) rather than the person.

An example: I have met many Christians who take personal offense toward themselves when anyone says something negative about the Bible. This is wrong of them for the fact that they, personally, are not being attacked but they take it that way. That's on them, not the one attacking the Bible. They didn't write the Bible. Now, if they did write it then there could be an argument but even that'd be flawed since, again, the words are being attacked and not the person.

Now, if someone said something negative to the person for believing in the Bible, that would be an attack on the person.

Do you believe when you are saying negative things about atheism, science, or anyone who has written on either subject in a neutral or positive manner you're attacking the person?

Maybe you do but you're not.

Stating negative things about the person is not correlated with, or synonymous with saying negative things about what they say, or believe is true.

Take it from a guy who truly knows about these things.

-Nam
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 25, 2013, 08:52:27 PM
I am going to say this one more time.

Quote
Perhaps you can find an unbiased scientific website with verifiable evidence of a magical god healing which was going to be 100% fatal, with placebos, other gods prayers and several volunteers?

If not, i refuse to click your links.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 25, 2013, 09:08:24 PM
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201103/faith-healing-shouldnt-work-it-does

This one is written about a Dr. who after her research for a book now believes in miracles.

quote: "Dr. Jacalyn Duffin doesn't believe in God, but she does believe in miracles"

I'm calling complete BS on this, it's entirely anecdotal, there was no study, no double blind test, and no verification of data. I can disregard this one out of hand.

EDIT:
Notice how I didn't take her PhD into account, you tried to use that as if made her an authority, it doesn't. Good scientists can do poor science, and poor scientists can do good science. The difference is how they record data, and she did absolutely NO recording of data. I didn't see one link to an empirical study.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 25, 2013, 09:43:12 PM
While you you may be right, Harbinger, is showing us the odd occasions where medicinc e cannot explain the recovery of someone from an illness - cancer or anything else - that lack of knowledge does not allow the one further step which I suspect you would like to take. Medicine cannot explain this, so 'god did it'. If there is not meduical explanation of a cure that's where things stand until we understand more about the disease in question.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201103/faith-healing-shouldnt-work-it-does

This one is written about a Dr. who after her research for a book now believes in miracles.

quote: "Dr. Jacalyn Duffin doesn't believe in God, but she does believe in miracles"

I'm calling complete BS on this, it's entirely anecdotal, there was no study, no double blind test, and no verification of data. I can disregard this one out of hand.

EDIT:
Notice how I didn't take her PhD into account, you tried to use that as if made her an authority, it doesn't. Good scientists can do poor science, and poor scientists can do good science. The difference is how they record data, and she did absolutely NO recording of data. I didn't see one link to an empirical study.

Use the PHd? No.... Dr was just part of the search.  I only found the site and posted it.. I didn't really even read all of it I was just searching. I took it to be more of an introduction to the book. perhaps the book would have the info you want?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 25, 2013, 09:51:28 PM
In order to be called doctor you have to have a doctorate, in this case she has a doctorate of philosophy (PhD).
If you're going to use a site as a source, always, always, ALWAYS, read it. Never post an article you haven't read, now you have egg on your face.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 25, 2013, 10:11:40 PM
Now is his pulling our chain...
I didn't really even read all of it I was just searching.

Perhaps read what you post, and verify if it is peer reviewed, has blind tests, data written down, etc.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 25, 2013, 10:28:25 PM
...one morning my 1yo son had a green snotty nose. normally means infection. He had a fever that started while in the church daycare. Rather than rush home we just took him to service with us. He was prayed over and anointed with oil. His fussy attitude changed in minutes by the time service was over the nose was dry and the fever was broken. Can you explain this? I know I can't.
I think you should look into why your family is constantly sick. Most of the posts of yours I have read state that either you or one of your family members was/is sick. Perhaps an investigation into that is in order so your god doesn’t have to heal you guys constantly?  ;)

Harbinger, I'd query an allergy to mould or some other environmental or food allergen.  You might want to keep an eye on this.  Be on the lookout for contaminants in your home, in the daycare, or both.

I have 7 kids plus my wife and I. I have shared 3 stories one for each member mentioned. The time span in question is 1.5yrs give or take. I would hardly say we are sick all the time.

the contamination hypothesis is good. However, that would mean that whatever made him sick at the house was gone when we came home. Also fails to explain the snotty nose he left the house with. contamination in the daycare could have caused the fever I suppose but 3 days later he was fine after twice as much time exposed to the day care. Could have been some sort of mold bloom but we're in the middle of a record drought here in TX. No other family members were affected either. Still a nice hypothesis though.



one morning my 1yo son had a green snotty nose. normally means infection. He had a fever that started while in the church daycare. Rather than rush home we just took him to service with us. He was prayed over and anointed with oil. His fussy attitude changed in minutes by the time service was over the nose was dry and the fever was broken. Can you explain this? I know I can't.


Do you know that 3-4 million children die per year of starvation or complications arising from malnutrition?  And yet god took time out of his busy schedule to cure your son's snotty nose?   

Really?  Do you really believe that? 

Do you believe that there were not fervent prayers for any of these millions of dead children?  Or did their parents and loved ones and congregation members pray the wrong way?  Or was your god testing the parents?  To see how they would hold up? Or punishing them?  Did Jesus need to call all these little souls home because he just really needs a steady flow of fresh little souls to keep him company? 

Think about it.  Really.  Think about it.

What was it about the prayers for your son's snotty nose that got god's attention?  What made your son's snotty nose more special than all the bodies of little children wasting away from malnutrition?     

God has no busy schedule. He is outside of your time. To say my son took him from another task is wrong He is All Present.
 I can't speak for God or the others praying or the others who die. what if the dead prayed for death?? I can tell you we did this healing just as we are told:

James5:14
14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him,
anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

Maybe that was the difference? Maybe our faith is stronger.. I don't know. I only presented the simple story to see what you may all think of it. I have 7 kids and never saw this happen before.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 25, 2013, 10:36:06 PM
In order to be called doctor you have to have a doctorate, in this case she has a doctorate of philosophy (PhD).
If you're going to use a site as a source, always, always, ALWAYS, read it. Never post an article you haven't read, now you have egg on your face.
Always, always, ALWAYS remember I am NOT trying to impress you.

Now is his pulling our chain...
I didn't really even read all of it I was just searching.

Perhaps read what you post, and verify if it is peer reviewed, has blind tests, data written down, etc.

perhaps... but what do you care? You won't be clicking on my links anyway.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 25, 2013, 11:04:53 PM
I am going to say this one more time.

Quote
Perhaps you can find an unbiased scientific website with verifiable evidence of a magical god healing which was going to be 100% fatal, with placebos, other gods prayers and several volunteers?

If not, i refuse to click your links.

perhaps you missed this.. guess I'll try it again though

Perhaps you can find an unbiased scientific website with verifiable evidence of a magical god healing which was going to be 100% fatal, with placebos, other gods prayers and several volunteers?
This, 100% this.
It is not illogical for me to request documentation for the precise instance you're talking about. Because if it really happened, someone somewhere is really, really rich now.

I do plan to give this a try. I doubt I can satisfy all points of the request though.
The problem is that science wouldn't say "healed by God" the very topic implies a biased view. Does it not? To request this type of information and want some reference to God being part of the subject, then rejecting it because you think it's "biased" because the person chose to acknowledge God, that's the illogical part. We all know science would say "I don't know, before they acknowledge God even if the healing was unexplainable. We all agree science and God don't quite mix.

If prayer healing were proven to work, all people would have to do would say "God please heal me", and poof, better than sunshine.

The hard part is that you can't just live any-o-way you want and expect God to work in your life. at least you said please though. Manners are always nice in my opinion :)

Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity:

in·iq·ui·ty /i?nikwit?/
Noun:
Immoral or grossly unfair behavior

Perhaps you missed this? I guess I'll say it again though.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 25, 2013, 11:40:13 PM
Perhaps you missed this? I guess I'll say it again though.

I read that post, yes.

What you fail to realize is that science is biased towards "Reality" so if there was sufficient evidence for these "god healings" science would would literally say "God heals people".

The fact that your links are based around non-peer reviewed, christian garble is why I refuse to read them.

I can post links to sites claiming a flat earth and leprechauns, would you say that it would be unfair to ask for better evidence?

You say that i think it is biased if
Quote
the person chose to acknowledge God
, yes i think it is biased.
Simply saying "God is real, deal with it" is not sufficient for anything.

You honestly might as well say "the magical blue seashell healed me! Believe me because otherwise you are biased".

You then state
Quote
We all know science would say "I don't know, before they acknowledge God even if the healing was unexplainable.
Which is true. Why you may ask?
Because making a baseless, evidence-less claim is stupid, because anyone can do it. Can you only imagine what chaos could erupt if theists were allowed to spread non-science! Ohh wait...

Edit: Then you write some ridiculous theistic garble that has no impact on me...
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 26, 2013, 02:52:59 AM
In order to be called doctor you have to have a doctorate, in this case she has a doctorate of philosophy (PhD).
If you're going to use a site as a source, always, always, ALWAYS, read it. Never post an article you haven't read, now you have egg on your face.
Always, always, ALWAYS remember I am NOT trying to impress you.

Reading an article is the first thing any sensible person trying to further their argument would do, the need to impress someone shouldn't be a motivator.

It's a good thing I wasn't expecting you to impress me, I want you to be honest, and provide documentation for the precise incident you put forth, if you can't, then say "I don't have documentation for it." That's all I'm asking. You're quickly losing all credibility.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 26, 2013, 04:02:05 AM
Being that many theists claim that the bibles predictions proves it correct.

I predict that Harbinger will be incapable of producing such documentation.

If such prediction is correct, i self proclaim myself...go- ....no one.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 26, 2013, 11:26:00 PM
In order to be called doctor you have to have a doctorate, in this case she has a doctorate of philosophy (PhD).
If you're going to use a site as a source, always, always, ALWAYS, read it. Never post an article you haven't read, now you have egg on your face.
Always, always, ALWAYS remember I am NOT trying to impress you.

Reading an article is the first thing any sensible person trying to further their argument would do, the need to impress someone shouldn't be a motivator.

It's a good thing I wasn't expecting you to impress me, I want you to be honest, and provide documentation for the precise incident you put forth, if you can't, then say "I don't have documentation for it." That's all I'm asking. You're quickly losing all credibility.
But how many times do i have to say it?? Maybe if I keep it REALLY simple this time?

CF...
I don't have it.
 Can't even get it. Wouldn't even ask.

mitral and Tricuspid regurgitation...
 I could get it.. but to what end? Your answer would be a reflection of what parking places already said.
I don't have it.

GERD...
I never went back to confirm it's gone. There's no need for it.
I don't have it

I think this is the 3rd time I have said this. I've never even made different claim.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 26, 2013, 11:35:42 PM
If you cannot prove it, retract your claim that god healed you.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 26, 2013, 11:37:21 PM
Harbinger, you never once directly said that you didn't have documentation, you skirted the issue, but that is the very FIRST time you said it directly. I can now comfortably disregard your anecdotal testimony as that.

Next time you want to posit miraculous healings, make sure you can get documentation from a reputable secular source, preferably from a peer reviewed journal.

THAT will convince me, not some ravings from a psychologist, nor from a jewelry store. Posting christian sources is obviously going to be disregarded, as the bias is obvious.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 27, 2013, 12:24:33 AM
If you cannot prove it, retract your claim that god healed you.

To what end?
 Never will I do such non-sense!
7hhI don't care if you believe me or not. It is, and will always be, part of my testimony.
Can't you all be honest with yourselves?
bMy point, as I have always said, is there is NOTHING I could show that someone wouldn't say is fake for one reason or another. Think about it. What type of document would it need to be? What type of delivery system would be required To ensure no tampering? What about signatures or notaries? Why should I bother Jumping through these hoops?
I keep asking this question and more but no one answers...
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Antidote on December 27, 2013, 01:06:54 AM
I just told you what criteria would meet our satisfaction.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 27, 2013, 02:02:37 AM
bMy point, as I have always said, is there is NOTHING I could show that someone wouldn't say is fake for one reason or another. Think about it. What type of document would it need to be? What type of delivery system would be required To ensure no tampering? What about signatures or notaries? Why should I bother Jumping through these hoops?

I have already posted my own criteria.

Quote
Perhaps you can find an unbiased scientific website with verifiable evidence of a magical god healing which was going to be 100% fatal, with placebos, other gods prayers and several volunteers?

Just replace website with documentation and you are set.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 27, 2013, 08:44:35 AM
Harbinger, you never once directly said that you didn't have documentation, you skirted the issue, but that is the very FIRST time you said it directly. I can now comfortably disregard your anecdotal testimony as that.

Next time you want to posit miraculous healings, make sure you can get documentation from a reputable secular source, preferably from a peer reviewed journal.

THAT will convince me, not some ravings from a psychologist, nor from a jewelry store. Posting christian sources is obviously going to be disregarded, as the bias is obvious.
bMy point, as I have always said, is there is NOTHING I could show that someone wouldn't say is fake for one reason or another. Think about it. What type of document would it need to be? What type of delivery system would be required To ensure no tampering? What about signatures or notaries? Why should I bother Jumping through these hoops?

I have already posted my own criteria.

Quote
Perhaps you can find an unbiased scientific website with verifiable evidence of a magical god healing which was going to be 100% fatal, with placebos, other gods prayers and several volunteers?

Just replace website with documentation and you are set.

not quite off topic here but basically you are all saying under almost any topic the deals with believing in God that you won't believe unless he shows himself to you physically but at the least you need sign?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on December 27, 2013, 09:31:09 AM


not quite off topic here but basically you are all saying under almost any topic the deals with believing in God that you won't believe unless he shows himself to you physically but at the least you need sign?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Kind of the point, because people lie, people hallucinate, people exaggerate. People convey all sorts of false information, whether by design or by their own credulousness. The further the claim is from what we see as part of our everyday lives, the more cross check, solid, and verifiable it should be in order for someone not to be misled. This includes scientific claims. Take the moon landing for instance . The pictures of the rockets are everywhere , there's thousands of people who worked on the project, banks of computer, those that landed, tv footage, there's even the fact that some of the most powerful laser retro reflectors can pick up the glint off the equipment left behind, the fact the same principles are used for satellites today, the tens of thousands that witnessed the launch, and so forth.

Now if someone said there was a secret moon landing in the 1950s by Canada I would expect extraordinary evidence as well. Evidence that does not exist. I would reject said claim...even though it stands on the exact same scientific principles.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 27, 2013, 09:53:20 PM
not quite off topic here but basically you are all saying under almost any topic the deals with believing in God that you won't believe unless he shows himself to you physically but at the least you need sign?

I would not require physical contact with a god, but would need physical evidence of god.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 29, 2013, 08:48:07 AM
I have a bnew signature text I found whilst away for a couple fo days. It says it all. Can you provide evidence of a miracle healing on this basis, Harninger?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 29, 2013, 10:07:08 PM
I have a bnew signature text I found whilst away for a couple fo days. It says it all. Can you provide evidence of a miracle healing on this basis, Harninger?

I think I could. Again let us be honest.
Lets play pretend for a moment.
 I just submitted scanned documents of medical records that support my claim. I submitted the entire file. Which aside from administrative junk is only two sets of tests. The first showing positive test results and the other showing negative test results. Only two visits with a time span of almost a year.

forgive me if I assume to much, but would you not claim missing documents that if included would show the treatment process? Not that there is one except surgery. The assumption based on the fact that The two cardiograms were almost a year apart? would this not be the claim no matter how you were able to view the documents? would you not also claim this if you were able to obtain the entire file for yourself? The blame being on the office not myself in that case. Would you not claim treatment or surgery must have happened at another office placing me in a position to produce something that doesn't exist? Would you not need to examine the patient to see there are no scars for me to prove there are no surgical documents to present? actually now that I think of that aspect... Angioplasty is done with a tiny incision in the thigh. This could heal in a way that the scar wouldn't be seen. Wouldn't that give you an out for surgical possibility even with physical inspection? (I have no idea how surgery to repair tricuspid regergitation  would actually be done. Didn't google it. Not interested)

Lets say that not only was I willing to jump through these hoops but I actually did it. Every one of them. This hinges on something that doesn't exist. The claim of no treatment. There would be no documents to support something that never happened. Also the claim of no lifestyle change. That would not be documented either way. Would the lack of documentation not give room for doubt therefore the mind quick to dismiss it as hogwash would do so? Or perhaps my shear willingness to jump through these hoops is proof that it must be true and that I've been nothing but forthcoming?

 I think i've covered from start to finish how this would go down.

 I still ask to what end should I even attempt this? Also Once again why would I lie about it? I've presented the facts as they are many times. If I made it up wouldn't it have been seen by now? Who can keep a lie straight this long? Would you or someone not have jumped on my lie or even a perceived contradiction like a bloodhound?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: xyzzy on December 29, 2013, 11:04:42 PM
Harbinger77, could you please clarify something.

Are you saying in this example, of which you want comments but you're not going to actually attempt, that your claim would be that the medical records that would have supported your contention just happen to be missing but you can't explain why, and that the only records available are the ones described. Or, are you saying, that those are the only records that there ever were?

Also, is this a description of your actual situation or just an example you are throwing out irrespective of if it actually occurred in practice?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 30, 2013, 12:29:32 AM
*snip*

Look, it doesn't matter what any file says, but if it doesn't point towards a deity, no one should believe it was a deity that helped.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 30, 2013, 06:52:21 AM
Harbinger,

I agree with the comments above. You are not being very clear with this though.

For the heart problem, one would have expected there to be untrasound scans of the heart showing the damage to the valves. In fact a small camera can, these days, be inserted into a vein and the valves imaged. If we had something as conclusoive as that and the same texts done after the supposed claim, one might start to consider your claims. If we are only talking about symptomatic relief, well, a whole range of possibilities open up of which none would suggest a miracle cure.

The problem is that for any condition where there is a problem that cannot be cured we would need -

1. Clear unarguable evidence that the problem was there
2. Clear unarguable evidence that it has gone away
3. The problem would need to be one in which the body wouold never deal with itself - like cancers that go into remission.

Research starts when there are these sorts of evidence.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 30, 2013, 07:42:53 PM
Harbinger77, could you please clarify something.

Are you saying in this example, of which you want comments but you're not going to actually attempt, that your claim would be that the medical records that would have supported your contention just happen to be missing but you can't explain why, and that the only records available are the ones described. Or, are you saying, that those are the only records that there ever were?

Also, is this a description of your actual situation or just an example you are throwing out irrespective of if it actually occurred in practice?

My apologies. I thought I was being clear Everything I posted is my exact situation. However, I talked to My wife about the details. It seems I did leave something out. I forgot how it started.

 My wife was having breathing problems and was sent to a lung specialist. She performed an EKG and and echocardiogram. She was the first to detect a heart problem, but was unable to diagnose it. She sent my wife to the Heart specialist. The heart specialist then performed a second EKG and echocardiogram. We talked about surgery as the only option and, of course, cutting out smoking. We couldn't afford surgery and my wife never did quite smoking. About a year later my wife was sent back to the Heart specialist there was a 3rd EKG and echocardiogram performed.

And echocardiogram IS an ultrasound of the heart.
http://www.wkhs.com/heart/services/Diagnostic_Tests/Echocardiogram_Cardiac_Ultrasound.aspx

 so there would be two back to back positive EKGs and echocardiograms and then another  set, this time negative, about a year later. and absolutely nothing in between.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 30, 2013, 11:57:10 PM
So?

Where are they?

Simply saying "there should be these here" is not getting anyone anywhere...
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on December 31, 2013, 02:12:04 PM
not quite off topic here but basically you are all saying under almost any topic the deals with believing in God that you won't believe unless he shows himself to you physically but at the least you need sign?

I would not require physical contact with a god, but would need physical evidence of god.

I don't have physical contact with uranium, never have seen uranium with my own two eyes. None the less I believe it exists. Why? Because it's description is in concrete terms that doesn't vary from culture to culture and is testable.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 01, 2014, 12:51:46 AM
I don't have physical contact with uranium, never have seen uranium with my own two eyes. None the less I believe it exists. Why? Because it's description is in concrete terms that doesn't vary from culture to culture and is testable.

Never said i would need physical contact, but i have seen uranium with my eyes, know what is does, etc. ;D
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Graybeard on January 01, 2014, 12:27:41 PM

My father told me tonight that scientists are afraid to admit that there is a god.
Do you know? Every time I read that, it seems less likely that it is speaking of something that really happened.

Carry on...
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 01, 2014, 12:52:32 PM

My father told me tonight that scientists are afraid to admit that there is a god.
Do you know? Every time I read that, it seems less likely that it is speaking of something that really happened.

Carry on...

I don't think this is completely impossible. I do doubt it was the complete statement though. I would like to know the context. As a father I'm sure dad went on to explain his position.

that's not why I'm here though. I'm at work right now listening to a theological professor teaching on end times events.

I asked the question about needing a sign. Many indicate they do need a sign. My question is are you familiar with end time prophesy and are you looking for them as they are being fulfilled? Are you listening to what Christians are saying about things being fulfilled in our time? If not. Why not? Would that not be a sign if you saw something come to pass?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 01, 2014, 01:11:22 PM
Ah, Harbinger, the end times - the times of which only the father knows - is that it? If so, we aren't going to do too well with looking for signs as it is easily possible that god's time runs on a different timescale from ours - unless he is in eternity where there is no time of course. Anyway, what signs ought we to look for that haven't happened before and so are significant. We've been having earthquakes, wars and rumours of wars for the whole of human history so i can't see how they help at all. In fact, they sound more like something an astrologer would add to a prediction to keep you guessing.

So, seriously, what should we be looking out for and whjy do you suppose the an 'end times' are more likley now that the 1st century or the 3,000th century?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 01, 2014, 11:21:11 PM
Ah, Harbinger, the end times - the times of which only the father knows - is that it? If so, we aren't going to do too well with looking for signs as it is easily possible that god's time runs on a different timescale from ours - unless he is in eternity where there is no time of course. Anyway, what signs ought we to look for that haven't happened before and so are significant. We've been having earthquakes, wars and rumours of wars for the whole of human history so i can't see how they help at all. In fact, they sound more like something an astrologer would add to a prediction to keep you guessing.

So, seriously, what should we be looking out for and whjy do you suppose the an 'end times' are more likley now that the 1st century or the 3,000th century?

So your personal answer is no, you don't?
Sermon on the mount is a fun place to start.
Mark13:32
32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the
Son, but the Father.
This is true as you say. 
The parable of the fig tree teaches we can know when it's close though.

mark13:28-31
28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye
know that summer is near: 29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know
that it is nigh, even at the doors. 30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. 31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.


mark13:6-8
 6 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ ; and shall deceive many. 7 And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be;
but the end shall not be yet.
8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.
Note: beginnings of

 fake Jesus.. David koresh and Charles Manson. come to mind but José Luis de Jesús he's worth looking at.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Luis_de_Jesús
aside from Him google false messiah there have been and are currently quite a few.

You mentioned earthquakes. That's an interesting subject on it's own. We expect not only the magnatudes will get stronger, they will be more frequent, and the locations will be places unexpected.
We have in fact had a huge spike in activity
http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/

I live in north Tx. This is close to home for me
New york times Dec, 12 2013
with a yearly average of about 50 tremors, almost all of them minor. But in the past three years, the state [Oklahoma] has had thousands of quakes. This year has been the most active, with more than 2,600 so far, including 87 last week.
(They blame gas and oil fracking, But Jesus never claimed cause only that it would happen)

I would advise Revelation and Danial. They go together. Once you understand the symbolism it's easy to see how it could be right around the corner.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 01, 2014, 11:37:56 PM
The world ain't ending "around the corner".

I can see within 1000 years due to war, caused by resource shortages, but that is it.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 01, 2014, 11:57:17 PM
Ah, Harbinger, the end times - the times of which only the father knows - is that it? If so, we aren't going to do too well with looking for signs as it is easily possible that god's time runs on a different timescale from ours - unless he is in eternity where there is no time of course. Anyway, what signs ought we to look for that haven't happened before and so are significant. We've been having earthquakes, wars and rumours of wars for the whole of human history so i can't see how they help at all. In fact, they sound more like something an astrologer would add to a prediction to keep you guessing.

So, seriously, what should we be looking out for and whjy do you suppose the an 'end times' are more likley now that the 1st century or the 3,000th century?

For got your second question...
technology required is only just getting here some is still in the works. Israel has only been established since the end of WWII and signs in the stars.

This guy makes a case for the rapture. not the  point though. He also makes a good case for the tribulation using scripture and astronomy. Kind of long but worth the watch I think.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QW17ZP0shv0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQW17ZP0shv0
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 12:06:24 AM
The world ain't ending "around the corner".

I can see within 1000 years due to war, caused by resource shortages, but that is it.

Is it safe to assume that your answer to my question, post #281, is also no?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 02, 2014, 12:08:14 AM
Hey, Harbinger, I've got some bad news, and some really bad news.

Earthquakes appear to be increasing, but in fact the number of reported earthquakes is going up because of the constantly increasing number of seismographs being installed around the world. The number that is getting larger is of those little tiny ones like in OK. The ones that are harder to detect if you don't have a seismograph close by.

Now for the really bad news. This is what I tell every Christian who tells me that the end times are coming.

I hope that you live a long and prosperous life. But at the end of your life, you will notice that Jesus hasn't returned. You'll have been expecting him for years, but he won't have shown up. And you'll wonder why not. And not only will you wonder why not, you'll wonder how an atheist knew back in 2014 that he wouldn't return in your life time.

Of course, right now you know I'm wrong, so make sure you tell all your kids and laugh about what the silly atheist said. But Jesus won't return in their lifetimes either, nor in the lifetimes of your grandchildren or great grandchildren. If you do laugh about it now, and he doesn't come back in your lifetime, your children and grandchildren might remember the story and wonder why he didn't come back during their lives either. And wonder how an atheist knew it wouldn't happen.

So you've been told. Do with it as you wish.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 02, 2014, 12:17:24 AM
Quote
My question is are you familiar with end time prophesy and are you looking for them as they are being fulfilled?

Answer: Nope.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 02, 2014, 12:39:12 AM
Quote
My question is are you familiar with end time prophesy and are you looking for them as they are being fulfilled?

Answer: Nope.

Hey, and even that is too much information. Man, if there is anything I wish I knew nothing about, it is that end-times junk. So many times in my life folks have come up with definite dates. Needless to say, none of them ever happened. But that doesn't stop others from trying to come up with the ams sort of thing. Its like they think that being determined will actually make it happen.

And the answer to that question is the same. Nope.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 01:11:39 AM
Hey, Harbinger, I've got some bad news, and some really bad news.

Earthquakes appear to be increasing, but in fact the number of reported earthquakes is going up because of the constantly increasing number of seismographs being installed around the world. The number that is getting larger is of those little tiny ones like in OK. The ones that are harder to detect if you don't have a seismograph close by.

Now for the really bad news. This is what I tell every Christian who tells me that the end times are coming.

I hope that you live a long and prosperous life. But at the end of your life, you will notice that Jesus hasn't returned. You'll have been expecting him for years, but he won't have shown up. And you'll wonder why not. And not only will you wonder why not, you'll wonder how an atheist knew back in 2014 that he wouldn't return in your life time.

Of course, right now you know I'm wrong, so make sure you tell all your kids and laugh about what the silly atheist said. But Jesus won't return in their lifetimes either, nor in the lifetimes of your grandchildren or great grandchildren. If you do laugh about it now, and he doesn't come back in your lifetime, your children and grandchildren might remember the story and wonder why he didn't come back during their lives either. And wonder how an atheist knew it wouldn't happen.

So you've been told. Do with it as you wish.

Maybe so.. but I doubt it. more than 4 Decades have seen the seismograph in OKC for sure.

"2009 was an exceptional year for seismic activity in Oklahoma with 43 felt earthquakes with 27 of those occurring in Oklahoma County. The Oklahoma Geological Survey has been running seismograph stations in partnership with volunteers since 1961."
http://www.ogs.ou.edu/level3-earthquakehazardT.php

However, the seismograph was invented in 1880. I'm sure some smart scientists have these things all over the place and are at the least not "constantly" adding to the number. I could be wrong though.
http://inventors.about.com/od/sstartinventions/a/seismograph.htm

this one is an old LA times article:
"The number of earthquakes greater than magnitude 4.0 in Southern California and Baja California has increased significantly in 2010. There have been 70 such quakes so far this year, the most of any year in the last decade. And it's only April. There were 30 in 2009 and 29 in 2008."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/california-sees-increase-in-earthquake-sesimologists-fight-twitter-rumors.html

OK again.
"The quake activity is a far cry from four years ago when the state had but 20 rumblers of 3.0 and
above. And from 1991 to 2008 there were no more than three quakes a year of that size in the state."
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9AI12W20131119?irpc=932

Do you have something to back up your claim? it seems logical and well thought out dissmissal. I just doubt it's the case. Have you researched this or just guessing?

A side note: Maybe your comment is even prophetic?

2Peter3:3-4
 3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,
4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues
just as it was from the beginning of creation." 

I assume your answer to post #281 is also a no?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 02, 2014, 01:32:14 AM
I'm pretty sure my post #287 covered my opinion of #281

You go ahead and believe whatever you want about earthquakes. It won't help. Ignore that the average number of stronger earthquakes has stayed steady as the number of earthquakes appear to you to be climbing. Don't make actual information important. That would throw off your wishes something fierce.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 01:34:38 AM
Quote
My question is are you familiar with end time prophesy and are you looking for them as they are being fulfilled?

Answer: Nope.

Hey, and even that is too much information. Man, if there is anything I wish I knew nothing about, it is that end-times junk. So many times in my life folks have come up with definite dates. Needless to say, none of them ever happened. But that doesn't stop others from trying to come up with the ams sort of thing. Its like they think that being determined will actually make it happen.

And the answer to that question is the same. Nope.

exact date will never happen.. Eventually someone may get close. time of year or something. Eventually we will know the YEAR of the second coming but by that time there will not be anyone I one left trying to answer the question. Just a bunch of people thinking it already happened and celebrating that those Christians disappeared. :)

Lots of no votes.... Interesting....
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 02, 2014, 01:48:45 AM
Quote
My question is are you familiar with end time prophesy and are you looking for them as they are being fulfilled?

Answer: Nope.

Hey, and even that is too much information. Man, if there is anything I wish I knew nothing about, it is that end-times junk. So many times in my life folks have come up with definite dates. Needless to say, none of them ever happened. But that doesn't stop others from trying to come up with the ams sort of thing. Its like they think that being determined will actually make it happen.

And the answer to that question is the same. Nope.

exact date will never happen.. Eventually someone may get close. time of year or something. Eventually we will know the YEAR of the second coming but by that time there will not be anyone I one left trying to answer the question. Just a bunch of people thinking it already happened and celebrating that those Christians disappeared. :)

Lots of no votes.... Interesting....

Do you have any particular reason to think that atheists would have any interest in the subject? Have you redefined us in your head to be extraordinarily curious about exactly the same things you are curious about or something? Obviously we think all the prophecy stuff is bull, and obviously we don't dwell on the subject. What were you expecting instead?

Do I have to say it again. The dude won't come back in your lifetime, your kids lifetime, your grandkids lifetime, ad infinitum. Period.

Trust me on this. I exist, so I'm better informed than your sources.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 02, 2014, 01:51:58 AM
exact date will never happen.. Eventually someone may get close. time of year or something. Eventually we will know the YEAR of the second coming but by that time there will not be anyone I one left trying to answer the question. Just a bunch of people thinking it already happened and celebrating that those Christians disappeared. :)

Lots of no votes.... Interesting....

My question to you is: Are you familiar with the end time prophesy of pastafarianism, and are you looking for them as they are fulfilled?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 02:19:54 AM
I'm pretty sure my post #287 covered my opinion of #281

You go ahead and believe whatever you want about earthquakes. It won't help. Ignore that the average number of stronger earthquakes has stayed steady as the number of earthquakes appear to you to be climbing. Don't make actual information important. That would throw off your wishes something fierce.

I'm not focused on magnatude. Why are you?
You realize what I quoted was seismologists who say the earthquakes are on what they called in the LA Times for one, an "up tic" and they don't know why. At least in OK they can blame gas and oil fracking.

Hears another quote:
Now, in a paper to be deliver at the annual meeting of the Seismological Society of America, the USGS
notes that “a remarkable increase in the rate of [magnitude 3.0] and greater earthquakes is currently in progress” in the U.S. midcontinent. The abstract is online. EnergyWire reports (subs. req’d) some of the findings:
The study found that the frequency of earthquakes started rising in 2001 across a broad swath of
the country between Alabama and Montana. In 2009, there were 50 earthquakes greater than
magnitude-3.0, the abstract states, then 87 quakes in 2010. The 134 earthquakes in the zone last
year is a sixfold increase over 20th century level
In case  it was missed that's a quote from a paper to be shared at

notice here the USGS SAYS in a no doubt unpopular meeting if not private meeting among friends...

 “a remarkable increase in the rate of [magnitude 3.0] and greater earthquakes is currently in progress”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/sharp-rise-in-u-s-earthquakes-almost-certainly-manmade-usgs-scientists-report/30192

To show I really do want to be fair this is something from the USGS they did put forth the same "explination" as you did. Notice  the dot gov in the web address? That's public relations. Trust an old soldier when he says your gov lies to, at best, keep the peace.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 02:29:12 AM
exact date will never happen.. Eventually someone may get close. time of year or something. Eventually we will know the YEAR of the second coming but by that time there will not be anyone I one left trying to answer the question. Just a bunch of people thinking it already happened and celebrating that those Christians disappeared. :)

Lots of no votes.... Interesting....

My question to you is: Are you familiar with the end time prophesy of pastafarianism, and are you looking for them as they are fulfilled?

The only other one that really matters is Islam and in that case yes I am :)
Gotta know the enemy.

There are others. I like the Hopi indians prophesies too. I am interested in more than just Christian prophesy. The subject alone is fascinating to me.

 I asked this question because I was told most of you are wanting and even looking for a sign of some sort. I think it's interesting to find out that so far none of you are doing the the looking that's all.

I would expect at least looking for a sign would mean learning some sort of prophesy and watching to see if it happens if only in an offhanded way.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 02, 2014, 02:35:54 AM
The only other one that really matters is Islam and in that case yes I am :)

Why might that be?

Pastafarianism has accurately predicted that temperature raises when there are less pirates. ;)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 02:36:09 AM
The discussion is, Are Earthquakes increasing in number in the recent years?" Granted it was started from a biblical text but my sources are the scientific community on this one.
Why do you now attack the off handed mention of the second coming?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 02, 2014, 02:37:24 AM
Wtf?

I never said that!
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 02:46:21 AM
The only other one that really matters is Islam and in that case yes I am :)

Why might that be?

Pastafarianism has accurately predicted that temperature raises when there are less pirates. ;)

Islamic Eschatology is perfectly opposite of Christian Eschatology.
For example the one we call the false prophet the Al mahdi maybe you heard Ahmadinejad mention him. The anti-christ we are looking for is their Isa (their Jesus) The one they fear is the one who come with king of kings written on His thigh... that's our Jesus. I doesn't stop there either. the amazing thing.. ask any muslim, Mohammed had no access to a Christian Bible.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 02:50:22 AM
Wtf?

I never said that!

my appologies post #298.....
I messed up the quote and I don't know how to fix it....
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 02, 2014, 02:52:41 AM
my appologies post #298.....
I messed up the quote and I don't know how to fix it....

Maybe like....you know...Use the "Edit" function?

My point is "Why do you ignore other religions prophesies, teachings, etc? And what made you believe christianity is the one true religion?"
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 03:06:22 AM
my appologies post #298.....
I messed up the quote and I don't know how to fix it....

Maybe like....you know...Use the "Edit" function?

My point is "Why do you ignore other religions prophesies, teachings, etc? And what made you believe christianity is the one true religion?"
Really I'm sorry. I deleted some thing critical I guess. I did edit it the best I knew how... I'm sorry.

To answer your question though. I hope you don't mind me asking a question or two along the way.
Good vs Evil...
I've always believed and have seen the supernatural. I started in the Occult. I've seen evil things. Knowing there is an evil. There must also be a good. knowing good is truth and evil is lie. I figured the good would manifest it's self in truth and evil would oppose it in lies. There can only be one truth.  I looked for the one religion that manifests it's self as evil, unashamedly so. Can you name that religion? can you support why it teaches only evil? I'm interested in your answer at this point... I'll give you my take too.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 02, 2014, 03:21:30 AM
I looked for the one religion that manifests it's self as evil, unashamedly so. Can you name that religion? can you support why it teaches only evil? I'm interested in your answer at this point... I'll give you my take too.

Being that evil is subjective, that is a malformed question.

But, to attempt to answer it anyway, i find that no religion teaches ONLY evil.
Perhaps more evil than good, but i cannot comprehend something being pure evil, even the worst dictators in history had minor redeeming features.

Thus i have no answer.

You also failed to answer my question, why are you so renowned for not answering direct questions?

The question is simple, why do you ignore other religions, and call christianity true?

There must be a reason, even a minute one, so what is it?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 03:37:32 AM
I looked for the one religion that manifests it's self as evil, unashamedly so. Can you name that religion? can you support why it teaches only evil? I'm interested in your answer at this point... I'll give you my take too.

Being that evil is subjective, that is a malformed question.

But, to attempt to answer it anyway, i find that no religion teaches ONLY evil.
Perhaps more evil than good, but i cannot comprehend something being pure evil, even the worst dictators in history had minor redeeming features.

Thus i have no answer.

You also failed to answer my question, why are you so renowned for not answering direct questions?

The question is simple, why do you ignore other religions, and call christianity true?

There must be a reason, even a minute one, so what is it?

no I'm renowned for messing up quotes. My simple and direct answer is good vs evil. Knowing you want more I'm explaining....

disclaimer: I didn't jump right into being a Christian because I thought something like a rose by any other name... satan was only a name.

The answer as I see it is without doubt Satanism. It teaches through magik animal and child/infant sacrifice. They need the pure innocent blood of babies. you can look into this some have women who are only part of the coven because they have babies for the sacrifice. The satanist uses the ritual and the magik to increase their own powers while on earth. It's believed that once they have done enough work for satan they will go on to rule in Hell. Not all of Hell of course but they will have minions and powers.

look into satanism and tell me what's good about it.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 02, 2014, 03:49:10 AM
look into satanism and tell me what's good about it.

Again, good and bad are subjective.

A mass murderer says something you would call bad, "Good" and you would call something a bad person would loathe "Good".

no I'm renowned for messing up quotes. My simple and direct answer is good vs evil. Knowing you want more I'm explaining....

Which is irrelevant to the question. *- darwins*

The answer as I see it is without doubt Satanism. It teaches through magik animal and child/infant sacrifice. They need the pure innocent blood of babies. you can look into this some have women who are only part of the coven because they have babies for the sacrifice. The satanist uses the ritual and the magik to increase their own powers while on earth. It's believed that once they have done enough work for satan they will go on to rule in Hell. Not all of Hell of course but they will have minions and powers.

No seriously, how the **** is this related to the question?

"What is your favorite color?"

Harbinger: Bacon!

That is what you look like to me...
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 03:51:22 AM
the lie of satanism is that all the power is in you and comes from you.

At this point I explored all the major religions some obscure religions. I can't know all of the religions out there. I'm still looking and learning and finding that common lie. If you look on godisimaginary.com you will find a good list I've heard of and studied almost everyone on that list. Christianity is the only religion that teaches it's nothing of you. You can't do it the power is in God, where it should be.At this point if you want You can name any religion you want and I'll tell you why I specifically reject that one in addition to the lie.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 02, 2014, 03:58:27 AM
the lie of satanism is that all the power is in you and comes from you.

No, the "power" in me derives from bio-chemical energy obtained from food, and electrons that activate my neurons/nerves.
Apparently you seem to lack many neurons.

Christianity is the only religion that teaches it's nothing of you. You can't do it the power is in God, where it should be.At this point if you want You can name any religion you want and I'll tell you why I specifically reject that one in addition to the lie.

Pastafarianism, Islam, Hinduism, Greek gods, Egyptian gods, Buddhism, Catholicism, Paganism.
Do i have to list EVERY religion?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 03:59:59 AM
look into satanism and tell me what's good about it.

Again, good and bad are subjective.

A mass murderer says something you would call bad, "Good" and you would call something a bad person would loathe "Good".

no I'm renowned for messing up quotes. My simple and direct answer is good vs evil. Knowing you want more I'm explaining....

Which is irrelevant to the question. *- darwins*

The answer as I see it is without doubt Satanism. It teaches through magik animal and child/infant sacrifice. They need the pure innocent blood of babies. you can look into this some have women who are only part of the coven because they have babies for the sacrifice. The satanist uses the ritual and the magik to increase their own powers while on earth. It's believed that once they have done enough work for satan they will go on to rule in Hell. Not all of Hell of course but they will have minions and powers.

No seriously, how the **** is this related to the question?

"What is your favorite color?"

Harbinger: Bacon!

That is what you look like to me...

How do you say my explanation of my answer is not related to your question?

Again knowing you would not accept good vs evil. sorry the answer is not as simple as you wanted it to be.

Another thing I see all over is that you can name whatever deity you wish and no body really gets to bothered by it. Name Jesus Christ and people get upset.

you speak truly on Good vs Evil from a mans vantage point. I have no desire to live to mans standard God has a Higher standard and it's absolute. I can't reach it nor can you That's why we need a saviour.

Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 02, 2014, 04:12:15 AM
again knowing you would not accept good vs evil. sorry the answer is not as simple as you wanted it to be.

If the only answer you can provide is "good and evil", then your choice for a religion is not very stable, your own belief is based on a subjective term!

Another thing I see all over is that you can name whatever deity you wish and no body really gets to bothered by it. Name Jesus Christ and people get upset.

I think i can safely say that not a single atheist here gives two shits about naming a deity.
Allah, Jesus, Yahweh, Flying Spaghetti Monster. No one cares. *Irrelevant garble another -Darwin invcoming*

you speak truly on Good vs Evil from a mans vantage point. I have no desire to live to mans standard God has a Higher standard and it's absolute. I can't reach it nor can you That's why we need a saviour.

What is absolute? What standard do you speak of?!
Such a thing does not exist, nor can any man get a higher standard on "good vs evil". (Ironically, higher is also subjective)
Also, what need for a savior does mankind have? Human standards have led us along good enough.

Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Woe unto them?
I am sure "evil" people say the same thing back.
The question is who is correct, which is answered with neither.
Also, bible verses are of no use to me, you might as well post a quote from War of the worlds.
Quote from: ? H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds
“No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.”

OH MY GOD!
This means aliens are watching us!
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 02, 2014, 05:20:08 AM
OH, dear! I've come late to the party - I suppose livi9ng in the UK has disadvantages as we are asleep when the best discussions take place! Anway...

Harbinger

1. Increases in siemic activity could be interesting but only if one takes a long look. For example, the last decade could have seen a rise but the previous century might have been higher and fallen back. The problem you have with this one is that the method of measurement of the activity was only invented in late 19th century and deployment has been quite slow over the years. Add to that the machines are much more able to measure smaller and smaller movements and its easy to see why the numbers might appear to be increasing. I wonder what the reaction fo Chrisitians was like when Krakatoa went off in 1883 - the weather changes from the eruption lasted into the 20th century. I bet someone was saying it was the end of the world then. So how about looking at historic records to make comparisons?

2. Here's a prediction you can trust - the earth will be absorbed by the sun in 7.5 billion years time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth). Sadly we won't be there to see it happpen but it will. For fun, search Google for 'end of the earth' and you will find lots of different dates to worry about.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 08:45:41 AM
the lie of satanism is that all the power is in you and comes from you.

No, the "power" in me derives from bio-chemical energy obtained from food, and electrons that activate my neurons/nerves.
Apparently you seem to lack many neurons.

Christianity is the only religion that teaches it's nothing of you. You can't do it the power is in God, where it should be.At this point if you want You can name any religion you want and I'll tell you why I specifically reject that one in addition to the lie.

Pastafarianism, Islam, Hinduism, Greek gods, Egyptian gods, Buddhism, Catholicism, Paganism.
Do i have to list EVERY religion?



Hinduism: 1000s of Gods

Greek gods, Egyptian gods, Roman They can die and they are born. non-eternl and to many.

 Buddhism, the power to transcend is in you you are a god just tap into it.

Catholicism Jesus only did some of it you have the rest of the power in you to preform penance

 Paganism worship the creatED not the creatOR

Islam is complicated it's not like the rest. It's the strong delusion sent in the last days. Basically  Though Islam makes God tell a lie and be deceiving and makes him mess than immutable. the God of the old testament, which Islam acknowledges  as abrogated scripture, is not the same god in the quran. If you know Islam I could get into this with you otherwise I have to teach.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 09:33:02 AM
OH, dear! I've come late to the party - I suppose livi9ng in the UK has disadvantages as we are asleep when the best discussions take place! Anway...

Harbinger

1. Increases in siemic activity could be interesting but only if one takes a long look. For example, the last decade could have seen a rise but the previous century might have been higher and fallen back. The problem you have with this one is that the method of measurement of the activity was only invented in late 19th century and deployment has been quite slow over the years. Add to that the machines are much more able to measure smaller and smaller movements and its easy to see why the numbers might appear to be increasing. I wonder what the reaction fo Chrisitians was like when Krakatoa went off in 1883 - the weather changes from the eruption lasted into the 20th century. I bet someone was saying it was the end of the world then. So how about looking at historic records to make comparisons?

2. Here's a prediction you can trust - the earth will be absorbed by the sun in 7.5 billion years time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth). Sadly we won't be there to see it happpen but it will. For fun, search Google for 'end of the earth' and you will find lots of different dates to worry about.

you could well be right.
The problem is that fracking is new and the culprit. Jesus didn't say He would make it happen only that it would happen. It's what we call a second cause

As for the sun going supernova and other natural  events. I've always been interested in things like that too. This info is nothing new
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 09:34:24 AM
OH, dear! I've come late to the party - I suppose livi9ng in the UK has disadvantages as we are asleep when the best discussions take place! Anway...

Harbinger

1. Increases in siemic activity could be interesting but only if one takes a long look. For example, the last decade could have seen a rise but the previous century might have been higher and fallen back. The problem you have with this one is that the method of measurement of the activity was only invented in late 19th century and deployment has been quite slow over the years. Add to that the machines are much more able to measure smaller and smaller movements and its easy to see why the numbers might appear to be increasing. I wonder what the reaction fo Chrisitians was like when Krakatoa went off in 1883 - the weather changes from the eruption lasted into the 20th century. I bet someone was saying it was the end of the world then. So how about looking at historic records to make comparisons?

2. Here's a prediction you can trust - the earth will be absorbed by the sun in 7.5 billion years time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth). Sadly we won't be there to see it happpen but it will. For fun, search Google for 'end of the earth' and you will find lots of different dates to worry about.
you could well be right.
The problem is that fracking is new and the culprit. Jesus didn't say He would make it happen only that
it would happen. It's what we call a second cause
As for the sun going supernova and other natural events. I've always been interested in things like that
too. This info is nothing new
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 02, 2014, 10:22:07 AM
I'm pretty sure my post #287 covered my opinion of #281

You go ahead and believe whatever you want about earthquakes. It won't help. Ignore that the average number of stronger earthquakes has stayed steady as the number of earthquakes appear to you to be climbing. Don't make actual information important. That would throw off your wishes something fierce.

I'm not focused on magnatude. Why are you?
You realize what I quoted was seismologists who say the earthquakes are on what they called in the LA Times for one, an "up tic" and they don't know why. At least in OK they can blame gas and oil fracking.

Hears another quote:
Now, in a paper to be deliver at the annual meeting of the Seismological Society of America, the USGS
notes that “a remarkable increase in the rate of [magnitude 3.0] and greater earthquakes is currently in progress” in the U.S. midcontinent. The abstract is online. EnergyWire reports (subs. req’d) some of the findings:
The study found that the frequency of earthquakes started rising in 2001 across a broad swath of
the country between Alabama and Montana. In 2009, there were 50 earthquakes greater than
magnitude-3.0, the abstract states, then 87 quakes in 2010. The 134 earthquakes in the zone last
year is a sixfold increase over 20th century level
In case  it was missed that's a quote from a paper to be shared at

notice here the USGS SAYS in a no doubt unpopular meeting if not private meeting among friends...

 “a remarkable increase in the rate of [magnitude 3.0] and greater earthquakes is currently in progress”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/sharp-rise-in-u-s-earthquakes-almost-certainly-manmade-usgs-scientists-report/30192

To show I really do want to be fair this is something from the USGS they did put forth the same "explination" as you did. Notice  the dot gov in the web address? That's public relations. Trust an old soldier when he says your gov lies to, at best, keep the peace.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php

Three things.

1) There may be an increase in low level earthquakes. That is apparently open to interpretation as per various experts who seem to disagree.

2) On a dynamic planet, I can think of no reason for earthquake rates to be steady over time.

3) the increases, if real, are approximately one quadrillion times more likely to be caused by changes in plate tectonics that are independent of your prophecies than they likely to be a part of your claims.

However, if the bible has a chart showing the expected change in earthquakes, and it matches current charts, and most especially if it includes quakes under 3.0, which humans can't even feel, I'll be willing to reconsider.

Added: the tiny increase in quakes caused by fracking is interesting, not alarming. At least from your religious point of view. The environmental, not religious, ramifications are worth discussing, however. Obviously not here though.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 02, 2014, 10:40:01 AM
One more thing, Harbinger. I assume the prophecy to which you are referring stated clearly what the earthquake rates were at that time so that we would know that todays figures show an increase, right? I mean, what good is a prophecy with numbers if you don't give what was at the time current data? Huh? And you certainly must know that the number of earthquakes a hundred years ago exactly matched what which was being experienced thousands of years ago and stuff and can prove it, right? You know that there have not been any earlier variations, any earlier increases that would have indicated the same pattern, correct? You know that the prophets were taking into consideration world-wide numbers and not just local shakers, and can show your work, right? You know that earthquakes have held steady for thousands of years and are just now starting to increase. Right? You do have this information. You would have to or you wouldn't be making what would otherwise be crazy-assed claims.

So if you could provide the correct chapter and verse, I will then be both more informed and too less likely to make impossible demands like this.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on January 02, 2014, 10:52:17 AM
harbinger:

http://www.churchofsatan.com/ (http://www.churchofsatan.com/)

Where in that is this business of animal and human sacrifice, magic, etc, that you claim Satanists believe in?  Are you sure you're not referring to Christian propaganda about Satanists, rather than what Satanists themselves say?[1]

I think it's pretty clear that you don't have an example of a religion which teaches nothing but evil.  Just propaganda based on your current Christian beliefs.
 1. Note that I don't agree with the premise of this Church of Satan - but that is not the same as claiming to speak for it even though I don't follow its tenets.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 02, 2014, 11:02:34 AM
Hinduism: 1000s of Gods

More logical, allows gods to peer review and allows concentration on subjects.

Greek gods, Egyptian gods, Roman They can die and they are born. non-eternl and to many.

Being non-eternal is logical, thus more likely than christianity.

Buddhism, the power to transcend is in you you are a god just tap into it.

Who doesnt want to be god? Am i right?
That, and their god is apparently more "active" than christians.

Catholicism Jesus only did some of it you have the rest of the power in you to preform penance

Okay, i am not going to make a snark retort here, i hate Catholics.

Paganism worship the creatED not the creatOR

Yeah! Screw the gods! We are important.
No worshiping omnipotents= +1 badassery.

Islam is complicated it's not like the rest. It's the strong delusion sent in the last days. Basically  Though Islam makes God tell a lie and be deceiving and makes him mess than immutable. the God of the old testament, which Islam acknowledges  as abrogated scripture, is not the same god in the quran. If you know Islam I could get into this with you otherwise I have to teach.

Allah is Allah, Yahweh is Yahweh.
I get it.
That, and old testament god is stated to be an asshole who abuses omnipotence by doing stupid shit.

I also notice that you did not answer my pastafarianism request, why is this so?

Honestly, there is no way for you to make one religion seem more "true" than others.
Adding cream and sprinkles in the form of everlasting life and prophesies to a delusion makes it no more true.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on January 02, 2014, 11:10:40 AM
How do you say my explanation of my answer is not related to your question?
As near as I can tell, it really isn't.  It's simply you expounding on your beliefs as if they were true, without showing that they are true.

Quote from: harbinger77
Again knowing you would not accept good vs evil. sorry the answer is not as simple as you wanted it to be.
Come again?  I would think that good vs evil was about as simple as it got.  So if he doesn't accept good vs evil, how can you say that the answer isn't as simple as he wanted it to be?  This is what I mean about your answers not being related to the various questions - they're contradictory and confusing.

Quote from: harbinger77
Another thing I see all over is that you can name whatever deity you wish and no body really gets to bothered by it. Name Jesus Christ and people get upset.
In the USA, which has a large majority of Christian citizens.  Name Allah (in nations which have a large majority of Muslim citizens), and people get upset.  See the problem?  You're assuming that what you see here applies everywhere, and it really doesn't.

Quote from: harbinger77
you speak truly on Good vs Evil from a mans vantage point. I have no desire to live to mans standard God has a Higher standard and it's absolute. I can't reach it nor can you That's why we need a saviour.
If you want to hold yourself to this higher, absolute standard that you think exists, go for it.  But don't go into it expecting to fail and thus that you'll need a 'savior' to rescue you from your own failure.  That's just an excuse so you can avoid the consequences of failure - just as bad as someone rationalizing away a test that they 'know' they'll fail and assuming that someone will swoop in and rescue them from it.

Frankly, if I had to pick the one thing about Christianity that I dislike the most, it would be this belief that we are foredoomed to eternal damnation, and there's nothing we can do about it except accept the handout of 'grace' from above in order to avoid the consequences of that predestined failure.  It's bad enough that they believe it about themselves, but they insist on saying that everyone else in the world is equally doomed in order to spread their beliefs around.

Quote from: harbinger77
Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Matthew 4:5-6
Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple.  "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:  'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"

Anyone can quote scripture for their own purposes.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Astreja on January 02, 2014, 11:17:40 AM
Hinduism: 1000s of Gods

More logical, allows gods to peer review and allows concentration on subjects.

Peer review of gods -- Now there's a good concept.  Far better than one super-powered know-it-all that plays its "creation" like a massive puppet show.  I'm in!

Although I self-identify as agnostic atheist, I still find polytheism more compelling than monotheism.  I like the idea that people can adopt deities that actually appeal to their sensibilities, rather than being herded into group worship of one specific god.  In that respect, I feel a cold shudder every time I see acres and acres of devout muslims arranged in neat rows, all facing the same direction, all prostrating themselves at the same time.

Using the gods as metaphors for various aspects of the self, despite My lack of belief I can still draw upon the power of the ideas that specific gods represent.  I don't expect the gods of My imagination to be generalists; I consult them for their specific knowledge, by sending problems to My unconscious mind and receiving problem-solving insights in return.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 02, 2014, 11:27:18 AM
Peer review of gods -- Now there's a good concept.  Far better than one super-powered know-it-all that plays its "creation" like a massive puppet show.  I'm in!

Infinity knowledge X Infinity knowledge = Infinity knowledge2.

Better than one god ;D.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 02, 2014, 12:19:02 PM

... you could well be right.
The problem is that fracking is new and the culprit. Jesus didn't say He would make it happen only that
it would happen. It's what we call a second cause ...

[/quote]

Whilst you are turning up other scriptural passages, could you locate the one that says the frequency of earthquakes will increase rather than just saying there will be eathquakes? You see is the prophecy only mentions earthquakes and doesn't mention that there would be n increase of decrease in the number or strength, the the prophecy is ablut as helpful as an astologer telling you that you will meet a dark stranger tomorrow is it?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on January 02, 2014, 01:35:25 PM

... you could well be right.
The problem is that fracking is new and the culprit. Jesus didn't say He would make it happen only that
it would happen. It's what we call a second cause ...


Whilst you are turning up other scriptural passages, could you locate the one that says the frequency of earthquakes will increase rather than just saying there will be eathquakes? You see is the prophecy only mentions earthquakes and doesn't mention that there would be n increase of decrease in the number or strength, the the prophecy is ablut as helpful as an astologer telling you that you will meet a dark stranger tomorrow is it?

Actually, tommorrow is a time frame...and actually specific.So it is even less so.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 01:44:42 PM
Hinduism: 1000s of Gods

More logical, allows gods to peer review and allows concentration on subjects.

Greek gods, Egyptian gods, Roman They can die and they are born. non-eternl and to many.

Being non-eternal is logical, thus more likely than christianity.

Buddhism, the power to transcend is in you you are a god just tap into it.

Who doesnt want to be god? Am i right?
That, and their god is apparently more "active" than christians.

Catholicism Jesus only did some of it you have the rest of the power in you to preform penance

Okay, i am not going to make a snark retort here, i hate Catholics.

Paganism worship the creatED not the creatOR

Yeah! Screw the gods! We are important.
No worshiping omnipotents= +1 badassery.

Islam is complicated it's not like the rest. It's the strong delusion sent in the last days. Basically  Though Islam makes God tell a lie and be deceiving and makes him mess than immutable. the God of the old testament, which Islam acknowledges  as abrogated scripture, is not the same god in the quran. If you know Islam I could get into this with you otherwise I have to teach.

Allah is Allah, Yahweh is Yahweh.
I get it.
That, and old testament god is stated to be an a**hole who abuses omnipotence by doing stupid s**t.

I also notice that you did not answer my pastafarianism request, why is this so?

Honestly, there is no way for you to make one religion seem more "true" than others.
Adding cream and sprinkles in the form of everlasting life and prophesies to a delusion makes it no more true.

I honestly thought you made it up. To answer your question though...
I think the following pretty much sums  it up.

"Understand why The Church of the FSM was founded . It was created in 2005 by Bobby
Henderson as a satirical protest to the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to
require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution in public
schools."
http://m.wikihow.com/Become-a-Pastafarian


I think there may have been some beer involved in this " satirical protest."
possibly some weed too.

btw... although not my point. I'm not taking it further than the observation. I could argue, based on the response, that I did inadvertently  make paganism seem more "true" for you. :/
enter the tulip......
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 02, 2014, 02:37:51 PM
"Understand why The Church of the FSM was founded . It was created in 2005 by Bobby
Henderson as a satirical protest to the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to
require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution in public
schools."

Well yes, it was satirical.

But know that there is some who with utmost certainty, believe that it is true.

What process would you use to say that they are not believing in the right god?

possibly some weed too.

Nah, that's RASTAfarians. Not PASTAfarians.

btw... although not my point. I'm not taking it further than the observation. I could argue, based on the response, that I did inadvertently  make paganism seem more "true" for you. :/

Paganism is no more true than witchcraft, magic, and leprechauns to me.

enter the tulip......

Okay...please tell me what this means...
I have had several theists refer tulpae as "tulips"...
9_6
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 02:41:08 PM
harbinger:

http://www.churchofsatan.com/ (http://www.churchofsatan.com/)

Where in that is this business of animal and human sacrifice, magic, etc, that you claim Satanists believe in?  Are you sure you're not referring to Christian propaganda about Satanists, rather than what Satanists themselves say?[1]

I think it's pretty clear that you don't have an example of a religion which teaches nothing but evil.  Just propaganda based on your current Christian beliefs.
 1. Note that I don't agree with the premise of this Church of Satan - but that is not the same as claiming to speak for it even though I don't follow its tenets.

I direct you to may statement that I started in the occult meaning part of it. not a theoretical glance. This is more inside knowledge of the occult. the same as you can't know what 33rd degree masons believe with a simple google search. Dig deeper.

I further ask you to apply logic. Murder is illegal even if you claim freedom of religion right? Why would they advertise crimes or the intention of crimes? Dig deeper... ritual sacrifice may be better thing to google.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: SevenPatch on January 02, 2014, 02:48:33 PM

I honestly thought you made it up. To answer your question though...
I think the following pretty much sums  it up.

"Understand why The Church of the FSM was founded . It was created in 2005 by Bobby
Henderson as a satirical protest to the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to
require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution in public
schools."
http://m.wikihow.com/Become-a-Pastafarian


I think there may have been some beer involved in this " satirical protest."
possibly some weed too.

btw... although not my point. I'm not taking it further than the observation. I could argue, based on the response, that I did inadvertently  make paganism seem more "true" for you. :/
enter the tulip......

Are you saying satirical protests make more accurate (or possibly approximate) predictions than non satirical protests?

Regarding the "End Times" predictions, yeah the human race has seen a lot of bad things over the past 200,000 years.  Much of it has faded away and has only been revealed by our own genetics.  In the past 10 thousand years alone we've seen massive floods, tsunami's, massive volcanic eruptions, devastating earthquakes, hurricanes, tornado's, blizzards, droughts, famine, widespread disease and plague, epic war after epic war, genocide after genocide, comets, meteor's and "stars" falling from the sky while cities and entire civilizations burn to the ground and fall.  We've tried everything, animal sacrifices, human sacrifices, throwing everything and everyone into volcano's, building temples and gigantic megalithic structures, war and more war.

Yet here we are.  Still surviving.  Will the human race survive for a billion years, it is likely that we will not, but I think we could make it to a million or a few million years.

So harbinger77, what makes anyone alive today so special that the "End Times" will occur in our lifetime?

I think part of the reason some people believe the "world is coming to an end" is selfishness. They can't stand the things they don't like or understand in the world and view those things as wrong so they want the world to end.  They don't like their lives or what has happened in their lives so they want the world to end.  I'm not saying this describes you harbinger77, but you have to admit that it does describe others who believe in "End Times".

EDIT - Added the word "some" with an underline.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 02, 2014, 03:00:33 PM
I think part of the reason people believe the "world is coming to an end" is selfishness. They can't stand the things they don't like or understand in the world and view those things as wrong so they want the world to end.  They don't like their lives or what has happened in their lives so they want the world to end.  I'm not saying this describes you harbinger77, but you have to admit that it does describe others who believe in "End Times".

Don't forget that Christians also hope that JC will show up in their lifetime so they can bypass the dying stuff and go straight from here to heaven without leaving any hospital bills behind. And without having to experience the, you know, scary part of dying.

A very practical and perhaps even understandable wish, except for the fact that it can't ever be fulfilled. Which they consider a minor problem or something.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 02, 2014, 04:23:53 PM
... and we can easily mention all the various people who have predicted the end of the world / return of Jesus delete where appropriate from Jesus himself who said some there wouldn't die before he returned (and was wrong) to all the others through the centuries ending, recently, with Harold Camping. All these people, Jesus included, were wrong. Yes,WRONG! So if one wants to know if or when the end times are coming, taking Jesus' word for the signs is hardly sensible since he, supposedly god, got it wrong. He is in the same camp as, er, Harold Camping - the club of people who got it wrong.

As I mentioned above, everything that is quoted could easily come from a horoscope reading - the computer generated sort - as it is all so fitting to any time period since Jesus. There is not a single thing which one could look at and say, that couldn't have just been a random event that happens every century but it must be the sign things are near.

Finally, I wonder if the obsession which is so clearly displayed on the Internet of some whose life's work seems to be working towards the Rapture or working out the end times somehow misses the job of makimng the best of life we can - helpuing and loving others and enjoying the amazing planet on which we live.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Ivellios on January 02, 2014, 07:30:51 PM
Harbinger:

Mountains/Volcanoes: Santorini, Vesuvious, Tambora, Krakatoa, St. Helens

Earthquakes: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/historical_mag.php  (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/historical_mag.php)

1960 05 22 - Chile - M 9.5
1964 03 28 - Prince William Sound, Alaska - M 9.2
2004 12 26 - Sumatra-Andaman Islands - M 9.1
2011 03 11 - Near the East Coast of Honshu, Japan - M 9.0
1952 11 04 - Kamchatka - M 9.0
1868 08 13 - Arica, Peru (now Chile) - M 9.0
1700 01 26 - Cascadia Subduction Zone - M 9.0

I guess you'd really believe there were only 6 earthquakes before 1619 then 10 more by 1693! Surely the end must be nigh! Or could it be, that as people became more educated they started recording more? When the earthquake happened in Japan 2011 one of my co-workers was going around, "You'd better get right with God!" Seriously, the one 5x more powerful than it, should have been the one to get right with God, but he didn't give a crap then. They've also known since before I was in elementry school that there's a fault line in OK.

Famine? Africa -> Perpetual
Wars/Rumors of wars > Perpetual
Crime > Perpetual
Floods > Perpetual

I'm quite underwhelmed regarding this prophecy.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 02, 2014, 08:02:56 PM
Actually, wars are less prevalent today than at any time in modern history. And our biggest problem is global warming, which many a theist denies is even happening. Probably because someone (I'm not going to name names) forgot to mention it in the bible.

Earthquakes are a big deal now, and we at least know what is happening when the ground shakes. They had no idea back then, so surely earthquakes were scary. Hey, if I was making up a book, I'm pretty sure I'd mention them. Fiction is so much better when the reader can identify with some of the woes.

But until harbinger an tell us what the base line for earthquakes was back in the old days, I'm not going to get too excited about his take on the current situation. Frickin' prophets need to learn to be more specific!
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: xyzzy on January 02, 2014, 08:03:36 PM
Nah, you're all wrong...

Back in the day, no-one knew that earthquakes had a natural origin. Nor did they know that they can occur to the frequency of 50 each and every day[1]

Considering that there isn't even a Hebrew word for plate-tectonics, it's clear is that science has now validated the bible! How else could they have known that today we'd be able to measure them more accurately and precisely!!! (Three exclamation points means it's really, really, really true).

So, what that prophecy foretells is that a sign of end-times is when man develops better seismic recording equipment. And now that has happened, exactly as was predicted in the bible!!!!!

I know it's true as god told me, and he never lies to anyone. Ever.
 1. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: SevenPatch on January 02, 2014, 08:28:43 PM
Nah, you're all wrong...

Back in the day, no-one knew that earthquakes had a natural origin. Nor did they know that they can occur to the frequency of 50 each and every day[1]

Considering that there isn't even a Hebrew word for plate-tectonics, it's clear is that science has now validated the bible! How else could they have known that today we'd be able to measure them more accurately and precisely!!! (Three exclamation points means it's really, really, really true).

So, what that prophecy foretells is that a sign of end-times is when man develops better seismic recording equipment. And now that has happened, exactly as was predicted in the bible!!!!!

I know it's true as god told me, and he never lies to anyone. Ever.
 1. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php

Ah so it's the seismologists fault.  You know, I knew it, the whole time, I knew it was the seismologists fault gosh darn it.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 02, 2014, 08:31:03 PM
You're probably right, xyzzy. Its another miracle level, knowledge-based, verifiable and indisputably correct call on the part of god. His perfect track record, intact as usual, calls for more bad days for those he loves so much. Isn't he wonderful?

I, for one, am already peeing my pants. Because, although I don't believe in god, this prophecy thing is undeniable. And there are probably others they've dared not tell us about, like more bad Batman movies and Celine Dion coming out with more albums. There's also probably something in there about Miley Cyrus and her twerking too (though that may have been included in the earthquake thing).

I was going to prophecy that the bible won't ever prophecy anything right, but then I'd get all famous and end up with my own YouTube channel and I just don't need the grief. 

There has been one undeniable prophecy though. Someone in the early 80's got it spot on when he or she said "Sh*t happens."

Nobody can deny that one. Even me.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 08:40:21 PM
I'm pretty sure my post #287 covered my opinion of #281

You go ahead and believe whatever you want about earthquakes. It won't help. Ignore that the average number of stronger earthquakes has stayed steady as the number of earthquakes appear to you to be climbing. Don't make actual information important. That would throw off your wishes something fierce.

I'm not focused on magnatude. Why are you?
You realize what I quoted was seismologists who say the earthquakes are on what they called in the LA Times for one, an "up tic" and they don't know why. At least in OK they can blame gas and oil fracking.

Hears another quote:
Now, in a paper to be deliver at the annual meeting of the Seismological Society of America, the USGS
notes that “a remarkable increase in the rate of [magnitude 3.0] and greater earthquakes is currently in progress” in the U.S. midcontinent. The abstract is online. EnergyWire reports (subs. req’d) some of the findings:
The study found that the frequency of earthquakes started rising in 2001 across a broad swath of
the country between Alabama and Montana. In 2009, there were 50 earthquakes greater than
magnitude-3.0, the abstract states, then 87 quakes in 2010. The 134 earthquakes in the zone last
year is a sixfold increase over 20th century level
In case  it was missed that's a quote from a paper to be shared at

notice here the USGS SAYS in a no doubt unpopular meeting if not private meeting among friends...

 “a remarkable increase in the rate of [magnitude 3.0] and greater earthquakes is currently in progress”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/sharp-rise-in-u-s-earthquakes-almost-certainly-manmade-usgs-scientists-report/30192

To show I really do want to be fair this is something from the USGS they did put forth the same "explination" as you did. Notice  the dot gov in the web address? That's public relations. Trust an old soldier when he says your gov lies to, at best, keep the peace.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php

Three things.

1) There may be an increase in low level earthquakes. That is apparently open to interpretation as per various experts who seem to disagree.

2) On a dynamic planet, I can think of no reason for earthquake rates to be steady over time.

3) the increases, if real, are approximately one quadrillion times more likely to be caused by changes in plate tectonics that are independent of your prophecies than they likely to be a part of your claims.

However, if the bible has a chart showing the expected change in earthquakes, and it matches current charts, and most especially if it includes quakes under 3.0, which humans can't even feel, I'll be willing to reconsider.

Added: the tiny increase in quakes caused by fracking is interesting, not alarming. At least from your religious point of view. The environmental, not religious, ramifications are worth discussing, however. Obviously not here though.

#1 I provided several examples of experts who agree. One where the institution contradicted it's self. I've seen no disagreement.

#2 again fracking is new. We are outside of natural laws and have introduced the poor stewardship of man.

#3 I agree... Almost. This was not prophetic in the sense that God would make it happen. Jesus only said it would happen and it is.

no charts or graphs. The claim speaks for it's self. I would really like to see something to support your claim though.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 02, 2014, 09:04:04 PM


Three things.

1) There may be an increase in low level earthquakes. That is apparently open to interpretation as per various experts who seem to disagree.

2) On a dynamic planet, I can think of no reason for earthquake rates to be steady over time.

3) the increases, if real, are approximately one quadrillion times more likely to be caused by changes in plate tectonics that are independent of your prophecies than they likely to be a part of your claims.

However, if the bible has a chart showing the expected change in earthquakes, and it matches current charts, and most especially if it includes quakes under 3.0, which humans can't even feel, I'll be willing to reconsider.

Added: the tiny increase in quakes caused by fracking is interesting, not alarming. At least from your religious point of view. The environmental, not religious, ramifications are worth discussing, however. Obviously not here though.

#1 I provided several examples of experts who agree. One where the institution contradicted it's self. I've seen no disagreement.

#2 again fracking is new. We are outside of natural laws and have introduced the poor stewardship of man.

#3 I agree... Almost. This was not prophetic in the sense that God would make it happen. Jesus only said it would happen and it is.

no charts or graphs. The claim speaks for it's self. I would really like to see something to support your claim though.

Return to #2. Are you assuming that earthquakes rates will always be static until just before your boy returns? That there is no reason for them to vary naturally?

Geologic historians found records of two earthquakes in Israel in the first century. And 20 in the sixth century. Why didn't the kid come back then? That's a huge increase.

Anyway, you're convinced it is prophecy, I say any increase is perfectly natural (not counting the fracking quakes, which are usually so tiny your ancients wouldn't have noticed them anyway), and other than some of us maybe getting squished, nothing to worry about. In fact, the really big quakes that we all hope to avoid are not happening any more often than before, even if, as you insist, quake levels overall are rising.

There will be at least one or two big, newsworthy quakes this year. And sometime soon, whether it be this year or next or the year after, there will be one of those huge momma's that scare the crap out of most everyone on the planet. Because both kinds are normal. What the smaller, usually harmless ones do, is anyones guess. But don't read to much into all of this, or you'll miss reality in the process. And that's no fun.

Edit: My spell checker changed "fracking" to "tracking". I fixed that.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 09:08:07 PM
How do you say my explanation of my answer is not related to your question?
As near as I can tell, it really isn't.  It's simply you expounding on your beliefs as if they were true, without showing that they are true.

Quote from: harbinger77
Again knowing you would not accept good vs evil. sorry the answer is not as simple as you wanted it to be.
Come again?  I would think that good vs evil was about as simple as it got.  So if he doesn't accept good vs evil, how can you say that the answer isn't as simple as he wanted it to be?  This is what I mean about your answers not being related to the various questions - they're contradictory and confusing.

Quote from: harbinger77
Another thing I see all over is that you can name whatever deity you wish and no body really gets to bothered by it. Name Jesus Christ and people get upset.
In the USA, which has a large majority of Christian citizens.  Name Allah (in nations which have a large majority of Muslim citizens), and people get upset.  See the problem?  You're assuming that what you see here applies everywhere, and it really doesn't.

Quote from: harbinger77
you speak truly on Good vs Evil from a mans vantage point. I have no desire to live to mans standard God has a Higher standard and it's absolute. I can't reach it nor can you That's why we need a saviour.
If you want to hold yourself to this higher, absolute standard that you think exists, go for it.  But don't go into it expecting to fail and thus that you'll need a 'savior' to rescue you from your own failure.  That's just an excuse so you can avoid the consequences of failure - just as bad as someone rationalizing away a test that they 'know' they'll fail and assuming that someone will swoop in and rescue them from it.

Frankly, if I had to pick the one thing about Christianity that I dislike the most, it would be this belief that we are foredoomed to eternal damnation, and there's nothing we can do about it except accept the handout of 'grace' from above in order to avoid the consequences of that predestined failure.  It's bad enough that they believe it about themselves, but they insist on saying that everyone else in the world is equally doomed in order to spread their beliefs around.

Quote from: harbinger77
Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Matthew 4:5-6
Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple.  "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:  'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"

Anyone can quote scripture for their own purposes.
What proof would you like. Notice how you want me to expand even further. To say good vs evil alone would be on par with the old stand by "mysterious ways" everyone likes to kick around. 3700+ Posts and you honestly think I could have gotten away with a simple good vs evil? Even if he was happy someone else wouldn't be... right?
confused is your problem. can you point out where I contradicted myself though?

As for your "name of allah" statement. I don't disagree that may be a local problem. However I speak on a global scale. Don't you watch the news? I know the state of the church and Christian persecution is normally avoided on national news but it pops up once in a while. Dig a bit deeper.

This is related to yet another post of mine that was never answered. The Gospel and quite a number of other things are offensive. i see it too. If the idea was to write it for population control or what ever excuse you want to use. Why would men write it in such an offensive way? This idea doesn't seem counter productive to you?

Satan did quote scripture several times the problem is he always misquoted.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 02, 2014, 09:22:17 PM
I think part of the reason people believe the "world is coming to an end" is selfishness. They can't stand the things they don't like or understand in the world and view those things as wrong so they want the world to end.  They don't like their lives or what has happened in their lives so they want the world to end.  I'm not saying this describes you harbinger77, but you have to admit that it does describe others who believe in "End Times".

Don't forget that Christians also hope that JC will show up in their lifetime so they can bypass the dying stuff and go straight from here to heaven without leaving any hospital bills behind. And without having to experience the, you know, scary part of dying.

A very practical and perhaps even understandable wish, except for the fact that it can't ever be fulfilled. Which they consider a minor problem or something.

I've addressed this before. I have faced death a few times in combat. I've had some close calls of my own. I've sent a few home. I have come to terms with death. Even numb on some level. I'm in no way scared to die. yet I watch for the Lords return... Just sayin'
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 02, 2014, 09:36:10 PM
I've addressed this before. I have faced death a few times in combat. I've had some close calls of my own. I've sent a few home. I have come to terms with death. Even numb on some level. I'm in no way scared to die. yet I watch for the Lords return... Just sayin'

I'm glad to hear that. I brought it up because one theist IRL, trying to convert me, told me JC was coming soon and said I could skip dying if I got myself saved before he showed up. And he said it in a way that made it seem that he was quite relieved that he too could skip dying. I keep forgetting that the bible didn't create a monoculture.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: albeto on January 02, 2014, 10:29:59 PM
This is related to yet another post of mine that was never answered. The Gospel and quite a number of other things are offensive. i see it too. If the idea was to write it for population control or what ever excuse you want to use. Why would men write it in such an offensive way? This idea doesn't seem counter productive to you?

Sorry to be a pain, but would you mind linking to the post where you asked a question that was never answered? I'd be interested in reading it, but have joined this conversation a bit late in the game.

I have an idea about why men would write offensive texts, but I don't want to speculate about things no one is talking about.

:)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 02, 2014, 11:00:59 PM
This is related to yet another post of mine that was never answered. The Gospel and quite a number of other things are offensive. i see it too. If the idea was to write it for population control or what ever excuse you want to use. Why would men write it in such an offensive way? This idea doesn't seem counter productive to you?
Noticed this gemstone.

Remember when the bible was made?
Back when people pillaged and stoned?

The bible sure helps with allowing control, because once everyone is converted, you can proclaim yourself a pope, and start commanding people in the name of god.
If they refuse? Stone them.
To make a point, stone innocent homosexuals and women.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Graybeard on January 03, 2014, 08:41:09 AM

Hears Here's another quote:
Now, in a paper to be deliver at the annual meeting of the Seismological Society of America, the USGS
notes that “a remarkable increase in the rate of [magnitude 3.0] and greater earthquakes is currently in progress” in the U.S. midcontinent. The abstract is online. EnergyWire reports (subs. req’d) some of the findings:
The study found that the frequency of earthquakes started rising in 2001 across a broad swath of the country between Alabama and Montana. In 2009, there were 50 earthquakes greater than magnitude-3.0, the abstract states, then 87 quakes in 2010. The 134 earthquakes in the zone last year is a sixfold increase over 20th century level

 “a remarkable increase in the rate of [magnitude 3.0] and greater earthquakes is currently in progress”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/sharp-rise-in-u-s-earthquakes-almost-certainly-manmade-usgs-scientists-report/30192

1) There may be an increase in low level earthquakes. That is apparently open to interpretation as per various experts who seem to disagree.
[...]

#1 I provided several examples of experts who agree. One where the institution contradicted it's self. I've seen no disagreement.

Jesus only said it would happen and it is.

no charts or graphs. The claim speaks for it's self. I would really like to see something to support your claim though.

The only claim that anyone has made is that in a restricted period in a restricted part of the US earthquakes appear to be more frequent.

Jesus was unaware of America.

Sir,
you have a god-given ability to misinterpret what you read.

[Edit to fix quotes]
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 03, 2014, 08:49:34 AM
I'd still like to know where the bible predicts and increase in earthquakes rather than just 'there will be earthquakes.'

Harbinger, if there is not a prediction of an increase earthquakes, why are you banhging on about it?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Nam on January 03, 2014, 10:01:51 AM
I'd still like to know where the bible predicts and increase in earthquakes rather than just 'there will be earthquakes.'

Harbinger, if there is not a prediction of an increase earthquakes, why are you banhging on about it?

Because he's right, and we're wrong. It always comes down to that: they're right, we're wrong. They could lie all day long, misrepresent all day long, and they're still right and we're wrong.

-Nam
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 03, 2014, 10:07:17 AM
I find it pathetic that an all powerful being's prophesies are so vague and simple, that a child could of written it.

I mean, where are all his calculations describing the earthquakes?
etc.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/627941

Not sure where to put it, but this is the most funny Jesus related video i have seen....
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 03, 2014, 11:02:28 AM
Thanks for a great video, Angus et al
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 03, 2014, 10:27:13 PM
"Understand why The Church of the FSM was founded . It was created in 2005 by Bobby
Henderson as a satirical protest to the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to
require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution in public
schools."

Well yes, it was satirical.

But know that there is some who with utmost certainty, believe that it is true.

What process would you use to say that they are not believing in the right god?

possibly some weed too.

Nah, that's RASTAfarians. Not PASTAfarians.

btw... although not my point. I'm not taking it further than the observation. I could argue, based on the response, that I did inadvertently  make paganism seem more "true" for you. :/

Paganism is no more true than witchcraft, magic, and leprechauns to me.

enter the tulip......

Okay...please tell me what this means...
I have had several theists refer tulpae as "tulips"...
9_6

Do you know people who are professing Pastafarians? I have to assume if they hold these views that are doing so on a strictly satirical basis. If I did have to refute the FSM... I would direct them to this web site and then close my case. FSM committed suicide on day one...

TULIP is reformed theology also known as the doctrines of Grace or the less popular Title.Calvinism
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 03, 2014, 10:28:07 PM
"Understand why The Church of the FSM was founded . It was created in 2005 by Bobby
Henderson as a satirical protest to the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to
require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution in public
schools."

Well yes, it was satirical.

But know that there is some who with utmost certainty, believe that it is true.

What process would you use to say that they are not believing in the right god?

possibly some weed too.

Nah, that's RASTAfarians. Not PASTAfarians.

btw... although not my point. I'm not taking it further than the observation. I could argue, based on the response, that I did inadvertently  make paganism seem more "true" for you. :/

Paganism is no more true than witchcraft, magic, and leprechauns to me.

enter the tulip......

Okay...please tell me what this means...
I have had several theists refer tulpae as "tulips"...
9_6

Do you know people who are professing Pastafarians? I have to assume if they hold these views that are doing so on a strictly satirical basis. If I did have to refute the FSM... I would direct them to this web site and then close my case. FSM committed suicide on day one...

TULIP is reformed theology also known as the doctrines of Grace or the less popular Title.Calvinism
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 03, 2014, 10:43:32 PM
I've addressed this before. I have faced death a few times in combat. I've had some close calls of my own. I've sent a few home. I have come to terms with death. Even numb on some level. I'm in no way scared to die. yet I watch for the Lords return... Just sayin'

I'm glad to hear that. I brought it up because one theist IRL, trying to convert me, told me JC was coming soon and said I could skip dying if I got myself saved before he showed up. And he said it in a way that made it seem that he was quite relieved that he too could skip dying. I keep forgetting that the bible didn't create a monoculture.

The Christian who thinks he/she can "save you" or that you can even save yourself has a low view of God and a high view of self. I may go so far as to say they don't understand salvation is a gift either.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 03, 2014, 10:58:44 PM
"Understand why The Church of the FSM was founded . It was created in 2005 by Bobby
Henderson as a satirical protest to the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to
require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution in public
schools."

Well yes, it was satirical.

But know that there is some who with utmost certainty, believe that it is true.

What process would you use to say that they are not believing in the right god?

possibly some weed too.

Nah, that's RASTAfarians. Not PASTAfarians.

btw... although not my point. I'm not taking it further than the observation. I could argue, based on the response, that I did inadvertently  make paganism seem more "true" for you. :/

Paganism is no more true than witchcraft, magic, and leprechauns to me.

enter the tulip......

Okay...please tell me what this means...
I have had several theists refer tulpae as "tulips"...
9_6
This is related to yet another post of mine that was never answered. The Gospel and quite a number of other things are offensive. i see it too. If the idea was to write it for population control or what ever excuse you want to use. Why would men write it in such an offensive way? This idea doesn't seem counter productive to you?

Sorry to be a pain, but would you mind linking to the post where you asked a question that was never answered? I'd be interested in reading it, but have joined this conversation a bit late in the game.

I have an idea about why men would write offensive texts, but I don't want to speculate about things no one is talking about.

:)

I restated the general point that it would be counter productive to the desired end result as most commonly stated population control.
The statement assumes men wrote the bible it was not of God and the statement with following questions was directed to someone who holds these views... It's been a while back It may not have even been this thread.
No reason you can't offer reasoning though. Go for it.

on a side note To link to questions unanswered would take some time. You hint at a double standard. other Christians and I are expected to answer even the silliest rhetorical question while almost all of our own go unanswered... part of the territory though I guess.
I think the default answer would be burden of proof.
Have you ever noticed this and if so why do suppose this happens?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 03, 2014, 11:01:54 PM
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that Harbinger only posted the Angus post once, but that god posted the same one three more times. I'm almost convinced now.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on January 03, 2014, 11:33:40 PM
I direct you to may statement that I started in the occult meaning part of it. not a theoretical glance. This is more inside knowledge of the occult. the same as you can't know what 33rd degree masons believe with a simple google search. Dig deeper.

I further ask you to apply logic. Murder is illegal even if you claim freedom of religion right? Why would they advertise crimes or the intention of crimes? Dig deeper... ritual sacrifice may be better thing to google.
You're the one making the accusations, so you're the one who should provide the evidence.  Not mere innuendo based on your presumed background in the occult, and certainly not telling people to look up stuff on random internet sites.

By the way, since you brought up the subject of logic...if this occult Satanist group you were associated with really was into ritual sacrifice, then wouldn't it have been logical of you to turn them in to the relevant authorities?  Yet, somehow, you seem to have totally neglected mentioning that.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: xyzzy on January 03, 2014, 11:47:21 PM
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that Harbinger only posted the Angus post once, but that god posted the same one three more times. I'm almost convinced now.

As in proof of the existence of the holy trinity? :D
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Ivellios on January 04, 2014, 12:04:25 AM
It would be nice if he were to snip the irrelevent parts of the post he was quoting. Easier to read and not having to scroll so much.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 04, 2014, 12:12:59 AM
It would be nice if he were to snip the irrelevent parts of the post he was quoting. Easier to read and not having to scroll so much.

I suspect that since he is used to quoting the bible, he thinks other quotes are supposed to be boring too.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: albeto on January 04, 2014, 12:17:39 AM

I restated the general point that it would be counter productive to the desired end result as most commonly stated population control.
I don't know to what you are referring, but thanks for indulging my curiosity.

The statement assumes men wrote the bible it was not of God and the statement with following questions was directed to someone who holds these views... It's been a while back It may not have even been this thread.
No reason you can't offer reasoning though. Go for it.

So what was your question? Why would men create an offensive text if their intent was to convert people to their faith?

on a side note To link to questions unanswered would take some time. You hint at a double standard. other Christians and I are expected to answer even the silliest rhetorical question while almost all of our own go unanswered... part of the territory though I guess.
I think the default answer would be burden of proof.
Have you ever noticed this and if so why do suppose this happens?

I suspect most of this "nit-picking" is because when we communicate, we assume the vocabulary we bring to the conversation will contain roughly the same intellectual and emotional meaning for everyone. An example might be the use of the word "Christian." What does it mean to you? To me? To the OP of any given thread? To any poster? Each atheist brings to the conversation their own experiences, and that naturally raises particular questions others won't think of asking. Each comment inspires more questions (ie, A Christian is someone who doesn't sin, but stumbles - okay, but, well, what does "sin" mean now? How is that functionally different from stumbling?). Each post a theist offers is bound to attract a number of atheists, so already you're outnumbered with say, two or three responses to address for each comment you make. Each question asked is a single question, but for the person in the position of answering, that number of questions increases exponentially.

As far as why anyone is particularly unpleasant in his or her communication, I suspect that's a matter of personality. I think there are simply more aggressive and less aggressive people, and perhaps the more aggressive ones are more likely to respond (not aggressive in a mean way, but less passive - asks a question or makes a comment rather than keeping it to themselves). Perhaps some people are more emotionally invested in helping people recognize the damage and offensive nature of the religious belief they are supporting. Perhaps some people aren't interested in maintaining a level of diplomacy that will support the comfort zone of whoever offers to promote their religion. These can feel like being subjected to unfair demands, and no doubt there is some measure of that (I tend to ignore those posters as much as I can - don't feed the trolls, you know).

Ultimately, I think you might feel like you're at an unfair advantage simply because people on this forum are asking the kinds of questions you refuse to ask yourself.  If you, or anyone, is going to actively promote a hurtful, hateful, irrational, malevolent, volatile belief system, you'd better have some damn good reason.  "I feel it in my spirit" isn't a reason, even if it does satisfy the curiosity of the individual believer.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 04, 2014, 01:20:35 AM
I may go so far as to say they don't understand salvation is a gift either.

No you may not go that far.

A gift is FREE, as in, you do nothing, and you get a gift.

If this were the case, everyone would have salvation, are you making this claim?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 04, 2014, 05:20:42 AM
While answering Angus, do also say what is the basis for your answer - i.e. how do you know your answer is right.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Ivellios on January 04, 2014, 07:16:59 AM
I may go so far as to say they don't understand salvation is a gift either.

No you may not go that far.

A gift is FREE, as in, you do nothing, and you get a gift.

If this were the case, everyone would have salvation, are you making this claim?

Harbinger, I know to you it looks "free" but what Angus and Alexis is pointing out is that something linked with bribery and coercion, is not "free." Plus a lot of strings like rules, tithing, going to God Club, etc. I'll add also that it negates freewill.

If I were to offer you a candy bar for "free" but bribe you with a thousand dollars to take it, but if you don't I'll beat you up. The obvious answer is that you take it, right? Well, what's so bad about it, that I have to bribe and coerce you to take it?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 04, 2014, 09:02:57 AM
As others have pointed out, a gift has no strings attached.

For example, someone has a chocolate bar, he says "Here, take this, its a *gift*."

If he say that refusal will lead to punishment, it is not a gift, if he offers you something else as well, as to force you to take it, it is not a gift.

Thus "salvation" must be given to everyone to be considered a gift, or given to a few, which would imply an ass-hole god.

Or on the other hand, salvation could be considered a reward, or a bribe.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Graybeard on January 04, 2014, 09:06:57 AM
After much thought, I have decided that scientists must be, at least to a certain extend, afraid of God.

•   The Physicist will tell you of the conservation of energy, of vacuum energy, quantum physics,  and radio-active decay
•   The Astor-physicist will speak of warped space-time, tell you of an almost impossibly large universe of tremendous age, and how it started.
•   The Geologist will speak of the age of the rocks on earth and their movement, and reveal pre-history to us all
•   The Biologist will tell of the wonders of all life forms past and present and their evolution
•   The Chemist will describe the formation of molecules and their remarkable properties. Medical and industrial advance is their field.
•   The medical professionals will save you from death and disablement wherever they can and it is all based upon scientific knowledge.
•   The Archaeologist will work out what happened, where and when, and reveal old customs and lifestyles.
•   Anthropologists, Historians, Psychologists and Psychiatrists and Linguists will accurately describe the Ascent of Man, his behaviour patterns and limitations.
•   Engineers will use materials and calculate forces to give us the very best machines, structures, and everyday needs.

Each one will want to know more and more – each step discovered reveals more detail. Even though the sum of their knowledge is mind-bogglingly huge, they know they need to know more and keep on working – working for us.  They will share their knowledge and correct their mistakes: they will even tell you why they were wrong and why they are right. You will see if what they say is true: what is true wins, what is not is sent back for more research and improvement: ask for proof of anything – anything at all – and they will either give it to you or give you as much as they have and explain their hypothesis and point out what they need to be able to be more certain.

All this study to get there; all this work to discover the means to discover something; the understanding it gives to us all; the rationality that it brings to the universe, the understanding of and to our lives and the lives of others: each generation living an improved life over that of their ancestors.

Why should scientists fear anything? They do no more that tell us how, who, where, and when it is…

But… in the form of their mysterious and invisible deity, the priests and acolytes of the unseen enter and say,

All this is heresy; all this is lies; nobody knows everything except our gods – our gods explain all. Thousands of years ago, our gods told us all we need to know and what they told us is inerrant.

“Who can understand this? We ask these scientists so-called for proof, and proof of the proof, and proof of the proof of the proof, and proof of the….etc., and finally they cannot answer: It must therefore be wrong, for we know that the beginning of everything was magic. We do not need the proof that we ask of science, we have magic."


And so, every year, scientists must be afraid of the gods of ignorance and that one or other of the world’s shamans will gain enough publicity to appear on Fox & Friends, spread that ignorance and destroy, like the hoards of Genghis Khan, the potential of their hard won knowledge. Time will now have to be wasted taking horses to water and hoping a few will drink.

Imagine you are the only sane person in a lunatic asylum and then having your basic advice and knowledge dismissed by the inmates – Here is a reason for scientists to fear gods.



“Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: 'My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly.' This stranger is a theologian.”
-- Diderot, c1762

(Edit for a couple of typos)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 11:47:08 AM
It would be nice if he were to snip the irrelevent parts of the post he was quoting. Easier to read and not having to scroll so much.

I suspect that since he is used to quoting the bible, he thinks other quotes are supposed to be boring too.

So often some people "quote" a snippet it allows for things to be out of their context. I prefer to keep the original post intact to at the least help prevent misrepresenting theother person's view.

Aside from that who are you to say something is irrelevant? Is scrolling such a hard thing?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 11:56:48 AM
I direct you to may statement that I started in the occult meaning part of it. not a theoretical glance. This is more inside knowledge of the occult. the same as you can't know what 33rd degree masons believe with a simple google search. Dig deeper.

I further ask you to apply logic. Murder is illegal even if you claim freedom of religion right? Why would they advertise crimes or the intention of crimes? Dig deeper... ritual sacrifice may be better thing to google.
You're the one making the accusations, so you're the one who should provide the evidence.  Not mere innuendo based on your presumed background in the occult, and certainly not telling people to look up stuff on random internet sites.

By the way, since you brought up the subject of logic...if this occult Satanist group you were associated with really was into ritual sacrifice, then wouldn't it have been logical of you to turn them in to the relevant authorities?  Yet, somehow, you seem to have totally neglected mentioning that.

Not quite what I figured you would focus in on..

 Your logic is sound. I agree. The   problem is teaching something is legal. Discussing ideas is legal. I was never present nor do I have proof these things actually happened. It was the doctrine though.
I was never a member of a coven. Occult is a broad term. I was in circles who associated with other circles. Just as say a Baptist and a Presbyterian may sit and talk about world views. occult members do the same. If you want to look into this do it. If you don't want to believe this happens I can't convince you anyway. Why should I try?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 04, 2014, 12:08:55 PM
Harbinger, may you respond on the "gift" issue?

Failure will result in more -1's...
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 12:15:11 PM
I may go so far as to say they don't understand salvation is a gift either.

No you may not go that far.

A gift is FREE, as in, you do nothing, and you get a gift.

If this were the case, everyone would have salvation, are you making this claim?

Not at all. My claim is that salvation is free for the elect. Jesus laid down down his life for the sins of many... not all.

Matt. 26:28
for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for MANY for forgiveness of sins.
(all caps "many" is mine)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 12:23:35 PM
I may go so far as to say they don't understand salvation is a gift either.

No you may not go that far.

A gift is FREE, as in, you do nothing, and you get a gift.

If this were the case, everyone would have salvation, are you making this claim?

Harbinger, I know to you it looks "free" but what Angus and Alexis is pointing out is that something linked with bribery and coercion, is not "free." Plus a lot of strings like rules, tithing, going to God Club, etc. I'll add also that it negates freewill.

If I were to offer you a candy bar for "free" but bribe you with a thousand dollars to take it, but if you don't I'll beat you up. The obvious answer is that you take it, right? Well, what's so bad about it, that I have to bribe and coerce you to take it?

one of what you mention as "rules" come from God. That's pure religion. The doctrines of man.
I agree with you. The problem is you are arguing outside of my theology.

Harbinger, may you respond on the "gift" issue?

Failure will result in more -1's...

If you happen to notice I started posting. Give it a minute. I respond in chronological  fassion.

Curious... Why should I fear your -1? Is this system some kind of reflection of respect?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 04, 2014, 12:32:08 PM
It would be nice if he were to snip the irrelevent parts of the post he was quoting. Easier to read and not having to scroll so much.

I suspect that since he is used to quoting the bible, he thinks other quotes are supposed to be boring too.

So often some people "quote" a snippet it allows for things to be out of their context. I prefer to keep the original post intact to at the least help prevent misrepresenting theother person's view.

Aside from that who are you to say something is irrelevant? Is scrolling such a hard thing?

In this post from you, you quoted and responded to Alex. Which was just fine:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25342.msg593074.html#msg593074 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25342.msg593074.html#msg593074)

Then you did it again, with no changes:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25342.msg593075.html#msg593075 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25342.msg593075.html#msg593075)

Then you repeated exactly the same post, but added a response to albedo here:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25342.msg593080.html#msg593080 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25342.msg593080.html#msg593080)

So I gave you a hard time. Maybe I should have brought it to your attention in a different way, but at the present time you're not one of my ten favorite people, so I acted immorally or something.

I should almost apologize. I posted this while quoting a different post. Don't know why that happened. Maybe something similar happened to Harbinger.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 04, 2014, 12:32:56 PM
I may go so far as to say they don't understand salvation is a gift either.

No you may not go that far.

A gift is FREE, as in, you do nothing, and you get a gift.

If this were the case, everyone would have salvation, are you making this claim?

Not at all. My claim is that salvation is free for the elect. Jesus laid down down his life for the sins of many... not all.

Matt. 26:28
for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for MANY for forgiveness of sins.
(all caps "many" is mine)

Excellent! We are getting somewhere. So, there's a list and if one's name is on the list one gets the gift and gifts are restricted to those on the list? Right? If so, where's this list and how do we get to find out if our name is on it? If, as I am assuming, we don't get to see it until after we die (if we see anything after we die) then how do you know you are on the list, Harbinger, and how do you know I am not?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 12:38:33 PM
After much thought, I have decided that scientists must be, at least to a certain extend, afraid of God.

•   The Physicist will tell you of the conservation of energy, of vacuum energy, quantum physics,  and radio-active decay
•   The Astro-physicist will speak of warped space-time, tell you of an almost impossibly large universe of tremendous age, and how it started.
•   The Geologist will speak of the age of the rocks on earth and their movement, and reveal pre-history to us all
•   The Biologist will tell of the wonders of all life forms past and present and their evolution
•   The Chemist will describe the formation of molecules and their remarkable properties. Medical and industrial advance is their field.
•   The medical professionals will save you from death and disablement wherever they can and it is all based upon scientific knowledge.
•   The Archaeologist will work out what happened, where and when, and reveal old customs and lifestyles.
•   Anthropologists, Historians, Psychologists and Psychiatrists and Linguists will accurately describe the Ascent of Man, his behaviour patterns and limitations.
•   Engineers will use materials and calculate forces to give us the very best machines, structures, and everyday needs.

Each one will want to know more and more – each step discovered reveals more detail. Even though the sum of their knowledge is mind-bogglingly huge, they know they need to know more and keep on working – working for us.  They will share their knowledge and correct their mistakes: they will even tell you why they were wrong and why they are right. You will see if what they say is true: what is true wins, what is not is sent back for more research and improvement: ask for proof of anything – anything at all – and they will either give it to you or give you as much as they have and explain their hypothesis and point out what they need to be able to be more certain.

All this study to get there; all this work to discover the means to discover something; the understanding it gives to us all; the rationality that it brings to the universe, the understand of and to our lives and the lives of others: each generation living an improved life over that of their ancestors.

Why should scientists fear anything? They do no more that tell us how, who, where, how and when it is…

But… in the form of their mysterious and invisible deity, the priests and acolytes of the unseen enter and say,

“All this is heresy; all this is lies; nobody knows everything except our gods – our gods explain all. Thousands of years ago, our gods told us all we need to know and what they told us is inerrant.

“Who can understand this? We ask these scientists so-called for proof, and proof of the proof, and proof of the proof of the proof, and proof of the….etc., and finally they cannot answer: It must therefore be wrong, for we know that the beginning of everything was magic. We do not need the proof that we ask of science, we have magic.


And so, every year, scientists must be afraid of the gods of ignorance and that one or other of the world’s shamans will gain enough publicity to appear on Fox & Friends, spread that ignorance and destroy, like the hoards of Genghis Khan, the potential of their hard won knowledge. Time will now have to be wasted taking horses to water and hoping a few will drink.

Imagine you are the only sane person in a lunatic asylum and then having your basic advice and knowledge dismissed by the inmates – Here is a reason for scientists to fear gods.



“Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: 'My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly.' This stranger is a theologian.”
-- Diderot, c1762


Bravo sir!
Although our reasoning differs I enjoyed this post for reasons I'm sure you would disagree with.
 I can tell you put a lot of thought into this.

I have one question though. Are you proposing the scientific method can answer all questions?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 04, 2014, 12:48:35 PM
Curious... Why should I fear your -1? Is this system some kind of reflection of respect?

The -1 symbolizes that you made stupid decisions, you don't want to be stupid, do you? ;D

Not at all. My claim is that salvation is free for the elect. Jesus laid down down his life for the sins of many... not all.

If he laid down his sins for many and not all, his laying down of sins is not a gift, it is a reward for the people doing something in particular, (that, or god is a dick who does not like some people for no reason). I might even claim that if it were true, it could be compared to a bribe.
It also implies that Jesus was partial, a flaw that no all loving being should have.

Matt. 26:28
for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for MANY for forgiveness of sins.
(all caps "many" is mine)

Quote from: ? H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds
“In the next place, wonderful as it seems in a sexual world, the Martians were absolutely without sex, and therefore without any of the tumultuous emotions that arise...

Well what do you know, aliens don't have sex.


Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 12:54:06 PM
I may go so far as to say they don't understand salvation is a gift either.

No you may not go that far.

A gift is FREE, as in, you do nothing, and you get a gift.

If this were the case, everyone would have salvation, are you making this claim?

Not at all. My claim is that salvation is free for the elect. Jesus laid down down his life for the sins of many... not all.

Matt. 26:28
for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for MANY for forgiveness of sins.
(all caps "many" is mine)

Excellent! We are getting somewhere. So, there's a list and if one's name is on the list one gets the gift and gifts are restricted to those on the list? Right? If so, where's this list and how do we get to find out if our name is on it? If, as I am assuming, we don't get to see it until after we die (if we see anything after we die) then how do you know you are on the list, Harbinger, and how do you know I am not?

If you read revelation closely you will see there are 3 books. the one you reference is the Lambs book of Life.
How do you know you are not "on the list?" I have no clue who is on it. I have been saved. The evidence is in the book.

How do I know I am?
As a friend told me just this morning "I can see how you have done a full 180. You are opposite of who you once were." My boss once said, "I don't want to say you had a roadto   demascus experience, but.... dude....wow!" This was no choice of my own. it just happened. That's evidence of salvation that people who know me don't reject. Even my sister who is an EX- I believe you would have called her a weak athiest...
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 01:04:39 PM
Curious... Why should I fear your -1? Is this system some kind of reflection of respect?

The -1 symbolizes that you made stupid decisions, you don't want to be stupid, do you? ;D

Not at all. My claim is that salvation is free for the elect. Jesus laid down down his life for the sins of many... not all.

If he laid down his sins for many and not all, his laying down of sins is not a gift, it is a reward for the people doing something in particular, (that, or god is a dick who does not like some people for no reason). I might even claim that if it were true, it could be compared to a bribe.
It also implies that Jesus was partial, a flaw that no all loving being should have.

Matt. 26:28
for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for MANY for forgiveness of sins.
(all caps "many" is mine)

Quote from: ? H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds
“In the next place, wonderful as it seems in a sexual world, the Martians were absolutely without sex, and therefore without any of the tumultuous emotions that arise...

Well what do you know, aliens don't have sex.

While your point in doing so is not lost on me, my scripture quote was relevant to my post. the H.G.Wells thing was just misplaced.

That being said let me try the candy bar thing...
If I had laid down my money (the blood/life of christ) for a candy bar and decided to give it to you just cause I wanted to (in my own good will) would it not be a gift?

EDIT:
Not sure if you meant it but I wanted to point out Jesus lead a sinless life. He laid down His life, not his sin.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 04, 2014, 01:10:35 PM
While your point in doing so is not lost on me, my scripture quote was relevant to my post. the H.G.Wells thing was just misplaced.

Each time you post a fictional text, i post a quote from The war of the worlds. a fictional text i quite like.


That being said let me try the candy bar thing...
If I had laid down my money (the blood/life of christ) for a candy bar and decided to give it to you just cause I wanted to (in my own good will) would it not be a gift?

Yes, that would be a gift.
Now imagine there are several hundred thousand people, and you are an all good omnipotent being.
You cannot give a gift to only a few, because otherwise you are not all good, thus you must be handing out rewards or bribes.

Choose your pick.

Edit: realized that an all good being would not hand out rewards or bribes...This is a pickle.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 01:15:48 PM
While your point in doing so is not lost on me, my scripture quote was relevant to my post. the H.G.Wells thing was just misplaced.

Each time you post a fictional text, i post a quote from The war of the worlds. a fictional text i quite like.


That being said let me try the candy bar thing...
If I had laid down my money (the blood/life of christ) for a candy bar and decided to give it to you just cause I wanted to (in my own good will) would it not be a gift?

Yes, that would be a gift.
Now imagine there are several hundred thousand people, and you are an all good omnipotent being.
You cannot give a gift to only a few, because otherwise you are not all good, thus you must be handing out rewards or bribes.

Choose your pick.

Edit: realized that an all good being would not hand out rewards or bribes...This is a pickle.

I suppose there's no way to make it relevant to your post though is there?

Is your position that you must earn the gift then as suggested by reward or bribe?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Graybeard on January 04, 2014, 01:20:13 PM
My claim is that salvation is free for the elect. Jesus laid down down his life for the sins of many... not all.

And you have some peer reviewed papers published in learned and respected journals to substantiate this claim?

There have been repeatable experiments to demonstrate exactly what you say? Or does there remain controversy?

You have interviewed the dead and, in view of what they have said, all has been shown to be in accordance with Matt. 26:28?

Or, is the claim, empty and baseless?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 01:22:36 PM
My claim is that salvation is free for the elect. Jesus laid down down his life for the sins of many... not all.

And you have some peer reviewed papers published in learned and respected journals to substantiate this claim?

There have been repeatable experiments to demonstrate exactly what you say? Or does there remain controversy?

You have interviewed the dead and, in view of what they have said, all has been shown to be in accordance with Matt. 26:28?

Or, is the claim, empty and baseless?

you didn't answer the question I asked you... Answer that and then we may proceed to these questions.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: One Above All on January 04, 2014, 01:40:17 PM
harbinger77, do you agree with the premise the OP set forth?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Graybeard on January 04, 2014, 01:45:17 PM

I have one question though. Are you proposing the scientific method can answer all questions?
"Science knows it doesn’t know everything, otherwise, it would stop." [wiki]Dara Ó Briain[/wiki] -  mathematician and theoretical physicist.

I draw your attention to: "We ask these scientists so-called for proof, and proof of the proof, and proof of the proof of the proof, and proof of the….etc., and finally they cannot answer: It must therefore be wrong, for we know that the beginning of everything was magic. We do not need the proof that we ask of science, we have magic."

But I suppose I must now ask: "What questions were you thinking of?"

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 02:26:03 PM
harbinger77, do you agree with the premise the OP set forth?

I have answered this before but...
science is not scientist. I can't say science is afraid to admit God. Some scientists are trying to proove God even. I may conclude a certain scientist is afraid there may be God. I could also logically conclude the scientific theist is afraid to admit not God. I think that some scientist may be in science as a way to refute God. Just as some are in it to proove God. I think the only thing science is afraid to conclude rather than admit is "I don't know"

How do you answer the question?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: One Above All on January 04, 2014, 02:35:35 PM
I have answered this before but...

I asked only because I didn't want to make a moot point. I had not been following this thread as closely as I should have.

science is not scientist. I can't say science is afraid to admit God. Some scientists are trying to proove God even. I may conclude a certain scientist is afraid there may be God. I could also logically conclude the scientific theist is afraid to admit not God. I think that some scientist may be in science as a way to refute God. Just as some are in it to proove God. I think the only thing science is afraid to conclude rather than admit is "I don't know"

In that case, I have a question for you. Why are theists afraid of science?

How do you answer the question?

Well, I would say, scientists are not afraid of god, just like atheists are not angry at it.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 02:46:12 PM

I have one question though. Are you proposing the scientific method can answer all questions?
"Science knows it doesn’t know everything, otherwise, it would stop." [wiki]Dara Ó Briain[/wiki] -  mathematician and theoretical physicist.

I draw your attention to: "We ask these scientists so-called for proof, and proof of the proof, and proof of the proof of the proof, and proof of the….etc., and finally they cannot answer: It must therefore be wrong, for we know that the beginning of everything was magic. We do not need the proof that we ask of science, we have magic."

But I suppose I must now ask: "What questions were you thinking of?"

You got the right question but you didn't answer it. Restateing what made me ask the question puts us in a loop.
I'll restate it:
I have one question though. Are you proposing the scientific method can answer all questions?
maybe if I add to it...
aside from "it tries really hard" can it answer all questions? Is it the only valid method for answering any question?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 02:49:56 PM
I have answered this before but...

I asked only because I didn't want to make a moot point. I had not been following this thread as closely as I should have.

science is not scientist. I can't say science is afraid to admit God. Some scientists are trying to proove God even. I may conclude a certain scientist is afraid there may be God. I could also logically conclude the scientific theist is afraid to admit not God. I think that some scientist may be in science as a way to refute God. Just as some are in it to proove God. I think the only thing science is afraid to conclude rather than admit is "I don't know"

In that case, I have a question for you. Why are theists afraid of science?

How do you answer the question?

Well, I would say, scientists are not afraid of god, just like atheists are not angry at it.

Some scientists are theists.
do you propose then these guys are afraid to go to work?
what about Christian Science for that matter?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: One Above All on January 04, 2014, 02:57:12 PM
Some scientists are theists.
do you propose then these guys are afraid to go to work?

I was using hyperbole. I do that sometimes. My apologies for not making it clear. Now that I have, please answer the question.

what about Christian Science for that matter?

What is usually called christian "science" is nothing of the sort. It goes from one conclusion - that the Bible is true - and looks for evidence to support that conclusion, ignoring the rest. Science goes from evidence to theories to testing to (better) theories, and so on.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Ataraxia on January 04, 2014, 03:10:59 PM
harbinger77, do you agree with the premise the OP set forth?

I have answered this before but...
science is not scientist. I can't say science is afraid to admit God. Some scientists are trying to proove God even. I may conclude a certain scientist is afraid there may be God. I could also logically conclude the scientific theist is afraid to admit not God. I think that some scientist may be in science as a way to refute God. Just as some are in it to proove God. I think the only thing science is afraid to conclude rather than admit is "I don't know"

How do you answer the question?

Science is based on methodological naturalism. If you believe in a supernatural god, then the scientific method has nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of that god.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 04, 2014, 03:31:31 PM
Hang on there! Science based of naturalism is the usual answer but is there any reason why the scientific method cannot deal with other things? After all, all the scientific method does is to make observations, come up with a hypothesis and then test it. Whether ghosts, angels or gods, if they can be detected they can be studied. The sad fact is that some scientists have been studying the supernatural (ghost poltergeists etc) for decades and never detected anything that could be studied.

The fact is that if a god interacted with the earth or its inhabitants science could come up with answers about it but we all know, theists and atheists, that god doesn't appear like that. We only differ in that atheists say there is no evidence for a god and theists work on making excuses why the god doesn't actually do anything.

The scientific method can be used on anything and to solve anything but it isn't going to help with imaginary gods.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Ataraxia on January 04, 2014, 03:54:29 PM
If something manifests in the natural world then the scientific method has the potential to investigate that phenomenon. If ghosts, angels or gods manifest in nature, then they are natural phenomena. It doesn't work the other way around, where science investigates things which are labelled supernatural. They simply aren't supernatural if they appear in nature.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 03:58:22 PM
Some scientists are theists.
do you propose then these guys are afraid to go to work?

I was using hyperbole. I do that sometimes. My apologies for not making it clear. Now that I have, please answer the question.

what about Christian Science for that matter?

What is usually called christian "science" is nothing of the sort. It goes from one conclusion - that the Bible is true - and looks for evidence to support that conclusion, ignoring the rest. Science goes from evidence to theories to testing to (better) theories, and so on.
Your question is based on the false assumption as stated theists are afraid of science.
Your "question" would work better if it were true to it's self and stated in a matter of fact way rather than posed as a question.
Why do you assume theists are afraid of science?
Can you support your implied statement of Christian science must use an alternate form of scientific method?
Can you support that Christian science has no scientific theory?
 Perhaps most important.
Have you studied any Christian science at all or do you dismiss it because it contains the word Christian?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Ataraxia on January 04, 2014, 04:01:20 PM
Can you support your implied statement of Christian science must use an alternate form of scientific method?
Can you support that Christian science has no scientific theory?
 Perhaps most important.
Have you studied any Christian science at all or do you dismiss it because it contains the word Christian?

There is no such thing as "Christian" science. There is science and that's it.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: One Above All on January 04, 2014, 04:15:32 PM
Your question is based on the false assumption as stated theists are afraid of science.

Which I explained was a hyperbole. You're either purposefully ignoring that, or you didn't read my post.

Your "question" would work better if it were true to it's self and stated in a matter of fact way rather than posed as a question.

It's a question with a statement of fact.

Why do you assume theists are afraid of science?

Because for the major discoveries in science (Earth is round, Earth revolves around the sun, stars are actually distant suns, the LHC...), there were always theists who opposed it. My guess would be that theists are afraid scientific discoveries will disprove their gods. Which they have, if I might add. Theists simply change their gods (reducing their powers being a common choice) and squeeze them into the gaps of knowledge left by the scientific experiments.

Can you support your implied statement of Christian science must use an alternate form of scientific method?

I don't understand the question.

Can you support that Christian science has no scientific theory?

A theory is used to explain the facts, is based on evidence, and makes predictions. When its predictions are false, or there are other problems with it, it is replaced by a new, better theory. Christian "scientists"[1] ignore evidence that does not support their conclusions (which they reached long before even looking at the evidence).

Perhaps most important.
Have you studied any Christian science at all or do you dismiss it because it contains the word Christian?

You mean like the "theory" (read: moronic guess) that the Grand Canyon was caused by the worldwide flood that no culture at the time seemed to notice?
 1. Note the quotes. They're there for a reason.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 04:18:42 PM
Can you support your implied statement of Christian science must use an alternate form of scientific method?
Can you support that Christian science has no scientific theory?
 Perhaps most important.
Have you studied any Christian science at all or do you dismiss it because it contains the word Christian?

There is no such thing as "Christian" science. There is science and that's it.

I think it was at least well said that the hypothesis is Christian therefore "Christian" science exists
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Ataraxia on January 04, 2014, 04:21:33 PM
Can you support your implied statement of Christian science must use an alternate form of scientific method?
Can you support that Christian science has no scientific theory?
 Perhaps most important.
Have you studied any Christian science at all or do you dismiss it because it contains the word Christian?

There is no such thing as "Christian" science. There is science and that's it.

I think it was at least well said that the hypothesis is Christian therefore "Christian" science exists

Then you'll have no problem in letting everyone know how the "Christian" scientific method differs from the scientific method.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 04, 2014, 04:50:13 PM
Harbinger,

Watch out for your terminology! When I read your post I thought you mean Christian Science (http://christianscience.com/) and I think another person thought the same. I know what you mean now, but we both know that 'Christian Science' isn't Christian or science!
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 05:01:08 PM
Your question is based on the false assumption as stated theists are afraid of science.

Which I explained was a hyperbole. You're either purposefully ignoring that, or you didn't read my post.

Your "question" would work better if it were true to it's self and stated in a matter of fact way rather than posed as a question.

It's a question with a statement of fact.

Why do you assume theists are afraid of science?

Because for the major discoveries in science (Earth is round, Earth revolves around the sun, stars are actually distant suns, the LHC...), there were always theists who opposed it. My guess would be that theists are afraid scientific discoveries will disprove their gods. Which they have, if I might add. Theists simply change their gods (reducing their powers being a common choice) and squeeze them into the gaps of knowledge left by the scientific experiments.

Can you support your implied statement of Christian science must use an alternate form of scientific method?

I don't understand the question.

Can you support that Christian science has no scientific theory?

A theory is used to explain the facts, is based on evidence, and makes predictions. When its predictions are false, or there are other problems with it, it is replaced by a new, better theory. Christian "scientists"[1] ignore evidence that does not support their conclusions (which they reached long before even looking at the evidence).

Perhaps most important.
Have you studied any Christian science at all or do you dismiss it because it contains the word Christian?

You mean like the "theory" (read: moronic guess) that the Grand Canyon was caused by the worldwide flood that no culture at the time seemed to notice?
 1. Note the quotes. They're there for a reason.
This may all well be true. I don't agree though. neither of us can determine that the rejections  were ALL or even mostly theists. None the less You are trying to apply it to all theists everywhere. That is simply not true. That's the flaw in your logic. This is the same strawman that suggest all war is born of religion.

God of the gaps is an atheist idea that is also faulty.

You imply that christian science starts in a diffrent place I agree and it's not relevant. You say they ignore evidence that is contrary and also form no theories.
which you killed by the mention of the grand canyon theory.
You seem to suggest the scientific method used by these scientists is fundamentally different. Can you support this claim?

Are you suggesting it's not even possible for a secular scientist to avoid something because it didn't fit his theory? Isn't a hypothesis rather secular or Christian a preconceived idea that one wishes to proov?

  And since you mention the grand canyon I'll go with that one. Have you objectively looked into the theory proposed by christian science and rejected it based on that evidence or did you reject it because it's called christian?
If that's the case why do you condemn the christian scientist for being close minded while you do the same?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 05:04:25 PM
Harbinger,

Watch out for your terminology! When I read your post I thought you mean Christian Science (http://christianscience.com/) and I think another person thought the same. I know what you mean now, but we both know that 'Christian Science' isn't Christian or science!
seriously... :/
you and everyone else KNOW that is not what I meant. I agree with your conclusion of that organization though...
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 04, 2014, 05:06:15 PM
Harbinger,

Watch out for your terminology! When I read your post I thought you mean Christian Science (http://christianscience.com/) and I think another person thought the same. I know what you mean now, but we both know that 'Christian Science' isn't Christian or science!
seriously... :/
you and everyone else KNOW that not what I meant. I agree with you conclusion of that organization though...

Sorry but I read what you had put as 'that organization'. Science is science and because of its methods is unaffected by the faith or otherwise of those who practice it.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Graybeard on January 04, 2014, 05:49:07 PM
You got the right question but you didn't answer it. Restateing what made me ask the question puts us in a loop.
I'll restate it:
I have one question though. Are you proposing the scientific method can answer all questions?
I don't know whether you realise what you are asking. I honestly felt that you have used this line of argument before -> ask a question with no context and then, depending upon the answer, introduce context - the context you should have given in the first place.

The theoretical answer, is "Yes, but to within error limits caused by the necessity of taking into account probability and estimations of any unknowns. Sometimes the unknowns are incalculable and sometimes there are so many that no statement can be given."

However, there will always be unknowns. These are not single discrete events that can be calculated but those with massive variables: "Will Mali be a rich country in 1,000 years?" or on a lesser scale, "Will my son also have a son?"  or "What is now the exact composition of the material on the surface, in a particular 1 square inch area, of a planet 20,000 light-years away?"

However, mankind is clever enough to realise that sort of question cannot be answered, and it is unreasonable to think that it could be.

You can ask me, "If I go to Las Vegas with $100 and choosing only black, place $10 each time in the square, what is the probability of my coming out with more than $100 once my original $100 has been spent?" That is calculable, as are energy landscapes.

Quote
maybe if I add to it...
aside from "it tries really hard" can it answer all questions? Is it the only valid method for answering any question?
No. I have given the valid answer. You have given a weak answer. You assume that science would apply itself to such questions and pointlessly work hard to answer them. Mankind is cleverer than that.

Of course, for you, it would be convenient if your answer even touched reality: but it doesn't.

That is why I asked about your question. I was trying to have you understand what Mankind can do and what he can't.

However, the answer is all around you. You accept the science of the computer, medicines, the car, the TV, electrical water-pumps, road surfaces and thousands of articles and processes that we know work. They will work, not because science commands them to work but because, way back, someone worked out that they would by referring to laws discovered by other men and women.

So, as science explains our world and our lives, your magic explains nothing. The more we know, the further your magic retreats. And your invitation is for us to join you in that proud ignorance?

Perhaps now you know why I asked for some clarification, and your response, "You got the right question but you didn't answer it." showed only that you did not even understand what you were asking. (Or perhaps you did, and are being tricky - I hope I am wrong on that one.)

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: One Above All on January 04, 2014, 06:01:20 PM
harbinger77, you'll have to excuse me. I've been unable to work on my stories for about a month now, so you can imagine (or maybe you can't) that I want to work on them again. I am also trying to finish a game and finally complete the series once and for all. I will reply to you soon. If I do not get back to you in a couple of days, feel free to remind me by PM.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Ivellios on January 04, 2014, 07:06:31 PM
If I were to offer you a candy bar for "free" but bribe you with a thousand dollars to take it, but if you don't I'll beat you up. The obvious answer is that you take it, right? Well, what's so bad about it, that I have to bribe and coerce you to take it?

Forgot to add: Maybe because it isn't a chocolate but a **** bar.  :P
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Ivellios on January 04, 2014, 07:14:59 PM
Harbinger, I know to you it looks "free" but what Angus and Alexis is pointing out is that something linked with bribery and coercion, is not "free." Plus a lot of strings like rules, tithing, going to God Club, etc. I'll add also that it negates freewill.

If I were to offer you a candy bar for "free" but bribe you with a thousand dollars to take it, but if you don't I'll beat you up. The obvious answer is that you take it, right? Well, what's so bad about it, that I have to bribe and coerce you to take it?

one of what you mention as "rules" come from God. That's pure religion. The doctrines of man.
I agree with you. The problem is you are arguing outside of my theology.

Funny. Instead of just hitting the points that coincide with your theology then stating the rest is irrelevent because it isn't part of your SPAG beliefs, you dismiss the whole post. If I said I was surprised I'd be lying because Christians do that all the time.

Christian: Hmm... they listed 100 things... the first 99 I really don't like and don't want to respond ... OH WAIT! 100 doesn't match my theology 100% so BOOYA! (posts) Because of this one point your entire post is outside my theology, and not good enough for a explaination.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Astreja on January 04, 2014, 08:44:11 PM
If you read revelation closely you will see there are 3 books. the one you reference is the Lambs book of Life.  How do you know you are not "on the list?" I have no clue who is on it. I have been saved. The evidence is in the book.

But what if the book's sitting beside My crosscut shredder?   ;)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 04, 2014, 10:38:32 PM
I suppose there's no way to make it relevant to your post though is there?

There is a few god based quotes in War of the Worlds, but the point is that posting a bible verse here has no more impact than posting a quote from a novel.

Is your position that you must earn the gift then as suggested by reward or bribe?

As i have said before, if you must do something to get something, it is a reward.
If someone does something to give you something, it is a bribe.

If someone does nothing and gets something, it is a gift.

Thus god deliberately ignored innocent people, and is an asshole.
Or god rewarded only Christians, thus his love is partial, not impartial, and hence is not all loving.

The point is that a description of "all loving, all powerful, all knowing" for god is contradicted as to what the bible (and theists) describe him as.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on January 04, 2014, 11:39:48 PM
Not quite what I figured you would focus in on..
One of my strengths is that I tend to approach things from a somewhat oblique angle.

Quote from: harbinger77
Your logic is sound. I agree. The   problem is teaching something is legal. Discussing ideas is legal. I was never present nor do I have proof these things actually happened. It was the doctrine though.
So how do you know you were following official Satanist doctrine, as opposed to a fake or a con job - or simply one particular sect?

Quote from: harbinger77
I was never a member of a coven. Occult is a broad term. I was in circles who associated with other circles. Just as say a Baptist and a Presbyterian may sit and talk about world views. occult members do the same. If you want to look into this do it. If you don't want to believe this happens I can't convince you anyway. Why should I try?
If you don't have any evidence that this really happens, what makes you think that it actually does?  And why are you trying to convince people that it happens if you don't actually know that it does?  What you're saying sounds an awful lot like the kind of garbage actual Christians made up and still make up about other Christians, never mind other religions.  What it usually ended up being was rumors that got way out of hand.  Then you have things like in The Crucible, where children got involved in some minor occult stuff, were caught, and made up all sorts of lies about it, which they ended up making themselves believe.

If you want to show that Satanism is a truly evil religion, you have to have evidence which can convince others, not simply hearsay, or things you claim to have heard when you were younger, or whatever else.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 05, 2014, 01:43:45 AM
Harbinger, I know to you it looks "free" but what Angus and Alexis is pointing out is that something linked with bribery and coercion, is not "free." Plus a lot of strings like rules, tithing, going to God Club, etc. I'll add also that it negates freewill.

If I were to offer you a candy bar for "free" but bribe you with a thousand dollars to take it, but if you don't I'll beat you up. The obvious answer is that you take it, right? Well, what's so bad about it, that I have to bribe and coerce you to take it?

one of what you mention as "rules" come from God. That's pure religion. The doctrines of man.
I agree with you. The problem is you are arguing outside of my theology.

Funny. Instead of just hitting the points that coincide with your theology then stating the rest is irrelevent because it isn't part of your SPAG beliefs, you dismiss the whole post. If I said I was surprised I'd be lying because Christians do that all the time.

Christian: Hmm... they listed 100 things... the first 99 I really don't like and don't want to respond ... OH WAIT! 100 doesn't match my theology 100% so BOOYA! (posts) Because of this one point your entire post is outside my theology, and not good enough for a explaination.

yeah that's a nice try. The entire post is outside of my theology.. In fact I said I agree with it the way it was written. why do I need to dispute what I agree with? Are you really asking me to state what I do believe... Again?

This is a terrible analogy... Here goes...
I buy a candy bar. I give it to you because I want to. It's a gift we all agree so far.
Someone said something about the number of people I don't give it to. You assume they want it? I propose they don't. It's still a gift to the one who I did give it to anyway. We all know the candy bar is salvation right? The question is do they want the candy bar? Do YOU want the candy bar? Am I jerk if I don't give you something you don't even want? Am I jerk if I make you take it anyway?
I propose God created the gifted one in such a way that he/she will want the candy bar at some point.
When the price was paid all who would ever want it received it. even before birth. Nothing you did or didn't do effects this.
This is not to say none of you unbelievers can't or don't have it. Just that currently you are not acting in it one day you just might... I can't say it's not for me to know your destiny.
by being created in such a way. Your free will is negated. You can't choose the candy bar I choose who I give it to. free will... not concerning salvation.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 05, 2014, 02:01:35 AM
I suppose there's no way to make it relevant to your post though is there?

There is a few god based quotes in War of the Worlds, but the point is that posting a bible verse here has no more impact than posting a quote from a novel.

Is your position that you must earn the gift then as suggested by reward or bribe?

As i have said before, if you must do something to get something, it is a reward.
If someone does something to give you something, it is a bribe.

If someone does nothing and gets something, it is a gift.

Thus god deliberately ignored innocent people, and is an a**hole.
Or god rewarded only Christians, thus his love is partial, not impartial, and hence is not all loving.

The point is that a description of "all loving, all powerful, all knowing" for god is contradicted as to what the bible (and theists) describe him as.

you suppose people are innocent yet none are righteous no not one! There are none who are innocent concerning God's law.

People may teach God is love but the bible certainly does not. I never made the all loving claim. I never would. God is love to all christians who are his people I'll agree to that. To say anything else contradicts Rom9:13 Jacob I have loved but esau have I hated.
 
Try one of those God based H.G. Wells quotes...
Do I get two for two or does it only count when I give the chapter and verse?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 05, 2014, 02:16:25 AM
you suppose people are innocent yet none are righteous no not one! There are none who are innocent concerning God's law.

What has righteousness got to do with innocence?
If God's law requires righteousness to be innocent, it is not a particularly fair law.

People may teach God is love but the bible certainly does not. I never made the all loving claim. I never would. God is love to all christians who are his people I'll agree to that. To say anything else contradicts Rom9:13 Jacob I have loved but esau have I hated.

So god is an omnipotent dick who requires blind idiotic followers?
Why would someone want to worship such a disgusting being?

Try one of those God based H.G. Wells quotes...

Ahh, okay?

Quote from:  H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds
“Be a man!... What good is religion if it collapses under calamity? Think of what earthquakes and floods, wars and volcanoes, have done before to men! Did you think that God had exempted [us]? He is not an insurance agent.”

Do I get two for two or does it only count when I give the chapter and verse?

Huh?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Ivellios on January 05, 2014, 08:16:10 AM

yeah that's a nice try. The entire post is outside of my theology.. In fact I said I agree with it the way it was written. why do I need to dispute what I agree with? Are you really asking me to state what I do believe... Again?

This is a terrible analogy... Here goes...
I buy a candy bar. I give it to you because I want to. It's a gift we all agree so far.
Someone said something about the number of people I don't give it to. You assume they want it? I propose they don't. It's still a gift to the one who I did give it to anyway. We all know the candy bar is salvation right? The question is do they want the candy bar? Do YOU want the candy bar? Am I jerk if I don't give you something you don't even want? Am I jerk if I make you take it anyway?
I propose God created the gifted one in such a way that he/she will want the candy bar at some point.
When the price was paid all who would ever want it received it. even before birth. Nothing you did or didn't do effects this.
This is not to say none of you unbelievers can't or don't have it. Just that currently you are not acting in it one day you just might... I can't say it's not for me to know your destiny.
by being created in such a way. Your free will is negated. You can't choose the candy bar I choose who I give it to. free will... not concerning salvation.

Bolded: If it is something the person is allergic to and you know it, then yes and yes.

You left out the most important bit. You claim it goes against your theology, but this is integral to the whole concept of salvation.

Before you offer that candy bar, you claim that after I accept it and eat of it, I'll live forever, but if I refuse to accept your gift then I shall be locked away, and tortured for all eternity. In fact all those you chose to not offer it to, will also be locked away and tortured for all eternity. Yet you cannot understand why, instead of just believing you and accepting it, I ask for proof.

So, is he a jerk for trying to force it upon me, despite telling me that it's "free?" Yes.

Edit: Forgot an additional integral part of the salvation "gift." Your candy bar is invisible and immaterial. Like giving someone a whole bunch of donut holes. Eh? Thanks?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 05, 2014, 04:07:25 PM
you suppose people are innocent yet none are righteous no not one! There are none who are innocent concerning God's law.

What has righteousness got to do with innocence?
If God's law requires righteousness to be innocent, it is not a particularly fair law.

People may teach God is love but the bible certainly does not. I never made the all loving claim. I never would. God is love to all christians who are his people I'll agree to that. To say anything else contradicts Rom9:13 Jacob I have loved but esau have I hated.

So god is an omnipotent dick who requires blind idiotic followers?
Why would someone want to worship such a disgusting being?

Try one of those God based H.G. Wells quotes...

Ahh, okay?

Quote from:  H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds
“Be a man!... What good is religion if it collapses under calamity? Think of what earthquakes and floods, wars and volcanoes, have done before to men! Did you think that God had exempted [us]? He is not an insurance agent.”

Do I get two for two or does it only count when I give the chapter and verse?

Huh?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 05, 2014, 04:36:24 PM
Harbinger, please learn to quote properly. It is getting quite hard to follow what you say.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 05, 2014, 05:05:02 PM

yeah that's a nice try. The entire post is outside of my theology.. In fact I said I agree with it the way it was written. why do I need to dispute what I agree with? Are you really asking me to state what I do believe... Again?

This is a terrible analogy... Here goes...
I buy a candy bar. I give it to you because I want to. It's a gift we all agree so far.
Someone said something about the number of people I don't give it to. You assume they want it? I propose they don't. It's still a gift to the one who I did give it to anyway. We all know the candy bar is salvation right? The question is do they want the candy bar? Do YOU want the candy bar? Am I jerk if I don't give you something you don't even want? Am I jerk if I make you take it anyway?
I propose God created the gifted one in such a way that he/she will want the candy bar at some point.
When the price was paid all who would ever want it received it. even before birth. Nothing you did or didn't do effects this.
This is not to say none of you unbelievers can't or don't have it. Just that currently you are not acting in it one day you just might... I can't say it's not for me to know your destiny.
by being created in such a way. Your free will is negated. You can't choose the candy bar I choose who I give it to. free will... not concerning salvation.

Bolded: If it is something the person is allergic to and you know it, then yes and yes.

You left out the most important bit. You claim it goes against your theology, but this is integral to the whole concept of salvation.

Before you offer that candy bar, you claim that after I accept it and eat of it, I'll live forever, but if I refuse to accept your gift then I shall be locked away, and tortured for all eternity. In fact all those you chose to not offer it to, will also be locked away and tortured for all eternity. Yet you cannot understand why, instead of just believing you and accepting it, I ask for proof.

So, is he a jerk for trying to force it upon me, despite telling me that it's "free?" Yes.

Edit: Forgot an additional integral part of the salvation "gift." Your candy bar is invisible and immaterial. Like giving someone a whole bunch of donut holes. Eh? Thanks?
I'm a bit confused by the allergic thing. maybe the analogy falls in this area. If you were allergic and I did not give you the candy bar then how can I be a jerk?

 You are still outside of my theology.
Integral to my theology is the sovereignty of God.
sov·er·eign·ty /?säv(?)r?nt?/
Noun: 1. Supreme power or authority
2. The authority of a state to govern itself or another state

 Technically there is no before I offer it. For example when your great grandfather was a small child your salvation was either secure or it was something you will never have. Nothing from you. Not even a "decision for Christ" If you were the deciding factor then God is not in sovereign.

I can almost hear you saying but but what about___!
Assuming the blank.... Regeneration happens when at some point the holy spirit acts upon you and at that point and not before you will have a spiritually  different view of your own sin and you will repent and confess with your mouth and whatever else may be your blank. Before the Holy spirit acts you are called blind and dead in sin. Unable to come to God.

I love donut holes... bit sized bliss... mmmm
A Christian's salvation may be "invisible" in the sense I can't pull it out and show you... but I assure you it's there. Faith is not blind. Like love you can't see it yet you know it's there. Is loving your mother something that you feel and know it's there or do you yourself need to see your action before you know you love mom?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 05, 2014, 05:20:24 PM
A Christian's salvation may be "invisible" in the sense I can't pull it out and show you... but I assure you it's there. Faith is not blind. Like love you can't see it yet you know it's there. Is loving your mother something that you feel and know it's there or do you yourself need to see your action before you know you love mom?

Can you at least understand that if you have nothing to show, there are good reasons for us not to see it?

And the mom thing? My mom changed my diapers, gave me lunch money before I went to school and in general loved me by, you know, being there when I needed her. I could certainly make her mad by being bad, but no so mad that she'd throw me into the fireplace.

Big difference. Don't try to compare the two. Your god will lose every time.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 05, 2014, 05:20:34 PM
Quote
A Christian's salvation may be "invisible" in the sense I can't pull it out and show you... but I assure you it's there. Faith is not blind. Like love you can't see it yet you know it's there. Is loving your mother something that you feel and know it's there or do you yourself need to see your action before you know you love mom?

1. Love of one's mother is subject to more than the invisible. For one thing one can actually see and interact with one's mother. Then there are tokens of affection passed betwen a person and their mother - gits, actions ect. So whilst the actual emotion of love could only be detected with an fMRI scanner the whole context is of real interactions.

2. Anything to do with gods and salvation is not subject to anything physical at all and, if it has any effect on a person it is the effect the brain imposes on itself. Don't forget the sub-conscious brain does a whole pile of things without saying and merely signals to the conscious brain occasionally when its results are available, Apart from the head of the believer there is, only, an ancient book. There is not historical case for anything else.

Clearly your analogy is completely useless here. A better analogy would be for you to write and insult on a piece of paper about a person you have never seen and never met in Australia and then to ask that person, in your head only, to forgive you. Even that fails as you know there is a such a person in Australia whereas you have not evidence for a god at all.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 05, 2014, 05:23:20 PM
By the way, Harbinger, if your god can't provide consistency across individuals, then you have no reason to be surprised about the variation in religious temperaments and susceptibility.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 05, 2014, 05:37:04 PM
Harbinger, please learn to quote properly. It is getting quite hard to follow what you say.

I've addressed this before...
No. I will not pull out of the context. I feel that I do the previous poster more justice this way. I could use that quote function and quote the first line or so of a paragraph and then the last line or so and make you say something you never said for example. This way everyone stays honest.

What we have going here is essentially 2-3 now 4 conversations at once. That's why it's hard to follow. I'm not sure if it's an actual tactic but it does make it hard to answer questions and easy to be distracted. I would use this as a case point to the thread "why can't a theist answer a direct question" also this one is VERY mild... but it's an example of what I've called "verbal rape" as well.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 05, 2014, 05:44:27 PM
A Christian's salvation may be "invisible" in the sense I can't pull it out and show you... but I assure you it's there. Faith is not blind. Like love you can't see it yet you know it's there. Is loving your mother something that you feel and know it's there or do you yourself need to see your action before you know you love mom?

Can you at least understand that if you have nothing to show, there are good reasons for us not to see it?

And the mom thing? My mom changed my diapers, gave me lunch money before I went to school and in general loved me by, you know, being there when I needed her. I could certainly make her mad by being bad, but no so mad that she'd throw me into the fireplace.

Big difference. Don't try to compare the two. Your god will lose every time.

I thought you may become defensive but I took a chance figuring you love mom... yet can't provide proof of it. The focus was love NOT mom... However, if your mom hated you... she just might throw you in the fireplace.. just sayin
Rom9:13.. :/
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 05, 2014, 05:49:57 PM
Harbinger, please learn to quote properly. It is getting quite hard to follow what you say.

I've addressed this before...
No. I will not pull out of the context. I feel that I do the previous poster more justice this way. I could use that quote function and quote the first line or so of a paragraph and then the last line or so and make you say something you never said for example. This way everyone stays honest.

What we have going here is essentially 2-3 now 4 conversations at once. That's why it's hard to follow. I'm not sure if it's an actual tactic but it does make it hard to answer questions and easy to be distracted. I would use this as a case point to the thread "why can't a theist answer a direct question" also this one is VERY mild... but it's an example of what I've called "verbal rape" as well.

Um, what part of this post of yours (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25342.msg593406.html#msg593406 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25342.msg593406.html#msg593406)) was new? It looked like quotes from an older one. There is no way for us to tell what you were trying to say if everything is purple. I'll hold your hand and teach you how to quote if you want.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 05, 2014, 05:51:34 PM
A Christian's salvation may be "invisible" in the sense I can't pull it out and show you... but I assure you it's there. Faith is not blind. Like love you can't see it yet you know it's there. Is loving your mother something that you feel and know it's there or do you yourself need to see your action before you know you love mom?

Can you at least understand that if you have nothing to show, there are good reasons for us not to see it?

And the mom thing? My mom changed my diapers, gave me lunch money before I went to school and in general loved me by, you know, being there when I needed her. I could certainly make her mad by being bad, but no so mad that she'd throw me into the fireplace.

Big difference. Don't try to compare the two. Your god will lose every time.

I thought you may become defensive but I took a chance figuring you love mom... yet can't provide proof of it. The focus was love NOT mom... However, if your mom hated you... she just might throw you in the fireplace.. just sayin
Rom9:13.. :/

Well, she's a little too dead for me to ask, but since I survived childhood I assume she loved me, plus she gave me an allowance and everything.

My focus was love too, but from actual sources.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 05, 2014, 06:18:35 PM
By the way, Harbinger, if your god can't provide consistency across individuals, then you have no reason to be surprised about the variation in religious temperaments and susceptibility.

I remember you once said something to me about "god colored glasses" and how they force me to come away from a text with an opposite idea of yours...
The suggestion being the txt is txt the problem lies within the reader of said txt.... We agree
I propose you can read a txt in two ways:
1: proof of my idea no matter how I bend the txt.
2: form an idea based on the txt available.
I think #2 is much more valid than #1. Some Christians read into the txt what they WANT to believe. The same as my "god colored glasses" may do. what ever the language used we agree on the concept.
How is the Bible to Blame for improper exegesis or hermeneutics?
Considering the concept of false profession, How can you blame God himself?
Aside from this who said his true people don't all carry the same truth?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 05, 2014, 06:28:50 PM
A Christian's salvation may be "invisible" in the sense I can't pull it out and show you... but I assure you it's there. Faith is not blind. Like love you can't see it yet you know it's there. Is loving your mother something that you feel and know it's there or do you yourself need to see your action before you know you love mom?

Can you at least understand that if you have nothing to show, there are good reasons for us not to see it?

And the mom thing? My mom changed my diapers, gave me lunch money before I went to school and in general loved me by, you know, being there when I needed her. I could certainly make her mad by being bad, but no so mad that she'd throw me into the fireplace.

Big difference. Don't try to compare the two. Your god will lose every time.

I thought you may become defensive but I took a chance figuring you love mom... yet can't provide proof of it. The focus was love NOT mom... However, if your mom hated you... she just might throw you in the fireplace.. just sayin
Rom9:13.. :/

Well, she's a little too dead for me to ask, but since I survived childhood I assume she loved me, plus she gave me an allowance and everything.

My focus was love too, but from actual sources.

Did I not use an "actual source" to explain Love?
The actions you listed are valid to submit as proof if that was the intention. Yet not conclusive. maybe some mothers do all those things from  sense of duty rather than love. They also speak nothing for the so called "love" of the child towards the mother.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 05, 2014, 06:30:46 PM
By the way, Harbinger, if your god can't provide consistency across individuals, then you have no reason to be surprised about the variation in religious temperaments and susceptibility.

I remember you once said something to me about "god colored glasses" and how they force me to come away from a text with an opposite idea of yours...
The suggestion being the txt is txt the problem lies within the reader of said txt.... We agree
I propose you can read a txt in two ways:
1: proof of my idea no matter how I bend the txt.
2: form an idea based on the txt available.
I think #2 is much more valid than #1. Some Christians read into the txt what they WANT to believe. The same as my "god colored glasses" may do. what ever the language used we agree on the concept.
How is the Bible to Blame for improper exegesis or hermeneutics?
Considering the concept of false profession, How can you blame God himself?

Are you another one of those theists who think we atheists actually blame things on your god? Or any god?

And I'm pretty sure we need to give someone else the credit for "god colored glasses". Actually, nobody on the site has used that term since 2011. Which, of course, is a major oversight on our part.

Of course your problem is that I read your txt as false, no matter what it says. Because when I read it assuming it was true, it made no sense anyway. And I need more proof than a book to be able to believe said book.

Your job here is not a simple one. You might go ahead and spell out all the words if you're going to try getting your point across.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 05, 2014, 06:32:00 PM
Did I not use an "actual source" to explain Love?
The actions you listed are valid to submit as proof if that was the intention. Yet not conclusive. maybe some mothers do all those things from  sense of duty rather than love. They also speak nothing for the so called "love" of the child towards the mother.

No, you didn't use an actual source. You attributed it to your god.

I'm an atheist. Why would you ask such a silly question.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 05, 2014, 06:58:48 PM
Did I not use an "actual source" to explain Love?
The actions you listed are valid to submit as proof if that was the intention. Yet not conclusive. maybe some mothers do all those things from  sense of duty rather than love. They also speak nothing for the so called "love" of the child towards the mother.

No, you didn't use an actual source. You attributed it to your god.

I'm an atheist. Why would you ask such a silly question.
Noooo.... let me try again..
I am saved. I know it. Can I prove it? No, but I Know I am. That is MY proof of God.

Love is something you know is there. Can you prove it's there? no, you can't show it to me. It's YOUR evidence of Love.

I'm attempting to use a concept you do understand to explain one you don't.

What did I attribute to your God?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on January 05, 2014, 07:02:36 PM
There is no fear of god in science no more than there's a fear of Pegasus in math, or a fear of hobgoblins in chemistry. Science is the concept that you are attempting to model reality and checking that model through experimentation. That's it.


Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 05, 2014, 07:03:17 PM
By the way, Harbinger, if your god can't provide consistency across individuals, then you have no reason to be surprised about the variation in religious temperaments and susceptibility.

I remember you once said something to me about "god colored glasses" and how they force me to come away from a text with an opposite idea of yours...
The suggestion being the txt is txt the problem lies within the reader of said txt.... We agree
I propose you can read a txt in two ways:
1: proof of my idea no matter how I bend the txt.
2: form an idea based on the txt available.
I think #2 is much more valid than #1. Some Christians read into the txt what they WANT to believe. The same as my "god colored glasses" may do. what ever the language used we agree on the concept.
How is the Bible to Blame for improper exegesis or hermeneutics?
Considering the concept of false profession, How can you blame God himself?

Are you another one of those theists who think we atheists actually blame things on your god? Or any god?

And I'm pretty sure we need to give someone else the credit for "god colored glasses". Actually, nobody on the site has used that term since 2011. Which, of course, is a major oversight on our part.

Of course your problem is that I read your txt as false, no matter what it says. Because when I read it assuming it was true, it made no sense anyway. And I need more proof than a book to be able to believe said book.

Your job here is not a simple one. You might go ahead and spell out all the words if you're going to try getting your point across.

Is your thinker broken today parking places or is it say anything as long as you don't agree on even  a secular concept with a theist? IfGod was not the object of blame in the following quote who or what is?

By the way, Harbinger, if your god can't provide consistency across individuals, then you have no reason to be surprised about the variation in religious temperaments and susceptibility.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: One Above All on January 05, 2014, 07:31:52 PM
This may all well be true. I don't agree though. neither of us can determine that the rejections  were ALL or even mostly theists.

Why would an atheist say someone was wrong for attempting to challenge what the Bible says? Why would an atheist say that scientists were "playing god"?

None the less You are trying to apply it to all theists everywhere. That is simply not true. That's the flaw in your logic.

Well, one of us has memory issues, because I clearly remember saying it was a hyperbole.

This is the same strawman that suggest all war is born of religion.

I remember going to a simulation of the UN in my country, and the main reason cited for every violent conflict was, invariably, religion.

God of the gaps is an atheist idea that is also faulty.

Really? Pray tell, how is "Well, you don't know that, so it must be (my) god!" not a god of the gaps fallacy?

You imply that christian science starts in a diffrent place I agree and it's not relevant.

Which clearly indicates you know nothing about the scientific method.

You say they ignore evidence that is contrary and also form no theories.
which you killed by the mention of the grand canyon theory.

Whoa, I don't remember saying they don't form theories (as defined by you and others like you who have no idea what "theory" means). Just not scientific ones.

You seem to suggest the scientific method used by these scientists is fundamentally different. Can you support this claim?

They don't use the scientific method. That's the whole problem. Again, you demonstrate you don't know the scientific method.

Are you suggesting it's not even possible for a secular scientist to avoid something because it didn't fit his theory? Isn't a hypothesis rather secular or Christian a preconceived idea that one wishes to proov?

"A true scientist is happy when he is proven wrong, for it is when he is wrong that he learns."
-One

  And since you mention the grand canyon I'll go with that one. Have you objectively looked into the theory proposed by christian science and rejected it based on that evidence or did you reject it because it's called christian?

I rejected it because it doesn't match with the evidence.

If that's the case why do you condemn the christian scientist for being close minded while you do the same?

I'm not close-minded. I just have a bullshit filter.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Ivellios on January 05, 2014, 11:04:51 PM

I'm a bit confused by the allergic thing. maybe the analogy falls in this area. If you were allergic and I did not give you the candy bar then how can I be a jerk?

I stated if you knew they were allergic to it and offered it... any other situation regarding that particular point is not what I was addressing. It was more of a tongue-in-cheek than anything else.

You are still outside of my theology.
Integral to my theology is the sovereignty of God.
sov·er·eign·ty /?säv(?)r?nt?/
Noun: 1. Supreme power or authority
2. The authority of a state to govern itself or another state

 Technically there is no before I offer it. For example when your great grandfather was a small child your salvation was either secure or it was something you will never have. Nothing from you. Not even a "decision for Christ" If you were the deciding factor then God is not in sovereign.


 "Accept this gift of salvation and go to heaven, refuse and go to Hell forever?" Yes, This is an INTEGRAL part of your Theology! It's part of the damn sales pitch!

I can almost hear you saying but but what about___!
Assuming the blank.... Regeneration happens when at some point the holy spirit acts upon you and at that point and not before you will have a spiritually  different view of your own sin and you will repent and confess with your mouth and whatever else may be your blank. Before the Holy spirit acts you are called blind and dead in sin. Unable to come to God.

I was a Christian once. It was just a simulacrum.

I love donut holes... bit sized bliss... mmmm
A Christian's salvation may be "invisible" in the sense I can't pull it out and show you... but I assure you it's there. Faith is not blind.

Christian "faith" is simply a naieve-lovey-dovey word for gullible. So, yes it is blind. I have faith in chairs, cars, airplanes. I have faith in people who have proven they can be trusted. I can sit down and appear I'm sitting on an invisible, immaterial chair, but I'm not going to put my faith in it and shift my weight off of my feet.

Like love you can't see it yet you know it's there. Is loving your mother something that you feel and know it's there or do you yourself need to see your action before you know you love mom?

Love is an emotional state regulated by hormones. Like anger, people under emotional states do not remember situations accurately as thier perceptions are skewed. Someone you love is in the perfect spot to hurt you more than anyone else, and each person betayed thought the last person in the world that could/would hurt them, is the one they loved. Yes, you feel like you love them, and you "feel" that they love you too. This is the case regardless whether they love or even give a  flip about you, ie unrequited love.

Personal feelings aren't evidence of anything except that you feel it.

"Just because you hope, wish, dream, pray, feel, desire something to be true, doesn't make it so." - Muary during a DNA test episode.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 05, 2014, 11:25:20 PM
"Accept this gift of salvation and go to heaven, refuse and go to Hell forever?" Yes, This is an INTEGRAL part of your Theology! It's part of the damn sales pitch!

To make matters worse, the gift is apparently not noticeable to human senses, so you never know who has it, and who is destined to hell.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: albeto on January 06, 2014, 12:52:58 AM
I'm not sure if it's an actual tactic but it does make it hard to answer questions and easy to be distracted. I would use this as a case point to the thread "why can't a theist answer a direct question" also this one is VERY mild... but it's an example of what I've called "verbal rape" as well.

Because being forced to experience a penis, fist, or other object forced into one's vagina or rectum against his or her will, and burdened to emotionally relive the vulnerability and trauma of the event is just like feeling uncomfortable for volunteering to defend an indefensible and irrational belief system on a forum from which you can just. walk. away.


Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 06, 2014, 03:34:03 AM
A Christian's salvation may be "invisible" in the sense I can't pull it out and show you... but I assure you it's there. Faith is not blind. Like love you can't see it yet you know it's there. Is loving your mother something that you feel and know it's there or do you yourself need to see your action before you know you love mom?

Can you at least understand that if you have nothing to show, there are good reasons for us not to see it?

And the mom thing? My mom changed my diapers, gave me lunch money before I went to school and in general loved me by, you know, being there when I needed her. I could certainly make her mad by being bad, but no so mad that she'd throw me into the fireplace.

Big difference. Don't try to compare the two. Your god will lose every time.

I thought you may become defensive but I took a chance figuring you love mom... yet can't provide proof of it. The focus was love NOT mom... However, if your mom hated you... she just might throw you in the fireplace.. just sayin
Rom9:13.. :/

Well, she's a little too dead for me to ask, but since I survived childhood I assume she loved me, plus she gave me an allowance and everything.

My focus was love too, but from actual sources.

Did I not use an "actual source" to explain Love?
The actions you listed are valid to submit as proof if that was the intention. Yet not conclusive. maybe some mothers do all those things from  sense of duty rather than love. They also speak nothing for the so called "love" of the child towards the mother.

If you want a demonstration of 'love' you are only ever going to get it by looking at the actions of the participants. Where the mother differs from  god in these analogies is that with a relationship with a god we only have one side of the problem - only one participant. Where a mother is concerned we have both participants. Given your inability to demonstrate the existence of god we might well conclude that god is imaginary in which case there is no relationship at all.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: screwtape on January 06, 2014, 12:18:30 PM
I am saved. I know it. Can I prove it? No, but I Know I am. That is MY proof of God.

Then you don't know it.  You only think it and feel a large degree of (unjustified) certainty about it. It is no more proof of god than it is proof my balls weigh 100 lbs. (they don't.)  That you believe something is only proof that you believe something.  In this case, it is also proof of poor reasoning skills.

Love is something you know is there. Can you prove it's there? no, you can't show it to me. It's YOUR evidence of Love.

Apples and oranges.

Love is an emotion.  god, xians claim, is an actual existential being.  You may close your eyes and examine your feelings to know what emotion you are feeling.  You may not close your eyes and examine your feelings to know whether a being actually exists. 

Your comparison is invalid.


Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 06, 2014, 02:11:44 PM
Is your thinker broken today parking places or is it say anything as long as you don't agree on even  a secular concept with a theist? IfGod was not the object of blame in the following quote who or what is?

By the way, Harbinger, if your god can't provide consistency across individuals, then you have no reason to be surprised about the variation in religious temperaments and susceptibility.

Um, the people who claim there is a god are at the reasons there is so much variation, even within one religion. Not the non-existent god. It is the people who can't provide the consistency, not the god figure.

You want me to agree to a definition of god or a definition of love and to do so, you have to keep both mysterious enough that the best we can do is agree on a generic term or two.

Love may be ethereal, just like your god, but at least it can be experienced, won, lost and/or missing. Tests for its validity can be established ("Daddy beats the crap out of me every day, he must not love me" or "My wife must love me, she's put up with me for 40 years and still smiles when I come home, plus she's never poisoned the cookies.")

People mess love up all the time, but they usually know it because they get feedback. Breakups, divorces, never being spoken to again, etc. You can do whatever the heck you want with the god thingy and never know if you got it right because the only feedback mechanism available is from the same imagination that conjured him up in the first place. Which doesn't count.

As screwtape said, you can only think that you know that you've been saved. Because, by your own (and all other christians) admission, everything has to be done via the vehicle of faith. Which, no matter how much you love it, is never visible, never touchable, never experienced directly.

You think you're in a Ferrari, while we see a guy sitting in the middle of the road, saying "vroom, vroom, vroom".  Sadly, we also see that you're not alone. A lot of others are sitting in the middle of the same road, making the same noises, and thinking too that they have it all figured out.

And our biggest shortcoming, on the other hand, is that we haven't yet figured out how to get the truth across to all of you yet. But thanks for helping us try.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on January 06, 2014, 03:19:22 PM
I've addressed this before...
No. I will not pull out of the context. I feel that I do the previous poster more justice this way. I could use that quote function and quote the first line or so of a paragraph and then the last line or so and make you say something you never said for example. This way everyone stays honest.
That's not what he's saying.  The problem is that you're still making mistakes in quoting, specifically here:  http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25342.msg593406.html#msg593406 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25342.msg593406.html#msg593406).  I can't even tell if you actually responded there, let alone what you said.  What it looks like is you quoted Angus and then simply hit the Post button without typing anything of your own.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: xyzzy on January 06, 2014, 09:54:44 PM
And I'm pretty sure we need to give someone else the credit for "god colored glasses". Actually, nobody on the site has used that term since 2011. Which, of course, is a major oversight on our part.

If you mean this:

I wonder, I really do, if you are not wearing Jesus-powered rose-coloured glasses, when you read the same information that we do?

then I'm happy to place it in the public domain.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: nogodsforme on January 06, 2014, 10:46:42 PM
I am not afraid of god. God knows where I live and can come get me anytime he decides to man up and try it. However, I am very afraid of some of his followers-- crazy violent people who shoot girls in the head for going to school, who fly planes into buildings, who blow up medical facilities and who drown their kids in bathtubs. God's followers can scare the beJupiter out of me.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on January 06, 2014, 11:13:24 PM
And I'm pretty sure we need to give someone else the credit for "god colored glasses". Actually, nobody on the site has used that term since 2011. Which, of course, is a major oversight on our part.

If you mean this:

I wonder, I really do, if you are not wearing Jesus-powered rose-coloured glasses, when you read the same information that we do?

then I'm happy to place it in the public domain.

I picked it up off Matt Dilahunte.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Boots on January 08, 2014, 04:56:32 PM
I am saved. I know it. Can I prove it? No, but I Know I am. That is MY proof of God.

saved from what?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on January 08, 2014, 05:02:09 PM
I am saved. I know it. Can I prove it? No, but I Know I am. That is MY proof of God.

saved from what?

and this "know" How does he "know?"
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jdawg70 on January 08, 2014, 05:21:09 PM
I am saved. I know it. Can I prove it? No, but I Know I am. That is MY proof of God.

saved from what?
Having to think too hard about what it is he actually believes?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 08, 2014, 10:33:03 PM
I am saved. I know it. Can I prove it? No, but I Know I am. That is MY proof of God.
[/quote]

You see, this is the pickle.

The point of most atheist forums is that the atheists there would like such proof.

If you cannot prove it, then don't talk about it.

*looks at signature....I am a hypocrite...*
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 09, 2014, 02:06:52 AM
saved from hell of course. adopted into the family of God. An hair with Christ.
I just know... I've answered this question before. The answer is rejected. I'll go again though. It's nothing I did. My faith is not in me. My faith is on the work I see God has done. If you knew me you would probably be agnostic at least. My Atheist (reformed) sister is in Church when she can be now. The evidence is seen in my life. Things are just different now. My thoughts, my attitude, everything.

2cor5:17
This means that anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!

This is what I see. By no choice of my own this is what happened. Sometimes I surprise myself even.


This is a serious concept. I would like to hear feed back on these questions.
Can you provide proof that you love someone?
How do you KNOW you love them?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Ivellios on January 09, 2014, 07:11:21 AM
This is a serious concept. I would like to hear feed back on these questions.
Can you provide proof that you love someone?
How do you KNOW you love them?

We've already gone over this before. Actions speak louder than words. A man can claim he loves his wife, but if he keeps beating and putting her in the hospital, does he? A parent can claim they love thier children, but if they abandon (or kill) and have nothing to do with them, but someone else has to say, "Your [parent] really loves you, but they just can't be here right now." Does that parent love thier child(ren)?

You know your mother loves you, because she does things for you, she's there for you when you get hurt, need help. Yes, she could be doing it out of duty, but did you know love isn't just emotions, but a duty as well. You do things for the person you love, not for your benefit, happiness or joy, but for whom you love.

Someone that says they love Jesus more than thier spouse, but refuses to abandon thier spouse to follow Jesus. Who do they love more? The one whose actions make it clear for whom they want to be with, therefore that's who they love. "He who loves thier wife, child, parent more than me, is not worthy of me. " - Jesus

As I said, Actions speak louder than words.

God's love is the equivilent: Someone has sex with your mom, get's her pregnent. Bolts when he finds out there's a bun in the oven. Has nothing to do with you or her since.  You're born, and later someone you don't know tells you, that they know your father, that your father loves you more than anything else. If you're willing to accept an intangible, invisible gift, you can be with your loving father forever, after you die. However, he won't speak to you in any fashion that can be differentiated from your imagination. He will not appear before you unless you hallucinate.

Does that father really love that child? Does the proxy even know the father? Maybe she had a one night stand or got with multiple guys so she doesn't even know who the father is.

Actions speak louder than words.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 09, 2014, 08:04:54 AM
God's love is the equivilent: Someone has sex with your mom, get's her pregnent. Bolts when he finds out there's a bun in the oven. Has nothing to do with you or her since.

He must take his baking seriously.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 09, 2014, 09:21:04 AM
saved from hell of course. adopted into the family of God. An hair with Christ.
I just know... I've answered this question before. The answer is rejected. I'll go again though. It's nothing I did. My faith is not in me. My faith is on the work I see God has done. If you knew me you would probably be agnostic at least. My Atheist (reformed) sister is in Church when she can be now. The evidence is seen in my life. Things are just different now. My thoughts, my attitude, everything.

2cor5:17
This means that anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!

This is what I see. By no choice of my own this is what happened. Sometimes I surprise myself even.


This is a serious concept. I would like to hear feed back on these questions.
Can you provide proof that you love someone?
How do you KNOW you love them?

I think someone has already pointed out to you that many things, including becoming an atheist, can bring about a change on one's life. Even a New Year's Resolution, if you keep to it, will change your life. I only have to resolve to lose weight, reduce my alcohol intake and exercise for example, and if I stick to it I become a healthy weight, become healthier - a new person in fact. It matters not what induced you to change but that you changed by your own will and determination. It was you that changed you,  not an outside influence. You may have got the incentive from religion but it was all down to you and you managed it!

As for your text, who wrote it and how do you know whether the writer knew what he was talking about. I seem to think the same writer advocated to getting married as Jesus was returning soon but he was certainly wrong about that!
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Boots on January 09, 2014, 10:51:05 AM
saved from hell of course.

How did hell get there?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: albeto on January 09, 2014, 11:02:34 AM
saved from hell of course.

Saved from what your god will do to you if you don't sufficiently love him.

Is this the kind of love you expect from others? Is this how you treat others who don't love you?

The evidence is seen in my life. Things are just different now. My thoughts, my attitude, everything.

When this "evidence" supports the existence of other deities, does it count as well?

This is what I see. By no choice of my own this is what happened. Sometimes I surprise myself even.

I remember feeling this! What a blast into the past.

Can you provide proof that you love someone?
How do you KNOW you love them?

"Love" is a word we use to express a complex set of emotions. There are ways to identify these emotions, yes, but of course "love" is ultimately defined subjectively.

It's probably why you feel like all this is of no choice - you're wrapped up in the emotional experience and so logic is unnecessary. You feel what you feel, and that experience (the emotions) is real, but you attribute this feeling to an illogical, irrational, archaic belief system. Are you afraid this feeling would go away if you looked at the details of your faith carefully?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 09, 2014, 11:03:42 AM
saved from hell of course. adopted into the family of God. An hair with Christ.

Just to be clear, you do understand that an eternity of anything is no worse than an eternity of something else, right?

Edit: OFFICIALLY "Reader" W00t.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on January 09, 2014, 11:52:50 AM
The evidence is seen in my life. Things are just different now. My thoughts, my attitude, everything.

When this "evidence" supports the existence of other deities, does it count as well?


Ultimately, to me, this is the strongest argument against gods. Any deity beyond the Deism model stumbles across this problem.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 09, 2014, 07:40:07 PM
saved from hell of course. adopted into the family of God. An hair with Christ.
I just know... I've answered this question before. The answer is rejected. I'll go again though. It's nothing I did. My faith is not in me. My faith is on the work I see God has done. If you knew me you would probably be agnostic at least. My Atheist (reformed) sister is in Church when she can be now. The evidence is seen in my life. Things are just different now. My thoughts, my attitude, everything.

2cor5:17
This means that anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!

This is what I see. By no choice of my own this is what happened. Sometimes I surprise myself even.


This is a serious concept. I would like to hear feed back on these questions.
Can you provide proof that you love someone?
How do you KNOW you love them?

I think someone has already pointed out to you that many things, including becoming an atheist, can bring about a change on one's life. Even a New Year's Resolution, if you keep to it, will change your life. I only have to resolve to lose weight, reduce my alcohol intake and exercise for example, and if I stick to it I become a healthy weight, become healthier - a new person in fact. It matters not what induced you to change but that you changed by your own will and determination. It was you that changed you,  not an outside influence. You may have got the incentive from religion but it was all down to you and you managed it!

As for your text, who wrote it and how do you know whether the writer knew what he was talking about. I seem to think the same writer advocated to getting married as Jesus was returning soon but he was certainly wrong about that!

I think someone did point this out once and I don't disagree. You offer me evidence of choice. That's your breakdown. For arguments sake my choice was Christ. I did not choose to stop cursing. I did not choose a tender heart. I absolutely did not choose to cry over the nastiness of this world at times. I did not choose to not only quit drinking but to loose all desire to do it. I did not choose to no longer desire going to the club.

How can one choose to no longer desire anything? If I made the choice to stop drinking starbucks for example. Would I also no longer desire it? Because I choose to go on a diet do I no longer desire pizza?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 09, 2014, 07:43:44 PM
saved from hell of course. adopted into the family of God. An hair with Christ.

Just to be clear, you do understand that an eternity of anything is no worse than an eternity of something else, right?

Edit: OFFICIALLY "Reader" W00t.

You just said an eternity in pure torment is no worse than an eternity in pure bliss.. I know you don't believe in heaven and hell or eternity for that matter. Even so maybe you should think a bit about that statement...
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 09, 2014, 07:57:44 PM
saved from hell of course.

Saved from what your god will do to you if you don't sufficiently love him.

Is this the kind of love you expect from others? Is this how you treat others who don't love you?

The evidence is seen in my life. Things are just different now. My thoughts, my attitude, everything.

When this "evidence" supports the existence of other deities, does it count as well?

This is what I see. By no choice of my own this is what happened. Sometimes I surprise myself even.

I remember feeling this! What a blast into the past.

Can you provide proof that you love someone?
How do you KNOW you love them?

"Love" is a word we use to express a complex set of emotions. There are ways to identify these emotions, yes, but of course "love" is ultimately defined subjectively.

It's probably why you feel like all this is of no choice - you're wrapped up in the emotional experience and so logic is unnecessary. You feel what you feel, and that experience (the emotions) is real, but you attribute this feeling to an illogical, irrational, archaic belief system. Are you afraid this feeling would go away if you looked at the details of your faith carefully?

I'm sorry you had false salvation.
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us

I am logical to a fault. my wife gets very annoyed about that. I don't tend to use emotion to view anything. I have become very good at removing emotion. It only clouds the thought process. The heart is deceitful above all things. As such I have looked at the details carefully and even continue to do so.
Is there a detail or two you would like to bring to my attention for discussion?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 09, 2014, 08:03:03 PM
saved from hell of course.

Saved from what your god will do to you if you don't sufficiently love him.

Is this the kind of love you expect from others? Is this how you treat others who don't love you?

The evidence is seen in my life. Things are just different now. My thoughts, my attitude, everything.

When this "evidence" supports the existence of other deities, does it count as well?

This is what I see. By no choice of my own this is what happened. Sometimes I surprise myself even.

I remember feeling this! What a blast into the past.

Can you provide proof that you love someone?
How do you KNOW you love them?

"Love" is a word we use to express a complex set of emotions. There are ways to identify these emotions, yes, but of course "love" is ultimately defined subjectively.

It's probably why you feel like all this is of no choice - you're wrapped up in the emotional experience and so logic is unnecessary. You feel what you feel, and that experience (the emotions) is real, but you attribute this feeling to an illogical, irrational, archaic belief system. Are you afraid this feeling would go away if you looked at the details of your faith carefully?
saved from hell of course.

Saved from what your god will do to you if you don't sufficiently love him.

Is this the kind of love you expect from others? Is this how you treat others who don't love you?

The evidence is seen in my life. Things are just different now. My thoughts, my attitude, everything.

When this "evidence" supports the existence of other deities, does it count as well?

This is what I see. By no choice of my own this is what happened. Sometimes I surprise myself even.

I remember feeling this! What a blast into the past.

Can you provide proof that you love someone?
How do you KNOW you love them?

"Love" is a word we use to express a complex set of emotions. There are ways to identify these emotions, yes, but of course "love" is ultimately defined subjectively.

It's probably why you feel like all this is of no choice - you're wrapped up in the emotional experience and so logic is unnecessary. You feel what you feel, and that experience (the emotions) is real, but you attribute this feeling to an illogical, irrational, archaic belief system. Are you afraid this feeling would go away if you looked at the details of your faith carefully?

I'm sorry you had false salvation.
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us

I am logical to a fault. my wife gets very annoyed about that. I don't tend to use emotion to view anything. I have become very good at removing emotion. It only clouds the thought process. The heart is deceitful above all things. As such I have looked at the details carefully and even continue to do so.
Is there a detail or two you would like to bring to my attention for discussion?

Oh and if you are going to make cross faith claims can you support the position? Thank you.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 09, 2014, 09:58:54 PM
You just said an eternity in pure torment is no worse than an eternity in pure bliss..

Yes, I know that, I am only half blind.

I know you don't believe in heaven and hell or eternity for that matter.

Indeed i do not, good observation.

Even so maybe you should think a bit about that statement...

(http://cdn.head-fi.org/d/d4/350x232px-LL-d4837514_Point_over_your_head.jpeg)

Look at it this way.
You are in pure bliss, then a hundred years pass, then a thousand, then a billion, then six hundred quintrillion, and on, and on.
Eventually it will be no less than pure torture.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Boots on January 09, 2014, 11:16:42 PM
saved from hell of course.

How did hell get there?

just a reminder.  :-)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 10, 2014, 07:29:36 AM
saved from hell of course.

How did hell get there?

just a reminder.  :-)

God made it for the devil and his angels..

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

You will end up in kingdom of whichever king you follow.

What's the point?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 10, 2014, 07:44:52 AM
You just said an eternity in pure torment is no worse than an eternity in pure bliss..


Look at it this way.
You are in pure bliss, then a hundred years pass, then a thousand, then a billion, then six hundred quintrillion, and on, and on.
Eventually it will be no less than pure torture.

I got your point.. monotony, eternal monotony. I just wanted you to see the implication of your statement. I don't think on one hand torment will ever be monotony. I also don't think an eternity learning the finer points of God could become monotony.

What bothers me most is people who have read a handful of scripture and only then because it was part of some article written about "contradictions" No knowledge base but full of comments anyway.

 Like I've said if you don't read the bible for yourself. Even if your goal is to dispute it. You become the sheep following a blind shepherd. The very thing you despise. Chew on that for a bit.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on January 10, 2014, 08:08:15 AM
You are in pure bliss, then a hundred years pass, then a thousand, then a billion, then six hundred quintrillion, and on, and on.
Eventually it will be no less than pure torture.

I thoroughly disagree. However, this is just arguing about Spiderman versus Batman AFAIAC.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Boots on January 10, 2014, 09:03:23 AM
saved from hell of course.

How did hell get there?

just a reminder.  :-)

God made it for the devil and his angels..

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

You will end up in kingdom of whichever king you follow.

What's the point?

the point is, your god created the entire system, knowing everything that was going to transpire.  He created hell knowing that countless billions of his precious human souls would go there for eternal torment.

the god you worship is a monster.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 10, 2014, 09:50:18 AM
You just said an eternity in pure torment is no worse than an eternity in pure bliss..


Look at it this way.
You are in pure bliss, then a hundred years pass, then a thousand, then a billion, then six hundred quintrillion, and on, and on.
Eventually it will be no less than pure torture.

I got your point.. monotony, eternal monotony. I just wanted you to see the implication of your statement. I don't think on one hand torment will ever be monotony. I also don't think an eternity learning the finer points of God could become monotony.

Just a couple of points here. Firstly, what do you mean by an eternity? Do you mean a very long time (which is not infinite) or a literal place where there is no time? the distinction is really important. If there is no time, as the latter suggestion, then no one is really going to experience anything as an action only can happen when there is time. In a timeless place, no action if possible and everything remains just as it is.

On the other hand, maybe you mean just a long time - it an often used figure of speech used that way. In that case, both Heaven and Hell  are within time and action could happen. However even in Heaven, god would not be there as he is defined as being outwith time. So Heaven would be a beautiful place - a garden, the Persian word is paradise, no doubt with lots of great things but no god and, because there is time and hence actions, one could easily manage to sin, perhaps hating someone you meet there who you hated in life.

So, which is it?

Quote
What bothers me most is people who have read a handful of scripture and only then because it was part of some article written about "contradictions" No knowledge base but full of comments anyway.

 Like I've said if you don't read the bible for yourself. Even if your goal is to dispute it. You become the sheep following a blind shepherd. The very thing you despise. Chew on that for a bit.

I imagine you have read lots of the bible but, by the sound of it, you are taking the words literally and the English words at that. no proper exegesis of a text (discovering its meaning) is ever going to be useful without studying the original texts and the variants. The Greek and Hebrew words can easily carry meaning that cannot properly be translated. Whilst we read mindlessly at the texts, why do you work on getting back to the originals
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 10, 2014, 09:50:39 AM
saved from hell of course.

How did hell get there?

just a reminder.  :-)

God made it for the devil and his angels..

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

You will end up in kingdom of whichever king you follow.

What's the point?

the point is, your god created the entire system, knowing everything that was going to transpire.  He created hell knowing that countless billions of his precious human souls would go there for eternal torment.

the god you worship is a monster.

That's what I thought your point was.

You're missing something important though. Using the scripture I offered can you determine who the pit was prepared for? Did He create Hell for you? No He didn't. How then do you end up there? Because you serve the king of Hell rather than the king of Heaven.
Mat12:30
"Anyone who isn't with me opposes me, and anyone who isn't working with me is actually working against me.
 Do you want free will or not?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jdawg70 on January 10, 2014, 09:57:29 AM
That's what I thought your point was.

You're missing something important though. Using the scripture I offered can you determine who the pit was prepared for? Did He create Hell for you? No He didn't. How then do you end up there? Because you serve the king of Hell rather than the king of Heaven.
Mat12:30
"Anyone who isn't with me opposes me, and anyone who isn't working with me is actually working against me.
 Do you want free will or not?
I'd like free will.  You don't leave any room for it though:

God will have Mercy on who He will. Chosen from the foundation of the world to be a forgiven sinner. Before you are born God has  chosen you... or he hasn't.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: screwtape on January 10, 2014, 11:09:37 AM
"Anyone who isn't with me opposes me, and anyone who isn't working with me is actually working against me.

so god is just like George Bush.  You're really not selling me on your god.

You're also not making the case that your god is offering anything more than extortion.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Boots on January 10, 2014, 11:54:26 AM

the point is, your god created the entire system, knowing everything that was going to transpire.  He created hell knowing that countless billions of his precious human souls would go there for eternal torment.

the god you worship is a monster.

That's what I thought your point was.

You're missing something important though. Using the scripture I offered can you determine who the pit was prepared for? Did He create Hell for you? No He didn't.

How is that relevant, if I still end up there--and HE KNEW IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN?

Quote
How then do you end up there? Because you serve the king of Hell rather than the king of Heaven.
Mat12:30
"Anyone who isn't with me opposes me, and anyone who isn't working with me is actually working against me.
 Do you want free will or not?

funny.  You just said that you go to hell because you serve the king of hell.  but here...

Quote
God will have Mercy on who He will. Chosen from the foundation of the world to be a forgiven sinner. Before you are born God has  chosen you... or he hasn't.

your god chooses, before you're born, who will go to hell.

Both of these cannot be true.  In which case were you lying?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 10, 2014, 12:47:13 PM
No, there's no lying here but Harbinger is deceived by an old book that is of human origin but that was not well edited and put together so that various alternative viewpoints remain.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Graybeard on January 10, 2014, 02:01:52 PM
I'm sorry you had false salvation.
Now there’s a thought… what is a “real salvation”? The quality of the “salvation” cannot be known until you stand before God, can it?
Quote
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us
This is the definition of the “[wiki]No True Scotsman[/wiki]” fallacy.

Quote
I am logical to a fault.
That quote of yours above is proof that you are not at all logical. I suspect it is your wife who is the logical one…
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on January 10, 2014, 03:16:23 PM

I am logical to a fault.

Then why do you keep using circular reasoning, appeals to negative consequences, appeals to ignorance, special pleading, appeals to authority, ignoring the counterevidence, appeals to emotion, and equivocation?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Boots on January 10, 2014, 03:18:25 PM

I am logical to a fault.

Then why do you keep using circular reasoning, appeals to negative consequences, appeals to ignorance, special pleading, appeals to negative consequences, ignoring the counterevidence, appeals to emotion, and equivocation?

Is ad nauseum a logical fallacy?   ;)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on January 10, 2014, 03:26:33 PM

I am logical to a fault.

Then why do you keep using circular reasoning, appeals to negative consequences, appeals to ignorance, special pleading, appeals to negative consequences, ignoring the counterevidence, appeals to emotion, and equivocation?

Is ad nauseum a logical fallacy?   ;)

whoops, corrected.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 10, 2014, 05:58:01 PM

I am logical to a fault.

Then why do you keep using circular reasoning, appeals to negative consequences, appeals to ignorance, special pleading, appeals to authority, ignoring the counterevidence, appeals to emotion, and equivocation?

I do not tend to filter things through my own emotion. Rather I try to avoid it. That's all I meant. I thought the rest of the post supported the idea.

I have seen no counter evidence yet so what is it that I have ignored? I would not appeal to emotion either. Emotion makes things foggy at best.

As for the rest of the laundry list could you provide an example of the argument in question. I think possibly you have lumped all theist together and "you" may really mean "you all" I have a habit of doing this myself.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on January 11, 2014, 12:31:52 AM

I am logical to a fault.

Then why do you keep using circular reasoning, appeals to negative consequences, appeals to ignorance, special pleading, appeals to authority, ignoring the counterevidence, appeals to emotion, and equivocation?

I do not tend to filter things through my own emotion. Rather I try to avoid it. That's all I meant. I thought the rest of the post supported the idea.

I have seen no counter evidence yet so what is it that I have ignored? I would not appeal to emotion either. Emotion makes things foggy at best.

As for the rest of the laundry list could you provide an example of the argument in question. I think possibly you have lumped all theist together and "you" may really mean "you all" I have a habit of doing this myself.

Circular reasoning:

Quote
The Bible should be used to interpret the Bible.

 God is just. If he broke my legs I would assume he had a greater purpose in mind.

I say that unless there is a working of the Holy Spirit you will NOT want to "strive and pray,"




Appeal to authority

Quote

authority is the word of God NOT the man.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to
make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for
the soul." —Leviticus 17:11
"...without SHEDDING OF BLOOD is no remission." —Hebrews 9:22

So as stated.. without blood there is no forgiveness of sin. The grain offerings were never meant to forgive sins. Your church leaders should at least have known that much.




 Special Pleading. After I asked you about the Iliad:

Quote
I love that story. I believe there could possibly SOME truth to it although some is rather wild.
which doesn't actually address the clear fact that you do not.

which brings us to:

Quote
Do you believe this story is handed down just the way the biblical authors wrote it?  Or was there undoubtedly changes made over the last 2500 years or so?  Also, what, if any, proof do you have of your position that god exists and the bible is his word?

which you also don't answer. You ignore the counter evidence that the Bible has been altered numerous times, evidenced from everthing from the addition of the new testament, more than one account of creation, the elimination of Yahweh's wife Ashera, the Dead Sea scrolls, the Apocrypha,  the edited out books of Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans,  and Apostolic Constitutions, the political machinations the ended up with Revelations
barely making into the Bible due to trying to fold in the heretical Montansts, and so forth
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 11, 2014, 09:23:03 AM
Yes, Hatter, I would also like to see how the bible can be argued to be the word of a god given the amount of changes that took place to the texts prior to canonization after which the texts were preserved fairly well.

Harbinger, the fact that the texts 'say' they are the word of god, and no text is that explicit, how can we take such claims without other evidence?

Note ; 2 Tim 3:16 is often quoted as claim that the NT is 'god breathed' but don't forget that the traditional date for Paul's writing, prior to 60CE, means that the only NT texts around were Paul's other letters so Paul's text does nothing to help with the gospels or the apocalypse.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 11, 2014, 02:36:00 PM
what you call circular reasoning is actually called Hermeneutics.  The understanding of any written text requires hermeneutics.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

Appeal to authority.
Considering that I see the Bible as the word of God. why would it then be illogical to hold the word of God in authority over any doctrine or commentary made by man?

Special pleading..
The iliad was a whole different thread. I addressed it just a bit ago. You asked If I hold the Bible to the same Standard. That was near the entirety of the post. There was noting given as an aspect for me to ignore while building my own special case. Rather I took your idea and ran with it. I presented facts on both sides. The only special part was asking for your opinion rather than assuming it? I should have said of course I do. Maybe I was a bit over Zealous to prove the point that you do not. Even on the basis of literary work alone. If we hold fast to the definition of special pleading I think we can say in the context of your question, special pleading was your intent.

spe·cial plead·ing
Noun:
1. Argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their
point of view
2. Appeals to give a particular interest group special treatment
http://www.google.com/m?q=define+special+pleading&client=ms-opera-mini-android&channel=new

As for your listing of Apocrypha. These books were left out for good reason. That's a whole other subject. One that starts with your belief that man wrote the bible so you assume anything man wrote should be in there. Interesting to note until the reformation the Catholics agreed on what was apocryphal and what was not.
Maybe these links can get you started in the study of what it takes to be canon.
http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/blog/curious-christian/7-10-2012/what-criteria-were-used-determine-canon-scripture
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 11, 2014, 02:59:01 PM
Yes, Hatter, I would also like to see how the bible can be argued to be the word of a god given the amount of changes that took place to the texts prior to canonization after which the texts were preserved fairly well.

Harbinger, the fact that the texts 'say' they are the word of god, and no text is that explicit, how can we take such claims without other evidence?

Note ; 2 Tim 3:16 is often quoted as claim that the NT is 'god breathed' but don't forget that the traditional date for Paul's writing, prior to 60CE, means that the only NT texts around were Paul's other letters so Paul's text does nothing to help with the gospels or the apocalypse.

Not sure if you have said this exactly. I have read it on WWGHA that you all only seek to make the theist think. Possibly to help him/her come out of the bondage of religion. Not sure how this is different from what you would refer to as proselytizing, but not the point. You make all these claims. The ones in this post are a great case example. I see it all over though. You give opinion of some alternate idea which is a counter claim.. Yet never back it up... Even if pushed. At the point of pushing the tactic becomes misdirection. (This is how the subject went to the iliad for example) All of this is quite counter productive to the atheists form of proselytizing. Then when we consider a thread like this one:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25200.203/topicseen.html
It becomes rather obvious there is a double standard at work here to say the least.

My question is, as always, can you support your claims?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on January 11, 2014, 03:08:38 PM
what you call circular reasoning is actually called Hermeneutics.  The understanding of any written text requires hermeneutics.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics
I saw nothing in there which pertained to circular reasoning.  You will have to explain how circular reasoning is actually Hermeneutics.

Quote from: harbinger77
Appeal to authority.
Considering that I see the Bible as the word of God. why would it then be illogical to hold the word of God in authority over any doctrine or commentary made by man?
An argument from authority can be valid.  However, for this to be true, you must show that they are actually an authority on the subject.  What you have actually shown us is what people have written about your god and things they have accredited to him, which hardly carries any weight.  Now, if your god actually showed up in the middle of a city and demonstrated proof of his authority and power, it would be a different story.

Quote from: harbinger77
Special pleading.
The iliad was a whole different thread. I addressed it just a bit ago. You asked If I hold the Bible to the same Standard. That was near the entirety of the post. There was noting given as an aspect for me to ignore while building my own special case. Rather I took your idea and ran with it. I presented facts on both sides. The only special part was asking for your opinion rather than assuming it? I should have said of course I do. Maybe I was a bit over Zealous to prove the point that you do not. Even on the basis of literary work alone. If we hold fast to the definition of special pleading I think we can say in the context of your question, special pleading was your intent.
I don't think you really understand what special pleading (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html) is.  Special pleading is a logical fallacy where you claim (or simply assume) that one thing is exempt from scrutiny or standards that you apply to other things.  For something to not be special pleading, you have to show that there is a relevant difference between the thing you are arguing for and other things.  For example, if a police officer stopped two random drivers, it would not be appropriate for them to arrest one and ignore the other unless there was a reason to treat them differently (such as an arrest warrant out for the one driver).

In your case, you clearly give the Bible a lot more credence than you do other books (such as the Iliad).  So I will ask you, very simply, why that is.  This is your opportunity to show that there is a relevant difference that justifies the special credence you give the Bible.

Quote from: harbinger77
As for your listing of Apocrypha. These books were left out for good reason. That's a whole other subject. One that starts with your belief that man wrote the bible so you assume anything man wrote should be in there. Interesting to note until the reformation the Catholics agreed on what was apocryphal and what was not.
Maybe these links can get you started in the study of what it takes to be canon.
http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/blog/curious-christian/7-10-2012/what-criteria-were-used-determine-canon-scripture
You are aware, I trust, that the Greek Orthodox Church split off from the Roman Catholic Church long before the Reformation, and that they each consider different books to be apocryphal?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 11, 2014, 03:34:57 PM
what you call circular reasoning is actually called Hermeneutics.  The understanding of any written text requires hermeneutics.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

Appeal to authority.
Considering that I see the Bible as the word of God. why would it then be illogical to hold the word of God in authority over any doctrine or commentary made by man?

We do not all know that the bible is the word of your god. How can we know? All we can be certain of is that it is the word of some unknown men. So far, I have never seen a proper demonstration of the idea that the bible is the word of god since it tends to be circular - i.e I believe the bible is god's word because the bible says so. So, appeal to any authority you like but show that the authority you quote is an authority first.

Quote
Special pleading..
The Iliad was a whole different thread. I addressed it just a bit ago. You asked If I hold the Bible to the same Standard. That was near the entirety of the post. There was noting given as an aspect for me to ignore while building my own special case. Rather I took your idea and ran with it. I presented facts on both sides. The only special part was asking for your opinion rather than assuming it? I should have said of course I do. Maybe I was a bit over Zealous to prove the point that you do not. Even on the basis of literary work alone. If we hold fast to the definition of special pleading I think we can say in the context of your question, special pleading was your intent.

spe·cial plead·ing
Noun:
1. Argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their
point of view
2. Appeals to give a particular interest group special treatment
http://www.google.com/m?q=define+special+pleading&client=ms-opera-mini-android&channel=new

Special Pleading - this sounds like 'respect my holy book - its more important that any other book ever written' sort of argument. The comparison of the Iliad and the Bible is that these are both ancient books, both quite mythical in character, both with unknown authors and yet you, Harbinger, insist that one is the actual word of god and the other fiction. Now what basis can you decide that other than to use special pleading in favour of your bible?

Quote
As for your listing of Apocrypha. These books were left out for good reason. That's a whole other subject. One that starts with your belief that man wrote the bible so you assume anything man wrote should be in there. Interesting to note until the reformation the Catholics agreed on what was apocryphal and what was not.
Maybe these links can get you started in the study of what it takes to be canon.
http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/blog/curious-christian/7-10-2012/what-criteria-were-used-determine-canon-scripture

I mentioned the Apochrypha in order to establish that there were various writings that made it or did not make it into the bible sand showing that this was more a matter of redaction and not that of the work of any god. You might also like to look at the Book of Enoch as well as the Pseudepigrapha (http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/) as examples too. The fact is that whilst one might look favourably on the complete book written to be the word of a god (the Qur'an for example) the fragmented nature of the biblical writings together with their long period of redaction makes them feel far more like nthe works of men and these extra-biblical writings, that could so easily have been in the bible, illustrate.

For what it is worth, the majority of the Apocrypha is, in fact, extra text that appears in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew Bible. Both versions of the various books were found amongst the dead sea scrolls showing the various redaction.

Can you demonstrate that your bible really have divine origins.... or not?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 11, 2014, 04:52:55 PM
what you call circular reasoning is actually called Hermeneutics.  The understanding of any written text requires hermeneutics.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

Appeal to authority.
Considering that I see the Bible as the word of God. why would it then be illogical to hold the word of God in authority over any doctrine or commentary made by man?

We do not all know that the bible is the word of your god. How can we know? All we can be certain of is that it is the word of some unknown men. So far, I have never seen a proper demonstration of the idea that the bible is the word of god since it tends to be circular - i.e I believe the bible is god's word because the bible says so. So, appeal to any authority you like but show that the authority you quote is an authority first.

Quote
Special pleading..
The Iliad was a whole different thread. I addressed it just a bit ago. You asked If I hold the Bible to the same Standard. That was near the entirety of the post. There was noting given as an aspect for me to ignore while building my own special case. Rather I took your idea and ran with it. I presented facts on both sides. The only special part was asking for your opinion rather than assuming it? I should have said of course I do. Maybe I was a bit over Zealous to prove the point that you do not. Even on the basis of literary work alone. If we hold fast to the definition of special pleading I think we can say in the context of your question, special pleading was your intent.

spe·cial plead·ing
Noun:
1. Argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their
point of view
2. Appeals to give a particular interest group special treatment
http://www.google.com/m?q=define+special+pleading&client=ms-opera-mini-android&channel=new

Special Pleading - this sounds like 'respect my holy book - its more important that any other book ever written' sort of argument. The comparison of the Iliad and the Bible is that these are both ancient books, both quite mythical in character, both with unknown authors and yet you, Harbinger, insist that one is the actual word of god and the other fiction. Now what basis can you decide that other than to use special pleading in favour of your bible?

Quote
As for your listing of Apocrypha. These books were left out for good reason. That's a whole other subject. One that starts with your belief that man wrote the bible so you assume anything man wrote should be in there. Interesting to note until the reformation the Catholics agreed on what was apocryphal and what was not.
Maybe these links can get you started in the study of what it takes to be canon.
http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/blog/curious-christian/7-10-2012/what-criteria-were-used-determine-canon-scripture

I mentioned the Apochrypha in order to establish that there were various writings that made it or did not make it into the bible sand showing that this was more a matter of redaction and not that of the work of any god. You might also like to look at the Book of Enoch as well as the Pseudepigrapha (http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/) as examples too. The fact is that whilst one might look favourably on the complete book written to be the word of a god (the Qur'an for example) the fragmented nature of the biblical writings together with their long period of redaction makes them feel far more like nthe works of men and these extra-biblical writings, that could so easily have been in the bible, illustrate.

For what it is worth, the majority of the Apocrypha is, in fact, extra text that appears in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew Bible. Both versions of the various books were found amongst the dead sea scrolls showing the various redaction.

Can you demonstrate that your bible really have divine origins.... or not?
The problem I see here is that people want to see proof but the case is never allowed to build. The case for iliad vs Bible is not one of proving the Bible is the word of God. Only that the txt is dependable as it's presented. As stated the apocryphal books as canon is a whole other topic, but as far as literary txt only dependability I suppose they too fit.

So what you reallywant to see is why I belive the Bible is divine. Even this requires building though.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on January 11, 2014, 06:37:50 PM

The problem I see here is that people want to see proof but the case is never allowed to build. The case for iliad vs Bible is not one of proving the Bible is the word of God. Only that the txt is dependable as it's presented. As stated the apocryphal books as canon is a whole other topic, but as far as literary txt only dependability I suppose they too fit.

So what you reallywant to see is why I belive the Bible is divine. Even this requires building though.


Building? This is why apologetics is so long winded. It requires a lot more words to deny the obvious because you really need hide the fact the Emperor had no clothes under a lot of wonderful adjectives describing its wondrous quality of the garments and the gossamer lightweight nature of the fabric.

If you want to build a case. Do so. However, I am going to call you on any of your hidden assumptions I notice, because circular reasoning seems to be a requirement of all woo and hucksterism.







Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Graybeard on January 11, 2014, 06:43:42 PM
Appeal to authority.

Special pleading..

Here's one, No True Scotsman: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25342.msg594329.html#msg594329
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 11, 2014, 09:10:20 PM
Appeal to authority.

Special pleading..

Here's one, No True Scotsman: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25342.msg594329.html#msg594329

As I had meant to mention to Graybeard this is a good philosophy. Terrible counter claim though.

attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. [1] When faced with a counterexample

I asserted AND reasonably supported.
The counter claims that did come were unsupported. I asked for support and have yet to see any. Keep the philosophy coming though. It's a reminder to me of how talented the members here are with misdirection and unsupported claims.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 12, 2014, 06:41:25 AM
So what you really want to see is why I believe the Bible is divine. Even this requires building though.

Yes, please. Start a new thread and post your case - in one post preferably - and we can all discuss it.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: screwtape on January 12, 2014, 11:02:49 AM

I am logical to a fault.

Then why do you keep using circular reasoning, appeals to negative consequences, appeals to ignorance, special pleading, appeals to authority, ignoring the counterevidence, appeals to emotion, and equivocation?

Because logical is not the same as rational, nor does it mean he has any tools to help him not rig the game because of his biases.  Plus he probably doesn't really understand what logical is anyway.  Most people don't.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 12, 2014, 06:31:37 PM
I like this one and it's easy to get to.
Allow me to build on things we must agree on.
Because I'm sure this kind of bias is fine. I'll use this secular source rather than a Christian source to establish first the Book of Genesis is older than the New testament.

These early artifacts and artworks (dated as
early as 2500 B.C.E.) established the basis for the Garden of Eden stories a least a thousand years before it impacted Hebrew mythology.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible2.htm

Here we can deduce that the Book of genesis was written at least 1500 years before Christ. By accepted new testament dates I suppose we could add another few hundred years. Either way I think we can agree on the fact I have put forth. This article also asserts the book of Genesis is Hebrew in origin. I think we all agree on this as well.

Build to this Jews (hebrew people) do not accept that Jesus is the messiah or even that the messiah would shed blood in the form of a sacrifice when he does come. They believed more of a conquring king. Anything that may point to this in anyway is not something a Hebrew scholar would add in later.

As a txt held sacred by the jewish people. I'm sure we can agree that the Torah has been well guarded since before Christ at least and when translated would be done with great care.

For comparison purposes..
This is a link to the Torah on line Genesis Ch 5
http://m.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8169/jewish/Chapter-5.htm

also from the king James Genesis ch5
http://biblehub.com/kjv/genesis/5.htm

 We can see here that ch5 is a genealogy. Each name is the same in both txts. Easily one of THE most boring chapters in the Bible, and Torah.

Now That I've bored you enough allow me to show the FIRST mention of the gospel message in the entire Bible. Gen ch5
By laying out the names in order and providing what each name translates to, the following is revealed:

Adam        Man
Seth         Appointed
Enosh       Mortal
Kenan       Sorrow;
Mahalalel   The Blessed God
Jared        Shall come down
Enoch        Teaching
Methuselah His death shall bring
Lamech      The Despairing
Noah         Rest, or hope
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/44/
or watch the very condensed video here:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AEguqf-oE3Y&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAEguqf-oE3Y
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 13, 2014, 06:58:41 AM
Actually, Adam is a pun on Adamah - soil or earth whilst Eve, translates as life.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Boots on January 13, 2014, 10:00:14 AM
As a txt held sacred by the jewish people. I'm sure we can agree that the Torah has been well guarded since before Christ at least and when translated would be done with great care.

I, for one, will not concede this out of hand.  Most scribes were illiterate and simply copied the designs they saw.  add to that the fact that, SOMEtimes, folks have agendas that they wish to put forth, and occasionally changing a word or two in subtle ways can have a profound impact.

Example: the first commandment.

"You shall have no gods *before* be"
"You shall have no gods *except* me"

the first is, as I understand it, a more strict translation that strongly points to a polytheistic outlook; "you may worship other gods, but I'm the tops."

The second is much more palletable for a monotheistic outlook, and can be interpreted to mean "nothing comes before god--money, career, fun, etc.  don't make these things your gods, you only have one."

and both of these are reasonable translations, meaning vastly different things.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: nogodsforme on January 13, 2014, 05:29:31 PM
Not to mention that these stories were orally transmitted for centuries before ever being written down. No changes there, right? Base your whole life on a four millennia long game of "telephone".

Add in the fact that Hebrew has no vowels and must be read while already knowing the context. No chance for different interpretations there, right? You would think that god would pick a better, more precise language, like Esperanto or Klingon.

Finally, but not finally, every translation gives a slightly different meaning. "People" in English translates to "bantu" in Swahili, but that word also means "tribe". Seems like a big deal to me if going from German to French to English to KiSwahili changes the meaning of any of god's holy words.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: lotanddaughters on January 13, 2014, 05:58:08 PM
As a txt held sacred by the jewish people. I'm sure we can agree that the Torah has been well guarded since before Christ at least and when translated would be done with great care.

Adam        Man
Seth         Appointed
Enosh       Mortal
Kenan       Sorrow;
Mahalalel   The Blessed God
Jared        Shall come down
Enoch        Teaching
Methuselah His death shall bring
Lamech      The Despairing
Noah         Rest, or hope

Many patterns occur randomly. This is no surprise.

Let's say that God purposely laid out that genealogy, like some sort of code.

Why?

Why play silly fucking games?

Have you thought that far into it? Or did you just stop at "Wow! This couldn't possibly be a coincidence! Because I so badly want to believe in my God!"



Great. Satan gets to hang out with God and fuck with poor old Job. All I get is some half-assed stretching of a genealogy into a message that ain't worth fuck from some imbecile on an internet forum. And I had to wait forty-one fucking years for that.

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Astreja on January 13, 2014, 11:43:45 PM
Gen ch5
By laying out the names in order and providing what each name translates to, the following is revealed:

Adam        Man
Seth         Appointed
Enosh       Mortal
Kenan       Sorrow;
Mahalalel   The Blessed God
Jared        Shall come down
Enoch        Teaching
Methuselah His death shall bring
Lamech      The Despairing
Noah         Rest, or hope

As the above Biblical characters are not yet demonstrated to be actual people, please consider the possibility that the author of Genesis chose those names and arranged them in a mock genealogy simply to create a bit of poetry in the text.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 14, 2014, 05:03:34 AM
Given the mythological nature of the Genesis story, and given that the names all have meaning associated with the story (this really applies right through all the bible) it's not difficult to see the stories are really myths, invented by men, as distinct from real information written or dictated by any god.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 15, 2014, 10:36:51 AM
Quote from: boots
Example: the first commandment.
"You shall have no gods *before* be"
"You shall have no gods *except* me"
Do you have personal knowledge of ancient Hebrew making this a first hand translation or is this just parroted info?
Can you provide a link to a linguistic expert that may give this claim some credibility?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 15, 2014, 10:49:58 AM
I hardly claim to be an expert but I know some Hebrew. I would agree with the first version based on the Hebrew text. If you look at the Revised Standard version of the text (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20&version=RSV), you will see the translators have a footnote suggesting an alternative, 'besides'.

Sorry, but those are the words in the Hebrew. If they don't suit, well you will have to change to accommodate them - or maybe blend them.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 15, 2014, 10:52:05 AM
Quote from: lotanddaughters
Let's say that God purposely laid out that genealogy, like some sort of code.
Why?
Why play silly (#"!@) games ?
Maybe to give you a rather simple sign of the gospel truth. Obviously some people need things like these.
Why would an ancient Hebrew scribe arrange a few names in a way that revealed something he, being a jew, didn't believe in or had even thought of yet?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 15, 2014, 11:08:28 AM
I hardly claim to be an expert but I know some Hebrew. I would agree with the first version based on the Hebrew text. If you look at the Revised Standard version of the text (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20&version=RSV), you will see the translators have a footnote suggesting an alternative, 'besides'.

Sorry, but those are the words in the Hebrew. If they don't suit, well you will have to change to accommodate them - or maybe blend them.
see this is called hermanutics. When we are unsure of exactly what the word was meant to be we look at the full council. The entirety of the Bible teaches there is only one God. God himself says:
Isaiah 43:10 (RSV since you like that one)
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

There are plenty of others that tell us the "beside me" suggests something that the full council never teaches.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 15, 2014, 11:09:10 AM
Quote from: lotanddaughters
Let's say that God purposely laid out that genealogy, like some sort of code.
Why?
Why play silly (#"!@) games ?
Maybe to give you a rather simple sign of the gospel truth. Obviously some people need things like these.
Why would an ancient Hebrew scribe arrange a few names in a way that revealed something he, being a Jew, didn't believe in or had even thought of yet?

Ah, but, Harbinger, how are you thinking the text came about? I think most people reading this text, even without knowing the meaning of the names, would feel that he was in a world of myth and not in a world of real history. All the things that go on the the first part of Genesis have this myth-like quality. This is not to denigrate the text because a myth is not simply an untrue story - a fiction.

A myth is a story written to teach something important and to reveal truths that are easier to manage in a story than a  straight list. It is quite possible that this part of the text comes from the time in Babylon and these tales were told and repeated . A story is much easier to remember than a set of facts and, of course, it can vary as it is told. I'd say it is entirely reasonable to imagine stories such as these being put together for the people to understand the religious truths the priests wanted to impart. The people were virtually all illiterate and probably not educated so a story if clearly the best way to do this.

No one should have any problem with treating these stories as myths - they bear all the hallmarks and teach truths that were important then and, by some, are still considered important.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 15, 2014, 11:12:14 AM
Gen ch5
By laying out the names in order and providing what each name translates to, the following is revealed:

Adam        Man
Seth         Appointed
Enosh       Mortal
Kenan       Sorrow;
Mahalalel   The Blessed God
Jared        Shall come down
Enoch        Teaching
Methuselah His death shall bring
Lamech      The Despairing
Noah         Rest, or hope

As the above Biblical characters are not yet demonstrated to be actual people, please consider the possibility that the author of Genesis chose those names and arranged them in a mock genealogy simply to create a bit of poetry in the text.

I have considered that. I ask you the same question that won't allow me to credit this to Hebrew scribes. Even if it was poetic it was inspired poetry. :)
Why would an ancient Hebrew scribe arrange a few names in a way that revealed something he, being a
jew, didn't believe in or had even thought of yet?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 15, 2014, 11:13:49 AM
I hardly claim to be an expert but I know some Hebrew. I would agree with the first version based on the Hebrew text. If you look at the Revised Standard version of the text (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20&version=RSV), you will see the translators have a footnote suggesting an alternative, 'besides'.

Sorry, but those are the words in the Hebrew. If they don't suit, well you will have to change to accommodate them - or maybe blend them.
see this is called hermanutics. When we are unsure of exactly what the word was meant to be we look at the full council. The entirety of the Bible teaches there is only one God. God himself says:
Isaiah 43:10 (RSV since you like that one)
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

There are plenty of others that tell us the "beside me" suggests something that the full council never teaches.

Fine, if you like it that way! However this is really a case of glossing over the bits that don't suit. The OT is a lot of viewpoints over quite a long period and monotheism was not the way things were in the earlier parts. Genesis and creation, of course, is quite a late part compared with Exodus. However, you make hermeneutics more like 'will it blend'

(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSzvgwrhveJe8Y9CNQj5D8oGBbVZV1cO8JoO0wBRfoUsNw-nGDU)
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 15, 2014, 11:26:17 AM
...it's not difficult to see the stories are really myths, invented by men, as distinct from real information written or dictated by any god.
This comment seems to suggest that you have an example of info written or dictated by a god that is distinct and real. That you have used for comparison to determine no god could be responsible for the txt we have before us. (this is an example of what happens when we fail to consider the full council)
Certainly you don't have a txt that is, in your eyes, distinct or real otherwise you wouldn't be an atheist. (full council of wheels) f I was unfamiliar with the source, I may be able to conclude you to be mormon or something along these lines, having your own sacred txt.
Do you see what I mean about hermanutics?
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 15, 2014, 11:30:24 AM
For all of you that want to deny the gospel message of Gen5 You MUST  be able to answer the core question presented by the evidence.

Why would an ancient Hebrew scribe arrange a few names in a way that revealed something he, being a
jew, didn't believe in or had even thought of yet?

I'm quite interested to read ideas about this.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 15, 2014, 11:33:49 AM
No I don't! I have no need to explain anything. If you want to understand the text inj the way that you do, well done! Yet don't expect much support here. Whatever the scribes were writing about, I'll bet it was something in their own generation - possible it was Cyrus who is praise like anything in Deutero-Isaiah
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: screwtape on January 15, 2014, 11:37:57 AM
Do you have personal knowledge of ancient Hebrew making this a first hand translation or is this just parroted info?
Can you provide a link to a linguistic expert that may give this claim some credibility?

What is the difference between being a linguistic expert and consulting a text considered to be authoritative in the field of linguistics?  Both are going to be based on the same information.  And if you use the text correctly, you should be fine.

From Ex 20:3  "You shall have no other gods before me"

Your link:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H6440&t=KJV
the word used there is "paniym".[1]  According to Strong's, it means "face".  From that they meant a face, facing, presence, in front of, etc.  It lists every verse where it is used in context.  It is used a lot - 2,109 times in 1,890 verses.  In no case does it indicate an exception or exclusion.  That is obvious from the root of the word. 

Also notice in that verse, the word used for gods is "elohim", the exact same word used to name god. 



 1. approximation of the hebrew, since this forum does not do hebrew
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: screwtape on January 15, 2014, 12:00:17 PM
almost all of this is wrong.  If I were you, I would not trust that source on anything.

Adam        Man
Seth         Appointed   compensation 
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H8352&t=KJV

Enosh       Mortal   man
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H583&t=KJV

Kenan      Sorrowposession
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H7018&t=KJV
 
Mahalalel   The Blessed God    praise of god
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H4111&t=KJV

Jared        Shall come down  close, but not quite: descent
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H3382&t=KJV

Enoch        Teaching    dedicated
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H2585&t=KJV

Methuselah His death shall bring  man of the dart (possibly "archer"?)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H4968&t=KJV
 
Lamech      The Despairing   powerful
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H3929&t=KJV

Noah         Rest, or hope  (rest is correct, hope is not)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H5146&t=KJV


Not even in the same ballpark.  So your coded message is...not. 


Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: screwtape on January 15, 2014, 12:56:53 PM
let me add that the author of that piece is Chuck Missler.  He has no credentials as a bible scholar.  On top of that, he is of dubious character:
Quote
A Los Angeles Times article reported that Missler and co-author Hal Lindsey had plagiarized a portion of Miami University Professor Edwin Yamauchi's 1982 book Foes From the Northern Frontier in their own 1992 book The Magog Factor. This mistake has been acknowledged, book shipments to bookstores have been discontinued and all of the author's proceeds have been donated to a ministry

Missler has also been accused of extensive plagiarism of New Age writer Michael Talbot's 1992 book The Holographic Universe in his 1999 book Cosmic Codes: Messages from the Edge of Eternity. Missler has since publicly apologized for this and said a correction will be inserted in all unsold copies and the book itself updated in subsequent printings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Missler

Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jdawg70 on January 15, 2014, 01:02:46 PM
let me add that the author of that piece is Chuck Missler.  He has no credentials as a bible scholar.  On top of that, he is of dubious character:
Quote
A Los Angeles Times article reported that Missler and co-author Hal Lindsey had plagiarized a portion of Miami University Professor Edwin Yamauchi's 1982 book Foes From the Northern Frontier in their own 1992 book The Magog Factor. This mistake has been acknowledged, book shipments to bookstores have been discontinued and all of the author's proceeds have been donated to a ministry

Missler has also been accused of extensive plagiarism of New Age writer Michael Talbot's 1992 book The Holographic Universe in his 1999 book Cosmic Codes: Messages from the Edge of Eternity. Missler has since publicly apologized for this and said a correction will be inserted in all unsold copies and the book itself updated in subsequent printings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Missler

Peanut butter guy!

He's comedy gold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 15, 2014, 01:40:12 PM
Thanks for that Jdawg! I haven't stopped laughing yet!
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 15, 2014, 02:35:21 PM
almost all of this is wrong.  If I were you, I would not trust that source on anything.

Adam        Man
Seth         Appointed   compensation 
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H8352&t=KJV

Enosh       Mortal   man
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H583&t=KJV

Kenan      Sorrowposession
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H7018&t=KJV
 
Mahalalel   The Blessed God    praise of god
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H4111&t=KJV

Jared        Shall come down  close, but not quite: descent
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H3382&t=KJV

Enoch        Teaching    dedicated
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H2585&t=KJV

Methuselah His death shall bring  man of the dart (possibly "archer"?)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H4968&t=KJV
 
Lamech      The Despairing   powerful
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H3929&t=KJV

Noah         Rest, or hope  (rest is correct, hope is not)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H5146&t=KJV


Not even in the same ballpark.  So your coded message is...not.

The question is did you not bother to look up Adam or are you saying both the name Enosh and Adam mean man?
Also for Seth the meaning of the name is in the txt of Gen4. We know name meanings are not as simple as regular words. Enos may mean man. However, when you add the H it changes the meaning of the word. Dr. missler explains all of this. You should watch his video on youtube.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 15, 2014, 02:43:08 PM

The question is did you not bother to look up Adam or are you saying both the name Enosh and Adam mean man?
Also for Seth the meaning of the name is in the txt of Gen4. We know name meanings are not as simple as regular words. Enos may mean man. However, when you add the H it changes the meaning of the word. Dr. missler explains all of this. You should watch his video on YouTube.

Just so we know - since you are not a Hebraist and are reliant on other people, are you putting this guy up as an expert? If so, what is his qualification to speak on the Hebrew of the bible? From what I have seen, he doesn't seem that serious. After all, he seems pretty rich for getting through the eye of a needle.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 15, 2014, 02:47:36 PM
Quote from: red dragon
let me add that the author of that piece is Chuck Missler.  He has no credentials as a bible scholar.  On top of that, he is of dubious character:

very good use of both misdirection and Argumentum ad hominem! I'm impressed on both counts.
maybe you can at least try to dispute the info presented as screwtape tried to do.

Quote from: wheels5894
Thanks for that Jdawg! I haven't stopped laughing yet!
I'm again disappointed in you wheels. Another example of double standard. If I had gone this route you would have posted a comment similar to mine. As I have seen you post in the past.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 15, 2014, 02:53:23 PM
Harbinger

1. Please learn to quote

2. If you watched the video and you didn't think it funny then you either don't have a sense of humour or you don't understand evolution. I don't know which.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 15, 2014, 03:10:43 PM
Quote from: wheels5894
Just so we know - since you are not a Hebraist and are reliant on other people, are you putting this guy up as an expert?
Much closer than you and I at least.
Quote
From what I have seen, he doesn't seem that serious. After all, he seems pretty rich for getting through the eye of a needle.
This shows clearly you don't understand the parables you have read. The rich tend to trust in their wealth rather than God. Their heart and therefore treasure is misplaced on earthly things.

More misdirection and another Argumentum ad hominem....
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 15, 2014, 03:30:35 PM
Harbinger

1. Please learn to quote

2. If you watched the video and you didn't think it funny then you either don't have a sense of humour or you don't understand evolution. I don't know which.

1.what's wrong with my quote? Your comment with Jdawg's so I quoted both in the same post. What's wrong with that?
I could go back to the way I have done it in the past... either way someone is not happy. Let it go.
by the way.... Argumentum ad hominem

2.I did think it was funny. obviously for different reasons though. Can you tell me what term he clearly didn't understand?
matter+light+Time=life
He is adderssing the origin. Step one of evolution. the un-caused cause that no one wants to talk about. The root not the trunk is where the impossibility is found. Oh... and one species becoming another such as fish=rat. it's all more faith than I can muster.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jdawg70 on January 15, 2014, 03:39:14 PM
Harbinger

1. Please learn to quote

2. If you watched the video and you didn't think it funny then you either don't have a sense of humour or you don't understand evolution. I don't know which.

1.what's wrong with my quote? Your comment with Jdawg's so I quoted both in the same post. What's wrong with that?
I could go back to the way I have done it in the past... either way someone is not happy. Let it go.
by the way.... Argumentum ad hominem

2.I did think it was funny. obviously for different reasons though. Can you tell me what term he clearly didn't understand?
matter+light+Time=life
He is adderssing the origin. Step one of evolution. the un-caused cause that no one wants to talk about. The root not the trunk is where the impossibility is found. Oh... and one species becoming another such as fish=rat. it's all more faith than I can muster.

The problem is your quote implies something I did not say.

Quote from: jdawg70
let me add that the author of that piece is Chuck Missler.  He has no credentials as a bible scholar.  On top of that, he is of dubious character:

That was not me.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: screwtape on January 15, 2014, 04:01:17 PM
The question is did you not bother to look up Adam or are you saying both the name Enosh and Adam mean man?

No, that is not what the question is.  The question is whether any of the information you posted is accurate.  The overwhelming majority of it conflicts with standard, accepted, non-controversial understandings. 

On top of that, you source appears to have had no formal training in greek or hebrew whatsoever and seems to have come up with meanings that suit his own purpose.  Additionally, he is a liar, a plagiarist and a huckster of the highest order. 

I did bother to look up Adam.  You have links to the source.  You may look it up yourself.

Dr. missler explains all of this.

He's not a doctor.  His "PhD" came from an unaccredited theological diploma mill and fell short of what a PhD would have to produce at a real institution.
http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/w/page/13146612/chuck-missler

You should watch his video on youtube.

No, I shouldn't.  My time would be better spent doing pretty much anything else.

Now, admit your source is a fraud and withdraw your claims.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 15, 2014, 04:15:19 PM
Harbinger

1. Please learn to quote

2. If you watched the video and you didn't think it funny then you either don't have a sense of humour or you don't understand evolution. I don't know which.

1.what's wrong with my quote? Your comment with Jdawg's so I quoted both in the same post. What's wrong with that?
I could go back to the way I have done it in the past... either way someone is not happy. Let it go.
by the way.... Argumentum ad hominem

2.I did think it was funny. obviously for different reasons though. Can you tell me what term he clearly didn't understand?
matter+light+Time=life
He is adderssing the origin. Step one of evolution. the un-caused cause that no one wants to talk about. The root not the trunk is where the impossibility is found. Oh... and one species becoming another such as fish=rat. it's all more faith than I can muster.

The problem is your quote implies something I did not say.

Quote from: jdawg70
let me add that the author of that piece is Chuck Missler.  He has no credentials as a bible scholar.  On top of that, he is of dubious character:

That was not me.

My apologies. I see where my disconnect was. I fixed it in the original. I can't fix the rest though.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on January 15, 2014, 04:22:13 PM
harbinger, if a school is unaccredited, it means that degrees you get from it are not worth very much.  That means that since Missler got his PhD from an unaccredited school, there's no independent way to gauge just how much that degree is worth.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Hatter23 on January 15, 2014, 04:34:00 PM
harbinger, if a school is unaccredited, it means that degrees you get from it are not worth very much.  That means that since Missler got his PhD from an unaccredited school, there's no independent way to gauge just how much that degree is worth.

But actually H77 is correct that bashing him based on his poor accreditation, rather than addressing what he says, does qualify as as an argument ad hom. This is actually a sticky wicket from a logic point of view, as poor morality, poor credentials, and a penchant for dishonesty leads us to reasonably dismiss what Missler has to say, but not logically.

I really am going to have to ponder on this one. Despite my low opinion of what H77 says, this is actually an intellectual puzzle with some meat on its bones.


Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 15, 2014, 04:38:10 PM
Well I asked him because in earlier posts he was challenging other on the meaning of Hebrew words and asking for and 'expert'. Well his 'expert' seems not to be that and thus we may consider whether what he says, at least with regard to Hebrew translation, has any value. Given that Missler's translation is 'handy' to his ideas and disagrees with the usual translations I rather think this guy's lack of credentials is an issue.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: Ivellios on January 15, 2014, 07:49:21 PM

2.I did think it was funny. obviously for different reasons though. Can you tell me what term he clearly didn't understand?
matter+light+Time=life
He is adderssing the origin. Step one of evolution. the un-caused cause that no one wants to talk about. The root not the trunk is where the impossibility is found. Oh... and one species becoming another such as fish=rat. it's all more faith than I can muster.

This is not evolution.

Evolution is how something already living, over time, mutates into something else. That's abiogenesis. Three entirely different disciplines Christians like to lump into the ToE: Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution.

His 'example' is akin to saying: They put diesel into the engine, but the plane wouldn't fly, so Aerodynamic Theory is proven WRONG!!!!! edit: Like the vid, people laughing at someone trying to make that point, is because that point is invalid, and the person presenting it is showing thier ignorance to the world.

Another thing he said: Time. Sure, for the sake of arguement, I'll just accept that there have been Penut Butter jars for around about 100 years. So, whens the last time you opened up a 100 year old peanut butter jar? Unlike Honey, after a certain period of time has passed (expiry date), it's no longer garanteed, because sooner or later the stuff goes bad, starts growing stuff. Makes you sick. If you're always opening garanteed fresh product, you should always be opening a fresh product. His analogy is disengenous.

If you were to stop maintaining a swimming pool, it doesn't turn into a swamp immediately, or even overnight. Sometimes depending on the weather and circulation, it can even go a week or two before you see the slightest bit of green.

In similar ways, Matter and Light, the way he uses them are also incorrect. This is why it's funny to those that actually know the ToE.
Title: Re: Why are scientists afraid of god?
Post by: jaimehlers on January 15, 2014, 08:17:37 PM
He is adderssing the origin. Step one of evolution. the un-caused cause that no one wants to talk about. The root not the trunk is where the impossibility is found. Oh... and one species becoming another such as fish=rat. it's all more faith than I can muster.
Doesn't work like that - you don't point to the "impossibility at the beginning" (not that there really is such a thing) and disprove everything else.  It's like how the theory of planetary formation isn't necessary to prove the theory of plate tectonics.  Similarly, the Big Bang Theory isn't necessary to prove evolutionary theory.

By the way, if you want an impossibility at the root, how about your god?  I mean, how do you expla