|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 140 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-27-10
 | | OhioChessFan: <One can't rightfully claim that 'most' copyist errors have been detected when we don't know how many are undetected.> Perhaps <playground player> claimed that, but I did not. |
|
| Apr-27-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan><Right, like the untestable historical claims of Darwinism.> You frequently describe evolution as "untestable".
Perhaps if you get your head out of your creationist websites for a moment and read what real scientists have to say, you will learn otherwise. I would give you a link or two if I had the slightest belief that you would give it consideration, but I don't. <Oh wait, somehow those are magically in the realm of science. Or maybe that magical life from nonlife is conveniently defined as "natural".> As <whatthefat> has said before (and yet you continually ignore), 'Darwinism' is not a theory of how life came from nonlife. You have a priori ruled out the possibility that it could somehow occur naturally. Scientists have not ruled out that possibility, and for some reason, you don't like that. Your comment is particulary ironic since you are the one who really is asserting that it happened by "magic" (aka miracles). |
|
| Apr-27-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan><Perhaps <playground player> claimed that, but I did not.> Yes, he did claim that, and my post was addressed to him. |
|
Apr-27-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: As <whatthefat> has said before (and yet you continually ignore), 'Darwinism' is not a theory of how life came from nonlife.> I didn't say it was. |
|
Apr-27-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: You have a priori ruled out the possibility that it could somehow occur naturally. > And you have a priori ruled out the possibility the realm of science could accept the Bible is accurate. Too late tonight, but I will get around tomorrow to what the world of science has to say about abiogenesis. |
|
| Apr-28-10 | | achieve: Re: <Abiogenesis>
Just dropping this link here to an interesting article without accompanying comments from me this moment because of lack of time (encountered it just this morning). If you have the time I'd be interested in your (OCF, all) opinion on: 'A never-ending dance of RNA - The recreation of life's origins comes a self-catalysing step closer.' - by Erika Check Hayden (Nature 2009) http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090... (humorous sidenote: Erika <Check> Hayden) |
|
| Apr-28-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan><And you have a priori ruled out the possibility the realm of science could accept the Bible is accurate.> Alright. We've been over this so many times already. You expect the 'realm of science' to accept that the Bible is accurate, which is to accept its miraculous explanations. And when we say that science doesn't accept miraculous explanations, you deny that you ever hinted that they should. And you refuse to explain or acknowledge your inconsistency. I'm not going around that circle again. <whatthefat> is right, nothing sinks in. |
|
Apr-28-10
| | OhioChessFan: <OhioChessFan><And you have a priori ruled out the possibility the realm of science could accept the Bible is accurate.> <YouRang: You expect the 'realm of science' to accept that the Bible is accurate, which is to accept its miraculous explanations.> If I was a lawyer, I'd object to this on the grounds it is nonresponsive. In fact, you are inconsistent, you do a priori rule out the possibility that science could accept the Bible as accurate. And instead of admitting that, you once again lay an inaccurate charge at me to create a diversion from the point you don't want to admit. I address a specific of your position, and you ignore it and lay a charge against me. Over and over and over. As for the realm of science, I expect them to consider the possibility the Bible is accurate. I expect them to consider the realm of history or religion or heremeneutics might have something of value to add to the discussion. I understand that the world of science wouldn't go about testing the claims. I expect as human beings they should consider what evidence exists in the matter. The feeling is mutual about nothing sinking in. |
|
| Apr-28-10 | | cormier: yes <OCF> the real new and eternel arch of alliance is His blood washing our sins away forever ..... tks |
|
| Apr-28-10 | | cormier: May God have pity on us and bless us;
may he let his face shine upon us.
So may your way be known upon earth;
among all nations, your salvation.
May the nations be glad and exult
because you rule the peoples in equity;
the nations on the earth you guide.
May the peoples praise you, O God;
may all the peoples praise you!
May God bless us,
and may all the ends of the earth fear(respect) him!
<O God, let all the nations praise you!
Alleluia.> |
|
| Apr-28-10 | | YouRang: <...you do a priori rule out the possibility that science could accept the Bible as accurate. And instead of admitting that, you once again lay an inaccurate charge at me to create a diversion from the point you don't want to admit> Let me stop you there, so I can take this opportunity to "admit", for the umpteenth time, that I rule out the possibility that science could accept the Bible as accurate. I've laid out the reasons over and over. <As for the realm of science, I expect them to consider the possibility the Bible is accurate. I expect them to consider the realm of history or religion or heremeneutics might have something of value to add to the discussion.> Yes, you expect science, specifically *natural science*, which entails matters of cosmology and biology, to give consideration to the accuracy of the Bible. You try to make it sound like more than that by dressing it up as "the realm of history or religion", but we both know that the only history and religion that you're really pushing for is that of the Bible -- so lets just leave it at that. Have I addressed your questions?
Now, since you say that I've made an inaccurate charge against you, perhaps you will help by clarifying your position: When you say <I expect [scientists] to consider the possibility that the Bible is accurate>, do you mean that to include the account of creation in Genesis -- in fact, your literal interpretation of Genesis whereby God spoke the universe into existence within the past 10,000 years, and made mature life out of dirt? |
|
| Apr-28-10 | | cormier: <<Jesus cried out and said>>,
“Whoever <believes in me believes not only in me
but also in the one who sent me,
and whoever sees me sees the one who sent me.>
<I came into the world as light,
so that everyone who believes in me> might not remain in darkness.
And <if anyone hears my words and does not observe them,
I do not condemn> him,
for <I did not come to condemn the world but to save the world.>
<Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words
has something to judge him>: <the word that I spoke,
it will condemn him on the last day>,
because <I did not speak on my own,
but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak.>
And I know that <his commandment is eternal life.
So what I say, I say as the Father told me.”> |
|
Apr-28-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: When you say <I expect [scientists] to consider the possibility that the Bible is accurate>, do you mean that to include the account of creation in Genesis -- in fact, your literal interpretation of Genesis whereby God spoke the universe into existence within the past 10,000 years, and made mature life out of dirt?> Yes. |
|
| Apr-28-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan> <Yes> Thank you. So I think we have agreement on this: You want scientists to consider the possibility that the [account of creation] is accurate. Where [account of creation] = [God spoke the universe into existence within the past 10,000 years, and made mature life out of dirt]. This prompts two more questions:
1. Do you agree that this account of creation is miraculous? 2. What exactly must scientists do to satisfy you that they *have* considered this account of creation? |
|
| Apr-28-10 | | playground player: <You Rang> You make the Bible's account of creation sound rather silly. No offense, but to me, this sounds way over-the-top silly: The Point of Singularity for some unknown reason explodes, hereby creating all matter in the universe; somewhere on Earth, non-living matter for some reason becomes alive; over the ages, by some process impossible to observe, wee microbes "evolve" into dinosaurs, fruit bats, and J.S. Bach. We can each make the other's point of view look ridiculous, so let's grant that and move on. |
|
| Apr-28-10 | | YouRang: <playground player> Actually, it was not my intent to make the creation account sound silly. I was summarizing the literal interpretation accepted by many Christians, including our host. <We can each make the other's point of view look ridiculous, so let's grant that and move on.> You are missing the point, IMO.
I think we can all agree that this universe and the life within it is fantastically remarkable. And yet it exists! Therefore -- incredible as it seems -- there must be *some* fantastically remarkable explanation for its origin that is actually true! So, lets not be bothered about whether an explanation sounds silly or not. In fact, we can safely assume that to some degree, even the true explanation *will* sound silly. Instead, can we simply accept that there are at least two *independent* approaches toward seeking that remarkable explanation? [1] The RELIGIOUS approach, which presupposes a remarkable *divine* explanation, and seeks it based on writings claimed to be to be divinely inspired. Usually, those writings are ancient (with YouRangism as an exception). [2] The SCIENTIFIC approach, which presupposes a remarkable *natural* explanation, and seeks it based on observable data and a progression of reasoning. Why not let them both do their thing without hindrance, and see where they lead? |
|
| Apr-28-10 | | cormier: science = 0 - Creator = 1 ..... tks |
|
Apr-28-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: 1. Do you agree that this account of creation is miraculous?> Yes.
<2. What exactly must scientists do to satisfy you that they *have* considered this account of creation?> Acknowledge the same evidence they use to affirm evolutionary theory could also be used to affirm the Creation model. |
|
Apr-28-10
| | OhioChessFan: <Let me stop you there, so I can take this opportunity to "admit", for the umpteenth time, that I rule out the possibility that science could accept the Bible as accurate. I've laid out the reasons over and over. > I keep forgetting and I'm sorry for that. You seem okay with that position, but I think it smacks of inconsistency and a double standard. |
|
Apr-28-10
| | OhioChessFan: <You try to make it sound like more than that by dressing it up as "the realm of history or religion", but we both know that the only history and religion that you're really pushing for is that of the Bible -- so lets just leave it at that. > I wasn't trying to dress it up. I had in mind a college campus. Where would you see the Bible side discussed? In either the history or religion departments. |
|
Apr-28-10
| | OhioChessFan: <playground: We can each make the other's point of view look ridiculous, so let's grant that and move on.> <YouRang: You are missing the point, IMO. > I think that <playground> has a legitimate point, though it hasn't played out much in the OhioChessFan forum. I'm certainly aware of the related discussion other places on this site per what is going on here. I don't mind being ridiculed. But I think ridicule rarely adds anything to a search for truth. <YouRang: And yet it exists! Therefore -- incredible as it seems -- there must be *some* fantastically remarkable explanation for its origin that is actually true! > Yes. Just like the question of whether we are the only life in the universe. Either way, it's an incredible thought. <So, lets not be bothered about whether an explanation sounds silly or not. In fact, we can safely assume that to some degree, even the true explanation *will* sound silly.> I guess silly often depends what side of the fence you are on. Anyway, let's not be bothered that hundreds of eyewitnesses affirming the resurrection of Jesus the Christ might sound silly. Silly or not, a careful examination of the matter should be fruitful. |
|
| Apr-28-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: Acknowledge the same evidence they use to affirm evolutionary theory could also be used to affirm the Creation model.> Okay, this is off the scale crazy now. This comment shows your total ignorance of evolutionary science (equating carefully controlled experiments with the Bible), and in fact what science is (you expect scientists to uncritically believe the word of the Bible, but not any other miraculous accounts of creation). I don't mean to be offensive, but you honestly need to educate yourself in what science actually is, or be forever fighting a strawman. |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan> Okay, you want scientists to consider the possibility that the account of creation is accurate, and you agree that this account of creation is miraculous. A couple more questions:
1. Do you agree that science, by practice, seeks only natural explanations (and thus refuses miraculous explanations) for what they observe in nature? 2. If your answer to (1) is yes, then do you think science is biased for refusing to accept miraculous explanations? |
|
Apr-29-10
| | OhioChessFan: <whatthefat: Okay, this is off the scale crazy now. This comment shows your total ignorance of evolutionary science (equating carefully controlled experiments with the Bible), > Are you affirming that the only evidence science claims for the evolutionary process is what they find in carefully controlled experiments? |
|
Apr-29-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: 1. Do you agree that science, by practice, seeks only natural explanations (and thus refuses miraculous explanations) for what they observe in nature?> Yes.
<2. If your answer to (1) is yes, then do you think science is biased for refusing to accept miraculous explanations?> Yes. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 140 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
rreusser/...