Communism Gaining Ground?

[TonyC]

Ya know ... when we get down to brass tacks the problem is still this ...

Since our primate brains began to develop...

Speak for yourself, Snakum. My brain is not primate, and never was. Accuse others of being illogical if you like, but when you start off assuming that which you are trying (if you ARE even trying) to prove, then you've already violated the rules of logic.

... and when we couldn't, we started making up tales ...

A little tale called On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (1859) comes to mind.

And every single one of them believed THEIR specific superstitions were THE ONE TRUE SILLY EXPLAINATION [sic]

Silly to you, perhaps. I submit that you are responsible for your own willingness, or lack thereof, to accept learning. If a man brings a gift of a million dollars to your front door, but you are unwilling to open your door and listen to that man's offer, then you'll be rejecting the gift without ever knowing or understanding it. That's silly in my book. Perhaps you might do yourself a favor and study what you're rejecting - - labelling as "silly" - - before you reject it out of hand.

and were willing to kill and ide [sic] for it.

Specious argument. It might strike you as insane that I would be willing to die for my beliefs. It strikes me as sad that you have nothing that you are willing to die for. But I don't believe it is genuous or constructive to accuse all believers of being war-mongering killers, set to impose their beliefs on others by the sword. In fact, I don't think you'll find a single example of where I have threatened you in any way.

Lay down the "kill and die" argument for a while, and try to use rational thought, won't you?

Nothing's changed. It's 2003 and we're still at it. Trying to explain away life's little bumps, as if they really needed explaining.

I wouldn't presume to try to "explain away life's little bumps" - - that's ridiculous, and just another attempt by you to avoid a thoughtful discussion. I entered this discussion to point out that Creationism, as a theory of the origin of man, is just as worthy of discussion in public school classrooms, as Evolutionism. They both meet the test of "THEORY" equally as well. (In fact, they both fail the true definition equally, but that doesn't change the fact that their status, from a purely scientific point of view, is equal.)

When one finds it difficult to stay on point, it is convenient to toss in irrelevant, specious arguments. Such is ths case here. Nobody was looking for an explanation to "life's little bumps."

Now we have a whole new crop nutcases from Islam, Christianity, and Judaism killing each other and everyone believes everyone elses special little book is wrong and theirs is right.

When you're talking to a nutcase, feel free to call him one. If you think one of us is a nutcase, be a man and say it directly to our face. Until then, I'll consider this to be in the category of the "kill and die" remark." If you can't handle the subject matter, throw out some chaff and maybe I'll fall for the distraction. Not gonna happen.

But so far, no one has yet been able to produce an angel or a repeatable miracle ...

If you're looking for tangible proof in the form of an angel or miracle, stop looking in front of your face. Look at the wondrous design of your own body. Look at the design of the ecosystem. Look at the majesty of the mountains, and the vastness fo the seas. Imagine how different the earth might look were it positioned a mere hundred miles closer to the sun. Or a mere hindred miles further away. "The heavens declare His majesty." If you want to see proof, open your eyes.

I can write my own little book and start my own religion and if I mind-f@ck enough folks ...

It never ceases to amaze me how the Moderators of this board allow vulgaraties to appear on this board hidden behind ampersands, dollar signs, and asterisks, as if that makes it cleaner somehow, yet they'll delete threads where a member takes umbrage at the heavy hand of the same moderator. That commentary aside, I believe you've got it locked in your brain that it's somehow unhealthy or beneath your dignity to accept by faith anything that you cannot wrap your hands around. Sadly, it is YOUR mind that is... closed.

I mean ... it's all kinda silly ain't it? You guys need to read Dr.Barbara Thiering and stop believing in fairy dust and gnomes.

The word silly HAS crossed my mind, but certainly not with respect to the word of God. You would be well served to read the Bible, and you'll discover that fairy dust and gnomes have no part of it.

 

[skyking1976]

It is important to note two things: one, WHY the question was constructed (to attempt to invalidate belief in God),

That really was not my intent, and no offense intended. I wanted to hear your answer to a paradoxical question in order to understand on which premises your faith is based. Since my only basis for comparison and understanding of your faith is the ritualistic Catholic church (you know: sit, stand, kneel, etc.), I'm a little out of touch.

and two, the fact that Man is not sufficiently equipped with a mind that can understand fully why such a question has no answer. The fact that a mere human can ask such a question is in fact irrelevant, just as a human chosing an answer makes no difference to the omnipotence, infallibility, or any other aspect of God.

I completely agree with the first part of your statement. Human minds have a predisposition to understand only what we believe to be reasonable and herein lies the dilemma. What is the depth and direction of faith? Do you put faith in God or do you put faith in human reasoning? It's all a personal choice and obviously I'm drawn towards the latter.

 

[TonyC]

First off, yes, my question is loaded. The Bible describes God as both omnipotent and infallible, correct? The question is made to give you a choice. If you answer that yes he can create a rock too big for him to lift, then God is not omnipotent. If you say no, then he is not infallible. The question is 100% valid in my opinion.

It's not a loaded question, it's an implausible question. You assume in asking that God can only be omnipotent or infallible, and not both. You also seem to be implying that his infallibility is negated by his failure to meet your challenge.

Let's review:
> If he can't make the rock - - he is not omnipotent, by most men's measure.

> If he can't lift the rock - - he is not omnipotent, by most men's measure.

Listen, I know you didn't invent this question, it has been asked thousands upon thousands of time for decades upon decades. The purpose of the question is to try to "prove" that God is not omnipotent, that is, that he CANNOT make a rock which he CANNOT move. (Not my words, just the words that tricksters want to plant.) The question has nothing to do with fallibility.

Still, it falls into the category of the preposterous question, one that uses circular reasoning to negate itself. The fact that the human mind cannot devise a way to logically answer the question doesn't weaken the strength or perfection or knowledge of God.

It is a philosophical arguement like: Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

Oh, that's so incredibly easy. The chicken came first - - Bible says so. So much for human philosophy.

Oh and here is a link about carbon and other radiometric dating than shows it is more accurate that you would like to admit.

Let's talk about the paper you linked for us.

The first use of dendrochronlogy to calibrate 14C over a long period of time was made by Furgeson in 1970.

1970: Furgeson used dendrochronology of bristlcode pines to calibrate radiocarbon dating back to 7484- years b.p. (before the present).
Through comparison with tree ring dates, the 14C method has been calibrated back to more than 13,000 years before the present,

1991: Becker, et al publish a stable dendrochronological calibration of 14C back to 13,000 years before the present.
In addition, 14C dating has also been calibrated back to more than 30,000 years before the present using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals [Bard, et al, 1990] and [Edwards, et al, 1993]. While it is unlikely that 14C will be useful for objects older than 50,000 years, owing to the problems of background contamination [Dickin, 1995] and [Lowe, 1991], there is a recent paper by [Kitagawa, H., and van der Plicht, J., 1998] discusses calibration of 14C dating back to 45,000 b.p. using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (periodic sedimentary layers).

The stated purpose of the paper is to defend 14C dating against charges by creationists of inaccuracy. Studies of cosmic activity and tree rings over the course of 11 years (cosmic rays) and 300 years (tree rings) allowed a scientist in 1970 to claim he could calibrate 14C dating back 7000 years. I wonder if he would be willing to do those same types of extrapolations wih the stock market? Too many variables you say? I say the same. He looked at cosmic activity. He failed to account for pressure, moisture, exposure to light, or even variances in the original values of C14 that might be found 7000 years ago. Those are just some of the variable that I can think of - - there may be dozens more that we don't know of, and can't know since we weren't around here 3,000 years ago.

Another guy comes along in 1991 and publishes a table claiming accuracy to 13,000 years ago. I'd say we're a bit shy of the millions of years ago they claim dinosaurs disappeared. The very best they can still claim, according to the paper you cite, is 45 or 50 thousand (not million or billion - - THOUSAND) years. Sorry, Charlie, but that doesn't cut it. Nice toy, but hardly a scientific way of dating fossils from "millions of years" ago. I'll give him credit for improving the method, somewhat, but he hasn't perfected the method by a long, long, long stretch. Even though the stated purpose is to refute challenges leveled by Creationists, Mr. Stockwell doesn't go far in convincing.

True, radioisotopes can't be tracked effectively through millions of years, but the accuracy totally destroys the Bible assumed timeline. By the Bible's standards isn't the earth supposed to be about 4000 years old?

Closer to 6,000 years, maybe 10,000, but who's counting?

My line of questioning is to find out the meaning behind your truth. Truth is only defined by perception and I'm just trying to understand yours.

If you really are trying to find the truth, I'm happy to remain engaged in the discussion. You're going to have to open your eyes, though, because our culture and society and education system haven't encouraged real exploration of truth. Instead, they generally expect you to conform to their view formed by their superior minds, and to question or challenge their view will mean you are subjected to ridicule and scorn.

Consider this, as a case in point. You have said that truth is only defined by perception. That's a view held by society, and it's popular, and it sounds good on the surface. So does "There's an exception to every rule" as I've discussed previously. In fact, there is NOT an exception to every rule, despite how good it sounds. And, in the same way, truth is NOT defined by perception. Truth is absolute. Truth is truth, no matter what the circumstance, or perspective, or time or individuals. If you are indeed desirous of finding the truth, first examine that concept. If you are unwilling to entertain that concept, you're not going to have much luck finding truth.

P.S. Sorry to hear of the Fed-Ex accident.

Thaks. Nobody wants to be on the receiving end of an accident investigation, regardless of innocence.

Thankfully, the only physical injuries were minor.

(Wouldn't be "minor" to ME if it were MY hands that had rope burns, but you know what I mean. )

 

[Timebuilder]

That really was not my intent, and no offense intended.

Actually, I wasn't assuming that you had originated the question, and that those who originally asked it were people who not only had no faith in God, but looked negatively on those who do. When a philosophical question comes up, it is rarely original to a modern writer.

Do you put faith in God or do you put faith in human reasoning? It's all a personal choice and obviously I'm drawn towards the latter.

It's a personal choice because we have free will.

Perhaps it is our "sinful nature" following our first listening to Satan and not to God, to trust ourselves and our perceptions as being the most important basis for choosing our belief system.

Maybe that is why there is so much information in the Bible: to introduce and describe God and His work, His interaction with Man, and His goals for us as a people. Having designed us, He knows that the combination of life experience and His word will compell those whom He calls. Not everyone hears the call, even though He calls every one.

In fact, there is a great deal of discussion about the idea of predestination, or the fact that God must already know who will answer the call! This is an area covered by Calvinism, where some opine that we need not evangelize because those who will be saved are already known. Maybe that is so, but it is not for us to make such an assumption, since we are directed by "the great commission" in Matthew 28 to spread the Gospel, or word of God.

More important than being a matter of the "head" is the matter of the "heart". If you ask Christ to come into your heart, and do so with conviction, He will always answer. For some, this seems impossible until something happens in their life to "open" their heart. Sometimes it is a trajedy, where the ways of Man seem insufficient, that makes us turn to God. 9-11 is a good example. What Satan meant for evil, God has turned around and made for good, galvanizing our society against a great evil, and pulling us together as a nation.

Sometimes the opening of the heart is preceeded by a conclusion reached by the head: that the ways of man are like shifting sand, and are unreliable. We are easily tempted, and are weak. Try as we might, our ways are nowhere even comparable to the ways of God.

Christ said "So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you." Luke 11:9

 

[kevdog]

that's like saying...GOD IS!

and i would ask again, WHAT IS GOD?

...GOD IS!

WHAT IS GOD?

...GOD IS!

 

[Timebuilder]

The way to break that cycle is to study His word. That and prayer are the best ways to know Him.

 

[skyking1976]

I wonder if he would be willing to do those same types of extrapolations wih the stock market?

That arguement won't work. We're talking about measuring the past, not predicting the future.

Another guy comes along in 1991 and publishes a table claiming accuracy to 13,000 years ago. I'd say we're a bit shy of the millions of years ago they claim dinosaurs disappeared. The very best they can still claim, according to the paper you cite, is 45 or 50 thousand (not million or billion - - THOUSAND) years. Sorry, Charlie, but that doesn't cut it. Nice toy, but hardly a scientific way of dating fossils from "millions of years" ago. I'll give him credit for improving the method, somewhat, but he hasn't perfected the method by a long, long, long stretch. Even though the stated purpose is to refute challenges leveled by Creationists, Mr. Stockwell doesn't go far in convincing.

Closer to 6,000 years, maybe 10,000, but who's counting?

I am. Even your estimate of 10,000 years falls short of the maximum demonstrated accuracy of 30,000 years.

Consider this, as a case in point. You have said that truth is only defined by perception. That's a view held by society, and it's popular, and it sounds good on the surface. So does "There's an exception to every rule" as I've discussed previously. In fact, there is NOT an exception to every rule, despite how good it sounds. And, in the same way, truth is NOT defined by perception.

Originally posted by TonyC a few posts back...
> There is an exception to every rule. (I'm sure you're heard that one, right?)

Whew!!! Talk about cicrular arguements!

Don't YOU perceive the Bible to be the truth? Belief in God is also a popular view that is widely accepted by society. Does it sound good to you? (Meaning: Do you follow it's teachings?)

 

[TonyC]

I am. Even your estimate of 10,000 years falls short of the maximum demonstrated accuracy of 30,000 years.

Apparently you are not a very critical reader. Do you fall for just anything that a "scientist" suggests? The article said that the dating method has been calibrated back to 30,000 years before the present. First, it doesn't say that it found something to be that old. Second, it doesn't demonstrate that any scientific evidence supports the claim. In order for it to be a scientific fact, one would have to produce a sample that could be proven to be 30,000 years old, submit it to 14C dating, and have the age ascertained to be 30,000 years old. Tell me. Where is this piece of whatever that we KNOW to be 30,000 years old?!?!?

Reminds me of this line of logic. "This fossil is 1 million years old." How do you know? "Well, we found it in this layer of rock that was 1 million years old." OH! How do you know the rock was 1 million years old? "Well, because we found these fossils in the same layer that were 1 million years old."

Whew!!! Talk about cicrular arguements!

Pay close attention. I did not say there is an exception to every rule. I don't believe it to be true. I presented it as an example of a popular falsehood.

Don't YOU perceive the Bible to be the truth? Belief in God is also a popular view that is widely accepted by society. Does it sound good to you?

What I believe concerning the truth is really irrelevant. My belief does not change what is true. It either IS truth, or it is NOT. Absolutely.

 

[skyking1976]

I think it's even more apparent than ever that Creationists and Evolutionists will always disagree until such a time that one group or the other can be PROVEN correct. There are logical arguements for both sides whether that logic is faith or scientifically based. I guess we'll see when we take the big dirt nap.

Cheers,
SK

 

[Timebuilder]

Perhaps even more poignant is the idea that by the time we find out which idea is right, in the secular sense, the answer will not be important, as the time for accepting salvation will have come and gone.