A Reprise: Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth

Status
Not open for further replies.

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
How does god have the concept of a day or a year or any time scale? Unless he himself orbits a star and revolves around an axis, there is no concept of a day or year in this universe. He would have to be physically in the universe to experience such a thing. Day and year are human creations, god would know nothing of them unless he himself orbits a star and revolves around an axis.
I just don't know what else I can say in this area. An omniscient God wouldn't have a problem knowing anything. It's just not that hard.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Plus, you can't explain all the impact craters on the Earth if the Earth is indeed that young. Mankind would have been long wipped out had we been around during these times. Then you have the moon, which was created by one of these large impacts with a planet roughly the size of mars. There is no way the moon could be where it is currently located had the collision happened sooner than around 4 billion years ago.
Oh, that is how the moon came about? Another one of your "facts"? My goodness, open your mind.

No, mankind wouldn't have been wiped out. It's all speculation on how much damage these things do. You know there are now scientists starting to question these impact theories. Amazingly, very fragile things survived during the alleged one that caused the extinction of the dinosuars. No one knows.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
I'm glad you ignored the second link in that post hounded, which completely destroys your argument. Really telling that you didn't comment on that one.
I didn't ignore the link. It's just as irrelevant as the first. And the statement I quoted proves how ridiculous it is if you would just think about it for a minute.

Yes you did, because the 2nd link is different from the first link, and somehow you came to the conclusion it is irrelevant, which it isn't considering the topic being discussed in that post. Good try though.


"Yeah, to the evolutionist it is no doubt organic. Uh, oh, I just breathed out some CO2. There goes something organic. I'm reproducing." - HoundedHawk demonstrating his vast knowledge of complex organic molecules and their formation
This post was edited on 3/6 8:08 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Yes, LDS, there are scientific facts. As I posted in another post on this thread, a scientific theory can never be proven completely because that requires infinite tests and that is impossible. The point of saying its a "scientific fact" was that there is so much evidence to support evolution that is it basically rock solid at this point. It certainly has a few holes left it in,
Yep, there's a fact to iowahawkeyes1986. It's an unproven theory that still has holes in it.


Not a surprise to me that you still don't understand what a scientific theory is. Here let me help you out ignorant one:

"Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.



In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.



In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.



The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.



An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.



A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.



An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.



A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.



Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.



A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.
"


"Yeah, to the evolutionist it is no doubt organic. Uh, oh, I just breathed out some CO2. There goes something organic. I'm reproducing." - HoundedHawk demonstrating his vast knowledge of complex organic molecules and their formation
This post was edited on 3/6 8:09 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"Since by your own admission you have not even considered it then you cannot honestly judge whether it makes sense or not."

No, I admitted I won't consider it because there are large parts of it that don't fit with reality, especially the parts dealing with the orgins of life and the universe.

"It's not arbitrary at all. The theory requires I stop at one God. If there was more than one He wouldn't be God. Perhaps on my tenth time of saying that it may stick for you. You know, like with spelling of "argument." It took a little while."

Which still doesn't make sense because of the infinite regress to which you continue to say doesn't exist, but clearly does.

"Beep. Beep. Beep. I hear you backtracking. Your paragraph above demonstrates that what is truly worthless here is you bringing up some quantum theory you truly don't understand to justify the entire universe coming about completely and absolutely by itself. It quantum theory can't refute my claim that all the matter in the universe cannot account for itself, then shut up about it. It doesn't help your cause. It's like saying, "One time, we kind of maybe perhaps thunk that two rocks the same size and shape fell perfectly straight on top of one another with no help. Therefore, the Great Pyramid could have accidently made itself."

No, there is no backtracking there, look up the definition of what quantum theory is, it deals with the motions of very small objects and why they do what they do. Quantum theory is an essential part of the universe as a whole and it does provide us with a means to show how the universe came into existence without a cause, but it isn't the only source we apply to it. Why do you think they are trying to combine the theories of the large and small to solve the mysteries of black holes(and the initial singularity)? Both are required, not just one theory, so yes it does deal with the beginning of the universe and it can be applied to it because the beginning of the universe deals with the very small.


"Yeah, to the evolutionist it is no doubt organic. Uh, oh, I just breathed out some CO2. There goes something organic. I'm reproducing." - HoundedHawk demonstrating his vast knowledge of complex organic molecules and their formation
This post was edited on 3/6 8:07 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by Dave Wyatt:
In fact a few posts later, you just completely ignored the link that destroys your(and Dave Wyatts) argument that it is statistically impossible.

In law direct evidence supercedes circumstantial evidence, which has been used in millions of cases, to convict criminals of crimes. As definedEvidence in the form of testimony from a witness who actually saw, heard, or touched the subject of questioning. Evidence that, if believed, proves existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. That means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question, without the intervention of the proof of any other fact, and which is distinguished from circumstantial evidence, often called indirect.



Because law is the same as a scientific theory.


"Yeah, to the evolutionist it is no doubt organic. Uh, oh, I just breathed out some CO2. There goes something organic. I'm reproducing." - HoundedHawk demonstrating his vast knowledge of complex organic molecules and their formation
This post was edited on 3/6 8:06 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"It's not a typo. It's obvious you didn't know how to spell the word."

Must be why I spelled argument both ways in a number of my posts. Its a typo, but believe whatever you like, it doesn't have anything to do with our conversation here.

"No, the whole world would not have to know about it. What is wrong with you? Why can't you understand the concept that an all powerful God could make anything appear as anything to anybody? Open your mind."

God is just tricking us and testing out faith, forgot about that Hounded. Good argument.

"In the Bible it says all the land was in one place and at that time the mountains had not fully rose and the valleys had not sunk. It didn't nearly take as much water as it would today and the atmosphere was loaded with vastly more moisture. It also says the fountains of the deep were opened. It didn't all come from the sky. And all the animals could get on the ark and all forms could come from them in a few thousand years. It's already been demonstrated countless times by creationist writers."

And thats a bunch of BS. We know pretty well how the Earth formed and the only time it can even be considered flat was 4.5 billion years ago when it first formed, but not long after that, plate techtonics took over. The planet NEVER had water while it was flat. Another worthless argument from Hounded.

No, evolution works on the scale of millions to billions of years. Not all the species we see today on Earth could have evolved in a couple thousand years. That is another argument which has been so thoroughly debunked by science it is almost sad to see you trumpet it out. But you have already covered numerous other creationist arguments which have no science to them at all, they are just ridiculous claims about the natural world that are completely worthless when it comes to explaing it.


"Yeah, to the evolutionist it is no doubt organic. Uh, oh, I just breathed out some CO2. There goes something organic. I'm reproducing." - HoundedHawk demonstrating his vast knowledge of complex organic molecules and their formation
This post was edited on 3/6 8:06 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by Dave Wyatt:
In fact a few posts later, you just completely ignored the link that destroys your(and Dave Wyatts) argument that it is statistically impossible.

In law direct evidence supercedes circumstantial evidence, which has been used in millions of cases, to convict criminals of crimes. As defined in the legal encyclopedia, direct evidence is evidence in the form of testimony from a witness who actually saw, heard, or touched the subject of questioning.

Evidence that, if believed, proves existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. That means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question, without the intervention of the proof of any other fact, and which is distinguished from circumstantial evidence, often called indirect.

Taking that into account, the testimony, the eyewitness accounts, the historical independent references of Josephus (especially the Arabic translations), it can be stated as FACT that Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, resurrected, and was seen alive and walking after all these events by hundreds upon hundreds of EYEWITNESSES. The documentation is prolific. Hundreds of skeptics have attempted to dismantle the evidence and build a case against the events. Antagonistic, well educated, even expert, critics have set about to destroy the Gospel by means of destroying the credibility of the authors.

They have failed.

Statistically your scientific site is irrelevant and immaterial to the argument of creation. Your disbelief of the existence of God, Christ, and the efficacy of Christianity is, honestly, irrelevant to whether or not creation is/was initiated by a supreme being.

Conversely, if the resurrection of Christ as presented by the documents of the eyewitnesses as handed down through the last 2000 years are and continue to be verified by ongoing archaeologiical, historical, and linguistic refinement, your choice not to believe should, logically, be altered by what you hold as the end-all be-all of conscious decision making. Science.

Or we probably all ought to toos history out on its ear since the accounts as handed down in wwritten form concerning the rise and fall of Rome, the marauding reign of terror og Ghegis Khan, the exploits of Alexander the Great, or even the assassination of Abraham Lincoln must be false since we dodn't witness those events personally.

You believe what you believe 1986, but the next time someone on this board says I'm arrogant because I believe in God and in Jesus Christ, I'll think of a student at the University of Iowa who goes by the nom de plume iowahawkeyes1986, and has everything figured out at the ripwe old age of 21.

This post was edited on 3/6 5:22 PM by Dave Wyatt
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
Don't give me this crap about eyewitness testimony that Jesus was resurrected. There is eyewitness testimony for UFOs, the Lochness monster, and several other mystical things. The problem is, they are always short on evidence, especially evidence that would be taken seriously with a scientific approach to things(and they are even relatively newer happenings, not 2000 years ago). There is no evidence that shows for a fact that Jesus was resurrected, was the son of god, or that his mother was a virgin. None.

Again you have demostrated no ability to understand what scientific theories are. Evolution is pretty much an accept fact in the scientific community. Scientific theories do not operate the same was as law does, quit trying to compare the two.

The 2nd link in my post is not irrelevant. It clearly shows that it isn't statisically impossible for complex organic molecules to evolve to the point of self replication. You attempted to argue that it is statistically impossible for life to have arose on its own, and that site clearly debunks such a contention.

You believe what you believe 1986, but the next time someone on this board says I'm arrogant because I believe in God and in Jesus Christ, I'll think of a student at the University of Iowa who goes by the nom de plume iowahawkeyes1986, and has everything figured out at the ripwe old age of 21.

I never said you are arrogant because you believe in god. I believe you are just misinformed about what science has to say about the specific subjects and haven't investigated how solid this science is. I've never claimed to have everything figured out either about physics, thats why I'm probably going to major in physics and astronomy, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know when something doesn't fit with reality.


"Yeah, to the evolutionist it is no doubt organic. Uh, oh, I just breathed out some CO2. There goes something organic. I'm reproducing." - HoundedHawk demonstrating his vast knowledge of complex organic molecules and their formation
This post was edited on 3/6 9:05 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
" I just don't know what else I can say in this area. An omniscient God wouldn't have a problem knowing anything. It's just not that hard."

Again, it doesn't surprise me you don't understand. How can god know what a day or a year is, if he doesn't orbit a star? The only reason we know what a day or a year is, is because we orbit a star and revolve about an axis. If god doesn't do that, he doesn't have the concept of a day or a year. Day and year are creations of the human mind, just like god.

"Oh, that is how the moon came about? Another one of your "facts"? My goodness, open your mind.

No, mankind wouldn't have been wiped out. It's all speculation on how much damage these things do. You know there are now scientists starting to question these impact theories. Amazingly, very fragile things survived during the alleged one that caused the extinction of the dinosuars. No one knows."


You really are a babbling buffoon when it comes to this area.

The moon came about because of a collision with Earth, there is plenty of evidence that shows this, the moon and the Earth share a good portion of the same material. Also following computer simulations, there is only a few possibilites to how the moon could have survived to be in its present position following the laws of physics. The only way for the Earth to have a moon, in its current position and rate of recession, is if these two objects only grazed each other. Any other impact means Earth loses its moon by now.

No, it isn't speculation how much damage these things do. Were you just not paying attention when Jupiter was hit by comet Shoemaker-Levy? Hell I was 8 or so years old when this took place, and I can remember it being all over the news as a spectacle for all to see.(btw after that impact is when the US became a little more serious about asteroid and comet threats, so they are a prett big deal) It punched holes in Jupiters atmosphere LARGER than the planet Earth. There is absolutely no way in hell life survive the early bombardment of the Earth. Only after it cooled and the collisions became fewer and far between, did life begin to take root.

Yes, the dino killer wasn't as big as an asteroid as some of the ones that have hit this Earth have been, so it is perfectly understandable how the lower life forms at the time survived.

Just as an aside, how do you explain all the supervolcanoes on Earth? How about yellowstone, we have proof that it has went off several times with a time span about about 650 thousand(?) years between eruptions. How can the Earth be so young yet have so many super eruption marks that are atleast 650 thousand years apart? On second thought, don't answer that, I'm sure your explanation isn't anything worth reading.


"Yeah, to the evolutionist it is no doubt organic. Uh, oh, I just breathed out some CO2. There goes something organic. I'm reproducing." - HoundedHawk demonstrating his vast knowledge of complex organic molecules and their formation
This post was edited on 3/6 9:33 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Since you decided to take some sig material, I'll take my own.


"Yeah, to the evolutionist it is no doubt organic. Uh, oh, I just breathed out some CO2. There goes something organic. I'm reproducing."
- HoundedHawk


What do you think? Personally, I think it looks like a child with those last 3 sentences. It'll be up as long as you keep yours.
Please, please keep it. It's an appropriate mock for what you evolutionists should consider "organic."

This post was edited on 3/6 5:05 PM by HoundedHawk
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

Oh I will, you can count on that. It really demonstrates the child like argument/mind put forward by creationist, don't ya think?


"Yeah, to the evolutionist it is no doubt organic. Uh, oh, I just breathed out some CO2. There goes something organic. I'm reproducing." - HoundedHawk demonstrating his vast knowledge of complex organic molecules and their formation
This post was edited on 3/6 8:05 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

ThumperHawk

HR All-American
Sep 30, 2001
4,212
10
38
I do not have enough time in the day to read through this entire thread, but just perusing the last page, I have to call Dave on his bull_____.

Originally posted by Dave Wyatt:
In law direct evidence supercedes circumstantial evidence, which has been used in millions of cases, to convict criminals of crimes. As defined in the legal encyclopedia, direct evidence is evidence in the form of testimony from a witness who actually saw, heard, or touched the subject of questioning.
Good luck recruiting these eyewitnesses to the stand. It would be pretty hard to cross-examine these "witnesses" from the grave. To pretend that 2000 year-old texts are just as reliable as contemporary witnesses is just absurd. It is widely argued that the gospel accounts were written anonymously, and not by the "eyewitnesses" they are attributed to.

Originally posted by Dave Wyatt:
Taking that into account, the testimony, the eyewitness accounts, the historical independent references of Josephus (especially the Arabic translations), it can be stated as FACT that Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, resurrected, and was seen alive and walking after all these events by hundreds upon hundreds of EYEWITNESSES.
Bull____. We do NOT have hundreds of eyewitness accounts. We have the 4 gospels and a handful of apocrypha, which fundamentalists themselves don't even consider to be accurate. And how many times are you going to trot out that tired reference to Josephus? The Testimonium Flavium is viewed as an outright forgery even by most conservative of scholars.

Originally posted by Dave Wyatt:
...and continue to be verified by ongoing archaeologiical, historical, and linguistic refinement, your choice not to believe should, logically, be altered by what you hold as the end-all be-all of conscious decision making. Science.
Archaeologiical refinement: Endlessly unearthing such treasures as the Holy Lance.

Historical refinement: Continued development of arguments to defend the dearth of historical evidence for the Slaughter of the Innocents. See also the Josephus forgery above.

Linguistic refinement: Finding ways to tone down the language of a wrathful god who would massacre 42 children for taunting a bald man.
This post was edited on 3/6 11:40 PM by Dave Wyattif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"Good luck recruiting these eyewitnesses to the stand. It would be pretty hard to cross-examine these "witnesses" from the grave. To pretend that 2000 year-old texts are just as reliable as contemporary witnesses is just absurd. It is widely argued that the gospel accounts were written anonymously, and not by the "eyewitnesses" they are attributed to.
"




Exactly.


"Yeah, to the evolutionist it is no doubt organic. Uh, oh, I just breathed out some CO2. There goes something organic. I'm reproducing." - HoundedHawk demonstrating his vast knowledge of complex organic molecules and their formation
This post was edited on 3/6 9:22 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

jrotten666

HR MVP
Oct 7, 2006
1,599
0
36
And to clarify about the Arabic version of Josephus:

The "Arabic Josephus"
In a novel embellishment to the notion of an orthodox Jew giving testimony of Jesus, defenders of the faith have in recent times tossed an Arabic version of the Josephus text on to their pile of dubious evidence. The Arabic recension was brought to light in 1971 by Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Pines himself remained cautious about claims of untampered authenticity but the brethren have no such reservations, such is their desperation to keep Josephus in the witness stand for Jesus.
The work in question is actually a history of the world to the year 941/942 penned by a Christian Arab bishop, Agapius of Hierapolis. His World History preserves, in Arabic translation, a version of the Testimonium minus the most obvious Christian interpolations.
But what does a 10th century copy actually prove?
Claims that the Arabic passage itself dates from the 4th century are untenable (written Arabic barely existed at such an early date). Moreover Agapius was a Melkite Christian (pro-Byzantium) at a time of intensifying Islamization of his native Syria. What he wrote was political correctness for his own times. A new Shia Hamdani dynasty had been established barely 50 miles away in Aleppo. Its first prince, Sayf ad Dawlah (sword of the state), began a century of persistent attacks against Byzantium. Agapius' paraphrase of a Syriac rendition of Josephus from a Greek original rather significantly mentions JC's "condemnation to die" but not the actuality of it and of JC being "alive" 3 days later – in other words, a carefully balanced compatibility with Muhammad's view of a Jesus as a prophet who did not die on the cross.
In short, the Arabic Josephus is no evidence of the Christian godman and serves only to confuse the unwary.


Josephus
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by ThumperHawk:
I do not have enough time in the day to read through this entire thread, but just perusing the last page, I have to call Dave on his bull____.

Bull____. We do NOT have hundreds of eyewitness accounts. We have the 4 gospels and a handful of apocrypha, which fundamentalists themselves don't even consider to be accurate. And how many times are you going to trot out that tired reference to Josephus? The Testimonium Flavium is viewed as an outright forgery even by most conservative of scholars.
Hey, Thumper, good to see you.

I noticed that you had posted a short little paper I had done on the historical Jesus on some other website. If you remember I dealt with the Josephus quote. Yes, even I admit it could have been tampered with, but not to the extent that it interferes with Josephus acknowledging Christ lived and had a following as the Messiah. Therefore, Josephus acknowledges a significant number of followers who would have had first hand knowledge at least concerning witnesses.

And there are more witnesses of the resurrection than what was quoted above. All the writers of the epistles also would have made the claim to the resurrection. The apostle Paul mentions there were only about 500 witnesses to the resurrection.
This post was edited on 3/6 11:42 PM by Dave Wyattif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Oh I will, you can count on that. It really demonstrates the child like argument/mind put forward by creationist, don't ya think?


"Yeah, to the evolutionist it is no doubt organic. Uh, oh, I just breathed out some CO2. There goes something organic. I'm reproducing." - HoundedHawk demonstrating his vast knowledge of complex organic molecules and their formation
Hey, where did it go? It's not on your last post. Wow, yet another lie. That didn't take long. You said I could count on it.

Oh, and now you're talking "complex organic molecules." It's hard to keep up with your shifting arguments. This is almost as bad as when you got caught with your fallacious "consciousness" argument for abortion.
This post was edited on 3/6 9:45 PM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Oh I will, you can count on that. It really demonstrates the child like argument/mind put forward by creationist, don't ya think?


"Yeah, to the evolutionist it is no doubt organic. Uh, oh, I just breathed out some CO2. There goes something organic. I'm reproducing." - HoundedHawk demonstrating his vast knowledge of complex organic molecules and their formation
Hey, where did it go? It's not on your last post. Is this yet another lie?

Oh, and now you're talking "complex organic molecules." I see.

My sig was disabled a few months ago for picture size, so I've just been putting it as I revise my posts. Don't you worry though, email already sent to get it enabled.

And yes, that is exactly what we were talking about. Would you like me to put your whole post and my preceding one in there as well for good measure
This post was edited on 3/6 9:39 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:


Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Yes, LDS, there are scientific facts. As I posted in another post on this thread, a scientific theory can never be proven completely because that requires infinite tests and that is impossible. The point of saying its a "scientific fact" was that there is so much evidence to support evolution that is it basically rock solid at this point. It certainly has a few holes left it in,
Yep, there's a fact to iowahawkeyes1986. It's an unproven theory that still has holes in it.


Not a surprise to me that you still don't understand what a scientific theory is. Here let me help you out ignorant one:
I don't need help understanding what a theory is. Before you were around to even crap in your diaper I had already been there and done that. What you seem to forget is that I've already been an evolutionist.

I know your mumbo jumbo. But it's still the truth that a theory is not necessarily fact.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:


Originally posted by HoundedHawk:



Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Yes, LDS, there are scientific facts. As I posted in another post on this thread, a scientific theory can never be proven completely because that requires infinite tests and that is impossible. The point of saying its a "scientific fact" was that there is so much evidence to support evolution that is it basically rock solid at this point. It certainly has a few holes left it in,
Yep, there's a fact to iowahawkeyes1986. It's an unproven theory that still has holes in it.


Not a surprise to me that you still don't understand what a scientific theory is. Here let me help you out ignorant one:
I don't need help understanding what a theory is. Before you were around to even crap in your diaper I had already been there and done that. What you seem to forget is that I've already been an evolutionist.

I know your mumbo jumbo. But it's still the truth that a theory is not necessarily fact.

To lay people yes. To scientist who actually study the field, no. The cited article in my posts noted that while there may be small changes made to specific details of the theory, overall it is correct.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:


Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
I'm glad you ignored the second link in that post hounded, which completely destroys your argument. Really telling that you didn't comment on that one.
I didn't ignore the link. It's just as irrelevant as the first. And the statement I quoted proves how ridiculous it is if you would just think about it for a minute.

Yes you did, because the 2nd link is different from the first link, and somehow you came to the conclusion it is irrelevant, which it isn't considering the topic being discussed in that post. Good try though.


Your bizarre endless claims to read minds is really starting to bore me.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
No, there is no backtracking there, look up the definition of what quantum theory is, it deals with the motions of very small objects and why they do what they do.
Oh, really. Thanks for the revelation. Who would have known?

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Quantum theory is an essential part of the universe as a whole and it does provide us with a means to show how the universe came into existence without a cause,
And I will repeat that it certainly does not. It's odd that you believe in magic.


This post was edited on 3/7 3:58 PM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

ThumperHawk

HR All-American
Sep 30, 2001
4,212
10
38
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
Hey, Thumper, good to see you.
It's been awhile, Hounded. Good to see you've lifted your self-imposed exile. I trust you and yours are doing well.

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
Yes, even I admit it could have been tampered with, but not to the extent that it interferes with Josephus acknowledging Christ lived and had a following as the Messiah.
And why could it not have been wholly fabricated? As is mentioned in the link above, the Testimonium Flavium completely interrupts the narrative of The Antiquities:

Originally posted by Kenneth Harding:
Section 2 of the chapter containing it
gives an account of a Jewish sedition which was suppressed by Pilate
with great slaughter. The account ends as follows: "There were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; and thus an end was put to this sedition." Section 4, as now numbered, begins with these words: "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder." The one section naturally and logically follows the other. Yet between these two closely connected paragraphs the one relating to Christ is placed; thus making the words, "another sad calamity," refer to the advent of this wise and wonderful being.

The early Christian fathers were not acquainted with it. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all would have quoted this passage had it existed in their time. The failure of even one of these fathers to notice it would be sufficient to throw doubt upon its genuineness; the failure of all of them to notice it proves conclusively that it is spurious, that it was not in existence during the second and third centuries.



This post was edited on 3/6 9:46 PM by ThumperHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:


Originally posted by HoundedHawk:



Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
I'm glad you ignored the second link in that post hounded, which completely destroys your argument. Really telling that you didn't comment on that one.
I didn't ignore the link. It's just as irrelevant as the first. And the statement I quoted proves how ridiculous it is if you would just think about it for a minute.

Yes you did, because the 2nd link is different from the first link, and somehow you came to the conclusion it is irrelevant, which it isn't considering the topic being discussed in that post. Good try though.


Your bizarre endless claims to read minds is really starting to bore me.

Hey, I'm not the one who argued that the brain is too complex to form naturally through evolution(the brain is consciousness) and then not recognize my own argument as the one typically used by creationists called, "the argument for consciousness."

Here, this site details the argument and why it is one and the same with what you argued.

"Some people claim that consciousness is too mysterious or complex to be explained scientifically, therefore a god is necessary. Consciousness certainly is complex, and we probably can't completely understand it — in part because it is so subjective; but that doesn't mean that some god is its source any more that we need a god to explain the weather. Consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex living brain. Anyone who has had a mammal as a pet knows that animals think and emote. They may not think as well as we do, because their brains aren’t as complex as ours, but they definitely think and even dream. Even simple animals such as worms show a very limited consciousness by responding to their environment. The more complex the brain, the more complex the consciousness. We also know that, when a person’s brain is damaged, the person can lose part of his consciousness. The sad cases where the brain is extremely damaged can result in a “persistent vegetative state” with no consciousness. God(s) aren’t necessary to explain consciousness; functioning complex brains are."

Complexity of brain = complexity of consciousness

If a brain as complex as ours could not have evolved naturally, then neither could our conscious.
This post was edited on 3/6 9:46 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"And I will repeat that it certainly does not. It'd odd that you believe in magic."

Thankfully, the scientific community doesn't view it the same way you do.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"And I will repeat that it certainly does not. It'd odd that you believe in magic."

Thankfully, the scientific community doesn't view it the same way you do.
And there are members of the scientific community that agree with me.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"And I will repeat that it certainly does not. It'd odd that you believe in magic."

Thankfully, the scientific community doesn't view it the same way you do.
And there are members of the scientific community that agree with me.

I'm sure there are. I'm sure you can still find scientist who think the Earth is flat or that man and dinos walked together. None of which will be found in the scientific majority, which is one majority that actually matters.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:


Your bizarre endless claims to read minds is really starting to bore me.


[/QUOTE]

Hey, I'm not the one who argued that the brain is too complex to form naturally through evolution(the brain is consciousness) and then not recognize my own argument as the one typically used by creationists called, "the argument for consciousness."

[/B][/QUOTE]
Well, I know the argument well, and I know I didn't go that far. The argument stands whether there is consciousness or not.

But, you being the mind reader you are, actually know my intentions. Actually, you're just a punk kid who doesn't know when to admit they're wrong.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:


Your bizarre endless claims to read minds is really starting to bore me.






Hey, I'm not the one who argued that the brain is too complex to form naturally through evolution(the brain is consciousness) and then not recognize my own argument as the one typically used by creationists called, "the argument for consciousness."




Well, I know the argument well, and I know I didn't go that far. The argument stands whether there is consciousness or not.

But, you being the mind reader you are, actually know my intentions. Actually, you're just a punk kid who doesn't know when to admit they're wrong.[/B]

Maybe you need to go back a few pages and look one of your posts:

"No, I would say it is still statistically impossible. Those are still infinitesimally small numbers when talking of the total odds for a brain to come about."

So saying it is statistically impossible for a brain to come about/evolve doesn't equal consciousness can't come about? The brain IS consciousness. If the brain can't evolve neither can the conscious.

I'm hurt hounded. Punk kid? Why don't you tell me how you really feel?
This post was edited on 3/6 9:58 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

ThumperHawk

HR All-American
Sep 30, 2001
4,212
10
38
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
All the writers of the epistles also would have made the claim to the resurrection. The apostle Paul mentions there were only about 500 witnesses to the resurrection.
This may be true, but such testimony is, in fact, hearsay and hardly the kind of stone-cold "direct evidence" that Dave was arguing for in his initial post. And let's not forget that the only time Paul ever "met" Jesus was in a vision or dream - a topic that I strongly suspect might come up on cross-examination in Dave's courtroom of truth.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:


I'm sure there are. I'm sure you can still find scientist who think the Earth is flat or that man and dinos walked together. None of which will be found in the scientific majority, which is one majority that actually matters.
[/QUOTE]
No, I doubt there is one practicing scientist who believes the Earth is flat.

And, I see. You're back to the majority thing. Well, let me quote you then.

Ahh comfort in numbers. Gives you that safe and secure feeling doesn't it? You see, if you have to defend your little fairy tale by arguing about the number of people who believe in it makes it viable, you aren't going to get very far. - iowahawkeyes1986
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:


I'm sure there are. I'm sure you can still find scientist who think the Earth is flat or that man and dinos walked together. None of which will be found in the scientific majority, which is one majority that actually matters.



No, I doubt there is one practicing scientist who believes the Earth is flat.

And, I see. You're back to the majority thing. Well, let me quote you then.


Ahh comfort in numbers. Gives you that safe and secure feeling doesn't it? You see, if you have to defend your little fairy tale by arguing about the number of people who believe in it makes it viable, you aren't going to get very far. - iowahawkeyes1986


You can quote me, because a scientific majority through the scientific method is hardly the same as lay peoples opinions in masses, I'm not shocked you don't see the difference.

Heres another little nugget for you. That same scientific majority, when confronted with contradictory evidence which follows the scientific method and is free of mistakes, will change their opinion and there will be a new scientific majority.
This post was edited on 3/6 10:02 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Maybe you need to go back a few pages and look one of your posts:

"No, I would say it is still statistically impossible. Those are still infinitesimally small numbers when talking of the total odds for a brain to come about."

So saying it is statistically impossible for a brain to come about/evolve doesn't equal consciousness can't come about? The brain IS consciousness. If the brain can't evolve neither can the conscious.
No kidding on your last sentence. But arguing about our level of consciousness is beyond arguing what I was. You see I KNOW what I was arguing. You don't. But you won't admit it because you're an arrogant college kid.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
I'm hurt hounded. Punk kid? Why don't you tell me how you really feel?
I feel you are a young college punk who thinks they know everything. I know. It takes one to know one. I used to be there. I played that game. But you are also arrogant beyond belief and dance on the edge of theories and think the vast scientific community is with you on this "fact" stuff. Most of them have lived long enough to know and admit there is a ton of speculation going on and are very careful with the term "fact." And I don't need a mere theory, I know it is fact that you are also an obvious multiple liar as proven in this thread.

I've never personally had this sort of problem dealing with Thumper. I think I'll pretty quick here stick to primarily debating him on this stuff.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by ThumperHawk:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
All the writers of the epistles also would have made the claim to the resurrection. The apostle Paul mentions there were only about 500 witnesses to the resurrection.
This may be true, but such testimony is, in fact, hearsay and hardly the kind of stone-cold "direct evidence" that Dave was arguing for in his initial post. And let's not forget that the only time Paul ever "met" Jesus was in a vision or dream - a topic that I strongly suspect might come up on cross-examination in Dave's courtroom of truth.
Well, you know my position. I think the evidence is very good, especially in comparison to how the world deems other events at the time as "fact" by the same standards.

Concerning, Paul, we don't know how many times he saw Jesus, even before the resurrection. Paul was in Jerusalem holding the cloaks of those who killed Stephen most likely within a year of the resurrection. He was taught by Gamaliel and lived in Jerusalem at the time.

Ac 22:3 - “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, just as you all are today. - (NASB)
And it is Paul who mentions the 500 witnesses and talked first hand to many of them.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"No kidding on your last sentence. But arguing about our level of consciousness is beyond arguing what I was. You see I KNOW what I was arguing. You don't. But you won't admit it because you're an arrogant college kid."

LOL. Maybe it is beyond what you were arguing in your simple little mind, but to everyone else who has a clue on this subject, consciousness=complexity of brain and by arguing that a brain can't arise through evolution, you are by default arguing that the consciousness can't evolve either. Get it?

I never said I know everything. Infact, most of the posts I am invovled in deal with cosmology and physiscs anymore, so I by no means have ever claimed to know everything, you just choose to say that because I'm taking it to your strongly held, but poorly founded, beliefs. It isn't my fault your god decide to make his story so full of holes.

Hounded, just becuse you don't agree with the conclusions of those theories doesn't make them any less true. I have already pointed out numerous times in this thread what a theory is. Overall they are facts. Only small details need changing because it is mostly correct. So while you still claim that a theory doesn't equal a fact, you are woefully wrong when it is spoken within scientific realms.

Yeah I'm a liar because I choose to comeback to a thread on an internet message board so that must mean I'm just a total liar. Get a clue Hounded.
This post was edited on 3/6 10:23 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Btw Hounded just to even out our opinions of one another, I think you are a Christian fundamentalist(and I mean that in a Punk kid kinda way) stuck in your ways and can only see one view point no matter what. Even if someone presented you evidence that positively disproved any chance of there being a god or specifically the Chrisitan god, you would say "bs, that doesn't prove anything," no matter how solid the evidence. Because your at the point where no amount of evidence against your beliefs is ever going to change your point of view. Yet you have the balls to tell me I'm stuck in my ways, I'm completely open to new scientific discoveries that may change our current views. What I am not open to, is bs super natural explanations for natural occurences. Save your fairy tales for the kids.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"No kidding on your last sentence. But arguing about our level of consciousness is beyond arguing what I was. You see I KNOW what I was arguing. You don't. But you won't admit it because you're an arrogant college kid."

LOL. Maybe it is beyond what you were arguing in your simple little mind, but to everyone else who has a clue on this subject, consciousness=complexity of brain and by arguing that a brain can't arise through evolution, you are by default arguing that the consciousness can't evolve either. Get it
No, I won't "get" your wrong assumption. If I wanted to argue consciousness/sentience then I would have gone there. It's even beyond the mere physical nature of the brain, IMO. Now, if you were a real mind reader you would have know that. But you're just arrogant.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
I never said I know everything. Infact, most of the posts I am invovled in deal with cosmology and physiscs anymore, so I by no means have ever claimed to know everything, you just choose to say that because I'm taking it to your strongly held, but poorly founded, beliefs. It isn't my fault your god decide to make his story so full of holes.
And there are far larger holes in your little beliefs.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Hounded, just becuse you don't agree with the conclusions of those theories doesn't make them any less true.
And just because you believe them doesn't make them anymore true.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
I have already pointed out numerous times in this thread what a theory is. Overall they are facts. Only small details need changing because it is mostly correct. So while you still claim that a theory doesn't equal a fact, you are woefully wrong when it is spoken within scientific realms.
No, I'm not wrong on it. A theory is not a fact. And something that is mostly correct may not be all correct. And that's exactly what you need to state things the way you do, to the extent you do, to the gigantic ramifications you do. But you don't have it. At least I use laws as laws. You'll quote some finding of the smallest speck of matter going missing for a moment and then you shout from the rooftops, "We now have the means to know the entire universe came from absolutely and purely nothing!" What an abuse of science.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Yeah I'm a liar because I choose to comeback to a thread on an internet message board so that must mean I'm just a total liar. Get a clue Hounded.
No, you're a liar because you lie. Just because it is on an internet message board doesn't change the fact you are. You said you would not post in this thread anymore. You didn't. You lied. You said another time it was your last post. It wasn't. You lied. You said you would keep my quote for a sig. You didn't. You lied. I could put up with one, but you just continue.

And since we now know that to you a lie on a message board is not really a lie, or a big deal, then we can now assume you probably lie at your convenience in a whole host of other posts. I think I will leave you with a quote from that book you so, so despise.

Lk 16:10 - “He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. - (NASB)
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Btw Hounded just to even out our opinions of one another, I think you are a Christian fundamentalist(and I mean that in a Punk kid kinda way) stuck in your ways and can only see one view point no matter what.
And you would be quite wrong because I was a strong evolutionist at one time. But, as usual, you didn't learn that lesson when it was taught on here.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Even if someone presented you evidence that positively disproved any chance of there being a god or specifically the Chrisitan god, you would say "bs, that doesn't prove anything," no matter how solid the evidence.
iowahakeyes1986, the Great MindReader, continues with his deep, mystical probing. Going so far now that he even now boasts being a prophet, completely able to tell what somebody will absolutely do in the future.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Because your at the point where no amount of evidence against your beliefs is ever going to change your point of view. Yet you have the balls to tell me I'm stuck in my ways, I'm completely open to new scientific discoveries that may change our current views. What I am not open to, is bs super natural explanations for natural occurences. Save your fairy tales for the kids.
Ah, but remember. You wouldn't know if they are fairy tales or not, because by your own admission you won't even check them out or consider them.

You will always be limited to potential truth because you have closed your mind to only what you can perceive at this moment in your life.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"No, I won't "get" your wrong assumption. If I wanted to argue consciousness/sentience then I would have gone there. It's even beyond the mere physical nature of the brain, IMO. Now, if you were a real mind reader you would have know that. But you're just arrogant."

LOL continue to spin it however you want. The connection is there, you just choose to ignore it.

"And there are far larger holes in your little beliefs."

Says the guy who bases his entire beliefs on hearsay and not on actual evidence.

"And just because you believe them doesn't make them anymore true."

I never said that my belief in them makes them true, the evidence behind them does.

"No, I'm not wrong on it. A theory is not a fact. And something that is mostly correct may not be all correct. And that's exactly what you need to state things the way you do, to the extent you do, to the gigantic ramifications you do. But you don't have it. At least I use laws as laws. You'll quote some finding of the smallest speck of matter going missing for a moment and then you shout from the rooftops, "We now have the means to know the entire universe came from absolutely and purely nothing!" What an abuse of science."

Yes you are. You are applying laymen terms to the scientific community and that is idiotic. If you didn't realize something, theories are hardly if ever totally replaced, thats why they can become fact even though there may be small details that need ot be changed.

"No, you're a liar because you lie. Just because it is on an internet message board doesn't change the fact you are. You said you would not post in this thread anymore. You didn't. You lied. You said another time it was your last post. It wasn't. You lied. You said you would keep my quote for a sig. You didn't. You lied. I could put up with one, but you just continue."

I gave a reason why I came back and it was a legitmate one. It really doesn't surprise me you focus on this, the rest of your argument is pretty worthless so lets not deal with the actual conversation at hand, lets change the subject. Not to mention, now you yourself are lying about what your original argument about brains, but you just spin it to "I wasn't arguing that" when it is clear you were. But again, that doesn't surprise me.

And yes, your comment is still my sig, I am waiting for my sig to be enabled and I'm not going to continue to go copy and paste it again so I can add it at the end of each post, I'll just wait for it to be enabled thank you.


This post was edited on 3/6 10:58 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:


Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:


I'm sure there are. I'm sure you can still find scientist who think the Earth is flat or that man and dinos walked together. None of which will be found in the scientific majority, which is one majority that actually matters.






No, I doubt there is one practicing scientist who believes the Earth is flat.

And, I see. You're back to the majority thing. Well, let me quote you then.



Ahh comfort in numbers. Gives you that safe and secure feeling doesn't it? You see, if you have to defend your little fairy tale by arguing about the number of people who believe in it makes it viable, you aren't going to get very far. - iowahawkeyes1986


You can quote me, because a scientific majority through the scientific method is hardly the same as lay peoples opinions in masses, I'm not shocked you don't see the difference.

Heres another little nugget for you. That same scientific majority, when confronted with contradictory evidence which follows the scientific method and is free of mistakes, will change their opinion and there will be a new scientific majority.
Oh, double standard iowahawkeyes 1986. Just goes with the crowd. It's OK for him, but not for others.

It's as if he doesn't know how many countless times the majority of scientist have been wrong on things in the past. Right now the vast majority of scientist are surely wrong on something, but they just don't know it yet. Born a few decades earlier He'd may be one of those yelling, "You can't break the sound barrier!" But that's OK. Being a scientist means you're "right" even when you're wrong.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"And you would be quite wrong because I was a strong evolutionist at one time. But, as usual, you didn't learn that lesson when it was taught on here.

It doesn't matter what you were, I understood you completely in your other post, you are now a Christian fundamentalist.

"iowahakeyes1986, the Great MindReader, continues with his deep, mystical probing. Going so far now that he even now boasts being a prophet, completely able to tell what somebody will absolutely do in the future."

Because you've been so accepting of any science on this board that supports evolution. In all the years I've read this board, I have never seen you once accept any evolutionary argument as fact. Hell you won't even enterain the idea of evolution. I have perfectly good reasoning to believe that you won't change your mind ever.

"Ah, but remember. You wouldn't know if they are fairy tales or not, because by your own admission you won't even check them out or consider them.

You will always be limited to potential truth because you have closed your mind to only what you can perceive at this moment in your life."


Noahs Ark = fairy tale
God creating man in his own image = fairy tale
Virgin getting pregnant = fairy tale
Son of god = fairy tale

I know enough about them to know that they are bs and don't have any factual evidence to support them

Truth has nothing to do with the supernatural and I'd be completely open to any other natural explanation.
This post was edited on 3/6 11:05 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Oh, double standard iowahawkeyes 1986. Just goes with the crowd. It's OK for him, but not for others.

It's as if he doesn't know how many countless times the majority of scientist have been wrong on things in the past. Right now the vast majority of scientist are surely wrong on something, but they just don't know it yet. Born a few decades earlier He'd may be one of those yelling, "You can't break the sound barrier!" But that's OK. Being a scientist means you're "right" even when you're wrong."


So you are equating lay peoples opinions on things with a scientific majority made through the scientific process. Gotcha

Yes, they have been wrong, and they have been proven wrong using the scientific method, and you know what, after they were proven wrong, the scientific community changed its mind. Which is exactly what my last post said, but you ignored that in favor of "its a double standard." There is a completely different set of methods used to arrive at each majority.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"And you would be quite wrong because I was a strong evolutionist at one time. But, as usual, you didn't learn that lesson when it was taught on here.

It doesn't matter what you were, you are now a Christian fundamentalist.
Which, of course, is a lousy backing of your original point that I would not change. My life is proof of change. And it is a fact Christian fundamentalists have changed. Therefore, your point was weighed in the scales and found wanting.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"iowahakeyes1986, the Great MindReader, continues with his deep, mystical probing. Going so far now that he even now boasts being a prophet, completely able to tell what somebody will absolutely do in the future."

Because you've been so accepting of any science on this board that supports evolution. In all the years I've read this board, I have never seen you once accept any evolutionary argument as fact. I have perfectly good reasoning to believe that you won't change your mind ever. [/B]
I only accept facts as fact, that's why. I won't accept your spurious theories as facts. And the number is growing daily of the number of scientists that doubt aspects of macro evolution.

If you present me a fact, I will believe it EVERY SINGLE TIME. Therefore, get off your prophet kick. For not believing in them, you sure do emulate them in their prognostication.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Ah, but remember. You wouldn't know if they are fairy tales or not, because by your own admission you won't even check them out or consider them.

You will always be limited to potential truth because you have closed your mind to only what you can perceive at this moment in your life."


Noahs Ark = fairy tale
God creating man in his own image = fairy tale
Virgin getting pregnant = fairy tale
Son of god = fairy tale

I know enough about them to know that they are bs and don't have any factual evidence to support them

Truth has nothing to do with the supernatural and I'd be completely open to any other natural explanation.[/B]
As I said, since you won't go beyond the natural your potential for knowing truth will always be limited. You can't think outside the box.

You don't KNOW if even one of the things you listed is a fairy tale. NOT ONE. Yet, there is factual evidence for each one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.