Floods, Fossils, Science and Faith (Split from Global Warming)

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I guess I don't understand what prevents atheists from going on killing sprees all the time then.... In fact, I can't say that I have ever heard of a killing spree brought on by atheism. I have heard of killing sprees brought on because "God told me to cleanse the world" and such.

You did mention Sadam a few posts ago. There was nothing preventing him killing thousands of his own people and that's exactly what he did. Sadam was not a Muslim. A killing spree brought by someone because "God told me to cleanse the world" didn't actually recieve it from God and went on a killing spree for the same reason anyone else would.

 

[Jagdaddy]

But that's not a moral proof you've given me. Its a proof based on circumstance. What if it somehow became advantageous to muder me or have sex with my daughter. What if you got a lot of a cash to murder me from the District Attorney who promises not to prosecute. Without God there can always be a situation where it is more advantageous to commit sin than not. What if you are Cuban dictator who makes the rules for your country and can do anything you want. What exactly would stop you except for your bigger next door neighbor what if you were the dictator of the biggest next door neighbor.

And isn't God just the biggest next door neighbor of them all?

Muslim fanatics believe in God, and some of them further believe that God demands that they kill infidels, which in their view would presumably include you. Seems like in their circumstance, their belief in God isn't stopping them from murdering you but is in fact making it advantageous for them to do so (assuming they want their 72 virgins or some such). WITH God there can also always be a situation in which it is more advantageous to commit sin than not.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

And isn't God just the biggest next door neighbor of them all?

That's close but the difference would be that God being the creator would have a right.

Muslim fanatics believe in God, and some of them further believe that God demands that they kill infidels, which in their view would presumably include you. Seems like in their circumstance, their belief in God isn't stopping them from murdering you but is in fact making it advantageous for them to do so (assuming they want their 72 virgins or some such). WITH God there can also always be a situation in which it is more advantageous to commit sin than not.

If Allah were the one true God then their killing of infadels isn't sin as long as that is what Allah wants. Try to prove morality without God.

 

[Jagdaddy]

That's close but the difference would be that God being the creator would have a right.
If Allah were the one true God then their killing of infadels isn't sin as long as that is what Allah wants. Try to prove morality without God.

1. I think it is immoral to deal drugs, even in countries where drug dealing is legal because they are bad for people.

2. I will not deal drugs because I think it is immoral.

3. As far as I know, God hasn't said anything about whether dealing drugs is immoral (if he has my unawareness of it makes it irrelevant).

4. I still will not deal drugs because I think it is immoral.

5. My morality has prevented me from dealing drugs even though God has not given me any guidance on the issue.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

That's fine for you. But prove that for someone else without God. Go ahead. You only proved that you don't like it. Keep trying.

 

[Jagdaddy]

That's fine for you. But prove that for someone else without God. Go ahead. You only proved that you don't like it. Keep trying.

Nah, your turn. Prove that belief in God constrains anyone other than yourself. If you reach the same no drug dealing stance I do, but because you believe God's against the act, explain how that is somehow a more moral or less relative result than mine. If you don't deal drugs for some other reason, what makes that reason good enough to stop you?

I don't even know what you're asking me for at this point. My thesis is simply that morality constrains both the religious and the non-religious, and seemingly to roughly comparable degrees. That doesn't seem to have been refuted yet.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Nah, your turn. Prove that belief in God constrains anyone other than yourself. If you reach the same no drug dealing stance I do, but because you believe God's against the act, explain how that is somehow a more moral or less relative result than mine. If you don't deal drugs for some other reason, what makes that reason good enough to stop you?

I don't even know what you're asking me for at this point. My thesis is simply that morality constrains both the religious and the non-religious, and seemingly to roughly comparable degrees. That doesn't seem to have been refuted yet.

Brewtus rejected the Chrisian idea that morality cannot exist without God. That atheists actually had the higher moral ground. I asked him to prove that based on something other than circumstance(which doesn't make morality) might cause someone not to commit sin (in this instance murder). Your Jihadists example didn't work because he technically wasn't sinning if Allah were God(if Allah's not then they can forget their heaven) because killing infadels would then be approved by God and therefore not be sin. Then you made the post about drugs. Unfortunately you only proved that not selling drugs was your personal preference and not something you can prove applies to everyone(which incedentally is exactly what a moral law is). So you've yet to prove that morality constrains non-religous. Its easy to see that God has given us a moral law Read the Ten-Commandments.

 

[Jagdaddy]

Brewtus rejected the Chrisian idea that morality cannot exist without God. That atheists actually had the higher moral ground. I asked him to prove that based on something other than circumstance(which doesn't make morality) might cause someone not to commit sin (in this instance murder). Your Jihadists example didn't work because he technically wasn't sinning if Allah were God(if Allah's not then they can forget their heaven) because killing infadels would then be approved by God and therefore not be sin. Then you made the post about drugs. Unfortunately you only proved that not selling drugs was your personal preference and not something you can prove applies to everyone(which incedentally is exactly what a moral law is). So you've yet to prove that morality constrains non-religous. Its easy to see that God has given us a moral law Read the Ten-Commandments.

That makes no sense. How do the Ten Commandments apply to everyone? Every one of the Ten Commandments is violated thousands (in some cases millions) of times every day, so their constraining power is far from universal (not to mention that half the people in the world have probably never heard of them). How is obeying the Ten Commandments any less of a personal preference than being constrained by anything else? By way of example, I just read them and would say I follow six at all times, one almost all the time, and three not at all.

I may be way off base, but I think that what you're getting at is that if disqualification from heaven isn't the consequence for violating a moral rule, then it isn't really a moral rule, because that's the only universal deterrent. If that's right, though, blowing one of the Ten Commandments alone (which virtually everybody has done), which you've said are moral, would seem sufficient to knock one out of heaven and thus eliminate the deterrence value and attendant moral law status of the other nine (what's the big man gonna do, send you to double secret hell?). In the circumstance in which one has lied or blasphemed, he can now adulter with apparent impunity.

Now, I suppose the answer to all that is that God forgives us our sins if we accept Jesus, which is great but seems to eliminate the universal deterrent power of the sins in the first place, putting them on the same supposedly morally lacking plane as my personal moral preferences. Quite a mess . . .

 

[Bleed S & G]

If Allah were the one true God then their killing of infadels isn't sin as long as that is what Allah wants. Try to prove morality without God.

exactly. except christ taught a much diffrent message. tat dosen't mean christians dont do the same. but thats why its so nuts, when you think your killing for god its brutal and total destruction..

 

[lvbuckeye]

That is incorrect. Fossilization occurs as a result of many different processes, not as a result of a single catastrophic event (Noah's Flood). Rapid burial is common as a result of processes that are either local catastrophes or that can scarcely be considered catastrophes at all, such as: burial in sediments in a river delta, burial in sediments from a local river flood, burial in a small landslide as along an eroded stream bank, burial in ash from a volcano and burial in a blown sand dune.

Patterns of fossilization are consistent with noncatastrophic processes such as those mentioned above. In fact, if Noah's Flood had actually happened we would expect to see a random mix of all species fossilized together such as Trilobites mixed with Dinosaurs, or on a much broader scale any modern animal mixed with species from the Paleozoic. But we don't this anywhere in the fossil record. How does the Bible explain that?

you are absolutely 100% incorrect, because your understanding of liquification is sorely lacking. do this experiment. get a large jug. in this jug place water, sand, leaves, grass, small rocks, larger stones, dead bugs, dead frogs, dead birds, and dead rodents. slosh the jug back and forth for a few weeks. a steady rocking motion, such as waves on a beach would be perfect. what do you suppose that mix will look like when you finally stop rocking the jug? all mixed up? i highly doubt it. the materials would end up in layers according to their density. the Bible doesn't explain it. but SCIENCE does.

just so that you won't say that what i just laid out is all supposition (which, incidentally is exaclty what the old-age evolutionist does) i've just cited a SCIENTIFIC experiment. here's the link.

how about another example? what about panning for gold? first off, if the earth was hundreds of billions of years old, and started off extremely hot, denser metals like gold should not be on or near the surface of the eath, but instead should lie deep in the mantle, but we'll ignore that for a second. one of the things i've done since i moved out west is pan for gold. i didn't find any, but most people are familiar with the concept. you get you pan of river water with its sand and rocks and stuff. first take out all the larger rocks. then you swirl the pan around to get the various stuff in the pan to start to settle into layers. then you tip the pan to pour off some of the lighter (actually, less dense) stuff... eventually, you've swirled the pan around enough, and poured off enough less dense layers that all you have left is the dense gold flakes. after a couple raps on the side of the pan to -- settle-- the flakes, you're done.

 

[lvbuckeye]

I don't believe it is true, that's how. You and I disagree on the evolution thing, and I don't want to take this thread down that path. Suffice to say, I believe there is enough time for random amino acids to get together, and over time produce DNA, which over time produced more complex forms of life, from single cell amoebas to what you see today.

you are aware of the fact that this has been going on in labs for YEARS now, and had NEVER happened, correct? please tell me if the atmosphere should be oxygen rich or oxygen deficient during the replication process.

Why do you seem to assume that God cannot work within the laws of science which he set up?

He does, hence the LAW of Biognensis. life cannot come from non life.

Edit (I wrote that shortly after waking, and have more to add): When I say above "I don't believe it's true" I don't mean that I disagree with the phrase "all life is from life." What I mean is, I think we're taking too much from Pasteurs research. At the time of his research, people believed maggots sponeously generated. He basically proved that was not so, life does not currently spontaneously arise in its present forms from non-life in nature.

it doesn't spring in ANY form.

In fact, let me ask you LV... since it appears that Pasteur actually set out to prove, and then did prove, that life dosn't just magically appear, how you can use such a theory to support your idea that God makes things appear and not some other natural mechanism? It seems to me, if Pasteur found, "Holy crap, Maggots really do just come right out of the air from nothing at all" there might be an argument to be made that God was responsible for present day generation of Maggots... but sadly... not so.

I'm also splitting this stuff off, as it has nothing to do with Global Warming and deserves it's own thread.

because natural mechanisms don't cause life to come from non living materials.
when was the last time you saw something magically appear? never? me either. but adding a shitload of time doesn't increase the odds. zero probability times a billion years still equals zero probability. life only comes from life. life cannot come from non life. this is scientific fact. at some point you have to introduce the Prime Mover, and if you're going to do that, you might as well believe the whole thing.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

you are aware of the fact that this has been going on in labs for YEARS now, and had NEVER happened, correct? please tell me if the atmosphere should be oxygen rich or oxygen deficient during the replication process.

Well, these guys seem to think they were successful:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm

On the isue of oxygen, I suppose I'll have to remind you that I don't make my living as a lab scientist, so I don't have the expertise to answer your question on that, and frankly don't feel like researching it.

He does, hence the LAW of Biognensis. life cannot come from non life.

But, you balk at the notion that evolution could be the way God set up the universe? I don't understand that.

it doesn't spring in ANY form.

Maybe, maybe not. My point was that Pasteur's research was to answer a limited question, which you have taken to become a "sweeping" law. While I have to concede that we have not ever observed the spontaneous creation of life out of nothing, I don't know how that helps your argument as we therefore have no evidence to support that God breathed life in to Adam, or created a bovine out of thin air. You may have faith that he did so at some point in time, but to pontificate that science is failing without recognition of the failures consequent in your analysis as it applies to Biblical stories seems a bit suspect.

because natural mechanisms don't cause life to come from non living materials.
when was the last time you saw something magically appear? never? me either. but adding a shitload of time doesn't increase the odds. zero probability times a billion years still equals zero probability. life only comes from life. life cannot come from non life. this is scientific fact. at some point you have to introduce the Prime Mover, and if you're going to do that, you might as well believe the whole thing.

And if we are to believe the Bible, this is EXACTLY what God is to have done.. violate his own rules of nature, and create life from non life. What good is a "LAW" if it must be broken in the first instance to ever be observed in the second? Seems more likely that God created life using a process which I would suspect we do not as yet understand fully (at all?) than to say He sets up laws of nature and then violates them because he can't do what he sets out to do if the law is in fact a law.

In this respect, I think a scientist would leave room for the refinement of understanding. The guy who appeals to the Bible, on the other hand (at least in my expierence), doesn't seem to leave room for any refinement of understanding.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

That makes no sense. How do the Ten Commandments apply to everyone? Every one of the Ten Commandments is violated thousands (in some cases millions) of times every day, so their constraining power is far from universal (not to mention that half the people in the world have probably never heard of them). How is obeying the Ten Commandments any less of a personal preference than being constrained by anything else? By way of example, I just read them and would say I follow six at all times, one almost all the time, and three not at all.

I may be way off base, but I think that what you're getting at is that if disqualification from heaven isn't the consequence for violating a moral rule, then it isn't really a moral rule, because that's the only universal deterrent. If that's right, though, blowing one of the Ten Commandments alone (which virtually everybody has done), which you've said are moral, would seem sufficient to knock one out of heaven and thus eliminate the deterrence value and attendant moral law status of the other nine (what's the big man gonna do, send you to double secret hell?). In the circumstance in which one has lied or blasphemed, he can now adulter with apparent impunity.

Now, I suppose the answer to all that is that God forgives us our sins if we accept Jesus, which is great but seems to eliminate the universal deterrent power of the sins in the first place, putting them on the same supposedly morally lacking plane as my personal moral preferences. Quite a mess . . .

Since we were talking in ifs I will continue to do so. If God created everyone the law he made would apply to everyone. Now I gave you the Ten Commandments but that's not the totality of the law. Of course you saw the problem that noone is able to keep those commandments to that degree. God had set up a system where sin offerings were given so that when you screwed up you could sacrifice a perfect lamb in your stead. You are right Jesus became that perfect sacrifice for everyone but that doesn't mean one can go on doing whatever one wants. In fact if one were to profess were to profess a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and go on living in sin I'm pretty sure that person isn't saved. Jesus gave us an even higher standard though. He said that even lusting after another woman is the same as commiting adultry. I could go on, but that should give you the picture. It is only through Jesus work in us that we ever should hope to become Holy.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You did mention Sadam a few posts ago. There was nothing preventing him killing thousands of his own people and that's exactly what he did. Sadam was not a Muslim. A killing spree brought by someone because "God told me to cleanse the world" didn't actually recieve it from God and went on a killing spree for the same reason anyone else would.

Hussein was indeed a Sunni Muslim

Who are you to say who recieves what message from God. Didn't God tell Abraham to kill his only son? Why should I believe that he wouldn't tell Joe Douchebag to pop off 100 rounds in a taco bell?

Seems to me you're selectively choosing whos telling the truth about God and what God's telling him to tell people/or do to people. That isn't a belief in God, that's a belief in oneself as the the judging side of God, if you will.

You have no reason to believe Joe Douchbag is lying about what God told him to do. You choose to believe God would't actually tell him to do such an act. And, you're probably right, frankly. Joe Douchbag is probably suffering from mental illness.... but then... wouldn't we then assume most to all biblical authors - and especially those who claimed to talk to God (better, that God talks to them)- be likely to be likewise suffering from such an illness?

I mean, lets face it... talking to God is normal. When God talks back, it's schizophrenia. ANd that's what kills me about allegedly devout christian types... it's all well and good to talk about God talking to Christ, or Moses or Job... it's cool when we're talking about dead people. But give me a live person who claims to be in communication with God, and you guys throw him under the bus faster than Richard Simmons going down in a gay bar.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Here's a big problem with this formula and it is stated right at the beginning of the article:

The Drake equation (also known as the Green Bank equation or the Sagan equation) is a famous result in the speculative fields of xenobiology, astrosciobiology and the search for extraterrestrail intelligence.

As I see, it that number is hopeful science fiction.

And of course, we still don't have a number for the odds of life generating from non-life.

but that kind of 'science' is fun because the answer can be everything or nothing depending on how you want the results to turn out.