Atheist diary at the GWT

[fccool]

I asked my cat. He just stared at me disdainfully. I hope I have a better luck with my dogs, and the house-plant.

[fccool]

This topic probably should be moved to Theological Town-hall.

[Tom Wetmore]

Consider it done.

[BobRyan]

I accept the laws of physics because I've seen evidence of them.

[fccool]

Ok, Bob... I challenge you to complete a free-will belief experiment

1) Find a car that's any color than red.

2) Start believing out of your own free will that it's red.

3) Gradually grow that belief and extend it to all non-red cars

4) Keep believing, out of your free will and without lying to yourself, that all of the non-red cars are really red.

Good luck

[BobRyan]

So - err umm.. that is exactly my point with "you do not have to believe in the laws of physics for them to be true".

Apparently we both agree on that point.

in Christ,

Bob

[SivartM]

Ok, Bob... I challenge you to complete a free-will belief experiment

1) Find a car that's any color than red.

2) Start believing out of your own free will that it's red.

3) Gradually grow that belief and extend it to all non-red cars

4) Keep believing, out of your free will and without lying to yourself, that all of the non-red cars are really red.

Good luck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN7jVSZgFDI

[Igakusei]

ESV | ‎Job 12:7 “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; ‎8 or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. ‎9 Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? ‎10 In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind.

Upon "asking" the birds, beasts, and bushes, this is what I discovered:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Your quote has become an appeal to ignorance, in today's day and age.

[fccool]

Originally Posted By: fccool

Ok, Bob... I challenge you to complete a free-will belief experiment

1) Find a car that's any color than red.

2) Start believing out of your own free will that it's red.

3) Gradually grow that belief and extend it to all non-red cars

4) Keep believing, out of your free will and without lying to yourself, that all of the non-red cars are really red.

Good luck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN7jVSZgFDI

I'm into mentalism and cold-reading myself . I find it fascinating. Darin Brown is obviously one of the best when it comes to presentation, but what you see on the screen is not a reflection of reality. I hate to disappoint you, but people don't have magical mental powers.

How this particular one is done in this case I'd have to explain, but there's a bit more optical illusion involved in terms of how we see the cards, and how the person does based on directions that she received (she did not believe that the color is black, she was told to say that is)... and different camera cuts make the illusion even more convincing. The trick (on your) would have been more obvious if it was a continuous take from perspective of the camera.

Darren does explain most of these tricks in his books.

As ironic as it may sounds, you are the one being deceived in this particular case

[SivartM]

I'm into mentalism and cold-reading myself . I find it fascinating. Darin Brown is obviously one of the best when it comes to presentation, but what you see on the screen is not a reflection of reality. I hate to disappoint you, but people don't have magical mental powers.

How this particular one is done in this case I'd have to explain, but there's a bit more optical illusion involved in terms of how we see the cards, and how the person does based on directions that she received (she did not believe that the color is black, she was told to say that is)... and different camera cuts make the illusion even more convincing. The trick (on your) would have been more obvious if it was a continuous take from perspective of the camera.

Darren does explain most of these tricks in his books.

As ironic as it may sounds, you are the one being deceived in this particular case

Of course I don't entertain any notion that Derren Brown has magical mind powers. Your post only made me think of that particular video, and while it was obviously produced for entertainment more than representing reality, I still don't doubt that a skilled enough person could trick someone into believing anything.

[Igakusei]

Of course I don't entertain any notion that Derren Brown has magical mind powers. Your post only made me think of that particular video, and while it was obviously produced for entertainment more than representing reality, I still don't doubt that a skilled enough person could trick someone into believing anything.

You might enjoy this:

[Gerr]

Upon "asking" the birds, beasts, and bushes, this is what I discovered:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Your quote has become an appeal to ignorance, in today's day and age.

An appeal to ignorance? Ahem, where is the evidence for MACRO-evolution? Where is it? Where are the intermediates? How many hoaxes have evolutionists come up with? Fairy tale!

With all of man's genius he can't create life, but chance can? An explosion in a junk yard can/will by chance produce a 747?

A salmon hatched in some river miles and miles away from the ocean, goes to the ocean where it's never been before and after years roaming in the ocean returns to its birthplace - all by chance?

Billions and billions of galaxies with trillions of suns all came to be by pure chance?

Look at the DNA. That god called evolution must be very powerful!

Personally, I would have to be insane to believe such a thing.

[SivartM]

Personally, I would have to be insane to believe such a thing.

I would have to be insane to believe all of those straw men, or to believe that automatically explaining everything with God is science.

[Igakusei]

Upon "asking" the birds, beasts, and bushes, this is what I discovered:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Your quote has become an appeal to ignorance, in today's day and age.

[BobRyan]

Ahem, where is the evidence for MACRO-evolution? Where is it? Where are the intermediates? How many hoaxes have evolutionists come up with? Fairy tale!

With all of man's genius he can't create life, but chance can? An explosion in a junk yard can/will by chance produce a 747?

A salmon hatched in some river miles and miles away from the ocean, goes to the ocean where it's never been before and after years roaming in the ocean returns to its birthplace - all by chance?

Billions and billions of galaxies with trillions of suns all came to be by pure chance?

Look at the DNA. That "god" called evolution must be very powerful!

Certainly when Dawkins was asked for one simple evolution 101 example of new genetic information arising within a genome (new coding genes giving rise to new phyla, etc) he had nothing to offer but 11 seconds of silence closely observing the ceiling.

And certainly devoted atheist evolutionists like Collin Patterson were known for lamenting the distinctively religious nature for the argument for evolutionism.

But all of that aside -

The real issue is that the lake of fire scenario on page 1 is the "problem" that CARDW's videos suggest "does not exist" - and thus argue that no gospel solution is necessary.

in Christ,

Bob

[Igakusei]

Certainly when Dawkins was asked for one simple evolution 101 example of new genetic information arising within a genome (new coding genes giving rise to new phyla, etc) he had nothing to offer but 11 seconds of silence closely observing the ceiling.

And certainly devoted atheist evolutionists like Collin Patterson were known for lamenting the distinctively religious nature for the argument for evolutionism.

See, this is a great example of that creationist dishonesty I was talking about. If they had any real arguments, they wouldn't have to resort to taking stuff out of context so much. If you really want some fun homework, find any creationist website, grab the original sources for their quotes, and start cataloguing how many are used to blatantly misrepresent the intent of the person being quoted. I actually met a guy once who stopped being a creationist because he decided to look all the quotes up to find more ammo against evolution and realized that they were all being misquoted.

And I know Bob knows he's taking these out of context because he brings these quotes up all the time.

I've long since given up on trying to talk to Bob, but given your education I'm still holding out hope that you're erudite enough to see the irony here.

[Gerr]

Behe, an evolutionist, has come to doubt evolution because of the irreducible complexity as simple as a mouse trap! All those pieces have to appear simultaneously.

Just look at any part of your body. Does any part of you look like the product of random event?

[Gerr]

And science can explain origins?

How an atom came to be? How life came/comes about?

[Gerr]

How can you reject something that you so clearly know so little about?

You're right. I know very little. I just know enough to see false science when I see it. What I cited may be tired responses, only because evolutionists have no answer for them.

Are there experimental evidences for macroevolution that establishes it beyond a reasonable doubt? You call it science when someone finds finds a tooth here, and a few pieces of bone here and there and proceeds to construct a whole animal and then claim this must be the missing link?

You talk about creationist dishonesty, who has come up with all those hoaxes?

What's the probability that the billions and billions of galaxies with their trillions of stars came to be by themselves? And the probability that life arises from something inanimate?

And no, I don't believe God guides each individual salmon to its place of birth, but my God is smart enough to put a sensor in the salmon that can tell where it came from. But if you prefer to say that the god evolution did it, be my guest.

[Gerr]

Walter Veith is also fond of lying for Jesus. Having been a zoologist, he knows better than to say many of the things he does regarding origins. It's one thing to disagree with interpretations of the evidence, but I have a much harder time with people who misrepresent the evidence itself, or intentionally misrepresent the way the scientific community says things work when they clearly know better.

He was a dyed in the wool evolutionist with a PhD in zoology, I believe. But he saw that evolution is not based on solid scientific evidence.

[Igakusei]

Wow, you apparently have no idea how ignorant that sounds. The mouse trap? Seriously? If you think we don't have answers for those questions, you seriously haven't been looking AT ALL. There are substantially better questions to ask, but you're still stuck in the creationist 1980s.

Have you ever listened to the other story regarding those hoaxes? That's a subject in particular that gets blatantly lied about on a regular basis. Do your own research.

Paleontology is a lot more than "a tooth here and a scapula there." I seriously don't even know where to begin when you say stuff like that. We've found hundreds of thousands of fossil species, and they show an extremely consistent pattern regarding geography and burial age. It's an inescapable conclusion once you begin objectively analyzing the evidence, and ignorance is no excuse.

Did you even click the link I posted on the last page? You keep asking for evidence and I just sent you a whole archive of it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

That should get you started. Explain how some of that stuff makes sense if everything has only been here a few thousand years.

[Gerr]

I could cite you more complex irreducible biological systems, but the mouse trap will do. Do you have experimental evidence that irreducible complex systems arise/evolved spontaneously?

[Igakusei]

I could cite you more complex irreducible biological systems, but the mouse trap will do. Do you have experimental evidence that irreducible complex systems arise/evolved spontaneously?

Past tense, yes.

IC is specifically designed to be hard to falsify, given the length of time it would take to evolve a system as complex as Behe's flagellum and immune system (the main examples from Darwin's Black Box). As far as his bacterial flagellum goes, exaptation is almost certainly how it evolved as most of the proteins involved are homologous to other proteins in the same bacteria doing completely different functions. 10 of the 40 proteins in the E.coli flagellum are almost identical to those in class 3 membrane transport systems, for example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_...p;v=SdwTwNPyR9w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As1HlmYeh7Q&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZdCxk0CnN4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision

[Gerr]

Look, neither evolution or creationism can be established by empirical scientific experimentation. How things came to be is a past one time occurrence that cannot be replicated. To many scientists, faith is a dirty word. Regardless, both worldviews are matters of faith that cannot be established empirically. The articles in the link you provided use all kinds of fancy and sophisticated words/terms to describe/explain the world around us, but they in no way are empirical evidence to support the evolution worldview. The circumstantial evidences that we see are seen/interpreted through the glasses of these two worldviews.

And to me, the creation worldview provides a more adequate explanation of the world/universe that I see.

[Igakusei]

So what you're saying is that since nothing can ever be 100% proven, then all opinions are of equal worth? You're a ^#$&(* doctor and you can't read a few pages because it has too much fancy language?