Tuesday, November 5, 2013

... Epistemology of Flood vs Evolution plus of Catholic vs Protestant and Atheist

Video commented on:
TheThinkingAtheist : Top Ten Creationist Arguments
Daniel Coyle
I love the creationist agreement. "Why dont we teach the controversy of life" Which means teach evolution and the creationist version side by side. I can imagine it now one class of science reading a paragraph from the Book of Genesis and afterwards discussing the evidence of it. Which will take the whole of 5 minutes before the conclusion is made, there is none.

Which we can spend the next week or two discussing how really humans began on this planet. You know the real evidence.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Now, take the Flood.

Then take Cretaceous, Jurassic, Cambrian and so forth remains.

Those are evidence of the Flood, unless you want to presume they all come from different ages.

I just read how much modern life (birds and mammals) are found in Cretaceous rocks.

Fits the Flood story pretty well.
Answered twice
  • ZyClave A
  • kevih06 B
And i just read about how aliens control the planet and are abducting people all the time. Apparently they have big heads and big eyes!

Theres a lot of people who make a LOOOT of claims mate... When religious people make clams that are in the scientific sphere, bet the money that its completely made up... Not to be harsh, but these people are incredibly gullible... If someone asserts it, and it confirms their god, they accept it...

Always make sure to check your sources!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Maybe time for you to check up yours.

When was the last time you asked a museum "have ducks been found alongside dinos"?

And since we are at checking, ask them what place dinos have been found vertically on top of trilobites but with a clear difference in depth under ground.

What place on all earth have they been found that way?
A lack of information is not due to missleading sourcing but a lack of sourcing.

But to answer your question directly,ive never asked anyone if ducks have been found alongside dinosaurs. Was there a point...?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
In fact they have. But they are not often displayed in museums.

That is why I think you should ask them about it.
Sure they have... Sure...

Why do you think they dont show this then? Let me take a wild guess here. Its a CONSPIRACAAAY! Am i right?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That is what I think you might ask them about.

Here is my source:

creation . com/modern-birds-with-dinosaur­s
Anwered twice
  • ZyClave C
  • ajs1031 D
ZyClave C
Why would i ask them about that? Its like asking "where are those aliens we keep finding every day?" The question is based on a premiss i think i frankly delusional...

Its not like im surprised that your source for this information is an activist creationist site...

How about linking to a peer reviewed scientific journal?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The link mentions one museum as honorable exception, where you can start asking.

Your comment about "frankly delusional" says lots about your préjudices and how much brainwashing went on in your education.
I do have some prejudices about religious people. Like gullibility for instance. The very concept of faith IS gullibility (belief in something without evidence) and to HONOR faith is to me like honoring ignorance. But that doesnt necessarely apply to all religious people.

It certainly dont have to do with my education. I WISH they would teach epistemology, logic and critical though more in school. They dont! They tell you what to know, they dont teach HOW to think or how to process information.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"They tell you what to know, they dont teach HOW to think or how to process information."

Alas that that is what happened to you about religious faith.

"The very concept of faith IS gullibility (belief in something without evidence)"

Not the concept of faith. No. The concept of faith is one of total adherence without reserve to what God has revealed. But then the revalation of God is evidence for the things revealed, and that the revelation comes from God has evidence too.
ajs1031 D
Yeah, the problem is there has never actually been such a find. Every attempt at such a find has been proven to be a hoax from creationists.

See, you really shouldn't look at religious websites when researching this stuff, because they are known far and wide as existing only for the purpose of lying.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Did you check with the museum mentioned in my link?

Do you ever do any checking yourselves or do you sheepishly accept all your sources say and ask we creationists do all the double checking?

Just because you presume creation . com has to be lying and PZM has to be honest? That is called prejudice!
I research EVERY claim by creationists. Not just yours. That's how I know for a fact that the "museum" you are referring to should be closed down and it's owners charged with fraud, just like their buddy Hovind.

You see, when you only research claims by creationists on creationist site, as you do, you can't possibly learn anything.

Try learning some real science, because until you do you are literally saying nothing at all.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"An avocet in the dinosaur exhibit at Milwaukee Museum (top) - a rare example of a modern bird (bottom) in such displays."

So the Milwaukee Museum is on your view a Creationist "fraudulent" Museum?

Try to read the things you claim to check up on!

"Of the 60 museums he visited, he did not see one single fossil of a modern bird that had been found in a dinosaur rock layer and only one museum out of 60 displayed a modern bird model with a dinosaur: the Milwaukee Museum. In an out-of-the-way corner, the museum had a reconstructed avocet that had been found at Hell Creek (Montana) dinosaur dig site (see photo of avocet reconstruction below)—this is clearly an avocet."

So the avocet was not found in Hell Creek? Milwaukee Museum is fraudulent?

And no, I am not researching ONLY claims on creationist sites by creationists.

That again shows your prejudice that you thought that of me.
kevih06 B
"Those are evidence of the Flood, unless you want to presume they all come from different ages."

It's not presuming when the evidence suggests they are in different ages. If there was some sort of global flood, we would see all those fossils in the same rock strata.

At least I think that's what you're talking about.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"It's not presuming when the evidence suggests they are in different ages"

What evidence is there to suggest they are from different ages?

"If there was some sort of global flood, we would see all those fossils in the same rock strata."

Can you prove Cretaceous and Permian rocks bearing fossils from period are different strata at any one place on earth now?

If not they could be different biotopes before flood.
john clewes
They burned bibles in the inquisition??? Absolute nonsense,the Sanish inquisition inspired by various Popes,Jesuits,and the Dominican hounds of God spanned centuries ,during which anyone caught burning a bible would have been reduced to ashes. The shameful period of bloodthirsty persecution is extremely well documented,and I suggest you do some research before spouting rubbish on the subject.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
As a Catholic I must say they did burn some Bibles in the Inquisition.

Namely Protestant translations to the vernacular.

Of course, if you were caught burning a Latin Vulgate or a translation recommended by the Inquisition, you had a problem.

In Spanish Bibles were translated pretty early on Catholic initiative.
So one cult decided that another cult (with the same god) deserved to have their rights violated by burning their stuff.

If the christian god exist, would that not have been the perfect time for him to intervene and clarify to people either "Im fine with the bible translated to other languages, stop burning my book, ey?" OR "Latin is the unquestionable language of god, if you translate it so you actually understand it, those books should burn".

Why do YOU think he did not intervene?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
First of all you swallow the Protestant version of what happened so readily that you do not even read my words.

I did not say the Inquisition burnt all Bibles except Vulgates. I said it burnt all Bibles in faulty translations, thus neither Latin Bibles nor Authorised Translations (the English one is not KJV but Douai-Reims).

Second, I think God approved of burning Bibles that translate "episcopos" and "ekklesia" as "overseer" and "congregation" rather than "bishop" and "church".

Third, you totally miss the fact that Catholics and Protestants back in Europe were not two equal cults having laid equally the grounds for Christian civilisation here.

Protestantism is a by-product of Catholicism. Just as Atheism (in the Western World, as you show yourself) is of Protestantism. And Catholics could figure out it would lead to Atheism.
Answered three times
  • ZyClave E
  • ZyClave F
  • Christian Campos G
ZyClave E
I agree that protestantism is a byproduct of catholicism.

I dont understand at all why you would say atheism is one of protestantism though... Atheists in the true meaning of the word (not-theist) existed BEFORE any god concepts was every invented. Atheism as an oppositional stance have existed for exactly as long as theism have.

Saying atheism is a product of protestantism implies that atheism is a new thing. Its not... Its way older than christianity...
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Atheists in the true meaning of the word (not-theist) existed BEFORE any god concepts was every invented."

That is a guess. It resembles the Protestant guess that first Christians were virtually identical to this or that Protestant denomination.

"Atheism as an oppositional stance have existed for exactly as long as theism have."

That resembles the Protestant guess that anyone opposed to Catholics (say Albigensians and Valdensians) was basically Protestant.
Ehm... Its not a guess mate. Before theists existed everyone was a non-theist, AKA atheist. It have nothing to do with protestantism... Protestants are not atheists...

What is the connection between protestantism and atheism? I dont get it...
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Before theists existed everyone was a non-theist,"

That is your guess. We say that before atheists existed (any variety) every person in the universe was Theist. Monotheists came before Idolaters too. Since we don't agree with your guess, we see it for a guess.

Precisely as since we Catholics do not agree with Protestantisms, we do see their several claims of coincidence with primitive Church as non-founded. As guesses.

Also, modern Western atheism arose in Anglican England.
The only thing im "guessing" is that theists have not always existed. And before language, i seriously doubt people where capable of thinking in terms of god concepts.

Do you understand what a true dichotomy is...? Do you accept that theism and "not theism" (atheism) is a true dichotomy? Do you agree that theists have not always existed? If you agree with the two premises, it follows that atheists existed BEFORE theists.

I didnt say MODERN atheism...
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"And before language, i seriously doubt people where capable of thinking in terms of god concepts."

According to Theism there has never been any "before language".

"Do you agree that theists have not always existed?"

No, that is exactly what I think you are just guessing. Before anything else existed God did. And God was obviously Theist and not Atheist. The first angels he created and the men he created six days later were not atheist or even non-theist either. Some material and biological items created between them were non-theist but not atheist. A stone is non-theist and non-seeing, but not blind or atheist.

"I didnt say MODERN atheism..."

Nevertheless you are a modern Western atheist, not an Epicurean, not a Theravada Buddhist, as far as I know.
Answered twice:
  • ZyClave α
  • ZyClave β
ZyClave α
I was obviously refering to humans... Sure, you could say im "guessing" that the first people we would refer to as humans, did not have a concept of god. But at worst, that means theism and atheism arrived at the same time. I dont think you can get all humans to accept ANY claim.

I wouldnt call a non-biological thing those things, but animals without eyes are blind and if they dont believe in a god they are atheists. I dont think we can KNOW if they do or do not believe in a god though :P
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Adam and Eve were the first humans. They were Theists. So were Cain and Abel. And Set. And probably the rest of their children too.

Animals without eyes are blind.

But animals not believing in God are not atheists.

Animals have eyes, but no reason.
ZyClave β
Yes I am. But the kind of anti-theism of Christopher Hitchens which i ascribe to, is a very recent thing. Probably not older than ~60 years or so. This type of atheism wasnt really possibly in the 1500 hundreds, as im sure you understand since the kind and loving christians would instantly flay these people alive (because god is a loving god).

But i wasnt the first atheist... And that was what, I at least, was talking about.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It was not possible in the times of Epicurus or (if he was Atheist) Buddha either.

Since there was no militant Christianity to be militantly anti about.

Pietro Aretino comes in the 1500's, but that was an Italian town with more condottieri possibly than priests.

Purely private atheism is hard to verify.

Atheism as a modern socially coherent phenomenon starts with Shaftesbury in England (thus ex-Anglican) followed by Diderot and Alembert in France. Who admired Protestants for being secular.
ZyClave F
I assumed that was what you were saying, yes. Its not like the catholics took the new sect in their midst with open arms, so wouldnt surprise me if they did do that.

I dont really see that i actually WROTE that though. I only mention that one side burn books of the other side, which you seem to say is correct. And my question about why god didnt intervene still stands no matter the scope of the burning or the asserted flaws in the translations.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Your question about God not intervening does not stand before the fact that God gave authority to the Church.

Meaning that Protestantism is not and Catholicism is that Church.
And what evidence do you have that god gave authority to the church? Because it looks to me like a bounch of dudes who just claimed that right in order to get dominance over people and claimed they had god on their side.

Simular to the jews in the old testement who went around raping and pillaging their neightbours and said god wanted it. (Numbers 31: 17-18)

Why do you accept the authority of these MEN even if christianity is correct? I´d never do that even if i was a christian.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Because it looks to me like a bounch of dudes who just claimed that right in order to get dominance over people and claimed they had god on their side."

OK, at what exact occasion?

313? What was it that existed before 313? Did it claim authority from God while being persecuted by Pagan Emperors?

If not, how come people all of a sudden remember in 313 having belonged to a Church that never existed before?
Christian Campos G
so god told themburn bibles.He came down and said Burn bibles

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, he did not "come down and say".

He had founded His Church and given Her authority. She was using that authority against pseudo-bibles, against wrong translations of the Bible. Not against real Bibles.
john clewes
a bible is a bible is a bible,and regardless of creed sect or denomination the content is based on superstitious bronze age [...].OK,imbecile??
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Superstitious and bronze age tend to go together in some vocabularies.

Wonder why.

Inquisitors would not have agreed with you, and your reaction shows no very great concern for historic accuracy.

Not that your other remarks are any better than this previous one in that respect.
Missing for the moment, will be fixed when I find the comments again.
I'm not saying it is useless! It's just that Atheists use scientific facts to deny a God's existence, but who's to say those scientific facts are true? I think it's just some food for thought that should be kept in mind when we fight all the time in the comments. Not trying to be offensive~ x3
So what you´re saying is that the very concept of investigating reality is useless because anything we find could have been manipulated by magic?

If you believe that i sure hope you dont use the items invented through science.

"I believe in the theory of gravity, but i also believe angels hold our feet to the ground" is sort of the argument you made... But hey, im happy you accept evolution so i guess i shouldnt be too hard on ye.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sheghostly: "It's just that Atheists use scientific facts to deny a God's existence, but who's to say those scientific facts are true?"

[she actually had made another statement too which was closer to his version]

You: "So what you´re saying is that the very concept of investigating reality is useless because anything we find could have been manipulated by magic?"

Are you guys collectively hypnotised to get that argument wrong every time you hear it, or what?

Two observations:

  • 1) "Some kind of magic" being behind everything and thus real explanation of the results does not equal "the results cannot be trusted because magic tampered with perception".

  • 2) Scientific facts can be wrong because results are wrong, because calculations are wrong or - MAIN CULPRIT - because interpretation is wrong.

    I once had a math student who got an answer wrong. He calculated everything right, but he did not calculate what he shd have calculated to get correct answer. Interpretation.
  • 1) Im not following your argument... Mind rephrasing?

  • 2) If you by scientific fact, mean the observation itself, it can be wrong, but rarely on the basic science. The observation of gravity for instance is obvious, 'things fall down'. The observation for evolution, the diversity of life, is also kinda axiomatic.

    Calculations and interpretation can be wrong too, yes.

    Are you making an argument for solipsism or what...?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • 1) Saying God and angels accurately account for movement of heaven and of heavenly bodies as observed is something else than saying they tamper with our perception so we cannot accurately obserbving them.

  • 2)The thing is I am not.

    Newtonian gravity is an interpretation of the fact that things fall down. So are Aristotelian and Einsteinian gravity.

    Stars and planets moving due to inertia and gravity (either of the non-Aristotelian versions) is also interpretation.

    Cats and dogs, mice and men, animals, plants and bacteria being ultimately related as Chihuahuas and Danes is also an interpretation.

No comments: