|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 14, 2019 22:16:37 GMT -5
Once, long ago, decades ago in the late 60’s, when the drillers were working on the first well drilled on Jacobsen Property, I had the good fortune to get to be there, witness it, even ask a few questions.
Was told about the millions of years ago while animals walked on the face of the earth, died, turned to oil... So, merely asked what science had to say about the temp. of our sun that long ago. A troubled stone faced response was, “what are you, some kind of a lawyer?” End of conversation. And so it goes even yet, the various sciences even seem to disagree with each other.
Do I know why? Nope. When pressed neither do they. Dennis what did you expect from oil drillers? A lecture from scientists?
Sheesh! You really do think I am dumber than a rock, don’t you?
Do you really think the one I would have been talking with was not but a driller? Really?
Well, it wasn’t, it was the lead geologist on the job, if ya gotta know. Your apology is accepted.
OK, OK, -Dennis!
However, no apology is going to be offered. So you don't have to be "saintly" and accept it! ">
Why didn't you tell us that it was a geologist whom gave you that answer?
You also said of him that: "A troubled stone faced response was, “what are you, some kind of a lawyer?”"
How did you discern he had a "troubled" face?
You also say, "And so it goes even yet, the various sciences even seem to disagree with each other."
The sciences agree with each other far more often than religions agree with each other Even far more often than Christians within Christianity agree with each other!
Even far more often than ex-2x2's agree with each other when they shift to a different Christian religion!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 22:56:37 GMT -5
Why Biblical Creation is Good Science 4/10/14 @ 3:30 pm EST www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOhXJZ61y3g(starts off with video difficulty, but worth hanging in there) Excerpt - Evolution Is An Atheistic Worldview Sir Ambrose Fleming (famous Cambridge scientist): “Evolution is essentially atheistic ...an attempt to dispense with the vey idea of God.” Fleming A. 1938 Evolution or Creation? London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott
|
|
|
Post by Dennis J on Aug 14, 2019 23:37:13 GMT -5
Dennis what did you expect from oil drillers? A lecture from scientists?
Sheesh! You really do think I am dumber than a rock, don’t you?
Do you really think the one I would have been talking with was not but a driller? Really?
Well, it wasn’t, it was the lead geologist on the job, if ya gotta know. Your apology is accepted.
OK, OK, -Dennis!
However, no apology is going to be offered. So you don't have to be "saintly" and accept it! ">
Why didn't you tell us that it was a geologist whom gave you that answer?
You also said of him that: "A troubled stone faced response was, “what are you, some kind of a lawyer?”"
How did you discern he had a "troubled" face?
You also say, "And so it goes even yet, the various sciences even seem to disagree with each other."
The sciences agree with each other far more often than religions agree with each other Even far more often than Christians within Christianity agree with each other!
Even far more often than ex-2x2's agree with each other when they shift to a different Christian religion!
Laughing! Oh lady, you are SO predictable! Wasn’t even discussing what “Christians” of any sort believe, great logic shift there! However, personally I find there are a few points upon which all agree... God is, was, and ever will be, and His Holy Ghost and Son are one with the Father, His Son has made atonement for us, and the best lies ahead are a few of the things upon which most claiming to be “Christian” all agree. And if you aren’t able to read body language, please don’t assign that failure also to me! If you need visual instruction, try going back to non-verbal communication classes.... LOL LOL, Dennis
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2019 0:35:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 15, 2019 1:05:34 GMT -5
But you (collective) have not proven anything scientifically, so you have NOT given scientists what they have asked for. that may be your perception but that wouldn't necessarily be fact.... Easy to check. The Gish galloper has been throwing piece after piece at the wall yet has never been able to offer verifiable data to support the claims.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 15, 2019 1:25:30 GMT -5
Sheesh! You really do think I am dumber than a rock, don’t you?
Do you really think the one I would have been talking with was not but a driller? Really?
Well, it wasn’t, it was the lead geologist on the job, if ya gotta know. Your apology is accepted.
All readers have to go on are the posts people make. Once, long ago, decades ago in the late 60’s, when the drillers were working on the first well drilled on Jacobsen Property, I had the good fortune to get to be there, witness it, even ask a few questions.
Was told about the millions of years ago while animals walked on the face of the earth, died, turned to oil... So, merely asked what science had to say about the temp. of our sun that long ago. A troubled stone faced response was, “what are you, some kind of a lawyer?” End of conversation. And so it goes even yet, the various sciences even seem to disagree with each other.
Do I know why? Nope. When pressed neither do they. Given what you posted and the mention of drillers on site I don't think it would be far off rack. And if there are drillers there are roughnecks. But you said you asked the geologist about the temperature of the sun in the very distant past. While he might be familiar with various types of rocks, geosynclines, and oil/gas salt domes but helioseismology? Judging from his response the question confused him. His not knowing certainly does not indicate disagreement.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 15, 2019 1:43:08 GMT -5
I think this sums it up. Bill Nye: The fundamental thing we disagree on, Mr. Ham, is this nature of what you can prove to yourself. When people make assumptions, they're making assumptions based on previous experience. They're not coming out of whole cloth. I encourage you to explain to us why we should accept your word for it, that natural law changed just years ago completely, and there's no record of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 18:09:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 17, 2019 22:44:17 GMT -5
I have heard they exist but it is rare to find a Gish Gallop in the wild.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 18, 2019 13:28:36 GMT -5
Why do you think your post is so important that anyone would want to preserve it, -Gratu?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 18, 2019 13:43:22 GMT -5
You are hillarious rational - if you knew who you maske your grave stone for, he could view your post as a death threat and after experiencing REAL death threats from a few 2x2s, one from YOU would make me laugh. So now you have put an alias in a grave - a marvelous self-display of superiority. Hardly could be a death threat since, according to the marker, they have yet to be born. No, I do not feel any need to refute all of the videos you posted during your gallop. They have all been refuted multiple times by people who, as opposed to Gish, had actual data to back up their claims. Following an article once again explaining the errors promoted by Creationist sites, the ones that @gratu had used as source material at least since 2019-03-01, the follow paragraph explained: With these examples in mind, it is hardly surprising that ICR continues to promote errors refuted more than a decade ago. Those who take the time to reply to creationist attacks on science find themselves slaying the slain a thousand times over. And no matter how dead a creationist error might appear to be, it always has the hope of resurrection in the Bible-Science Newsletter.
Scientific Creationism and Error. I agree. But it had more value than the ones dropped during your last Gish Gallop...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2019 17:28:34 GMT -5
You are hillarious rational - if you knew who you maske your grave stone for, he could view your post as a death threat and after experiencing REAL death threats from a few 2x2s, one from YOU would make me laugh. So now you have put an alias in a grave - a marvelous self-display of superiority. Hardly could be a death threat since, according to the marker, they have yet to be born. No, I do not feel any need to refute all of the videos you posted during your gallop. They have all been refuted multiple times by people who, as opposed to Gish, had actual data to back up their claims. Following an article once again explaining the errors promoted by Creationist sites, the ones that @gratu had used as source material at least since 2019-03-01, the follow paragraph explained: With these examples in mind, it is hardly surprising that ICR continues to promote errors refuted more than a decade ago. Those who take the time to reply to creationist attacks on science find themselves slaying the slain a thousand times over. And no matter how dead a creationist error might appear to be, it always has the hope of resurrection in the Bible-Science Newsletter.
Scientific Creationism and Error. I agree. But it had more value than the ones dropped during your last Gish Gallop... Comparison - The top level of 2x2 workers are people who demonstrate a superiority complex. And they make false assertions against all other churches in order to push 2x2ism as superior to any other church. And their god is a different 'Jesus' from the Jesus of Scripture – a pattern-preacher for them to copy, making themselves 'messiahs' for their followers. And when confronted with their false assertions against all other churches not once have they even attempted to substantiate their charge(s). rational of TMB is a former 2x2 who demonstrates a superiority complex. He makes false assertions against “creationists” and “creationist sites” in order to push evolution as superior to creation. And his god is evolution science represented by evolution scientists. And when confronted with his false assertions against creation not once has he even attempted to substantiate his charge(s). Instead he states, “No, I do not feel any need to refute all of the videos you posted during your gallop.“ .
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 18, 2019 18:35:14 GMT -5
The Bible and Modern Man-Duane T. Gish Ph.D. part 1 Something that always seemed odd to me is that those who believe in "creationism," -all of them but especially the ones who believe in a 6000 years creation, -is that they are limiting the power of the very god that they believes exists.
If they truly believe that their god is eternal, -I would think that they could understand him to be powerful to have taken all the time he wanted to produce the evolution of life as we see it.
Now, if I were him/her, -I would think they really did NOT believe me to be "all powerful, all knowing and having always existed!"
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 18, 2019 19:10:36 GMT -5
Hardly could be a death threat since, according to the marker, they have yet to be born. No, I do not feel any need to refute all of the videos you posted during your gallop. They have all been refuted multiple times by people who, as opposed to Gish, had actual data to back up their claims. Following an article once again explaining the errors promoted by Creationist sites, the ones that @gratu had used as source material at least since 2019-03-01, the follow paragraph explained: With these examples in mind, it is hardly surprising that ICR continues to promote errors refuted more than a decade ago. Those who take the time to reply to creationist attacks on science find themselves slaying the slain a thousand times over. And no matter how dead a creationist error might appear to be, it always has the hope of resurrection in the Bible-Science Newsletter.
Scientific Creationism and Error. I agree. But it had more value than the ones dropped during your last Gish Gallop... Comparison - The top level of 2x2 workers are people who demonstrate a superiority complex. And they make false assertions against all other churches in order to push 2x2ism as superior to any other church. And their god is a different 'Jesus' from the Jesus of Scripture – a pattern-preacher for them to copy, making themselves 'messiahs' for their followers. And when confronted with their false assertions against all other churches not once have they even attempted to substantiate their charge(s). rational of TMB is a former 2x2 who demonstrates a superiority complex. He makes false assertions against “creationists” and “creationist sites” in order to push evolution as superior to creation. And his god is evolution science represented by evolution scientists. And when confronted with his false assertions against creation not once has he even attempted to substantiate his charge(s). Instead he states, “No, I do not feel any need to refute all of the videos you posted during your gallop.“ Thanks for this site, Rational. It is informative & needs exposure.
Scientific Creationism and Error by Robert Schadewald Copyright © 1986 Reprinted from Creation/Evolution (v. 6, n. 1, pp. 1-9) with permission from the autho <excerpts>
Creationists like Duane Gish enjoy pointing out evolutionary embarrassments like Piltdown man and Nebraska man. But how do they deal with their own errors? Duane Gish and Creationism at Rutgers
This exchange between Richard Trott and Duane Gish appeared in a student newspaper at Rutgers University. Scientific creationism differs from conventional science in numerous and substantial ways. One obvious difference is the way scientists and creationists deal with error. Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence.
Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine, as evidenced by the statements of belief required by various creationist organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationists. Because creationism is first and foremost a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a peculiar view of truth. Many prominent creationists apparently have the same view of truth as political radicals: -whatever advances the cause is true, whatever damages the cause is false.
From this viewpoint, errors should be covered up where possible and only acknowledged when failure to do so threatens greater damage to the cause. If colleagues spread errors, it is better not to criticize them publicly. Better to have followers deceived than to have them question the legitimacy of their leaders.
In science, fame accrues to those who overturn errors. In dogmatic systems, one who unnecessarily exposes an error to the public is a traitor or an apostate. Ironically, creationists make much of scientific errors. The " Nebraska Man" fiasco, where the tooth of an extinct peccary was misidentified as belonging to a primitive human, is ubiquitous in creationist literature and debate presentations. So is the " Piltdown Man" hoax. Indeed, creationist propagandists often present these two scientific errors as characteristic of paleoanthropology. It is significant that these errors were uncovered and corrected from within the scientific community.
In contrast, creationists rarely expose their own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose them. Duane Gish, a protein biochemist with a Ph.D. from Berkeley, is vice president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and creationism's best-known spokesman. A veteran of perhaps 150 public debates and thousands of lectures and sermons on creationism, Gish is revered among creationists as a great scientist and a tireless fighter for the truth. Among non-creationists, however, Gish has a reputation for making erroneous statements and then pugnaciously refusing to acknowledge them.
One example is an unfinished epic which might be called the tale of two proteins.
The plot thickens! Stay with us! cont @ www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
(emphasis: mine)
Yours truly, dmmichgood
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 18, 2019 20:45:16 GMT -5
Comparison - The top level of 2x2 workers are people who demonstrate a superiority complex. This could be true or not. You seem to have had a lot more experience interacting with the workers. Like the vast majority of religions, the F&W believe they are the ones gaining eternal salvation. This would be a claim that id impossible to verify. It is a matter of beliefs without any data to show that anyone has been 'saved' or, to be truthful, that there is anything following death. Christianity also teaches that it is the only way. Any of the exclusivity and superiority claims being made by any denomination of christianity can be applied to all christians.` According to your interpretation of the scriptures this is so but given the thousands of christian denominations I am guessing in more than one case you are also not worshiping the Jesus that they consider the 'Jesus of Scripture'. Well, that is up to the believers. And when you are dealing with beliefs, as you are here, the lack of verifiable data makes it difficult to prove a point. While it is true that I did grow up in a family that were members of the F&W/2X2 group the fact that I have always been an atheist does shed a little doubt on @gratu ’s claim. Things look very different when the threat of excommunication is removed and being damned to hell has no meaning. You can then interact with people as humans and not as individuals you have placed on a pedestal. I would say that you have a number of issues that need work. You might feel a lot better once they are resolved, if that is possible.I am not making claims against creationist and creationist sites. I am making claims about the false information that are publishing. And that is because they are making claims that can be, and in most cases have been, proved to be incorrect. However, if you can support your statement and provide a false claim I have made I will correct it. Evolution is a theory. Testable and predictive. Your god is a belief. Untestable and non-predictive. This is, of course, a bald-faced lie. I posted a lengthy explanation of the errors that Lisle was suggesting and your response was that the words were too long, you considered it to be gibberish, and you said you did not have the physics education to understand the points made that you presented as your own. Of course you couldn’t understand the concept – you were just parroting Lisle. No, I do not feel the need to refute the material that Gish was presenting since it has been done many times. After pointing that 4 + 4 does not equal 9 many times only to see the same creationist sites continue to make the claim that 4 + 4 = 9 you have to wonder what it would take to get the believers to pull their heads out of their... But I digress. The best that can be done is to look at what has been thrown against the wall and explain the most malodorous in hope that someone will stop and think.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Aug 18, 2019 20:55:42 GMT -5
@gratu .
I knew a considerable number of senior workers - is that what you consider "top level".
I recall that some had an attitude which was more self-righteous than superior. Age and experience tend to evoke a confidence and authority in any line of 'work' - think of senior educators; health professionals; law enforcers. The persona of senior workers generally seemed more akin to the natural evolving impacted by longtime exposure and work experience.
When people believe they are right - they may come across as superior. Gratu, you, myself and others probably all present in this way to a greater or lesser degree. Whatever is motivating you to hone in on the workers seems to be blinding your lateral vision.
Am still waiting to hear what group/meeting/church/facility you attend in the context of your christian belief?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2019 22:08:03 GMT -5
@gratu . I knew a considerable number of senior workers - is that what you consider "top level". I recall that some had an attitude which was more self-righteous than superior. Age and experience tend to evoke a confidence and authority in any line of 'work' - think of senior educators; health professionals; law enforcers. The persona of senior workers generally seemed more akin to the natural evolving impacted by longtime exposure and work experience. When people believe they are right - they may come across as superior. Gratu, you, myself and others probably all present in this way to a greater or lesser degree. Whatever is motivating you to hone in on the workers seems to be blinding your lateral vision. Am still waiting to hear what group/meeting/church/facility you attend in the context of your christian belief? "Am still waiting to hear what group/meeting/church/facility you attend in the context of your christian belief?" This morning I gathered with quite a few believers in a park, where we were joined by a few joggers who enjoyed our service and shared a picnic lunch with us - the outdoors is called God's creation, upon which men mow its grass trim its trees, sometimes feed its wildlife etc. etc. etc. - if this is closer to what you WANT to hear than the detailed answer I already provided on here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 1:26:26 GMT -5
Comparison - The top level of 2x2 workers are people who demonstrate a superiority complex. This could be true or not. You seem to have had a lot more experience interacting with the workers. Like the vast majority of religions, the F&W believe they are the ones gaining eternal salvation. This would be a claim that id impossible to verify. It is a matter of beliefs without any data to show that anyone has been 'saved' or, to be truthful, that there is anything following death. Christianity also teaches that it is the only way. Any of the exclusivity and superiority claims being made by any denomination of christianity can be applied to all christians.` According to your interpretation of the scriptures this is so but given the thousands of christian denominations I am guessing in more than one case you are also not worshiping the Jesus that they consider the 'Jesus of Scripture'. Well, that is up to the believers. And when you are dealing with beliefs, as you are here, the lack of verifiable data makes it difficult to prove a point. While it is true that I did grow up in a family that were members of the F&W/2X2 group the fact that I have always been an atheist does shed a little doubt on @gratu ’s claim. Things look very different when the threat of excommunication is removed and being damned to hell has no meaning. You can then interact with people as humans and not as individuals you have placed on a pedestal. I would say that you have a number of issues that need work. You might feel a lot better once they are resolved, if that is possible.I am not making claims against creationist and creationist sites. I am making claims about the false information that are publishing. And that is because they are making claims that can be, and in most cases have been, proved to be incorrect. However, if you can support your statement and provide a false claim I have made I will correct it. Evolution is a theory. Testable and predictive. Your god is a belief. Untestable and non-predictive. This is, of course, a bald-faced lie. I posted a lengthy explanation of the errors that Lisle was suggesting and your response was that the words were too long, you considered it to be gibberish, and you said you did not have the physics education to understand the points made that you presented as your own. Of course you couldn’t understand the concept – you were just parroting Lisle. No, I do not feel the need to refute the material that Gish was presenting since it has been done many times. After pointing that 4 + 4 does not equal 9 many times only to see the same creationist sites continue to make the claim that 4 + 4 = 9 you have to wonder what it would take to get the believers to pull their heads out of their... But I digress. The best that can be done is to look at what has been thrown against the wall and explain the most malodorous in hope that someone will stop and think. “Evolution is a theory. Testable and predictive. Your god is a belief. Untestable and non-predictive. “ You came from a 2x2 background and 2x2s are known to be among the least Biblically literate people on earth not only today but throughout 100 years of 2x2 history. So I have little doubt that even a first year Bible College student would be not be able to communicate Bible matters sensibly with you. And if you do not understand the language you would hear from such a student, it would be gibberish to you, not to mention “ Untestable and non-predictive” right in the face of the fact that the Bible is predictive such that it is more accurate than today's newspaper headlines – and fully testable by human history alone. And that problem shows up all over this board of 2x2s and former 2x2s. For example, with quotations of workers regarding THEIR 'gospel' clearly before the eyes of a TMB member with Scripture word for word regarding what the Biblical gospel is and Biblical damnation of anyone who preaches another gospel, you can read the post made after it and see that that poster has completely missed the whole thing as if it were ALL gibberish. So, while you claim to have written a lengthy example of refuting Dr. Lisle (months ago) it was written in language that only scientists would understand – probably only evolution scientists at that. Dr. Lisle, in his videos, puts his scientific facts in language a 6th grade student would understand. So your long-winded post was gibberish to the common adult, and therefore refuted NOTHING that Dr. Lisle spoke in his video. And this post is written from memory of that whole instance BECAUSE I don't have the time or the inclination to go hunting for that whole instance to more accurately portray it NOW. In the military they have a saying that is very true - “Bull sh- baffles brains” and if the language you use is uncommon English, to the common person it would be gibberish.But then if you translated it so a 6th gr ade kid could understand it, you would not look so-o-o-o-o-o superior to the rest of us commoners. So just don't bother even trying to substantiate your charges against "creationists" and "creation sites" because it wouldn't make any difference from your one gibberish attempt made months ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 11:39:25 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 12:15:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 19, 2019 14:30:50 GMT -5
“Evolution is a theory. Testable and predictive. Your god is a belief. Untestable and non-predictive. “ You came from a 2x2 background and 2x2s are known to be among the least Biblically literate people on earth not only today but throughout 100 years of 2x2 history. I do not believe you have the data to support your claim. I personally know medical doctors, biologists, physicists, veterinarians, mathematicians, and other well educated people. No doubt they would. But then I had a lot oe empty slots in my schdule and did fill in with some religious courses so I might have a leg up. What I have heard is not gibberish but rather a belief system that is not supported by material or logical proof. It is a faith based system. Most of the biblical predictions are actually postdictions. Untimed prophecies are simple statements. If I say "It is going to rain." it is not much of a prediction. Neither is stating "We are all going to die." When claimed biblical 'predictions' are questioned the usual answer is "It just hasn't happened yet." For example: Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.Not only have the Egyptians not spoken the 'language of Canaan', that language is a dead language that no one is speaking. Is this prediction/prophecy false? Did you ever consider the fact that the first post was actually gibberish? Or that you thought the response was out of line because it did not agree with your beliefs? Actually I was responding to someone who had been presenting many of the same points that Lisle made who claimed they had been developed independently. To have developed those ideas would have required more than a passing glance at a physics book. I had been misinformed.When you are presenting things for which you have no proof it is easy to do a lot of hand waving and bypass the actual explanation of why the theory being claimed simply is false. Have you seen the promised publications? Any original research? Of course not. It refuted the theory that Lisle had proposed about the speed of light being dependent on the direction of travel. I was not writing to the common adult since you claimed you had developed a theory surprisingly similar to the one Lisle spoke of in his video. Taking your self-development claims at face value I wrote in the language required to explain the underlying principles of Lisle's claims. Lisle threw ASC out against the wall but none of it stuck. As I said, a lot of hand waving and smoke and mirrors can make a claim but refuting that false claim with supporting data takes effort. I am guessing that this touches on the reason(s) why you were not willing to state publicly that you developed the ideas you claimed you developed independently from what you heard in the Lisle video. That is fine. At this time it is a moot point. Again, it was addressed to a person who claimed they has come up with a theory that involved controversial claims in the field of physics. Perhaps to the common person it would not be easily understood. Had you not presented it as your own work it could have been presented in a different way. The military saying did work for you. I bought your explanation and responded as if it were true. And for a while I was baffled at your inability to discuss the issue. Urban definition - To put on such a good show the reader won't bother with a detailed check or to question anything.But I did have questions... If I were writing for six graders it would be different. I have to assume that the reading level here is somewhat higher. There is a reason why complex physice is not taught in the 6 th grade - the students have no foundation on which to build.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 15:14:54 GMT -5
“Evolution is a theory. Testable and predictive. Your god is a belief. Untestable and non-predictive. “ You came from a 2x2 background and 2x2s are known to be among the least Biblically literate people on earth not only today but throughout 100 years of 2x2 history. I do not believe you have the data to support your claim. I personally know medical doctors, biologists, physicists, veterinarians, mathematicians, and other well educated people. No doubt they would. But then I had a lot oe empty slots in my schdule and did fill in with some religious courses so I might have a leg up. What I have heard is not gibberish but rather a belief system that is not supported by material or logical proof. It is a faith based system. Most of the biblical predictions are actually postdictions. Untimed prophecies are simple statements. If I say "It is going to rain." it is not much of a prediction. Neither is stating "We are all going to die." When claimed biblical 'predictions' are questioned the usual answer is "It just hasn't happened yet." For example: Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.Not only have the Egyptians not spoken the 'language of Canaan', that language is a dead language that no one is speaking. Is this prediction/prophecy false? Did you ever consider the fact that the first post was actually gibberish? Or that you thought the response was out of line because it did not agree with your beliefs? Actually I was responding to someone who had been presenting many of the same points that Lisle made who claimed they had been developed independently. To have developed those ideas would have required more than a passing glance at a physics book. I had been misinformed.When you are presenting things for which you have no proof it is easy to do a lot of hand waving and bypass the actual explanation of why the theory being claimed simply is false. Have you seen the promised publications? Any original research? Of course not. It refuted the theory that Lisle had proposed about the speed of light being dependent on the direction of travel. I was not writing to the common adult since you claimed you had developed a theory surprisingly similar to the one Lisle spoke of in his video. Taking your self-development claims at face value I wrote in the language required to explain the underlying principles of Lisle's claims. Lisle threw ASC out against the wall but none of it stuck. As I said, a lot of hand waving and smoke and mirrors can make a claim but refuting that false claim with supporting data takes effort. I am guessing that this touches on the reason(s) why you were not willing to state publicly that you developed the ideas you claimed you developed independently from what you heard in the Lisle video. That is fine. At this time it is a moot point. Again, it was addressed to a person who claimed they has come up with a theory that involved controversial claims in the field of physics. Perhaps to the common person it would not be easily understood. Had you not presented it as your own work it could have been presented in a different way. The military saying did work for you. I bought your explanation and responded as if it were true. And for a while I was baffled at your inability to discuss the issue. Urban definition - To put on such a good show the reader won't bother with a detailed check or to question anything.But I did have questions... If I were writing for six graders it would be different. I have to assume that the reading level here is somewhat higher. There is a reason why complex physice is not taught in the 6 th grade - the students have no foundation on which to build. “Is this prediction/prophecy false? “ I don't know off hand because I am not a prophet nor have I yet studied prophesy in any great detail. How bout you, rational? Can you answer your own question? – which ALL has nothing to do with refuting one scientific fact in Dr. Lisle's videos, neither those posted months ago or those just posted in the last 24 hours. So your gallop increases with no substantiation of your charges against “creationists” and “creation sites.”. “Did you ever consider the fact that the first post was actually gibberish? Or that you thought the response was out of line because it did not agree with your beliefs? “ I already said I have no inclination to review months old instances just to deal with YOUR avoidance of refuting the scientific facts contained in Dr. Lisle's videos. “Actually I was responding to someone who had been presenting many of the same points that Lisle made who claimed they had been developed independently. To have developed those ideas would have required more than a passing glance at a physics book. I had been misinformed. “ So what? That was months ago and still avoids refuting one scientific fact contained in Dr. Lisle's videos. “When you are presenting things for which you have no proof it is easy to do a lot of hand waving and bypass the actual explanation of why the theory being claimed simply is false. Have you seen the promised publications? Any original research? Of course not. “ And when YOU want to avoid once refuting the scientific facts contained in Dr. Lisle's videos, it is easy to try reiteration of months old CHARGES that you have never substantiated to this day. “I am guessing that this touches on the reason(s) why you were not willing to state publicly that you developed the ideas you claimed you developed independently from what you heard in the Lisle video. “ I stated my own views in my own words – YOU contested that fact for page after page, month after month. And now you AGAIN use that age old game to avoid refuting even one of the scientific facts contained in Dr. Lisle's videos. “Again, it was addressed to a person who claimed they has come up with a theory that involved controversial claims in the field of physics. Perhaps to the common person it would not be easily understood. Had you not presented it as your own work it could have been presented in a different way. “ And once again YOU avoid refutiing even one scientific fact contained in Dr. Lisle's videos by arguing OLD stuff all over again today. Conclusion At this piont in time, I could not care less if you EVER try to refute even one scientific fact contained in Dr. Lisle's videos because it has been months of YOUR false charges against "creationists" and "creation sites" that have gone without one attempt to substantiate even one of YOUR charges.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 19, 2019 16:54:18 GMT -5
I thought that we had discussed Lisle before!
Guess we have to do it again.
Jason Lisle said:
"1. If the Bible were not true, -logic would not be meaningful.
2. Logic is meaningful.
3. Therefore, -the Bible is true."
Jason P. Lisle's statement above is an example of a fallacy known as "circular reasoning", a "logical fallacy"
Circular Reasoning
www.mometrix.com/academy/circular-reasonin
Circular reasoning is a type of logical fallacy.
A logical fallacy is basically a failure of reasoning.
It’s important as a reader to recognize logical fallacies, because they diminish the value of the author’s message.
Since circular reasoning is a type of logical fallacy, we could also call circular reasoning a failure of reasoning.
More specifically, we can define it as reasoning that offers no support for assertions other than restating them in different words.
Another way to define this is to say circular arguments refer to themselves as evidence of truth.
If you find an argument that refers to itself as evidence of truth, then you know it’s a circular argument.
At first glance, Lisle's statement might sound reasonable, -but the fact that it uses the kind of comparison stated above; -the bible being referred to itself, makes Lisle's argument not true.
It is a failure of reasoning.
Try to untangle Lisle's statement.
"1. If the Bible were not true, -logic would not be meaningful. 2. Logic is meaningful. 3. Therefore, -the Bible is true."
Lisle is comparing the truth of the Bible to whether logic is meaningful
Here is the definitions of the two words; Logic and Bible
Logic: -definition
noun 1. reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity:
Bible: -definition
noun 1. the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments. Also called Hebrew Scriptures. the collection of sacred writings of the Jewish religion: known to Christians as the Old Testament.
It is easy to see that there really no comparison between Lisle's two statements. If he were the competent scientist that he portrays himself to be, he should have known that. But then, that is what comes from trying to straddle a fence with a leg on each side.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 19, 2019 17:23:04 GMT -5
OK, OK, -Dennis!
However, no apology is going to be offered. So you don't have to be "saintly" and accept it! ">
Why didn't you tell us that it was a geologist whom gave you that answer?
You also said of him that: "A troubled stone faced response was, “what are you, some kind of a lawyer?”"
How did you discern he had a "troubled" face?
You also say, "And so it goes even yet, the various sciences even seem to disagree with each other."
The sciences agree with each other far more often than religions agree with each other Even far more often than Christians within Christianity agree with each other!
Even far more often than ex-2x2's agree with each other when they shift to a different Christian religion! Laughing! Oh lady, you are SO predictable! Wasn’t even discussing what “Christians” of any sort believe, great logic shift there! However, personally I find there are a few points upon which all agree... God is, was, and ever will be, and His Holy Ghost and Son are one with the Father, His Son has made atonement for us, and the best lies ahead are a few of the things upon which most claiming to be “Christian” all agree. And if you aren’t able to read body language, please don’t assign that failure also to me! If you need visual instruction, try going back to non-verbal communication classes.... LOL LOL, Dennis What was my great logic shift, Dennis ? True, -you weren't taking about Christians, -but you were saying that "various sciences even seem to disagree with each other."
My reply was an answer to your statement about the "sciences." So, let me repeat my statement.
The sciences agree with each other far more often than religions agree with each other
Even far more often than Christians within Christianity agree with each other!
Even far more often than ex-2x2's agree with each other when they shift to a different Christian religion!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 19, 2019 18:06:31 GMT -5
This could be true or not. You seem to have had a lot more experience interacting with the workers. Like the vast majority of religions, the F&W believe they are the ones gaining eternal salvation. This would be a claim that id impossible to verify. It is a matter of beliefs without any data to show that anyone has been 'saved' or, to be truthful, that there is anything following death. Christianity also teaches that it is the only way. Any of the exclusivity and superiority claims being made by any denomination of christianity can be applied to all christians.` According to your interpretation of the scriptures this is so but given the thousands of christian denominations I am guessing in more than one case you are also not worshiping the Jesus that they consider the 'Jesus of Scripture'. Well, that is up to the believers. And when you are dealing with beliefs, as you are here, the lack of verifiable data makes it difficult to prove a point. While it is true that I did grow up in a family that were members of the F&W/2X2 group the fact that I have always been an atheist does shed a little doubt on @gratu ’s claim. Things look very different when the threat of excommunication is removed and being damned to hell has no meaning. You can then interact with people as humans and not as individuals you have placed on a pedestal. I would say that you have a number of issues that need work. You might feel a lot better once they are resolved, if that is possible.I am not making claims against creationist and creationist sites. I am making claims about the false information that are publishing. And that is because they are making claims that can be, and in most cases have been, proved to be incorrect. However, if you can support your statement and provide a false claim I have made I will correct it. Evolution is a theory. Testable and predictive. Your god is a belief. Untestable and non-predictive. This is, of course, a bald-faced lie. I posted a lengthy explanation of the errors that Lisle was suggesting and your response was that the words were too long, you considered it to be gibberish, and you said you did not have the physics education to understand the points made that you presented as your own. Of course you couldn’t understand the concept – you were just parroting Lisle. No, I do not feel the need to refute the material that Gish was presenting since it has been done many times. After pointing that 4 + 4 does not equal 9 many times only to see the same creationist sites continue to make the claim that 4 + 4 = 9 you have to wonder what it would take to get the believers to pull their heads out of their... But I digress. The best that can be done is to look at what has been thrown against the wall and explain the most malodorous in hope that someone will stop and think. “Evolution is a theory. Testable and predictive. Your god is a belief. Untestable and non-predictive. “ You came from a 2x2 background and 2x2s are known to be among the least Biblically literate people on earth not only today but throughout 100 years of 2x2 history. So I have little doubt that even a first year Bible College student would be not be able to communicate Bible matters sensibly with you. And if you do not understand the language you would hear from such a student, it would be gibberish to you, not to mention “ Untestable and non-predictive” right in the face of the fact that the Bible is predictive such that it is more accurate than today's newspaper headlines – and fully testable by human history alone. And that problem shows up all over this board of 2x2s and former 2x2s. For example, with quotations of workers regarding THEIR 'gospel' clearly before the eyes of a TMB member with Scripture word for word regarding what the Biblical gospel is and Biblical damnation of anyone who preaches another gospel, you can read the post made after it and see that that poster has completely missed the whole thing as if it were ALL gibberish. So, while you claim to have written a lengthy example of refuting Dr. Lisle (months ago) it was written in language that only scientists would understand – probably only evolution scientists at that. Dr. Lisle, in his videos, puts his scientific facts in language a 6th grade student would understand. So your long-winded post was gibberish to the common adult, and therefore refuted NOTHING that Dr. Lisle spoke in his video. And this post is written from memory of that whole instance BECAUSE I don't have the time or the inclination to go hunting for that whole instance to more accurately portray it NOW. In the military they have a saying that is very true - “Bull sh- baffles brains” and if the language you use is uncommon English, to the common person it would be gibberish. But then if you translated it so a 6th gr ade kid could understand it, you would not look so-o-o-o-o-o superior to the rest of us commoners. So just don't bother even trying to substantiate your charges against "creationists" and "creation sites" because it wouldn't make any difference from your one gibberish attempt made months ago. I know that there are many two x two's who know the bible far better than other Christians -probably for no other reason than we had to read a lot of the bible from having to give our "testimony!"
I know that we knew it far better than the many others that only heard what their preacher told them on Sunday from a pulpit!
Their "pastor" wasn't about to read anything about where their "Lord God " told them to kill all the people, even down to the suckling child!
Since I have left the 2x2's I have also found the many atheists know the bible better than many Christians do. So you haven't any idea what we know or don't know.
You are also wrong that the bible is predictive such that it is more accurate than today's newspaper headlines! Most of the bible's predictions are completely off the mark or so vague as to be meaningless.
I am sorry that you seem to feel " so-o-o-o-o-o inferior when confronted with the language used in science. You are probably young enough that you could still take evening classes at your local community college to understand some of the sciences.
My husband & I took a lot of classes even after we retired.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Aug 19, 2019 23:24:06 GMT -5
Laughing! Oh lady, you are SO predictable! Wasn’t even discussing what “Christians” of any sort believe, great logic shift there! However, personally I find there are a few points upon which all agree... God is, was, and ever will be, and His Holy Ghost and Son are one with the Father, His Son has made atonement for us, and the best lies ahead are a few of the things upon which most claiming to be “Christian” all agree. And if you aren’t able to read body language, please don’t assign that failure also to me! If you need visual instruction, try going back to non-verbal communication classes.... LOL LOL, Dennis What was my great logic shift, Dennis ? True, -you weren't taking about Christians, -but you were saying that "various sciences even seem to disagree with each other."
My reply was an answer to your statement about the "sciences." So, let me repeat my statement.
The sciences agree with each other far more often than religions agree with each other
Even far more often than Christians within Christianity agree with each other!
Even far more often than ex-2x2's agree with each other when they shift to a different Christian religion!
There is your error. Christianity is the religion. How can you shift to a different Christian religion? You shift to different Christian Church or denomination.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 19, 2019 23:46:48 GMT -5
“Is this prediction/prophecy false? “ I don't know off hand because I am not a prophet nor have I yet studied prophesy in any great detail. Do you really need to study? Do the Egyptians speak the Cannan language? Yep I can. The prediction did not come true.No, it doesn't but at the time I spent a bunch of time refuting what Lisle had stated. The fact that you were unable to understand it does not mean that it was not done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2019 0:02:44 GMT -5
this has got to be the longest running argument/debate i have ever seen....
|
|