The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

What exactly would that achieve? It would become this thread all over again.

Infinite regress... :rolleyes:

token56

Wicknight wrote: »

I can see the point of having a single thread for all Creationism vs Science debates, but possibly a new formate is required. This thread ended up just being a series of pointless :pac::pac::pac::pac::D:D:D:D;););):p:p:p:p style posts. It is the equivilant of a "y'er mamma" thread. It is actually really difficult to read through and find any actual information.

I agree, I think this thread could be useful but it needs a new format as you say. Any discussion is inevitably lost among a sea of smiles and emoticons, the usual one line quips and a load of green and red text. Perhaps a clearer or tighter definition about what this thread is for and the protocol for discussion etc, and what will and will not be tolerated. Maybe this thread can be turned around.

Galvasean

Simples. We'll just habe PDN read the entire thread and delete any off topic/useless posts.

See you in a year or two...

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

Simples. We'll just habe PDN read the entire thread and delete any off topic/useless posts.

See you in a year or two...

I'd rather be grated and rolled in salt.

token56

It would probably be easier to just delete all the posts, then go back and add any that are actually worthwhile.

Perhaps we all just need to be more active in reporting posts against the forum charter, in particular the no soap boxing rule. Also maybe there sure be limit set regarding the number of smiles you are allowed in one post

Galvasean

token56 wrote: »

Also maybe there sure be limit set regarding the number of smiles you are allowed in one post

There is. It's 15.

token56

Galvasean wrote: »

There is. It's 15.

I see, never knew that

Sam Vimes

token56 wrote: »

It would probably be easier to just delete all the posts, then go back and add any that are actually worthwhile.

That would cut down J C's contribution to about 20 posts, once all the repetition of the same crap over and over again is removed

gosplan

My life was infinity more enjoyable while this thread was locked.

The mistake I feel I made was not getting involved but treating J.C. as an intelligent person and attempting to argue logically about the points discussed.

I mean, why waste your time presenting evidence a stating a case to a zealot?

lmaopml

Aww...:(

I feel a bit bad for JC.

Sam Vimes

lmaopml wrote: »

Aww...:(

I feel a bit bad for JC.

You feeling BAD is mathematical proof of an INTELLIGENT CreAtOr :mad::(:o:D:pac::P:confused::rolleyes::rolleyes::(:P:cool:


15 is indeed the limit for smilies

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

I can see the point of having a single thread for all Creationism vs Science debates, but possibly a new formate is required.

It would be 'interesting' to have a formal debate akin to the ones that used to be over on the RDF forums

lmaopml

...pmsl!

big meanies!

Soul Winner

J C don't mind them, you rock my world

Galvasean

lmaopml wrote: »

...pmsl!

big meanies!

What does pmsl mean?

liamw

Galvasean wrote: »

What does pmsl mean?

•PMSL
Pissing Myself Laughing

http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/?lookup=P

Fanny Cradock

mehfesto wrote: »

Can I ask one quick question regarding the bible?

What's the difference between the types of bible? I was in a bookshop the other day and I didn't realise there are so many different versions of it. King James', Good News, Sunrise, etc., etc.

Surely they all have to say the same thing? Or are they different aimed at different denominations of Christianity?

Because they are translations or sometimes looser interpretations (or paraphrases) of books originally written in another language. For this reason no translation from one language to another will ever reflect with 100% accuracy all the linguistically specific structures and cultural details and nuances that would have been more obvious to the original audience. Simply put, some translations are closer to the original while others are further away. For example, I believe that the NRSV is highly regarded as being a closely accurate translation, whereas the NIV has its critics. And while interpretations such as The Message has it's uses - like a contemporary version of a Shakespeare play - it shouldn't be confused with a translation.

Overheal wrote: »

I must ask. I MUST ask.

Why?

If anything, wouldn't it be infinitely better to start with a new, clean thread?

Apparently some people hold the thread close to their hearts. Besides, it's has become a sort of monument to determination or possibly obstinateness. While it has been reopened for business, I think it is fair to say that things have changed around these parts.

Overheal

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Apparently some people hold the thread close to their hearts. Besides, it's has become a sort of monument to determination or possibly obstinateness. While it has been reopened for business, I think it is fair to say that things have changed around these parts.

Well I hope so You guys have been extremely patient with Jesus Christ by the look of things, fair play to you.

I for one am looking forward to Monday and the Mathematical Proof/Theorem from the Creation-Science community that will verify once and for all the existence of God.

Should be a laugh only in that, I think we can all agree its nothing that can be certifiably proven. Its a matter of Faith. I don't have that. Some of you do. More power to you. I have faith/belief in other things.

Sam Vimes

Overheal wrote: »

Well I hope so You guys have been extremely patient with Jesus Christ by the look of things, fair play to you.

I for one am looking forward to Monday and the Mathematical Proof/Theorem from the Creation-Science community that will verify once and for all the existence of God.

Should be a laugh only in that, I think we can all agree its nothing that can be certifiably proven. Its a matter of Faith. I don't have that. Some of you do. More power to you. I have faith/belief in other things.

I hate to disappoint you but as I told Fanny Cradock, we've seen it. He calls that nonsense he keeps posting about non-functional permutations a mathematical proof

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Apparently some people hold the thread close to their hearts. Besides, it's has become a sort of monument to determination or possibly obstinateness. While it has been reopened for business, I think it is fair to say that things have changed around these parts.

Plus it stops the creationism debate infecting other parts of the forum.

liamw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Because they are translations or sometimes looser interpretations (or paraphrases) of books originally written in another language. For this reason no translation from one language to another will ever reflect with 100% accuracy all the linguistically specific structures and cultural details and nuances that would have been more obvious to the original audience.

Do you think that God's message was told directly in the original language by God or transcribed by humans from an event or thought sent by God? Or some parts were, and some weren't?

The Mad Hatter

gosplan wrote: »

The mistake I feel I made was not getting involved but treating J.C. as an intelligent person and attempting to argue logically about the points discussed.

Everyone does that at the beginning.

wolfsbane

token56 wrote: »

It would probably be easier to just delete all the posts, then go back and add any that are actually worthwhile.

Perhaps we all just need to be more active in reporting posts against the forum charter, in particular the no soap boxing rule. Also maybe there sure be limit set regarding the number of smiles you are allowed in one post

Even better, why not re-write the creationist posts so that they support evolution? Only delete the bits that are too difficult to purify.

JC has been an critic of all that is true and he has sought to undermine the confidence society ought to have in its leaders. Hopefully you can enlighten him with your ridicule and punitive response. We need a new Winston Smith.

Looking forward to the posts sans 'soap boxing'. So refreshing to have the thinking done for one.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

Even better, why not re-write the creationist posts so that they support evolution? Only delete the bits that are too difficult to purify.

JC has been an critic of all that is true and he has sought to undermine the confidence society ought to have in its leaders. Hopefully you can enlighten him with your ridicule and punitive response. We need a new Winston Smith.

Looking forward to the posts sans 'soap boxing'. So refreshing to have the thinking done for one.

Have you been reading the thread? Any time JC manages to assemble some sort of coherent objection to evolution, it is thoroughly and extensively refuted with references.

He has, for example, been corrected on Irreducible Complexity, Complex Specified Information, Geological Dating Techniques, Evolutionary Biology, Genetics, Paleontology, Cosmology, Mathematics, and Shannon Information Theory. Every time he is corrected, he spams the board. I really don't see how you can argue with this.

Overheal

^^^^

Is that why he does that multipost thing? He's trying to shove away posts that show contention by knocking them back a couple pages?

Reminds me of the old days of IRC.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

Have you been reading the thread? Any time JC manages to assemble some sort of coherent objection to evolution, it is thoroughly and extensively refuted with references.

He has, for example, been corrected on Irreducible Complexity, Complex Specified Information, Geological Dating Techniques, Evolutionary Biology, Genetics, Paleontology, Cosmology, Mathematics, and Shannon Information Theory. Every time he is corrected, he spams the board. I really don't see how you can argue with this.

I can see why you think this. But it's not reality. Orthodox of course - so anything contrary must be 'spam'.

That's what the thread has come to: Neo-Darwinian Orthodoxy versus Reality. I can't see it getting anywhere as a debate - the real value is as a witness to the Word of God. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. The rest will perish in their ignorance.

Overheal

What was your definition of Reality?

wolfsbane

Overheal wrote: »

What was your definition of Reality?

That which is actual, in contrast to all ideas and theories that are less than that. For example, Morbert thinks JC was comprehensively refuted, but he wasn't. It doesn't matter how many or who agrees with Morbert, it still remains non-actual, unreal, untrue.

We will differ on what is real, but that won't change reality.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

That which is actual, in contrast to all ideas and theories that are less than that. For example, Morbert thinks JC was comprehensively refuted, but he wasn't.

Yes he was. The fact that you think he has not been refuted, despite the fact that his posting habits and responses to his posts are public for all to see is a little frightening.

can see why you think this. But it's not reality. Orthodox of course - so anything contrary must be 'spam'.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66723486&postcount=22760
This is an example of spam by JC.

Also, I don't know why you would say we are merely labelling anything contrary as spam, especially when I explicitly stated that JC can sometimes assemble some sort of coherent objection to evolution. These objections are not 'spam' yet contradict evolution, so either you are not reading what I am saying or just posting rhetoric worthy of JC.

That's what the thread has come to: Neo-Darwinian Orthodoxy versus Reality. I can't see it getting anywhere as a debate - the real value is as a witness to the Word of God. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. The rest will perish in their ignorance.

Again, notice how you are just being rhetorical, and not progressing the conversation with any sort of specific assertion. I could just as easily say it has come to:Creationism vs. Reality. But that would be pointless, as I would not be doing anything other than repackaging an opinion that everyone already knows exists as a witty one-liner.

My last post, for example, makes a specific claim that JC's posts have been refuted with references. I.e. We backup our assertions with references to scientific evidence. If you disagree with this specific claim then say so and I will happily dig up examples. Hurry though, we only have a few days left before the thread goes to hell again.

Wacker

liamw wrote: »

It would be 'interesting' to have a formal debate akin to the ones that used to be over on the RDF forums

I tried garnering support for one. I failed

Best of luck in this endeavor.