Wow, It’s like I can’t tear myself away.
Push, I for one think you should post the link proving he “personally attacked” your wife. But on a new thread. It is a serious accusation as I see. I to think you could find it with a little work. And if it’s true, just think, you could really teach Tirib a lesson.
Ok, I swear off T-Nation for the rest of the day!!
He didn’t say “move on”. He said “start another thread”. You accused me of attacking your wife. Now you’re gonna run off and “move on” with no proof? I know the “Yosemite Sam” conversation you’re talkin about. It started in one thread and went in to the sequel thread. Shall I link it here? Took me two minutes to find. Or should I start Chen’s new thread and link it there? I’m givin you one more chance. Demonstrate your libelous slander against me. I’m lettin you go first. Then maybe we’ll go to that thread from last year too. People can see for themselves your amazing handling of the Word of God. Repent Push. I am begging you. You are heightening your judgement by the second.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:<<< Push, I for one think you should post the link proving he “personally attacked” your wife. But on a new thread. It is a serious accusation as I see. I to think you could find it with a little work. And if it’s true, just think, you could really teach Tirib a lesson. >>>[/quote]That’s right. He has a golden opportunity right here to once and for all establish all his accusations against me. He wants to move on though. After slinging a scandalous assassination of my character. That is low and cowardly.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:<<< maybe after he answers your questions, he’ll address mine. >>>[/quote]Look here Sparky. I gave you all I’m givin you until you show a little initiative. It would take a me a 40 hour week to properly address that wall of eisegetical hackery you threw at me. Pick a passage or a principle. OR, Gill will give you answers I trust, but you will have to look. John Gills Exposition of the Bible Commentary
[/quote]
Hackery!? LOL, you truly are delusional.
They’re direct quotes from the bible, the book you keep pimping as the “good book”, remember? YOU were the one who requested that I show you those quotes, so I did. There they are, awaiting some sort of response from you. I asked you some questions as well, possibly you could answer them as well.
I’ve held up my end of the deal here, time for you to man up…or STFU.
What that site you pasted from is trying to establish is eisegetical hackery. I posted you a quote from Jeremiah where God said that HE would make Israel eat their own Children. Remember? I am running from nothing. Check Gill’s exposition. It’s already done much better than I could do.
Ok I read it, and not for the first time I might add. NASB wasn’t bad, but I do enjoy the King James Version’s language. I’d ask you to read up on Ramana Maharshi, but these quotes of his might get across what I think all on its own:
“Free will and destiny are ever existent. Destiny is the result of past action; it concerns the body. Let the body act as may suit it. Why are you concerned about it? Why do you pay attention to it? Free will and destiny last as long as the body lasts. But jnana transcends both. The Self is beyond knowledge and ignorance. Whatever happens, happens as the result of one’s past actions, of divine will and of other factors.
There are only two ways to conquer destiny or be independent of it. One is to enquire for whom is this destiny and discover that only the ego is bound by destiny and not the Self and that the ego is non-existent.
The other way is to kill the ego by completely surrendering to the Lord, by realizing one’s helplessness and saying all the time, ‘Not I, but Thou, oh Lord’ and giving up all sense of ‘I’ and â??mineâ??, and leaving it to the Lord to do what he likes with you. Complete effacement of the ego is necessary to conquer destiny, whether you achieve this effacement through Self-enquiry or bhakti marga (path).”
and
“There are two ways of achieving surrender. One is looking into the source of the ‘I’ and merging into that source. The other is feeling ‘I am helpless myself, God alone is all powerful, and except by throwing myself completely on Him, there is no other means of safety for me’, and thus gradually developing the conviction that God alone exists and the ego does not count. Both methods lead to the same goal. Complete surrender is another name for jnana or liberation.”
Read up on him if you’re interested, and tell me why you need to save me from his teachings. As evidenced by your outrage at Pushharder, you might not have abolished your ego just yet. I think you’re making the same mistake as the apostles did, going to far in your zeal and extrapolating on Jesus’ teaching, who tried to give you all a very simple road to walk. I have no doubt he understood what the world would come to, though I’ve yet to see any compelling evidence that he was divine.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Ya know I started a response to this, but I’m going to ask you to do something first. I’m just asking and I’ll answer anyway if you don’t do it. I’m asking you to read Pauls’s epistles to the Romans through in a good modern translation. The ESV will work though I prefer the NASB. Not a huge fan of the NIV ,but it will do. The KJV is a fine work, but is pretty rough on us 21st century folks for simple reading. It’s 16 short chapters. Would you do that? If you want me to read something I’ll do it too.
[/quote]
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I’m neither impressed nor unimpressed, but I do understand what he’s trying to say and I do agree with it.[/quote]
It did make a big enough impression on you that you would make it the sole content of your post. That’s fine. He’s a famous atheist/agnostic, I don’t mind, and you’ve now stated your reason as to why.
[quote]People like Carl would welcome their world being turned upside down, as long as it’s based on factual evidence and not fairy tales about sky wizards. People like Carl actively seek to turn the world upside down with what they discover through science, and with a healthy heap of skepticism, question the bullshit tribal folklore that our early ancestors used to try and explain a complex world before we knew better.
Sagan believed in a scientific method that allows scientists to actually explain a complex world, instead of relying on the absolute bullshit that gets fed to us through religion.
Yes, we believe in many things, we’re just not willing to suspend our capacity for reason and surrender our minds to all the ridiculousness that is religion. The problem with faith is that it teaches us to believe in things that are without evidence, and are certainly not real.[/quote]
I like science too, just like Carl. But I also know that a discussion of origins must leave the scientific method, since, as I’m assuming you know, any theory on this subject cannot be tested and evaluated. Carl’s and Christopher’s conclusions on this topic are just as much speculation as mine. If you observe a complex system, you may very well conclude there is a designer behind it. It’s plenty logical and reasonable to do so. Carl rather, thinks it was a big explosion. Why? Because everything is still spinning? I can carve a top from wood and make it spin. I can design, create and set it in motion. It’s what God did, but on a larger scale. The universe hasn’t always been here. You don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to. Maybe you think the cosmic egg that exploded is sooo much more logical. I think it’s ridiculous myself.
The problems with evolution are too many to list here. Do you like geology? Why is there carbon-14 in diamonds? Is biology your forte? How would it be possible for a complex system that enables a bird to fly to evolve. It’s not just the wing you know, every organ system of a bird perfectly supports this function, down to the cellular level. And it only works when it’s perfect, it wouldn’t work at all half developed. How about chemical communication systems between some animals and insects? These require complex interactions amongst whole groups. Again, it won’t work if it’s only half baked. Oh, I know, it was punctuated evolution within an isolated group. You are still talking about tens of thousands of changes before you have a working function. It’s a really interesting story, but there just ain’t any scientific proof. My opinion, it’s just a bunch of BS.
To believe such BS would require me to suspend my capacity for reason.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:<<< Why is there carbon-14 in diamonds? >>>[/quote]This is a GOOD one.
Ben, I’m getting prayed up about this situation with Push, Squating_Bear is priority one. I promised him. He’s got a post up in YOUR thread lol, That’s first. I’ll also not allow it to be said that I’ve attacked and disparaged a man’s wife. I have a much higher regard for her than he does. That will be dealt with. I’m doin my best to keep up man. I appreciate your reading Romans. Between that and Hebrews, I go back and forth for the theologically tastiest book of the bible award. I will take a look at your Guru (no disrespect, that’s what they’re called), but I gotta tell ya. I cannot help but pretty much know what I’m gonna say as you probably figured. I once owned the Bhagavad Gita, the upanishads and some other stuff years ago. Honestly don’t remember that much detail though.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
The problems with evolution are too many to list here. Do you like geology? Why is there carbon-14 in diamonds? Is biology your forte? How would it be possible for a complex system that enables a bird to fly to evolve. It’s not just the wing you know, every organ system of a bird perfectly supports this function, down to the cellular level. And it only works when it’s perfect, it wouldn’t work at all half developed. How about chemical communication systems between some animals and insects? These require complex interactions amongst whole groups. Again, it won’t work if it’s only half baked.[/quote]
Oh good lord. It’s not hard to understand, go pick up a book. There are examples of “half wings” in existence RIGHT NOW that, while useless for flight, allow for degrees of gliding. It’s not half baked, and you seem to forget these seemingly complex systems came about over millions (if not billions) of years. That’s a helluva long time for gradual change, which is what evolution posits.
Kudos for not being a tool and mentioning the eye though.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…You think even these pagans are going to buy that I made dishonoring attacks against somebody’s wife…
[/quote]
You have a track record right here on this thread of making dishonoring (personal) attacks against me much less on other threads. You honestly think anyone here’s gonna have any problem believing you made other similar remarks about my wife?
I honestly remember you making them but I don’t remember where and when as you’ve been obsessed with me for some time and emptied your ire on me in several places. I distinctly remember it happening (my wife) And it caused me to go “Yosemite Sam” on you at that time.
Anyway, bud, YOU NEED TO MOVE ON. I will.[/quote]
Actually I recall it as well. I also don’t think it’s a prudent investment of time to search through his 12,000+ posts for a couple of his less polished ones.
But I remember to a degree that he went after your wife.
Actually that may have been the moment I started separating you two intellectually.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Ben, I’m getting prayed up about this situation with Push, Squating_Bear is priority one. I promised him. He’s got a post up in YOUR thread lol, That’s first. I’ll also not allow it to be said that I’ve attacked and disparaged a man’s wife. I have a much higher regard for her than he does. That will be dealt with. I’m doin my best to keep up man. I appreciate your reading Romans. Between that and Hebrews, I go back and forth for the theologically tastiest book of the bible award. I will take a look at your Guru (no disrespect, that’s what they’re called), but I gotta tell ya. I cannot help but pretty much know what I’m gonna say as you probably figured. I once owned the Bhagavad Gita, the upanishads and some other stuff years ago. Honestly don’t remember that much detail though.
[/quote]
Dude, I mentioned him solely so that you could have a little insight into my way of thinking, not in the hopes that you’d ever change YOUR way of thinking. I would have no desire to do so even if I thought I could.
As Ramana said, there are two ways to achieve surrender, and you are a perfect example of one of them.
Also, I don’t care much for “debate club”, I’m just conversing. I don’t mind handing you knives to carve me up with. Take your time.
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< But I remember to a degree that he went after your wife. >>>[/quote]Anybody else wanna get on board with this? Don’t be shy.
Why do you guys argue evolution when there’s a far more difficult cosmology to deal with in the creation story? I don’t particularly care if evangelical fundamentalists believe in young earth creationism, mind you. I really could care less, actually. But it amazes me, as a Christian myself, that evolution is the go to debate when cosmology is the easier-to-take-a-look-at issue.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
The problems with evolution are too many to list here. Do you like geology? Why is there carbon-14 in diamonds? Is biology your forte? How would it be possible for a complex system that enables a bird to fly to evolve. It’s not just the wing you know, every organ system of a bird perfectly supports this function, down to the cellular level. And it only works when it’s perfect, it wouldn’t work at all half developed. How about chemical communication systems between some animals and insects? These require complex interactions amongst whole groups. Again, it won’t work if it’s only half baked.[/quote]
Oh good lord. It’s not hard to understand, go pick up a book. There are examples of “half wings” in existence RIGHT NOW that, while useless for flight, allow for degrees of gliding. It’s not half baked, and you seem to forget these seemingly complex systems came about over millions (if not billions) of years. That’s a helluva long time for gradual change, which is what evolution posits.
Kudos for not being a tool and mentioning the eye though.[/quote]
There was actually a study done a few years ago of 34 different countries and their level of acceptance of evolution.
The United States ranked 2nd lowest only ahead of Turkey.
I’m guessing most Americans when reading this would wear this fact like a badge of honour though.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
People like Carl would welcome their world being turned upside down, as long as it’s based on factual evidence and not fairy tales about sky wizards. People like Carl actively seek to turn the world upside down with what they discover through science, and with a healthy heap of skepticism, question the bullshit tribal folklore that our early ancestors used to try and explain a complex world before we knew better.
Sagan believed in a scientific method that allows scientists to actually explain a complex world, instead of relying on the absolute bullshit that gets fed to us through religion.
Yes, we believe in many things, we’re just not willing to suspend our capacity for reason and surrender our minds to all the ridiculousness that is religion. The problem with faith is that it teaches us to believe in things that are without evidence, and are certainly not real.[/quote]
I like science too, just like Carl.[/quote]
LOL…no, you don’t like science like Carl did. Not even close.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
But I also know that a discussion of origins must leave the scientific method, since, as I’m assuming you know, any theory on this subject cannot be tested and evaluated.[/quote]
Just…wrong.
Darwin published his theories more than two decades after the ideas began to form into theories. It started with considerable observation of the natural world, and progressed from there. Origin of Species was his treatise establishing the theory of evolution and, most important, the role of natural selection in determining its course. His theory of natural selection was, as he himself stated, “a theory by which to work”; he and many scientists to follow did just that, went to work on supporting his theory. Mountains of scientific evidence have resulted from that work, all of it supporting evolution and natural selection.
Lots more great reading here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/suppl.1/10033.full
[i]Modern students of Darwin have convincingly shown Darwin’s exemplary scientific methodology (e.g., refs. 27-34). Darwin’s 4 monographs on barnacles (7â??10) and his books on the fertilization of orchids (11), human evolution and sexual selection (24), climbing plants (35), insectivorous plants (36), the formation of vegetable mold by worms (37), and others must be seen as severe tests of natural selection, carried out precisely by investigating biological phenomena, including some seemingly quite peculiar, that would seem, at least at first sight, incompatible with his theory of natural selection.
Michael Ghiselin (32) has perceptively shown in The Triumph of the Darwinian Method that the lion’s share of Darwin’s research and publications were a sustained effort to subject the hypothesis of natural selection to severe tests. “Unless one understands this-that Darwin applied, rigorously and consistently, the modern, hypothetico-deductive scientific method-his accomplishments cannot be appreciated. His entire scientific accomplishment must be attributed not to the collection of facts, but to the development of theory…That Darwin realized the great importance of hypothesis in his work can be documented by his numerous remarks on that subject. In a letter to a colleague, he explicitly compares his hypothesis of natural selection to the undulatory theory of light with its ether, and to the attractive power in Newton’s theory of gravitation” (ref. 32, p. 4). [/i]
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Carl’s and Christopher’s conclusions on this topic are just as much speculation as mine. If you observe a complex system, you may very well conclude there is a designer behind it. It’s plenty logical and reasonable to do so. Carl rather, thinks it was a big explosion. Why? Because everything is still spinning? I can carve a top from wood and make it spin. I can design, create and set it in motion. It’s what God did, but on a larger scale. The universe hasn’t always been here. You don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to. Maybe you think the cosmic egg that exploded is sooo much more logical. I think it’s ridiculous myself.[/quote]
Sure, because something is complex, there must be a designer? I think not. Intelligent design is a very child like theory at best, which of course will never be held to the criticism that scientific theory must withstand. Pure unadulterated bullshit. Big bang theory, is just a theory, that’s true. But in the grand scheme of things, serves as a MUCH more sound theory than your “sky wizard creationist theory”. Intelligent design is not scientific theory, it’s religious theory. In short, it fails to serve anyone other than believers such as yourself.
Big bang theory may one day be discarded as not plausible, already there’s several other theory’s outside of big bang, that’s just evidence of science not settling. But if it is discarded, it will be discarded by the scientific community that continues to search for truth, not settle for the bullshit loads that religion would like us to swallow without question. Science is the search for truth, religious bullshit like intelligent design actually detracts from that, and such ideas do a disservice to humanity.
But hey, if you’re happy with your sky wizard creationist theory, so be it. But don’t try to pass it off as plausible or scientific.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
The problems with evolution are too many to list here. Do you like geology? Why is there carbon-14 in diamonds? Is biology your forte? How would it be possible for a complex system that enables a bird to fly to evolve. It’s not just the wing you know, every organ system of a bird perfectly supports this function, down to the cellular level. And it only works when it’s perfect, it wouldn’t work at all half developed. How about chemical communication systems between some animals and insects? These require complex interactions amongst whole groups. Again, it won’t work if it’s only half baked. Oh, I know, it was punctuated evolution within an isolated group. You are still talking about tens of thousands of changes before you have a working function. It’s a really interesting story, but there just ain’t any scientific proof. My opinion, it’s just a bunch of BS. [/quote]
So again, you call out examples of extreme natural complexity, and poof you determine that it must’ve been a creator and definitely NOT natural selection or evolution? What sort of logic is that? On what science is this BS based on? Because something is very complex we have to assume that it had a creator? That meme has been addressed and debunked by people far smarter than the both of us, two of those individuals being Hitchens himself (citing the work of biologists) and Dawkins (a biologist himself). If god was the “intelligent designer” of our world, he did an awful shitty and inefficient job of it.
Truth is, you can pick at the evidence for evolution, and you can list as many anomalies as you would like, evolution is still the only theory that is consistent with the scientific laws. It’s been proven out through our ability to perform predictions of micro and macro mutation commonly used in genetic engineering and animal husbandry. You need to produce evidence of God and specifically identify how only God could have created life in the context of all the other natural laws to actually support the Creationist theory.
Your C-14 problem is interesting however, and I have to plead my ignorance on this. Why is there C-14 in diamonds? I have no idea, but I’m gonna have to devote a bit of time looking into this; interesting stuff. We know this for a fact though, RC dating is not perfect, nor is it the only way to determine the age of such things. I’m betting that there’s an evidenced based explanation somewhere for it based on science, and not just saying “god did it”
Science has shown us that all living organisms on this planet, through our DNA, are at least distant cousins. Common ancestry…how does religion square that? Hitchens, and Dawkins as well, have said over and over again, that the natural world is unbelievably amazing enough, without having to attach mysticism and falsehoods to it.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
To believe such BS would require me to suspend my capacity for reason.[/quote]
Quite contrary, to believe in the theory of natural selection, and thereby evolution, would require you to shake off your veil of blind faith and embrace the factual evidence in front of you. I understand that this is a difficult process for a believer, but you can do it if you really want to. You too could be a proud member of the reality based community.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
The problems with evolution are too many to list here. Do you like geology? Why is there carbon-14 in diamonds? Is biology your forte? How would it be possible for a complex system that enables a bird to fly to evolve. It’s not just the wing you know, every organ system of a bird perfectly supports this function, down to the cellular level. And it only works when it’s perfect, it wouldn’t work at all half developed. How about chemical communication systems between some animals and insects? These require complex interactions amongst whole groups. Again, it won’t work if it’s only half baked.[/quote]
Oh good lord. It’s not hard to understand, go pick up a book. There are examples of “half wings” in existence RIGHT NOW that, while useless for flight, allow for degrees of gliding. It’s not half baked, and you seem to forget these seemingly complex systems came about over millions (if not billions) of years. That’s a helluva long time for gradual change, which is what evolution posits.
Kudos for not being a tool and mentioning the eye though.[/quote]
There was actually a study done a few years ago of 34 different countries and their level of acceptance of evolution.
The United States ranked 2nd lowest only ahead of Turkey.
I’m guessing most Americans when reading this would wear this fact like a badge of honour though.[/quote]
That’s certainly embarrassing, but not surprising.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
The problems with evolution are too many to list here. Do you like geology? Why is there carbon-14 in diamonds? Is biology your forte? How would it be possible for a complex system that enables a bird to fly to evolve. It’s not just the wing you know, every organ system of a bird perfectly supports this function, down to the cellular level. And it only works when it’s perfect, it wouldn’t work at all half developed. How about chemical communication systems between some animals and insects? These require complex interactions amongst whole groups. Again, it won’t work if it’s only half baked.[/quote]
Oh good lord. It’s not hard to understand, go pick up a book. There are examples of “half wings” in existence RIGHT NOW that, while useless for flight, allow for degrees of gliding. It’s not half baked, and you seem to forget these seemingly complex systems came about over millions (if not billions) of years. That’s a helluva long time for gradual change, which is what evolution posits.
Kudos for not being a tool and mentioning the eye though.[/quote]
Surprising that it hasn’t been mentioned, that’s usually the go to argument for unintelligent design folks.