The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

> Do you believe Atheism is better for society than religious belief?

It's excessively offtopic at this stage (though worth a thread), but the answer is certainly, yes, that all the available evidence points to the unavoidable conclusion that the existence of a significant propotion of atheists in any society correlates strongly with a peaceful and well-integrated society with fewer abortions, STDs, divorces, irrational hatreds (against homosexuality, divorcees, other religions etc) and obviously, less or no abuse of kids by the fewer clergy.

ISAW

robindch wrote:

..., we'd expect the same ratio of convicted paedophile clergy to convicted paedophile non-clergy present in the prison population to be roughly the same as the ratio of clergy to non-clergy present in the non-prison population.

Let us remove the word "paedophile" and replace it with "cocaine abusing" and let is replace the term clergy with "rich business men"

Do you really believe that you would expect the same ratio of cocaine abusing rich businessmenn to convicted cocaine abusing non businessmen as the ratio of rich businessmen to non businessmen in the normal population?

I would suggest that cocaine abuse is much higher among the business classes but the fact is that it is overwhelmingly working class people who are banged up in prison many many more so than their proportion of society. does this prove that working classes have a greater deal of cocaine abuse? No! It shows that it is more likely they will be caught and imprisioned. It does not make them on the whole "worse" than other parts of the population. anyone doing so would be regarded as classist.

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> Do you believe Atheism is better for society than religious belief?

It's excessively offtopic at this stage (though worth a thread), but the answer is certainly, yes,

"Certainly yes" so that is 100 per cent certain?

that all the available evidence

ALL the available evidence? Every single piece of evidence? You do realise that a single counter example in this case disproves your contention?

points to the unavoidable conclusion

this is exactly the point I was getting to i.e. that from some weak correlations an "unavoidable conclusion" is reached that athiesm is good for society.

that the existence of a significant propotion of atheists in any society correlates strongly with a peaceful and well-integrated society with fewer abortions, STDs, divorces, irrational hatreds (against homosexuality, divorcees, other religions etc) and obviously, less or no abuse of kids by the fewer clergy.

Please post the "indisputable evidence" that atheism creates less abortion STDs divorce, sectarianism, and child abuse. How does atheism do this? what is the mechanism by which you suggest atheism caused less crime and social problems?

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> Do you believe Atheism is better for society than religious belief?

It's excessively offtopic at this stage

It came in with the idea that not following the lesson of the Bible (or not following monotheistic religion in particular or religion in general) is a more preferable alternative for society. clearly a prophetic insight So in fact it is on topic as proposing an alternative to following the Bible.

ISAW

robindch wrote:

[

> I didnt bring up the suggestion that priests are more likely to be
> child abusers. [...] Dont blame me for disputing other peoples claims.

You did not bring up the topic, but you did dispute it and I responded to your criticism until it became obvious that the topic was no longer moving forward. If you're not happy with my reply, then I suggest you create a new thread somewhere else and I'll continue there if there's anything substantial which I can add to what I've said already, though I don't think there is.

Also, as a polite comment, I note that much of what you write disputes, not altogether politely, what you and others may or may not have said in previous postings. This style of writing does not move any argument forward and tends to annoy other posters, so I would respectfully ask you to consider changing your posting style to avoid it wherever possible. Thanks.

If you claim priests are more likely to abuse children than the population as a whole then I am sorry if you think it is impolite to say that is bunkum!

If anyone thinks they can make a claim like that and then expect it to be left unchallenged in order to "move the argument forward" then I am sorry but no one can base an argument on something which is not certain and hope to progress from that by the tacid acceptance of others and then later restating the unproven claim as if it was 100 per cent truth!

Would you state the same of blacks or muslim clerics or women or working class people or travellers?

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote:

True. From my point of view, you misinterpreted me as a result of butting into a discussion between me and wolfsbane and have persistently refused to accept my correction of your misinterpretation.

Wrong! I accepted the clarification as to what you were posting in response to. I accept that the claim that religios societies are better is unproven but so isd you counter claim - that athiestic sociseties are better.

You have aggressively pursued this misinterpretation, repeatedly dismissing any attempt at clarification.

i have agressively persued supporting evidence for the suggestion that atheism means less crime and I have asked you whether you believe atheistic societies are better for society. In spite of this you still havent answered that simple question. So you believe atheistic societies are better for humanity?

You have loudly proclaimed that you can't be bothered to read the rest of the thread,

WRONG! I stated Iwas not looking forward to reading all 94 pages at that time. I nowhere stated "I couldnt be bothered" . Care to show where I did? I bet you wont since it isnt true is it? Who is "misinterpreting" whom now?

while complaining about things that are common practice. Your tone is invariably accusatory,

What things did I complain about which are "common practice" would it be that you showed a weak correlation from a single source and not actually supply the actual correlation values or raw data from that source in spite of your claims that the sy=tats would show you to be correct? In spite of you insisting that I should go an read a reference you claimed to know about but cant produce the actual raw data from? In spite of you claiming I refused to read it (when in fact I had and which is why I asked where it supported your claim)?

Where did accuse you of anything?

and you appear to assume that I am an idiot who is incapable of reasoning or scientific thought.

If that is your opinion then you are also wrong about that! It seems I cant change your opinion which you are entitled to but please dont come here and claim it is true. I never called you an idiot. In fact you called me one on several occasions so you are hoist on your own petard on that one.

I never claimed you are incapable of reasoning or scientific thought. In fact I told you that I found such statements personally insulting and I would not deign to do to others what I do not like done on myself. The worst I may have mentioned is that something is a "stupid comment" or a "silly comment". I have no idea if I stated that about your comment. If so I refered to the comment and not the person making it. I do not indulge in ad hominem. The truth is that you insulted me several times calloing me an idiot and even going into criticising my spelling but I would much prefer if you said sorry and moved on. The assumption that I think you an idiot is again a bald assertion without any basis in fact and I can tell you that it just is not true. Do you believe I am also lying about this?

If you're a skeptic, you have managed to come across as a rude and stupid one.

Hey I am not the one making the personal insults. You now have added another insult by calling me stupid again. I wont indulge in ad hominem. You cant attack the argument so now you resort to attacking the person. Goodbye

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

You did not bring up the topic, but you did dispute it and I responded to your criticism until it became obvious that the topic was no longer moving forward. If you're not happy with my reply, then I suggest you create a new thread somewhere else and I'll continue there if there's anything substantial which I can add to what I've said already, though I don't think there is.

Also, as a polite comment, I note that much of what you write disputes, not altogether politely, what you and others may or may not have said in previous postings. This style of writing does not move any argument forward and tends to annoy other posters, so I would respectfully ask you to consider changing your posting style to avoid it wherever possible. Thanks.

All of ISAW's posts basically boil down to the same point, which is that he doesn't believe that you can prove anything with statistics (exactly contrary to the popular saying!).

Perhaps we can just add, in future, a rider to all statistical claims (the "ISAW" rider) - something like "insofar as you can prove things with statistics".

I'm not entirely convinced he isn't actually JC with the Caps Lock key off. There are some strong correlations, although obviously that doesn't prove a causal link!

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

ISAW wrote:

The claim here is that "man(kind) is older than Coal/Oil"

The claim is unsupported and much counter evidence dates the age of the Earth as older than the 6000 years ago of literal Bible translation.
There are several methods of dating which all agree with each other.

Geological column - qualitive but goes bak into geological time and offers species from spoecific epochs .

Dendrochronology - youngner specemins can use tree rings limit with petrified trees about a million years

radiometric dating - some elements such as Xircon have half lives which are ~ 30Ga twice the age of the Universe.

Chronomagnetic - Switches in the magnetic poles of the Earth every 28,000 years or so - extend into geological time - hundreds of millions of years

Ijn addition Eugene Shoemaker proposed a dating method of Moons and planets based on crate density. Unfortunatley for older moons like Earths moon so many craters have been caused that it is not reliable since you cant count craters which are concealed "under" other ones.

There is other evidence such as extraterrestrial meteorites. Hubble expansion the Hydrogen Helium Ratio oand the Cosmic microwave background radiation which point to and universe billions of years.

You "chat" with your friend does not convince me.

My post was answering an earlier question about the oil patch using the flood as a basis for their well hunts. My friend is an oldearth creationist and he and I have had wonderful chats over the years.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

My post was answering an earlier question about the oil patch using the flood as a basis for their well hunts. My friend is an oldearth creationist and he and I have had wonderful chats over the years.

I meant to ask you - did he actually say "worldwide flood"? Or did he say that the world was underwater?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

I meant to ask you - did he actually say "worldwide flood"? Or did he say that the world was underwater?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Worldwide flood which is what caused the world to be under water.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Worldwide flood which is what caused the world to be under water.

Interesting. Of course an evolutionist geologist would accept that virtually all of the earth has been underwater at some point. In the Archaean, prior to the formation of continents, the entire world would have been underwater! Did he give a date?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Wow, this thread has reached a landmark 100 pages. Anyone know what the longest thread on Boards i.e. has been.
Is this a new record?

Dave!

Not at all. Check out some threads here

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote:

Wow, this thread has reached a landmark 100 pages. Anyone know what the longest thread on Boards i.e. has been.
Is this a new record?

It will also, very shortly, be 2000 posts. If we keep this up we might as well just rewrite the Bible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

It will also, very shortly, be 2000 posts. If we keep this up we might as well just rewrite the Bible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Strange, I though we were already doing that:D

Asiaprod

DaveMcG wrote:

Not at all. Check out some threads here

796 pages:eek:, good lord. I hope wolfsbane and JC are up to it.

ISAW

Asiaprod wrote:

796 pages:eek:, good lord. I hope wolfsbane and JC are up to it.

And some people apparently expect you to read all of them before you are qualified to comment

Mind you the TV series MASH ran for longer than the Korean War in which it was set.

Zombrex

Soooo.....

Zombrex

....what do I win!!! (for 2000 post) ... the love and admiration of Boards.ie community?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

....what do I win!!! (for 2000 post) ... the love and admiration of Boards.ie community?

Mint copy of Genesis. Signed by author.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

Off-topic:

bluewolf wrote:

topology which I did alright in,
metric spaces, group theory, and complex analysis
complex is evil don't do it!!
group theory is useful but I just forgot so much I messed up and metric wasn't great either
plus I tried learning them off in 2 days which as I said wasn't the best idea

I'm actually teaching it to myself now. The masters I've been accepted for assumes you've already done a complex analysis module in undergraduate, so that they can teach you the path integral formulation of QM straight away.
It's really difficult to keep it all in your head. Poles, Laurent expansions.... e.t.c.

Luckily group theory is fairly easy because they assume that as well.

Son Goku

continuing offtopic, sorry lads

Son Goku wrote:

Off-topic:


I'm actually teaching it to myself now. The masters I've been accepted for assumes you've already done a complex analysis module in undergraduate, so that they can teach you the path integral formulation of QM straight away.
It's really difficult to keep it all in your head. Poles, Laurent expansions.... e.t.c.

Luckily group theory is fairly easy because they assume that as well.

I don't remember having used this for QM but fair enough, it did involve complex conjugates, just not poles and crap
My problem with it was mostly the length of the course tbh
And the residue theorem. Omg, most evil thing ever. Trying to figure out the integrals using it was bloody insane and went on for pages. it came up last year and I decided to skip studying it and it came up this year :rolleyes:

Really? group theory? I'm so glad I picked these modules - I seem to have chosen well
I was half picking things that sounded cool and half picking things I thought might come in useful - my masters modules will be group theory, algebraic topology (which seems to be useful for QFT, nash wrote some book on it) and in mathsphys they'll be GR and QFT of course, hopefully I'll get to sit in on quantum gravity lectures.
Maybe you can do the actual complex module next year, the depts will let you transfer some credits now, as long as you tell them that the modules are relevant
I don't know if you're doing mathsphys or astrophys? but maths credits per module are higher than mathsphys ones

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Mint copy of Genesis. Signed by author.

Zombrex

Son Goku wrote:

Off-topic:

bluewolf wrote:

continuing offtopic, sorry lads

You know there is Private Messages, not that I don't find advance mathematics modules facinating

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

You know there is Private Messages, not that I don't find advance mathematics modules facinating

Eww, I'm not talking to a boy in PM!

Yeah ok we'll PM next time.
And maths IS fun

robindch

Briefly back on topic...

I haven't looked at Ken Ham's propaganda site for a while, but two minutes on it a short while ago was worthwhile, 'specially on his jobs page:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/jobs/employment.asp

The first three responsibilities for the first job listed are money-related (big surprise there!), but the lucky applicant must also be willing to help out with businessman’s breakfast and pastor’s luncheons. Ham's also looking for an audio/video manager who can lift heavy boxes and a market researcher who has to "Assure the integrity of research results" which is a bit ironic in the circumstances. There's a job for a security operative who has to "think outside the box" but who's also qualified for "sitting for long periods of time".

Finally -- and you just can't invent this stuff -- Ken Ham is looking for a bunch of "Exhibit Fabricators".

Scofflaw

A rather accurate description of Creation Science, by the Onion:

Rogue Scientist Has Own Scientific Method

OK, it's not really. I'm just being cruel.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

Mint copy of Genesis. Signed by author.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wow, you have an unedited version with no flood?:D

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote:

Wow, you have an unedited version with no flood?:D

It's got maps!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

It's got maps!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Are the oil field marked:D