C’mon, Varq. You think the pentagram represents the above in the modern context of its use? Do you really?
And you really think the cross is currently used as a symbolic representation of a crude device used by ancient civilizations…?
A nice little game of backgammon ye play, sir.[/quote]
Jab said that the pentagram didn’t symbolize anything. My contention is that it does. And, interestingly, that it had been a Christian symbol a lot longer than it had ever been an occultist or Satanist symbol. Rather like the swastika, I suppose.
Funny you should mention backgammon. I’ve always fancied myself a chess player.
On one of the many religious threads I’ve had the pleasure to participate in, my good friend Haney accused me of setting him up as a pawn in another of my endless games of Devil’s Advocacy.
I told him that I would never consider him a pawn. A rook, perhaps, or even (more appropriately) a bishop, as they are powerful pieces, but only capable of attacking in a straight line.
I, on the other hand, would be a knight, whose range may be limited, but is able to attack in any direction, from a multitude of angles.
And generally, the opponent doesn’t see it coming.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
One can’t advocate satanism on the one hand and on other other claim its symbols have no meaning to him. That would be quite the paradox.[/quote]
Clearly I gave your comprehension abilities too much credit.
I’ve already explained this quite clearly; if I were to be forced to choose a religion, it would be Satanism. But I am no Satanist, and the symbols mean precisely nothing to me personally; just pretty patterns.
Anyway this further belies your ignorance of Satanism, which encourages individuality in aesthetics. A true Satanist would not necessarily have to ascribe meaning to symbols such as the pentogram, although it would make some sense to do so as they are traditionally representative of Satan which is representative of what a Satanist believes. However a Satanist is free to choose his own symbolic imagery and bequeath it with meaning.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
Just curious push me harder, what is your occupation and education?
BTW, Sky Tank, what is your occupation and education?
[/quote]
As much as I would like to claim I’m a pirate myself, i’m still a student/football player/musical actor. Just finished a post graduate year at a prep school in maine and I’ll be off to college next year.
I have truly remarkable resources in my family in terms of education/information and I’m very grateful for them: father graduated from Dartmouth, mother graduated from Tufts, stepfather Harvard( he’s an english professor), two uncles from Cornell, one grandfather from Columbia, and the other one was the valedictorian of the engineering school at Cornell. I try to ask as many questions as I can at family reunions.
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
One can’t advocate satanism on the one hand and on other other claim its symbols have no meaning to him. That would be quite the paradox.
Clearly I gave your comprehension abilities too much credit.
I’ve already explained this quite clearly; if I were to be forced to choose a religion, it would be Satanism. But I am no Satanist, and the symbols mean precisely nothing to me personally; just pretty patterns.
Anyway this further belies your ignorance of Satanism, which encourages individuality in aesthetics. A true Satanist would not necessarily have to ascribe meaning to symbols such as the pentogram, although it would make some sense to do so as they are traditionally representative of Satan which is representative of what a Satanist believes. However a Satanist is free to choose his own symbolic imagery and bequeath it with meaning.
[/quote]
hrmmm, i think my part in this conversation has run its course. I’ll catch all you pirates and satinists around somewhere else!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Push, I’m still waiting for evidence for these “alternative answers”. Your Nobel prize is there for the taking.
Read the sources I’ve mentioned several times.[/quote]
As far as I’m aware you’ve not cited any scientific studies or peer reviewed articles that have an outcome which overtly supports creationism? Please correct me if I’m wrong Ones from creationist journals don’t count I’m afraid.
Surely it’s not hard for you to name evidence specifically like I have done for evolution, eg. human chromosome no. 2, whole genome duplication, phylogeny etc.?
I am beginning to think you are being intentionally vague to mask a lack of evidence.
You know it gets embarrassing when a grown man has to resort to lies (not to mention unwarranted insults) because his argument has no merit. You have lied in a forum where everyone can see it too, so I don’t feel unduly harsh in pointing it out. Again allow me the indulgence of quoting myself;
These are links to studies that show observable instances of whole genome duplication, known under an umbrella term as; macro-evolution.
These are two peer reviewed articles from quality scientific journals. They contain within them extensive research. Now let’s get on to your paltry examples, for, as we shall see, it is apparently you who does not know what a proper scientific article looks like.
(Incidentally, I know language is not your strongest area, but the source for evolutionary ideas is Darwin, why would I need to name him?)
This is not a peer reviewed scientific article published in a scientific journal. There is no original research, no hypotheses made, no predictions made, there’s not even any theoretical research. It’s exactly what it says it is; a creationist overview. What that means is an article that starts from the presupposition that the earth is 6000 years olds and god made it. This is not science, and not a valid article. It also provides precisely no evidence for your standpoint.
What is more laughable is that he even talks about gene duplication (which is evidence for evolution) as if it somehow helps creationism.
There is also the typical creationist canard of “scientists don’t know it all yet, therefore god must be in there somewhere”.
As demonstrated above, I am interested in technical and scientific papers, so please, you do your cause no good by continuing to flagrantly lie. This is not a philosophical debate, it is a debate based in cold hard fact; evolution is supported by a vast wealth of evidence; creationism is not, and is not even scientific from the off because of all the presuppositions it makes.
None of these reach the criteria of a scientific article that I asked for; all are published in a creationist organ, which means they have already started in an unscientific manner. There is a reason there is no “Evolutionism” journal. It is because scientists always start from the point of assuming nothing or an idea which they seek to disprove.
But anyway, lets take a brief look at one of these papers.
The one I will alert your attention to is the one describing ocean currents in Noah’s flood. This is the most unscientific piece of garbage you are ever likely to see. A real scientist would firstly try to determine what ocean events have ever happened in the past. Then if they found one of particular interest they would possibly try and study other things about it, as this could be useful for illuminating migration patters for example. Starting with the presupposition that Noah’s flood happened is incredibly bad science. For starters it is a demonstrably false presupposition. Incredibly, this author even quotes the Bible as being a useful descriptive tool, which is further evidence that what he is doing is not science.
(Go on, hit me with some “evidence” for the flood, I dare you).
There is a reason these “technical papers” are not in any real scientific journals; they are not science. This is not my arbitrary definition of science, this is THE definition science; look up the scientific method if you have doubts.
This article is laughable to an extreme order of magnitude. For starters, “evolutionists” claim precisely nothing about astronomy or physics. It is a different field, and just the presence of this word proves the author to be a dope. Evolutionary theory says NOTHING about the age of comets. These are completely outlandish falsehoods. When an author lies this obviously, how can you trust anything they say? But it gets worse.
The claim that there is not enough sedimentary deposit on the sea floor is equally unscientific;
The thickness of sediment in the oceans varies, and it is consistent with the age of the ocean floor. The thickness is zero at the mid-Atlantic Ridge, where new ocean crust is forming, and there is about 150 million years’ worth of sediment at the continental margins. The average age of the ocean floor is younger than the earth due to subduction at some plate margins and formation of new crust at others.
The age of the ocean floor can be determined in various ways – measured via radiometric dating, estimated from the measured rate of seafloor spreading as a result of plate tectonics, and estimated from the ocean depth that predicted from the sea floor sinking as it cools. All these measurements are consistent, and all fit with sediment thickness.
(Source: CD220: Amount of sediments in the ocean )
As for sodium he quotes the crock from Austin and Humphreys, so the response is;
Austin and Humphreys greatly underestimate the amount of sodium lost in the alteration of basalt. They omit sodium lost in the formation of diatomaceous earth, and they omit numerous others mechanisms which are minor individually but collectively account for a significant fraction of salt.
A detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed (Morton 1996). Within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed.
(Source: CD221.1: Amount of dissolved sodium in oceans )
Magnetic field decaying too fast? Uh oh, another creationist lie;
The earth’s magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth’s history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth’s interior. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field’s polarity is reversing again (Gubbins et al. 2006).
Empirical measurement of the earth’s magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better.
T. G. Barnes (1973) relied on an obsolete model of the earth’s interior. He viewed it as a spherical conductor (the earth’s core) undergoing simple decay of an electrical current. However, the evidence supports Elsasser’s dynamo model, in which the magnetic field is caused by a dynamo, with most of the “current” caused by convection. Barnes cited Cowling to try to discredit Elsasser, but Cowling’s theorem is consistent with the dynamo earth.
Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged.
(Source: CD701: Decay of Earth's magnetic field )
I could go on and on. The point is this; why are you blindly following the word of demonstrably wilful liars? Clearly you thought those links were valid, otherwise you would not have shown them to me. But they are not for many reasons, they themselves contain many lies, and you in your discourse with me have lied many times. Why do this? It is ok to accept something on evidence you know. I’ve never known another kind of human that lies more than creationists, and this is the irony, because apparently that’s a sin worthy of going to hell for! At least they always get caught; just look at Hovind and his jail time.
I’d like to add a couple more things for your edification;
(In which a creationist excitedly regales the audience with a tale of a beneficial mutation, not realizing that she was denying that mutations could even create new information! Under [Fourth session: The Problem of Integrated Complexity] )
That whole thing makes for good reading anyway, I suggest you do it and realize what kind of incompetents make up “creation scientists”.
Finally, on peppered moths. You claim that this study was debunked. I refer you to Majerus’ seven year study which confirmed the original study. The sad fact of this tale is the primary reason he conducted this study was because of creationist lies promulgated by Jonathan Wells.
A friend of mine puts it quite elegantly;
“Now of course, it’s nice that we have the validation of Kettlewell’s original work (and for that matter, some of the work by Cyril Clarke, late member of my own Entomology Society), but it frankly makes me spit that instead of being motivated by the usual scientific interest, this work was effectively forced upon the scientific community by creationist duplicity and lies. Wells should hang his head in shame for what he did, traducing the reputations of eminent men simply because he decided that his supernaturalist presuppositions counted for more than reality.”
Awesome, has this become an evolution vs pushharder thread? Every new post makes me cringe a little bit. So far I’ve read more than 3 people asking him for EVIDENCE of his point of view, and what did we get, a bible quote.
And yea I was the capitol B rebel. Note I said in my post that yes, it’s a grammar rule to say Bible, since it’s the name of a book, but I like to say bible, because it offends people like push. It’s nothign personal, it just causes a reaction that I find interesting. Works everytime. Note he mentioned it more than once. It’s naughty not to respect his precious little book from where he learns everything he needs to.
But really, why are we still arguing? I know I said it’s fun, how arguing with someone on their faith is like trying to kill zombies or something. But when it gets this personal, it’s just boring. Obviously he skips facts that are not relevant to his point of view, he tries to change the topic and make it personal, and he manipulates iformation we present. But after all, who cares what one person thinks? I’m happy to see that most guys here are not blind by religion. But honestly, you can’t change someone’s opinion when it’s based on nothign but believing. It’s sad, but true. So let’s just make a thread about how cool science is, we can discuss evolution, scientific articles, the sad influence of religion over American culture, or more light hearted themes like the new Star Trek (love it!), and The Big Bang Theory (best sitcom ever). Let people who want to believe in fairy tales lives their lives, not grasping the sarcasm and music references in our posts, and ignoring the facts we present, quoting the bible and their little list of Baptist Scientist (oxymoron!).
On the plus side, just remember that this whole discussion is a deeply cultural thing, and if you want a break from it, travel outside of the US. Or talk to people outside of the US. I mean, maybe you’ll have the same issue if you try to discuss the topic with, say, middle-easterns. Oh the IRONY!!
Ok, one more try, for the sake of it: can a creationist show us a FACT, that is not simply a refute of a fact already presented by evolutionists (so saying that the moth study was flawed and that the appendice is an important organ doesn’t count), and that is not a quote from the bible? I mean a fact (not a list of people that agree on non-facts). Just show me something new, please. I’m anxiously waiting to be amazed.
Or just answer my question about dinossaurs. Did they coexist with us? Did they fit in the Ark? Are fossils a hoax made by the devil to test our faith?