18 Nov 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziAnd YECs dedicate whole museums, websites and school textbooks to trying to justify their beliefs as scientifically possible. But the fact remains that neither YEC beliefs nor Jesus' resurrection are even remotely compatible with science.
people have risen from the dead by unexplained methods. recently a group of scientist made the zombie dog(drained all his blood, froze him and resurrected him three days later)
so no it is not entirely unreasonable.
now why do i think i am more logical than a YEC? i do not claim to be making science.
In other words you admit to pretending to hold beliefs that you admit are false.
i believe in jesus (Praise Jesus)
No you don't. You pretend to.
but i don't gamble all of my economies on that fact.
Because you don't really believe it.
i know i am in the faith business and as long as it doesn't interfere with real life it is no harm. i will never make a "God powered car" whereas YEC's want to teach their stupidity in schools and not only that but to remove evolution as "questionable science".
I have a lot more respect for a YEC who acts out what he believes than you who pretends to believe one thing but acts another. You are far less logical than a YEC.
Don't you dare compare me with those retards. It's one thing to have a certain moral system and spirituality and another to impose your faith on others as hard facts, nazi style.
Imposing ones faith nazi style has nothing to do with the discussion. Most YECs I have met have never tried such a thing, non-YEC Christians however are just as guilty of such behavior (some of my ancestors were jailed in England for being the wrong sort of Christian).
I have no problem with you having a moral system and spirituality. I do have a problem with you claiming to believe in the resurrection of Jesus whilst simultaneously criticizing YECs for their equally ridiculous beliefs.
18 Nov 08
Originally posted by twhitehead"now why do i think i am more logical than a YEC? i do not claim to be making science.
And YECs dedicate whole museums, websites and school textbooks to trying to justify their beliefs as scientifically possible. But the fact remains that neither YEC beliefs nor Jesus' resurrection are even remotely compatible with science.
[b]now why do i think i am more logical than a YEC? i do not claim to be making science.
In other words you ...[text shortened]... f Jesus whilst simultaneously criticizing YECs for their equally ridiculous beliefs.[/b]
In other words you admit to pretending to hold beliefs that you admit are false."
no, i admit my beliefs are unprovable by science. therefore unusable in science situations.
"i believe in jesus (Praise Jesus)
No you don't. You pretend to."
sure, you're entitled to an opinion. even one such illogical as this one. i believe in jesus, and you say that i only pretend to. why don't you prove it.
" but i don't gamble all of my economies on that fact.
Because you don't really believe it."
because i don't gamble at all. because i want certainties or at least calculated risks. because if there is a chance god isn't listening at a certain point or doesn't fulfill wishes or doesn't exist i would lose my bet. i believe in jesus, i don't believe jesus has nothing better to do than to make me win at poker and that i am so special that he will cause someone else to lose.
"I have a lot more respect for a YEC who acts out what he believes than you who pretends to believe one thing but acts another. You are far less logical than a YEC."
so you have far more respect for Hitler who burned an impressive number of jews than for mel gibson who we all know is an anti-Semite or for Ahmadinejad who just doesn't have the guts to finally kill all jews in the world. Not to mention that you are wrong in saying that i believe one thing and act another. How about you give an example where you see that contradiction.
I have no problem with you having a moral system and spirituality. I do have a problem with you claiming to believe in the resurrection of Jesus whilst simultaneously criticizing YECs for their equally ridiculous beliefs
well ignoring the fact that you openly mock a billion or so christians, how about you explain how unexplained resurrections happen(ironic huh?) and how is the idea of someone coming back from the dead is equally idiotic as the Grand Canyon being the work of the grand flood.
18 Nov 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziWoah there, hold your horses!
people have risen from the dead by unexplained methods. recently a group of scientist made the zombie dog(drained all his blood, froze him and resurrected him three days later)
so no it is not entirely unreasonable.
people have risen from the dead by unexplained methods. recently a group of scientist made the zombie dog(drained all his blood, froze him and resurrected him three days later)
so no it is not entirely unreasonable.
Who, when, where, how? Please provide some backing for that assertion. Surely this would be front page news, potential Nobel Prize material. I want to hear about this.
Also, presumably the scientists also have an inkling how they did it, therefore this would be an explained method. Can you give us some verified examples of people rising from the dead by unexplained methods?
--- Penguin.
Ps. The YEC did not broach the subject today either. Tomorrow is my last day here for a while.
18 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Penguinhttps://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=3901
Who, when, where, how? Please provide some backing for that assertion. Surely this would be front page news, potential Nobel Prize material. I want to hear about this.
There is a link to the actual institution (which is located near me in Pittsburgh).
Here's the abstract to the scholarly article.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17622254&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
The dog was resuscitated 3 hours, not 3 days after being cryogenically frozen in a controlled setting.
Here's a list of their recent publications.
http://www.safar.pitt.edu/recentpubs.html
Nemesio
18 Nov 08
Originally posted by NemesioThanks for that, very interesting. I can't quite understand how that one slipped me by. Has any more recent work been done on this? It looks like it could have huge potential applications.
https://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=3901
There is a link to the actual institution (which is located near me in Pittsburgh).
Here's the abstract to the scholarly article.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17622254&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDoc ...[text shortened]... s a list of their recent publications.
http://www.safar.pitt.edu/recentpubs.html
Nemesio
3 hours is a bit different from 3 days though!
Has anyone else reproduced the experiment?
--- Penguin.
18 Nov 08
Back on topic, I hope?
When interpreting the genisis hermeneuticly, do you really know when you can add new knoledge to the old one, other than mere opinions, can you really know that you are nearer The Truth? Isn't it just guessings, however clever ones?
If some Rabbi, some cardinal in Rome, or some Imam have some interpretation of some text about God, Jahve or Allah, do we really know more than before?
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by Penguinlast day at work talking to the yec or last day at the RHP talking to us?😀
Woah there, hold your horses!
[b]people have risen from the dead by unexplained methods. recently a group of scientist made the zombie dog(drained all his blood, froze him and resurrected him three days later)
so no it is not entirely unreasonable.
Who, when, where, how? Please provide some backing for that assertion. Surely this would be front pa ...[text shortened]...
Ps. The YEC did not broach the subject today either. Tomorrow is my last day here for a while.[/b]
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasSurely it depends on the interpretation, not to mention the context that generates the interpretation.
Back on topic, I hope?
When interpreting the genisis hermeneuticly, do you really know when you can add new knoledge to the old one, other than mere opinions, can you really know that you are nearer The Truth? Isn't it just guessings, however clever ones?
As for the Truth, that great Zero -- even fiction can be usefully interpreted.
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by Nemesiosorry, just repeated something i stored in my archive. should have mentioned it might be subject to loss or distortion of data.
https://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=3901
There is a link to the actual institution (which is located near me in Pittsburgh).
Here's the abstract to the scholarly article.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17622254&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDoc ...[text shortened]... s a list of their recent publications.
http://www.safar.pitt.edu/recentpubs.html
Nemesio
26 Nov 08
Originally posted by PenguinI am still interested to know why you would have a larger difference of opinion with a YEC than with a regular Christian. In my opinion, both hold equally illogical and unscientific beliefs. They are equally deluded.
Last day working with the YEC, sadly for you lot!
--- Penguin
Why would a YEC have more of a problem with your atheism than any other Christian?
If a member of the Roman Catholic Church told you that he /she saw a statue of the Virgin Mary crying tears of blood and that it was a miracle, would you have less of a theological conflict with them than a YEC who tells you that God made the world 4000 years ago and it was a miracle?
26 Nov 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadthere is a difference and you know it.
I am still interested to know why you would have a larger difference of opinion with a YEC than with a regular Christian. In my opinion, both hold equally illogical and unscientific beliefs. They are equally deluded.
Why would a YEC have more of a problem with your atheism than any other Christian?
If a member of the Roman Catholic Church told you t ...[text shortened]... with them than a YEC who tells you that God made the world 4000 years ago and it was a miracle?
one thing to claim to have seen the flying spaghetti monster one night and another one to present the grand canyon as conclusive proof that the spaghetti monster exists and that is his unfinished irrigation system for his garden of eden.
26 Nov 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadIntellectually, I suppose there could be said to be little difference in the two views, however there is a difference in the degree. The 'regular' theist may believe in some supernatural deity or phenomenan with little or no objective reason but accepts the validity of science in general. The YEC on the other hand discounts all science and attempts to twist it to support his idea that the universe is different in every way way from reality.
I am still interested to know why you would have a larger difference of opinion with a YEC than with a regular Christian. In my opinion, both hold equally illogical and unscientific beliefs. They are equally deluded.
Why would a YEC have more of a problem with your atheism than any other Christian?
If a member of the Roman Catholic Church told you t ...[text shortened]... with them than a YEC who tells you that God made the world 4000 years ago and it was a miracle?
Not very well explained I know and you can probably pick holes in the above till it looks like a colandar but I've already wasted 2 hours at work!
--- Penguin.
26 Nov 08
Originally posted by PenguinThe YECs I have met personally only discount science that they believe contradicts the Bible, and clearly realize there is a conflict and often have trouble reconciling the two. But those are merely side effects. Other Christians frequently believe plenty of unscientific things (as do many atheists), yet often get a free pass. I think you would be less likely to criticize someone who believe that their personality was related to the position of the moon on their birth date. You might change your mind though if they tried to teach astrology in science class at schools.
Intellectually, I suppose there could be said to be little difference in the two views, however there is a difference in the degree. The 'regular' theist may believe in some supernatural deity or phenomenan with little or no objective reason but accepts the validity of science in general. The YEC on the other hand discounts [b]all science and attempts to ...[text shortened]... above till it looks like a colandar but I've already wasted 2 hours at work!
--- Penguin.[/b]
If there was solid scientific or historic evidence that Jesus was not resurrected I think you would find plenty of deniers amongst the seemingly more rational Christians. In fact when I mention that Jesus' resurrection is unscientific to Christians I often find a total refusal to discuss it.