Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #29666

Subject: "Earthquakes and the End of History." Previous topic | Next topic
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 03:05 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
"Earthquakes and the End of History."


  

          


This is interesting, it's a short list, and it does not include the most obvious, recent occurances.

I would encourage any and all of you to compare the density and concentration of this list to ANY other time in recorded history.

After, scroll to the bottom for a final thought.


A chronology of major earthquakes over the last ten years:

December 12, 1992 - Indonesia - A quake measuring 6.8 killed at least 2,200 people throughout an eastern section of islands.

September 30, 1993 - India - A string of quakes killed almost 10,000 people in western and southern India. The largest quake measured 6.4.

June 6, 1994 - Columbia - A quake and resultant mudslides killed about 1,000 people in the Paez River valley in southwestern Colombia.

January 17, 1995 - Japan - A quake measuring 7.2 killed 6,430 people in Kobe.

May 28, 1995 - Russia - An earthquake measuring 7.5, Russia's largest on record, killed 1,989 people in the eastern portion of the country.

February 28, 1997 - Iran - A quake measuring 5.5 killed about 1,000 people in northern Iran.

May 10, 1997 - Iran - A quake measuring 7.1 killed 1,560 people in eastern Iran near the Afghan border.

February 4, 1998 - Afghanistan - A quake measuring 6.1 killed at least 4,500 people in the Takhar province.

May 30, 1998 - Afghanistan - A quake measuring 6.9 killed about 4,000 people in the Takhar province.

July 17, 1998 - Papua New Guinea - An under-sea quake measuring 7.1 created three tidal waves, which killed approximately 2,100 people.

January 25, 1999 - Columbia - A quake measuring 6.3 killed about 1,170 people in the central region.

August 17, 1999 - Turkey - At least 17,800 people were killed by a 7.4 quake.

September 21, 1999 - Taiwan - A quake measuring 7.6 killed at least 2,000 people in central Taiwan.

January 26, 2001 - India - An monster earthquake measuring 7.7 struck the western state of Gujarat and neighboring Pakistan, killing at least 19,700 people.

March 26, 2002 - Afghanistan - At least 1,800 people were killed when a series of earthquakes struck northern Afghanistan and destroyed the district capital of Nahrin.

June 22, 2002 - Iran - A quake measuring a 6 killed at least 500 people in northwestern Iran.

February 24, 2003 - China - A magnitude 6.3+ earthquake killed at least 266 people in western China.

May 1, 2003 - Turkey - A 6.4 quake killed 167 people in southwestern Turkey.
December 26, 2003 - Iran - A massive earthquake killed more than 30,000 people in Bam, Iran.


But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God -- having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. (2 Timothy 3:1-5 NIV). But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up (2 Peter 3:10 KJV).


no peace.


--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
But the problem with comparing this type of recent activity
Mar 29th 2005
1
4.6 billion years?
Mar 29th 2005
3
      So are you one of those
Mar 29th 2005
5
      I don't know... I do know though...
Mar 29th 2005
12
           You don't know?
Mar 29th 2005
31
                RE: You don't know?
Mar 29th 2005
39
                oh I know
Mar 29th 2005
44
                     Yep
Mar 29th 2005
57
                LOL
Mar 29th 2005
82
                     what am I, funny like a clown? I'm here to freakin' amuse you?
Mar 30th 2005
89
      some swiped support... (1)
Mar 29th 2005
7
      RE: some swiped support... (1)
Mar 31st 2005
99
           Great post
Mar 31st 2005
119
           ^^^^^ powerful posting
Apr 01st 2005
161
      some swiped support... (2)
Mar 29th 2005
9
      Dude I asked you a question
Mar 29th 2005
15
           RE: Dude I asked you a question
Mar 29th 2005
18
           This sounds good
Mar 29th 2005
30
                RE: This sounds good
Mar 29th 2005
                Jen I wholly disagree with you...
Mar 29th 2005
76
                     RE: Jen I wholly disagree with you...
Mar 30th 2005
98
                          what I presuppose....
Mar 31st 2005
111
                               First thing you said I actually agree with
Mar 31st 2005
121
                               RE: what I presuppose....
Mar 31st 2005
125
                                    RE: what I presuppose....
Apr 01st 2005
146
                RE: This sounds good
Mar 29th 2005
38
                No what you smell is
Mar 29th 2005
43
                     RE: No what you smell is
Mar 29th 2005
48
                          If prayer worked
Mar 29th 2005
56
                               RE: If prayer worked
Mar 29th 2005
                                    there's no doubt it does people some real good
Apr 06th 2005
164
                                         RE: there's no doubt it does people some real good
Apr 06th 2005
165
                a basic mistake...
Mar 29th 2005
75
                     you're right
Mar 30th 2005
91
                     well put
Mar 31st 2005
100
                     RE: a basic mistake...
Mar 30th 2005
97
           I answered it (post #12)
Mar 29th 2005
22
                I BELIEVE this is unknowable
Mar 29th 2005
37
                ok... I see...
Mar 29th 2005
77
                     Oldpro? how'd you get there?
Mar 31st 2005
112
                for starters, the magnetic field thing is wrong
Mar 29th 2005
42
      some swiped support....(3)
Mar 29th 2005
10
      some swiped support... (4)
Mar 29th 2005
11
      some swiped support for the 5 billion years old figure:
Mar 29th 2005
20
           untrue.
Mar 29th 2005
23
           show me the links, then.
Mar 29th 2005
27
           "ACTUAL" SCIENTISTS (lab coats and all)
Mar 31st 2005
105
                i don't see any academic links.
Mar 31st 2005
108
                and you're going to Ignore what you just read.
Mar 31st 2005
113
                "Academic Links"
Mar 31st 2005
114
                     i'll give you a clue- they have ".ac" in the domain name
Mar 31st 2005
118
                cute
Mar 31st 2005
124
                     RE: cute
Mar 31st 2005
126
           this is getting laughable..
Mar 29th 2005
67
                McDeez... use your head?
Mar 29th 2005
84
           LOL
Mar 29th 2005
46
                Let's talk about Dragons then...
Mar 29th 2005
83
                     dear lord, the boy actually believes in dragons!
Mar 30th 2005
93
                          What I really want to see
Mar 30th 2005
94
                          OF COURSE IT WILL!!!
Mar 31st 2005
106
                               And?
Mar 31st 2005
120
                                    However...
Mar 31st 2005
128
                          Dragons
Mar 30th 2005
95
      Ok, i'll conceded that the figure of 4.6 billion
Mar 29th 2005
66
      Let's talk about Dinosour Fossils then...
Mar 29th 2005
81
      McDeez? Comments on this??
Mar 31st 2005
107
      RE: Ok, i'll conceded that the figure of 4.6 billion
Mar 31st 2005
104
           RE: Ok, i'll conceded that the figure of 4.6 billion
Mar 31st 2005
127
                RE: Ok, i'll conceded that the figure of 4.6 billion
Apr 01st 2005
149
      Lol... you said rationally debate.
Mar 29th 2005
87
Every generation has those that think it's the "last days"
Mar 29th 2005
2
"more bloodshed...
Mar 29th 2005
4
      RE: "more bloodshed...
Mar 29th 2005
6
      that's because...
Mar 29th 2005
13
           Let's start here
Mar 29th 2005
19
                RE: Let's start here
Mar 29th 2005
29
                     You missed the bigger point
Mar 29th 2005
33
                          i don't think so
Mar 29th 2005
45
                          Stay with me here
Mar 29th 2005
50
                               RE: Stay with me here
Mar 29th 2005
55
                                    And this was my core point
Mar 29th 2005
60
                                    They love to teach this
Mar 29th 2005
62
                          you've not been asked...
Mar 29th 2005
78
                               not the point
Mar 30th 2005
92
      I will contend it
Mar 29th 2005
14
           you're assuming...
Mar 29th 2005
85
                Neanderthal Man or Genghis Khan
Mar 31st 2005
101
                     RE: Neanderthal Man or Genghis Khan
Mar 31st 2005
102
                          can anyone say Black Death?
Mar 31st 2005
132
                          can anyone say Black Plague?
Mar 31st 2005
133
                               oops, the ole' double reply
Apr 01st 2005
151
                                    RE: oops, the ole' double reply
Apr 01st 2005
152
                                    RE: oops, the ole' double reply
Apr 01st 2005
153
100 years ago, there was no way to trace earthquake activity worldwide.
Mar 29th 2005
8
there were historians with pens
Mar 29th 2005
17
      there are more ppl now living in more hazardous locations
Apr 09th 2005
167
i believe it
Mar 29th 2005
16
RE: i believe it
Mar 29th 2005
21
RE: i believe it
Mar 29th 2005
36
So why are you different?
Mar 29th 2005
24
      RE: So why are you different?
Mar 29th 2005
25
      RE: So why are you different?
Mar 29th 2005
34
           yeah that's true. we ARE the first generation to eat and party.
Mar 29th 2005
35
           RE: yeah that's true. we ARE the first generation to eat and party.
Mar 29th 2005
47
           there is nothing knew under the sun
Mar 29th 2005
51
           It's called odds
Mar 29th 2005
52
                actually its even
Mar 29th 2005
59
                Say What?
Mar 29th 2005
68
                     RE: Say What?
Mar 29th 2005
71
                          Last thing on this
Mar 29th 2005
72
                               RE: Last thing on this
Mar 29th 2005
74
                be specific
Mar 29th 2005
79
                     RE: be specific
Mar 31st 2005
103
                          nice try??
Mar 31st 2005
115
                               RE: nice try??
Mar 31st 2005
117
here's another list-
Mar 29th 2005
26
RE: here's another list-
Mar 29th 2005
28
actually that was quite a slow month, lol
Mar 29th 2005
32
RE: here's another list-
Mar 29th 2005
40
fighting unwinnable arguments with christians =
Mar 29th 2005
41
      lol
Mar 29th 2005
49
      I don't hate these folks
Mar 29th 2005
54
           RE: I don't hate these folks
Mar 29th 2005
61
                RE: I don't hate these folks
Mar 29th 2005
64
      lol, my avatar seems so appropiate to this!
Mar 29th 2005
58
           RE: lol, my avatar seems so appropiate to this!
Mar 29th 2005
65
that's just the sleeping dragons in their subterranean caves waking up
Mar 29th 2005
53
well played!
Mar 29th 2005
70
when has the following not been the case tho??
Mar 29th 2005
63
RE: when has the following not been the case tho??
Mar 29th 2005
69
RE: when has the following not been the case tho??
Mar 29th 2005
73
If we only took all the Church Building Funds....LOL
Mar 29th 2005
86
Consider this Zewari
Mar 30th 2005
88
      I'll take Heff
Mar 30th 2005
90
      RE: Consider this Zewari
Mar 30th 2005
96
           question...
Mar 31st 2005
109
                RE: question...
Mar 31st 2005
110
                     then...
Mar 31st 2005
116
                          Not just the bible
Mar 31st 2005
122
                          GREAT OBSERVATION... Notice what follows...
Mar 31st 2005
130
                               Seriously
Mar 31st 2005
135
                               RE: GREAT OBSERVATION... Notice what follows...
Mar 31st 2005
137
                               sure-doppler radar shows no mystical hammers flying around thunderclouds
Mar 31st 2005
141
                                    So your pressuposition...
Apr 01st 2005
145
                                    no
Apr 01st 2005
147
                                         yes
Apr 01st 2005
154
                                              you're mistaken
Apr 01st 2005
159
                                    *Raises arms* TOUCHDOWN, 40TH STREET
Apr 01st 2005
162
                          RE: then...
Mar 31st 2005
123
                               hold on...
Mar 31st 2005
129
                                    RE: hold on...
Mar 31st 2005
131
                                    Which is more righteous?
Mar 31st 2005
134
                                    Don't misunderstand
Mar 31st 2005
140
                                    questions Strav
Mar 31st 2005
138
                                         RE: questions Strav
Mar 31st 2005
142
                                              unanswered of course
Apr 01st 2005
144
                                                   psh
Apr 01st 2005
148
                                                        but you're wrong here..
Apr 01st 2005
156
                                                        RE: but you're wrong here..
Apr 01st 2005
157
                                                        mirror neurons
Apr 01st 2005
160
                                    RE: hold on...
Mar 31st 2005
136
                                         holding
Apr 01st 2005
143
                                              RE: holding
Apr 01st 2005
150
                                                   help me out
Apr 01st 2005
155
                                                        .
Apr 01st 2005
158
                                                        You are incorrigible!
Apr 03rd 2005
163
RE: Earthquakes happen all the time the highest recorded
Mar 29th 2005
80
Yawn....
Mar 31st 2005
139
end of the world...you think you'll end in the heaven all promised
Apr 07th 2005
166

mcdeezjawns
Charter member
26056 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 04:21 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
1. "But the problem with comparing this type of recent activity"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

To previous periods in recorded history is that "recorded history" is tiny insignificant portion of time. The fact is the earth is 4.6 billion years old. So, if history only began to be recorded around 5,000 years ago than recorded history is but a tiny little blip on the huge time line of the earth's history. In my opinion these are natural cycles that the earth goes through over periods of time that our brains simply cannot comprehend...And it's a lot more logical than the coming of the ends of time, thats for damn sure. It's bigger than us, and it's bigger than silly religions

peace



>
>

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 05:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
3. "4.6 billion years?"
In response to Reply # 1


  

          


The "fact" is that your figure (4.6) is NOT a fact... it is a theory.

If you concede that, we can proceed. If not, it's no use trying to rationally debate.

It's a theory.


peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 05:55 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "So are you one of those"
In response to Reply # 3


  

          

That thinks the earth is 7,000 years old?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:03 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
12. "I don't know... I do know though..."
In response to Reply # 5


  

          


That I'm attempting to be one of those (few) who doesn't let my innate desire for moral autonomy, in combination with a conspiracy of suppressed evidence in the academic world, blind me to the fact that there is a GREAT devide between accomplished, respected scientists on this issue.

peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:25 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "You don't know?"
In response to Reply # 12


  

          

So you think it's possible the Earth is only 7000 years old?


>That I'm attempting to be one of those (few) who doesn't let
>my innate desire for moral autonomy, in combination with a
>conspiracy of suppressed evidence in the academic world,

What "suppressed evidence"?

>blind
>me to the fact that there is a GREAT devide between
>accomplished, respected scientists on this issue.

No there isn't.


------
"Ladies and gentlemen, what you are seeing is a total disregard for the
things St. Patrick's Day stand for. All this drinking, violence,destruction
of property. Are these the things we think of when we think of the Irish?"

- Kent O'Brockman

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
39. "RE: You don't know?"
In response to Reply # 31


  

          

The reason I threw that number out there 40th St, is I heard that over and over coming up. There were many churches that taught the earth was around 7,000 years old. As crazy as that sounds, there are many who believe this.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:41 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
44. "oh I know"
In response to Reply # 39


  

          

it's based on the biblical geneological account, like Methusala lived to be 938 years old or whatever, so they go back and back all the way to Adam, add up all the years and come up with the number. I thought it was supposed to be 6000 years though, but yeah I knew exaclty what you were talking about.

------
"Ladies and gentlemen, what you are seeing is a total disregard for the
things St. Patrick's Day stand for. All this drinking, violence,destruction
of property. Are these the things we think of when we think of the Irish?"

- Kent O'Brockman

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:00 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
57. "Yep"
In response to Reply # 44


  

          

U know the deal

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 10:16 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
82. "LOL"
In response to Reply # 31


  

          


>What "suppressed evidence"?


Exactly!


you're great 40. Good to see you.


peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Wed Mar-30-05 03:49 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
89. "what am I, funny like a clown? I'm here to freakin' amuse you?"
In response to Reply # 82


  

          

>>What "suppressed evidence"?
>
>
>Exactly!

Dude, Johnny Cochran is the only one who could pull off an argument like that, and he just died.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Roberts: She googled your ass.

Dr. Kelso: Don't you use your street lingo on me!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 05:58 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
7. "some swiped support... (1)"
In response to Reply # 3


  

          

Age of the Earth: A Feasibility Study
Age of the Earth - Is it possible to determine such a thing with any certainty? The formation of the Earth is what is known as a "singularity." The event cannot be repeated in a lab and is not occurring in nature now. In determining the Age of the Earth, scientists must make assumptions that seem reasonable based on observable data. Certainty and assumption are contrary to each other. Therefore, the study of the Age of the Earth is a "feasibility study."

Age of the Earth: Young Earth vs. Old Earth
The scientific community presents the Age of the Earth from two distinct camps: The "Young Earth" advocates and the "Old Earth" advocates. There are various natural chronometers that seem to indicate either a Young Earth or an Old Earth. Both camps use such chronometers to back their position. They both claim their model is most feasible. How then will the dispute be settled?

Age of the Earth: Limiting Factors
The answer to the Age of the Earth question is found in "Limiting Factors." While it may be impossible to be certain when the Earth formed, we may determine when the Earth did not form. Limiting Factors are best explained with this illustration: A boat sinks. On board is a chest full of gold coins. As time passes, the wreck is forgotten. Centuries later, the boat is discovered, and the chest full of coins is recovered. How can we determine when the boat sank? We may not be able to pinpoint the date, but we are able to determine when it did not sink by looking at the dates on the coins. If a coin is marked with 1756, we know the boat did not sink in 1755 or 1730 or 1610, etc. It must have sunk after the coin was minted. The coin is a "Limiting Factor."

Age of the Earth: Factors Pointing to a Young Earth
There are many Limiting Factors limiting the possible Age of the Earth. Here are a few:
Magnetic Field. The Earth's magnetic field is essential to life on Earth for many reasons. One reason is that it deflects much of the cosmic radiation that destroys life. Precise measurements of the Earth's magnetic field have been made since 1829, all over the world. During that time, it has deteriorated exponentially -- that is, it has followed a predictable curve. By graphing this curve, we extrapolate that life would have been impossible before 20,000 BC (the field would be as strong as the Sun's at that point) and will cease to exist after 10,000 AD (there will be, for all practical purposes, no field left, and the Earth will be fried by cosmic radiation).
Earth Rotation. The Earth's spin is slowing down. We experience a "leap second" every year and a half. If it is slowing down, at one time it was going much faster. A faster spin would create a stronger Coriolis Effect, and life would be impossible as we know it.
Moon Drift. The moon is drifting slowly away from the Earth. If it is getting further away, then at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law in physics states that if the moon was half the distance away, its gravitational effect on our tides would be quadrupled. One third the distance and it would be 9 times stronger. We would all drown twice a day. 1.2 billion (1,200 million) years ago, the moon would have been touching the Earth.

Age of the Earth: Young is Not Unreasonable
There are a number of additional Limiting Factors regarding the Age of the Earth that scientists are discovering on a more and more frequent basis. Interestingly, they all seem to indicate a Young Earth, or certainly, not one that is millions or billions of years old. Contrary to the general thinking of the last century, many scientists now accept that it is reasonable to view the Earth as fairly young.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 01:31 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
99. "RE: some swiped support... (1)"
In response to Reply # 7


          

>Age of the Earth: A Feasibility Study
>Age of the Earth - Is it possible to determine such a thing
>with any certainty?

Yes. That's what we call "science."

>The formation of the Earth is what is
>known as a "singularity." The event cannot be repeated in a
>lab

That in no way means that the question does not fall under the purview of science! Case in point: I spend a large part of my time studying the astrophysics of black holes. Black holes were not detected experimantally until about a decade ago. The study of black hole physics, however, did not start a decade ago. It started with a paper due to Pierre Simeon de Laplace, dated 1799. Since then, literally thousands of people have devoted their lives' work to the study of these objects. These people knew that if we came to understand deeply the behavior of those aspects of the world which *are* experimentally available to us, we can apply mathematical rigor to the extension of this understanding far beyond the realm of our current experience. When black holes were finally detected in astrophysical observations, it was hardly a surprise. It barely made the papers. We already knew they existed, even though we hadn't seen them.

>and is not occurring in nature now.

Au contraire! Planet formation is most certainly occurring right now. The astronomical study of the processes of planet formation is one of the most exciting fields of modern science.

>In determining the Age
>of the Earth, scientists must make assumptions that seem
>reasonable based on observable data. Certainty and assumption
>are contrary to each other.

Absolutely. That's why scientists never pretend to hold to any logically rigorous (bivalent) sense of certainty. Certainty, at that level, is irrelevant to science. That does NOT mean that we cannot hold on to strong epistemological structures. There's a difference between saying "nothing is known up to the strictest measures of logical certainty", and saying "nothing is known." The first statement is completely obvious. The second statement is absolute bullshit (anyone here who doubts that has a strange habit of punching away at computer keys for no reason).

>Therefore, the study of the Age of
>the Earth is a "feasibility study."
>
>Age of the Earth: Young Earth vs. Old Earth
>The scientific community presents the Age of the Earth from
>two distinct camps: The "Young Earth" advocates and the "Old
>Earth" advocates.

Well, nowadays, the "Young Earth" "advocates" are generally not scientists, but rather poorly veiled preachers. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt (as scientists generally try to do), and look at their "evidence."

>There are various natural chronometers that
>seem to indicate either a Young Earth or an Old Earth. Both
>camps use such chronometers to back their position. They both
>claim their model is most feasible. How then will the dispute
>be settled?
>
>Age of the Earth: Limiting Factors
>The answer to the Age of the Earth question is found in
>"Limiting Factors." While it may be impossible to be certain
>when the Earth formed, we may determine when the Earth did not
>form. Limiting Factors are best explained with this
>illustration: A boat sinks. On board is a chest full of gold
>coins. As time passes, the wreck is forgotten. Centuries
>later, the boat is discovered, and the chest full of coins is
>recovered. How can we determine when the boat sank? We may not
>be able to pinpoint the date, but we are able to determine
>when it did not sink by looking at the dates on the coins. If
>a coin is marked with 1756, we know the boat did not sink in
>1755 or 1730 or 1610, etc. It must have sunk after the coin
>was minted. The coin is a "Limiting Factor."
>
>Age of the Earth: Factors Pointing to a Young Earth
>There are many Limiting Factors limiting the possible Age of
>the Earth. Here are a few:
>Magnetic Field. The Earth's magnetic field is essential to
>life on Earth for many reasons. One reason is that it deflects
>much of the cosmic radiation that destroys life.

Well, life as we see it today. That hardly constitutes all life. I'm perfectly happy to assume, for the time being, that all of the life that has, well, evolved on earth has been incapable of handling ionizing cosmic radiation (there is indeed much evidence to support this view). But it's a little odd that this dude, who pretends that for a full scientific understanding of the formation of the earth we need to see it forming, then pretends to understand the biology of lifeforms he has never observed. Just an aside.

>Precise
>measurements of the Earth's magnetic field have been made
>since 1829, all over the world. During that time, it has
>deteriorated exponentially -- that is, it has followed a
>predictable curve. By graphing this curve, we extrapolate that
>life would have been impossible before 20,000 BC (the field
>would be as strong as the Sun's at that point) and will cease
>to exist after 10,000 AD (there will be, for all practical
>purposes, no field left, and the Earth will be fried by cosmic
>radiation).

Here we see the dangers of utterly naive extrapolation. There are many curves which can fit any given data set. I think it was von Neumann who once said "give me three parameters, and I can fit an elephant!"

One cannot make statistical inferences in a theoretical vacuum. One cannot look at a small family of data, say "hey that looks exponential", trace out an exponential curve over the data and call your result science. Scientific statistics involves the fitting of a small number of free parameters in an otherwise fixed mathematical model. If one simply draws a curve through a data set, one is in essense fitting an indenumerably infinite set of parameters, rendering any statistical conclusions useless.

Oh and by the way, dude says we have measurements of the magnetic field dating back to 1829. In fact we have a lot more than that. For instance, ice cores give us measurements dating back millions of years. And the long-term behavior is not exponential. Of course, the "young earth" hypothesist cannot accept those data. For the earth clearly didn't even exist when they were deposited!

>Earth Rotation. The Earth's spin is slowing down. We
>experience a "leap second" every year and a half.

Holy shit!!! Is this dude serious?! The existence of leap seconds in no way indicates that the earth's rotation is slowing down! It merely exhibits an inaccuracy of our calendar. Our calendar assumes that the earth's revolution period is an integer multiple of its rotation period. This is simply not the case. The error introduced by this flawed assumption is corrected in part by our recognition of February 29 on leap years. But this correction is itself only approximate, hence the further correction enacted by these so-called leap seconds.

If this dude actually thinks the existence of leap seconds is an indication that the earth is slowing down, I shudder to think of how he might explain daylight-savings time.

>If it is
>slowing down, at one time it was going much faster.

Not necessarily (even if it were slowing down as much as he says). Again, this dude is making a completely unjustified extrapolation.

>A faster
>spin would create a stronger Coriolis Effect, and life would
>be impossible as we know it.
>Moon Drift. The moon is drifting slowly away from the Earth.
>If it is getting further away, then at one time it was much
>closer.

The Moon's orbital radius is indeed increasing these days. But again, this extrapolation is completely unjustified. Any physics graduate student can do a simple perturbation theory analysis to derive long-term oscillations of an orbital radius. If one extrapolated linearly from any small region of even a modest oscillation, he will find catastrophe, not oscillation. This is the clothing of science, stripped of its substance.

>The Inverse Square Law in physics states that if the
>moon was half the distance away, its gravitational effect on
>our tides would be quadrupled. One third the distance and it
>would be 9 times stronger. We would all drown twice a day.

I can forgive him for being unaware of a cute little detail of the earth's tides: The earth is a gravitationally bound object. By that I mean that on the largest scales it is NOT a solid rock, but is in fact well approximated as a free dust. In fact, the "solid" parts of the earth rise and fall just as far as the oceans do. The increases of ocean level which we refer to as "tides" are in fact not due directly to the gravitational pull of the moon, but instead only to the fact that the viscosity in the oceans induces a phase difference between the high points in the land's tide and the sea's tide.

So even if the tidal deformations were dramatically increased, that would not necessarily lead to an increase in the oscillation of sea levels relative to land. This oscillation is due more to the viscosity of the water than to the pull of the moon.

But again, it doesn't even matter. The moon has not been moving away monotonically. There is no reason to believe that it was ever close enough to cause significantly greater tides than we see today.

>1.2
>billion (1,200 million) years ago, the moon would have been
>touching the Earth.

And of course that is hardly a troubling claim (again, even if it were justified). One of the more compelling current hypotheses regarding the origin of our moon is that it collected from dust knocked into the atmosphere after an asteroid collision. So in a sense, many scientists already argue that the moon was touching the earth in the distant past.

>Age of the Earth: Young is Not Unreasonable

Umm, yes it is.

>There are a number of additional Limiting Factors regarding
>the Age of the Earth that scientists are discovering on a more
>and more frequent basis.

Oh, okay. Then why don't you mention some of them? Why is it that you happened to mention only these two utterly laughable arguments? Are these the best you've got?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 02:36 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
119. "Great post"
In response to Reply # 99


  

          

but this was the funniest shit out of the whole thing

"If this dude actually thinks the existence of leap seconds is an indication that the earth is slowing down, I shudder to think of how he might explain daylight-savings time."

That shit actually made me laugh out load

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
soundsop
Charter member
12988 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 06:26 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
161. "^^^^^ powerful posting"
In response to Reply # 99


  

          


------
Baddest Motherfucker in the OkaySports Hall of Fame

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 05:59 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
9. "some swiped support... (2)"
In response to Reply # 3
Tue Mar-29-05 05:59 PM by inVerse

  

          

Radiometric Dating - A Brief Explanation
Radiometric dating is the primary dating scheme employed by scientists to determine the age of the earth. Radiometric dating techniques take advantage of the natural decay of radioisotopes. An isotope is one of two or more atoms which have the same number of protons in their nuclei, but a different number of neutrons. Radioisotopes are unstable isotopes: they spontaneously decay (emitting radiation in the process -- thus making them radioactive). They continue to decay going through various transitional states until they finally reach stability. For example, Uranium-238 (U238) is a radioisotope. It will spontaneously decay until it transitions into Lead-206 (Pb206). The numbers 238 and 206 represent these isotopes' atomic mass. The Uranium-238 radioisotope goes through 13 transitional stages before stabilizing into Lead-206 (U238 > Th234 > Pa234 > U234 > Th230 > Ra226 > Rn222 > Po218 > Pb214 > Bi214 > Po214 > Pb210 > Bi210 > Po210 > Pb206). In this instance, Uranium-238 is called the "parent" and Lead-206 is called the "daughter". By measuring how long it takes for an unstable element to decay into a stable element and by measuring how much daughter element has been produced by the parent element within a specimen of rock, scientists believe they are able to determine the age of the rock. This belief is based upon three significant assumptions.

Radiometric Dating - The Assumptions
Many of the ages derived by radiometric dating techniques are highly publicized. Nevertheless, the fundamental assumptions employed are not. Here are the three major assumptions for your consideration:

1. The rate of decay remains constant.
2. There has been no contamination (that is, no daughter or intermediate elements have been introduced or leeched from the specimen of rock).
3. We can determine how much daughter there was to begin with (if we assume there was no daughter to begin with, yet there was daughter at the formation of the rock, the rock would have a superficial appearance of age).
Are these foundational assumptions reasonable? Recent findings seem to indicate that though we ourselves have not been able to vary the decay rates by much in the laboratory, the decay rates may have been accelerated in the unobservable past . If this were the case, the first assumption would be deemed unreasonable. This would completely upset our current standardized view of earth's history. Dr Carl Wieland summarizes the recent findings: "When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas which readily escapes from rock. Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead. By measuring the amount of uranium and 'radiogenic lead' in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic 'age' assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.) There is a significant amount of helium from that '1.5 billion years of decay' still inside the zircons. This is at first glance surprising, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should hardly be any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating. Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the recent RATE papers reports on. The samples were sent… to a world-class expert to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years' worth (at today's rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data has since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 (+/- 2000) years."

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:08 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "Dude I asked you a question"
In response to Reply # 9


  

          

and you posted a book. Besides that fact, the shit you posted is so full of holes it's funny. I grew up in the church so I know these arguments well. The problem is, they never hold up when confronted head on by experts with real science behind their argument. I would ask you how you explain the Dinosaurs, Wooly Mammoths or human remains that easily dates beyond 14,000 years, but that would be pointless. You are coming from a place of faith. Nothing I or anyone else can say that will change your mind.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
jenNjuice
Charter member
3527 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:10 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
18. "RE: Dude I asked you a question"
In response to Reply # 15


          

"they never hold up when confronted head on by experts with real science behind their argument."

men are not experts but mere men with opinions

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:22 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
30. "This sounds good"
In response to Reply # 18


  

          


>men are not experts but mere men with opinions

But really doesn't mean anything. If you equate the ability of man to reason and come to the most "logical" conclusions with that of myth and mere faith, we would still be living in a world much like the one we had 2,000 years ago. The difference with science and faith is, many theories can and are proven. With faith this is never the case. It's always about, well just faith.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
jenNjuice
Charter member
3527 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:31 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
"RE: This sounds good"


          

"With faith this is never the case. It's always about, well just faith."

when was the last time you been to church? i smell a rebellious spirit on you..j/k


"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 09:30 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
76. "Jen I wholly disagree with you..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          



If you're saying that faith is faith, and logic is logic, and the two are seperate.

My faith is grounded in reason. I found my faith through reason. Faith is not unreasonable.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Wed Mar-30-05 11:36 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
98. "RE: Jen I wholly disagree with you..."
In response to Reply # 76


          

>
>
>If you're saying that faith is faith, and logic is logic, and
>the two are seperate.
>
>My faith is grounded in reason. I found my faith through
>reason. Faith is not unreasonable.

Not necessarily so. But when a particular faith comes in direct conflict with a vast majority of evidence, and one then chooses to disregard the majority of evidence in favor of accepted faith, that's when it becomes unreasonable.

I cannot disprove God's existence, believe me, I would if I could. But I most certainly can disprove (up to any of the usual scientific standards) any young earth hypothesis. The key is to look seriously at the totality of the evidence. Not to presume the answer at the very beginning, and then to search out evidence to support my hypothesis, while disregarding that evidence which contradicts it.

You don't make much progress by simply assuming an enormous anti-christian conspiracy in the scientific community.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 10:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
111. "what I presuppose...."
In response to Reply # 98


  

          



>You don't make much progress by simply assuming an enormous
>anti-christian conspiracy in the scientific community



What I pressupose is actually more than that. I pressupose an enormous, congenital anti-God conspiracy in the heart of every man that has ever walked the earth, including myself. The only man I exclude from this group is Jesus.

It's important also that you not equivocate my "Faith in God" with faith in a young earth hypothesis. I am only raising the point that there is suppressed evidence and a suppressed debate.

Presently, at this point in my thinking, I see no reason why a creative God might just as well have done things slowly as quickly. Evolution, logically, does not negate the need for a creator. The Creationist vs. Evolutionist debate is based on a false dichotomy. People swallow it and pick a side because they don't think rationally.

However, the more I explore this "young earth camp" (EXTREMELY CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS INCLUDED) the more I am inclined to acknowledge that there is SERIOUS MISINFORMATION going on in our schools and in the media.

peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 02:48 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
121. "First thing you said I actually agree with"
In response to Reply # 111


  

          

"The Creationist vs. Evolutionist debate is based on a false dichotomy. People swallow it and pick a side because they don't think rationally"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 05:03 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
125. "RE: what I presuppose...."
In response to Reply # 111


          

>
>>You don't make much progress by simply assuming an enormous
>>anti-christian conspiracy in the scientific community
>
>
>What I pressupose is actually more than that. I pressupose an
>enormous, congenital anti-God conspiracy in the heart of every
>man that has ever walked the earth, including myself. The
>only man I exclude from this group is Jesus.
>
>It's important also that you not equivocate my "Faith in God"
>with faith in a young earth hypothesis. I am only raising the
>point that there is suppressed evidence and a suppressed
>debate.
>
>Presently, at this point in my thinking, I see no reason why a
>creative God might just as well have done things slowly as
>quickly. Evolution, logically, does not negate the need for a
>creator. The Creationist vs. Evolutionist debate is based on
>a false dichotomy. People swallow it and pick a side because
>they don't think rationally.

Okay, marcus3xmas. But what does this "anti-God conspiracy" have to do with science? You say yourself that a 4-billion-year-old earth in no way contradicts the influence of God. So how could this anti-God conspiracy be the cause of this OVERWHELMING majority opinion in the scientific community? Perhaps that viewpoint became an overwhelming majority view not through the anti-God conspiracy, but instead through the same rational thought process that brought us air conditioners, computers, microwave calzones and a justice system that doesn't involve public stoning.

>However, the more I explore this "young earth camp" (EXTREMELY
>CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS INCLUDED)

There is no position so absurd that a handful of PhD scientists cannot be found to support it! One of the great physicists of the twentieth century, Julian Schwinger, devoted the last decade of his life to cold fusion. But he was not smart enough to make it work, no matter how badly he wanted it.

What matters is not the view of a small camp (however "extremely credible"), but rather the agreement of a wide, deep, educated majority, when such agreement exists. With regard to the "age" of the earth, such agreement definitely exists, and it does not fall on your side.

>the more I am inclined to
>acknowledge that there is SERIOUS MISINFORMATION going on in
>our schools and in the media.

Yeah, those stickers in the Biology textbooks bother the hell out of me, too.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
TarnishedSpoon
Member since Aug 20th 2003
366 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 01:30 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
146. "RE: what I presuppose...."
In response to Reply # 125


  

          

If I can just say, you made my night.

S.ean | President of the 'Ban Chris Defendorf' club. We have meetings.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
jenNjuice
Charter member
3527 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:31 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
38. "RE: This sounds good"
In response to Reply # 30


          

"With faith this is never the case. It's always about, well just faith."

when was the last time you been to church? i smell a rebellious spirit on you..j/k


"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:39 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
43. "No what you smell is"
In response to Reply # 38


  

          

A person that asked questions for which those that claimed to have all the answers had none. It's not a matter of rebellion (although I don't view rebellion as a bad thing when they is something unjust being forced upon others). It's a matter of challenging those that lead others by fear and false hope for the sake of profit. My fight isn't with you the believer. It's with those that taught you. You are the victim.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
jenNjuice
Charter member
3527 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:45 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
48. "RE: No what you smell is"
In response to Reply # 43


          

"You are the victim"

*shakes head*

remember me when you see for yourself what will happen in the future.peace

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:59 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
56. "If prayer worked"
In response to Reply # 48


  

          

I'd pray for you. Don't live your life looking over your shoulder. Good luck 2 you. I mean that.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
jenNjuice
Charter member
3527 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:09 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
"RE: If prayer worked"


          

sweet heart

i know who my God is, I have no need to look over my shoulder, and prayer/belief does work. i work in the medical field (nurse) and i've also seen the power of God.I seen people get up by prayer and faith who were told by doctors that they couldn't walk again (based on facts). but im sure that's just an odd too. Be blessed. peac

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
johnny_domino
Charter member
17027 posts
Wed Apr-06-05 05:21 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
164. "there's no doubt it does people some real good"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

to believe in something bigger than themselves. But that doesn't prove the existence of a higher power, any moreso than the movie "The 10 Commandments" does.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Wed Apr-06-05 05:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
165. "RE: there's no doubt it does people some real good"
In response to Reply # 164


          

My sentiments exactly

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 09:27 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
75. "a basic mistake..."
In response to Reply # 30


  

          

...you just made.


A theory is never proven, only disproven.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Wed Mar-30-05 03:55 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
91. "you're right"
In response to Reply # 75


  

          

>A theory is never proven, only disproven.

and the young earth "theory" has been disproven.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Roberts: She googled your ass.

Dr. Kelso: Don't you use your street lingo on me!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 01:42 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
100. "well put"
In response to Reply # 91


          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
chief1284
Member since Nov 08th 2004
3003 posts
Wed Mar-30-05 07:12 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
97. "RE: a basic mistake..."
In response to Reply # 75
Wed Mar-30-05 07:30 PM by chief1284

  

          

i theorise that the TRUE god is allah - go disprove.

And about all this science, go check google (i can't be bothered to do it for you) but u'll soon learn radiometric dating is highly reliable and every one of those arguments u put forward are can be totally refuted by credible science. Go figure.

Oh and the dragons - thank you for putting a smile on my face.

------------------------------------------------------------

Check my man Lao at www.myspace.com/lazzriel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:13 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
22. "I answered it (post #12)"
In response to Reply # 15


  

          



>and you posted a book. Besides that fact, the shit you posted
>is so full of holes it's funny.

cite please.

>I grew up in the church so I
>know these arguments well.

then you should have no problem refuting them.

>The problem is, they never hold up
>when confronted head on by experts with real science behind
>their argument. I would ask you how you explain the Dinosaurs,
>Wooly Mammoths or human remains that easily dates beyond
>14,000 years, but that would be pointless. You are coming from
>a place of faith. Nothing I or anyone else can say that will
>change your mind.


Change my mind from what? Havn't I simply said "this is interesting"?


You are coming from a place of faith as well. Everyone is. Everyone lives by faith. You make the mistake of thinking that I substitute it for reason. Do you believe that a God created you and your world? Curious.

peace.



--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:30 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
37. "I BELIEVE this is unknowable"
In response to Reply # 22


  

          

"Do you believe that a God created you and your world? Curious."

But what I'm not is naive enough to believe life comes with instructions.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 09:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
77. "ok... I see..."
In response to Reply # 37


  

          


Can I ask then what "reasoning" undergirds your belief that the existence of a creatiing God is unknowable? What line of reasoning led you to the conclusion?


peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 10:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
112. "Oldpro? how'd you get there?"
In response to Reply # 77


  

          

?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:38 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
42. "for starters, the magnetic field thing is wrong"
In response to Reply # 22


  

          

The Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing in intensity for the last century, but it doesn't disappear altogether, it just periodically reverses its polarity.

------
"Ladies and gentlemen, what you are seeing is a total disregard for the
things St. Patrick's Day stand for. All this drinking, violence,destruction
of property. Are these the things we think of when we think of the Irish?"

- Kent O'Brockman

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:00 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
10. "some swiped support....(3)"
In response to Reply # 3


  

          

Uniformitarianism - "The Present is the Key to the Past"
Uniformitarianism is a geological doctrine. It states that current geologic processes, occurring at the same rates observed today, in the same manner, account for all of Earth's geological features. Thus, it assumes that geological processes are essentially unchanged today from those of the unobservable past, and that there have been no cataclysmic events in earth's history. As present processes are thought to explain all past events, the Uniformitarian slogan is, "the present is the key to the past."

Uniformitarianism - Glossary of Geology
Uniformitarianism is defined in the authoritative Glossary of Geology as "the fundamental principle or doctrine that geologic processes and natural laws now operating to modify the Earth's crust have acted in the same regular manner and with essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time, and that past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today; the classical concept that 'the present is the key to the past'." (Robert Bates and Julia Jackson, Glossary of Geology, 2nd edition, American Geological Institute, 1980, pg. 677).

Uniformitarianism - James Hutton and Sir Charles Lyell
The doctrine of Uniformitarianism was significantly advanced by James Hutton (1726-1797) in his publication, Theory of the Earth (1785). Hutton influenced Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875), who is acclaimed as the father of modern geology with his work, Principles of Geology (1830-1833, a three volume work). Lyell, in turn, influenced Charles Darwin, who later wrote The Origin of Species (1859). Lyell is responsible for the general acceptance of Uniformitarianism among geologists for the past 150 years.

Uniformitarianism - Post Gradualism
In regards to Uniformitarianism, Warren D. Allmon writes, "As is now increasingly acknowledged, however, Lyell also sold geology some snake oil. He convinced geologists that because physical laws are constant in time and space and current processes should be consulted before resorting to unseen processes, it necessarily follows that all past processes acted at essentially their current rates (that is, those observed in historical time). This extreme gradualism has led to numerous unfortunate consequences, including the rejection of sudden or catastrophic events in the face of positive evidence for them, for no reason other than that they were not gradual." ("Post Gradualism", Science, vol. 262, October 1, 1993, pg. 122).

Uniformitarianism - Catastrophism
Uniformitarianism, together with the Geologic Column presupposed by Lyell based on uniformity, have been disproved by geologic features such as poly-strata fossils, misplaced fossils, missing layers and misplaced layers (including layers in reverse order or "ancient" layers found above "modern" layers). Furthermore, observed cataclysmic events such as the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 have validated Catastrophism, which is contrary to Uniformitarianism. We now know that catastrophe has had a significant role in forming Earth's currently observable features.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:01 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
11. "some swiped support... (4)"
In response to Reply # 3


  

          

Catastrophism -- Past Cataclysmic Activity
Catastrophism is the idea that many of Earth’s crustal features (strata layers, erosion, polystrate fossils, etc) formed as a result of past cataclysmic activity. In other words, the Earth’s surface has been scarred by catastrophic natural disasters.

Catastrophism -- Uniformitarianism
Catastrophism is contrary to Uniformitarianism, the accepted geological doctrine for over 150 years. Uniformitarianism states that current geologic processes, occurring at the same rates observed today, in the same manner, account for all of earth's geological features. As present processes are thought to explain all past events, the Uniformitarianism slogan is "the present is the key to the past." Uniformitarianism ignores the possibility of past cataclysmic activity upon the surface of the earth. James Hutton first purposed the doctrine of uniformity in his publication, Theory of the Earth (1785). Sir Charles Lyell endorsed Uniformitarianism in his work, Principles of Geology (1830). Uniformitarianism is fundamental to Lyell's geologic column. Uniformitarianism and the geologic column, both of which assume uniformity, have been disproved in recent years by geologic features such as poly-strata fossils, misplaced fossils, missing layers and misplaced layers (including layers in reverse order or "ancient" layers found above "modern" layers). Furthermore, observed cataclysmic events such as the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 have validated Catastrophism. Prior to the introduction of Uniformitarianism, Catastrophism was the accepted geological doctrine. Once again, Catastrophism is becoming accepted as an accurate interpretation of earth's geologic history.

Catastrophism -- Empirical Evidence
Catastrophism is supported by actual, recorded history. Nearly 300 ancient flood legends have survived the ravishment of time. Legends of a worldwide deluge, commonly known as the "Noachian Flood," are found in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, North American and South America. Furthermore, earth's sedimentary layers with the fossil record seem to suggest a past marine cataclysm. Sedimentary rock (sandstone, siltstone, shale, limestone, etc) is the result of moving water, laid down layer upon layer by hydrologic sorting. Animals whose fossil remains are found within those layers must have been caught in this running water to have been buried and preserved. The remains, as well as the rocks, would be sorted according to density. Otherwise, the carcasses would rot or be scavenged. Approximately 95% of all earth's fossil remains discovered thus far are marine invertebrates. Of the remainder, approximately 4.74% are plant fossils, 0.25% are land invertebrates (including insects), and 0.0125% are vertebrates (the majority of which are fish). Roughly 95% of all land vertebrates discovered and recorded to date consist of less than one bone.

Catastrophism -- The Noachian Flood
Catastrophism is supported by the evidential data. Catastrophism supports the Noachian Flood. Dramatic evidence is everywhere except in the popular press. For instance, who is aware that fossil remains of clams (found in the closed position, indicating they were buried alive) have been found atop Mt. Everest? What about whale fossils and petrified trees that stand upright through multiple sedimentary layers supposedly separated by millions of years? It is a remarkable time to reinvestigate the facts and determine your own position.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:11 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "some swiped support for the 5 billion years old figure:"
In response to Reply # 11


  

          

EVERY SINGLE CREDIBLE SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD AGREES ON IT.





...end of argument. now go play with some dragons

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:14 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
23. "untrue."
In response to Reply # 20


  

          


'nuff said.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
27. "show me the links, then."
In response to Reply # 23


  

          

a university site, or a CREDIBLE scientific body which backs up your claims.

the key word here: credible. as in, actual scientists. you know, the dudes who wear lab coats and actually test things to see if they're true, instead of thinking that by using the term 'zircon' nobody will dispute what they say.

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 09:42 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
105. ""ACTUAL" SCIENTISTS (lab coats and all)"
In response to Reply # 27


  

          


I believe you keep mistaking me. I get the impression that you think "I'm" trying to prove a young earth theory here. Look closer. I'm not. I'm trying to address the fact that contrary to what is being taught to us, both through the media and through formal education, there IS a debate raging about this. "Old Earth" is being taught as fact when in fact it is a theory with many holes.

You asked for some names....

Dr Raymond V. Damadian - Inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)

Dr Raymond V. Damadian would probably be too humble to accept the title 'super-scientist' but the many people whose lives have been saved by the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanning technology he developed might think otherwise. Hailed as one of the greatest diagnostic breakthroughs ever, this technique, using advanced principles of physics and computing, lets doctors visualize many organs and their diseased parts without the risks of exploratory surgery or the radiation associated with traditional scanning methods. See http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v16n3_MRI.asp .

 

Dr. John R. Baumgardner (Geophysicist)

U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. Since 1984 he has been employed as a technical staff member at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory. Also see Scientists Who Believe: An Interview with Dr. John Baumgardner , and Probing the Earth's Deep Places.

 
 

 
Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist)

Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. See Interview with Dr Ian Macreadie .

 
 

 
Dr. Raymond Jones (Agricultural Scientist)

This, combined with Dr Jones' other achievements in improving the productivity of the tropical grazing industries, caused CSIRO chief Dr Elizabeth Heij to describe him as ‘one of the top few CSIRO scientists in Australia’. Among the awards he has received are the CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence, and the Urrbrae Award, the latter in recognition of the practical significance of his work for the grazing industry. See Interview with Dr. Raymond Jones .

 
 

 
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General)

The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
 

Dr. Robert Gentry (nuclear physicist)

Dr. Robert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist who worked 13 years for the Oakridge National Laboratory as a guest scientist. During the time he worked there, he was recognized as the world's leading authority in his area of research. It is interesting to note that when he began his research, he was an evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced young earth creation scientist. 

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 09:54 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
108. "i don't see any academic links."
In response to Reply # 105


  

          

keep trying.

you DO know what an 'academic link' means, don't you?

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 10:51 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
113. "and you're going to Ignore what you just read."
In response to Reply # 108


  

          




I take your comment to mean that those names and credentials mean abtolutely nothing to you? Is that fair to say?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 11:02 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
114. ""Academic Links""
In response to Reply # 108


  

          


I suspect any source/link information supplied to you will be dismissed by you as "non-academic".

After all, you have ignored the list of credible (to say the LEAST) scientists just provided for you.

Interesting, this seems right in line with my suspicion that there is a suppression of this debate/evidence in adedamia itself.

You DO know what an unfalsifiable position is don't you?


Do you need my help in going to google and looking up organizations of scientists questioning the "old earth theory"?

I think you can handle that right?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 11:28 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
118. "i'll give you a clue- they have ".ac" in the domain name"
In response to Reply # 114


  

          

it's up to you to show me their work where it is published on ACADEMIC SITES.

otherwise how else am i to know how reputable they are?
you can buy degrees on the net these days, you know.

here, this might help:
".ac is also a second level domain for academic establishments, such as Universities, in the a number of countries, such as the United Kingdom (.ac.uk), Japan (.ac.jp), Belgium (.ac.be), and many many more. Many countries use .edu for the same purpose, for example .edu.au in Australia, .edu.my in Malaysia. Still other countries (examples include France and Switzerland), do not maintain a second level domain specifically for academic institutions. Rather, each institution will have its own second-level domain (such as sorbonne.fr for the Sorbonne, or tum.de for the Technical University of Munich)"

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 04:35 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
124. "cute"
In response to Reply # 105


          


The only link he gives us here is to "answers in genesis."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 05:16 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
126. "RE: cute"
In response to Reply # 124


          


And that was in regard to Raymond Damadian, the guy who bought ad space in the NY times a few years ago to protest the fact that he was never awarded a Nobel Prize.

Hardly a credible scientist.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
mcdeezjawns
Charter member
26056 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:21 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
67. "this is getting laughable.."
In response to Reply # 23


  

          

now you're defense is "not true"

Haha...classic

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 10:23 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
84. "McDeez... use your head?"
In response to Reply # 67


  

          



That sounds sarcastic... it's not meant to be. What I mean is I think you're bright enought to recognize an "unfalsifiable postition" when you see one. Right?

Unless of course the person who takes it happens to appeal to your beliefs, pressupositions and prejudices and you dont' want to discredit them. Think about it.

peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:44 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
46. "LOL"
In response to Reply # 20


  

          

>EVERY SINGLE CREDIBLE SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD AGREES ON IT.
>
>
>
>
>
>...end of argument. now go play with some dragons


------
"Ladies and gentlemen, what you are seeing is a total disregard for the
things St. Patrick's Day stand for. All this drinking, violence,destruction
of property. Are these the things we think of when we think of the Irish?"

- Kent O'Brockman

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 10:20 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
83. "Let's talk about Dragons then..."
In response to Reply # 46


  

          


1. Human & Dinosaur Fossils. Human bones and tools coexist in the same fossil layers as dinosaur bones in Texas and the Dakotas.
2. Human & Dinosaur Footprints. Footprints of dinosaurs, humans and other mammals coexist in the same fossil layers in Texas and New Mexico.
3. Native American Petroglyphs. Cave and cliff drawings in Utah and Colorado crudely depict certain dinosaur species (dated from 400 A.D. to 1300 A.D.).
4. Ica Stones. Ceremonial burial stones discovered in Ica, Peru depict numerous species of dinosaurs, some in activities with man (dated from 500 A.D. to 1500 A.D.).
5. Acambaro Figurines. Ceramic and stone figurines discovered in Acambaro, Mexico represent many species of dinosaurs (dated from 800 B.C. to 200 A.D.).
6. Dragon Accounts. China, Europe and the Middle East share similar accounts of “dragons” and other beasts. Some cultures revered these creatures. For instance, records of Marco Polo in China show that the royal house kept dragons for ceremonies. In other cultures, it was a great honor to kill these beasts. There are numerous records of warriors killing great beasts in order to establish credibility in a village.
7. Behemoth, Leviathan and the Dragons of the Bible. Job writes of great creatures, Behemoth and Leviathan, nearly 4000 years ago. Although more recent Bible translations use elephant, hippo or crocodile instead, the original Hebrew does not allow for these interpretations. The word “dragon” (Hebrew: tannin) is used numerous times in the Old Testament, and most directly translates as “sea or land monsters.”
8. Gilgamesh, Fafnir, Beowulf and other Legends. Many famous legends, including the mythology of Egypt, Greece and Rome, include specific descriptions of dragons and other dinosaur-like creatures.
9. Dragons in Ancient Art. Dinosaur-like creatures are featured on Babylonian landmarks, Roman mosaics, Egyptian burial shrouds, and many other pieces of art throughout the ancient world.
10. Current Legends & Discoveries. There is a huge and credible legacy of sea, lake and swamp “monsters,” even to this day.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Wed Mar-30-05 04:09 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
93. "dear lord, the boy actually believes in dragons!"
In response to Reply # 83


  

          

>1. Human & Dinosaur Fossils. Human bones and tools coexist in
>the same fossil layers as dinosaur bones in Texas and the
>Dakotas.

No they don't.

>2. Human & Dinosaur Footprints. Footprints of dinosaurs,
>humans and other mammals coexist in the same fossil layers in
>Texas and New Mexico.

No they don't.

>3. Native American Petroglyphs. Cave and cliff drawings in
>Utah and Colorado crudely depict certain dinosaur species
>(dated from 400 A.D. to 1300 A.D.).

No they don't.

>4. Ica Stones. Ceremonial burial stones discovered in Ica,
>Peru depict numerous species of dinosaurs, some in activities
>with man (dated from 500 A.D. to 1500 A.D.).

No they don't.

>5. Acambaro Figurines. Ceramic and stone figurines discovered
>in Acambaro, Mexico represent many species of dinosaurs (dated
>from 800 B.C. to 200 A.D.).

No they don't.

>6. Dragon Accounts. China, Europe and the Middle East share
>similar accounts of “dragons” and other beasts.

Actually dragons in Asian and European myths are very different.

>Some cultures
>revered these creatures. For instance, records of Marco Polo
>in China show that the royal house kept dragons for
>ceremonies. In other cultures, it was a great honor to kill
>these beasts. There are numerous records of warriors killing
>great beasts in order to establish credibility in a village.

There's tons of legends of heroes killing all kinds of great beasts and monsters - the hydra, the minotaur, the kraken, etc... that doesn't make any of them based in fact.

>7. Behemoth, Leviathan and the Dragons of the Bible. Job
>writes of great creatures, Behemoth and Leviathan, nearly 4000
>years ago.

No he didn't, because the Bible is not 4,000 years old.

>Although more recent Bible translations use
>elephant, hippo or crocodile instead, the original Hebrew does
>not allow for these interpretations. The word “dragon”
>(Hebrew: tannin) is used numerous times in the Old Testament,
>and most directly translates as “sea or land monsters.”

So they could be talking about crocodiles.


>8. Gilgamesh, Fafnir, Beowulf and other Legends. Many famous
>legends, including the mythology of Egypt, Greece and Rome,
>include specific descriptions of dragons and other
>dinosaur-like creatures.
>9. Dragons in Ancient Art. Dinosaur-like creatures are
>featured on Babylonian landmarks, Roman mosaics, Egyptian
>burial shrouds, and many other pieces of art throughout the
>ancient world.
>10. Current Legends & Discoveries. There is a huge and
>credible legacy of sea, lake and swamp “monsters,” even to
>this day.

No, because... eh, this is getting tedious. I can't believe I'm actually trying to convince an adult that dragons aren't real.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Roberts: She googled your ass.

Dr. Kelso: Don't you use your street lingo on me!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Wed Mar-30-05 04:47 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
94. "What I really want to see"
In response to Reply # 93
Wed Mar-30-05 04:48 PM by OldPro

  

          

Is the source he's pulling from. Don't just copy and paste, show us the source. That in and of itself will be very telling.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 09:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
106. "OF COURSE IT WILL!!!"
In response to Reply # 94


  

          

>Is the source he's pulling from. Don't just copy and paste,
>show us the source. That in and of itself will be very
>telling.


Of COURSE it will!

Because you'll, out-of-hand, dismiss any source that begins from a christian and/or supernaturalist perspective as automatically incredible and untenable.

Your presupposition is betraying the integrity of your search, rendering it not really a "search".

All who seek, find.

peace.


--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 02:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
120. "And?"
In response to Reply # 106


  

          

"Because you'll, out-of-hand, dismiss any source that begins from a christian and/or supernaturalist perspective "

You say that like its a bad thing. Any so-called scientist that BEGINS, as you say, from that point has already played his hand. It shows he is starting from a point of faith and not science. It's perfectly fine for a man of science to also have his own spiritual belief system. But he can not BEGIN from that point when evaluating data

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 05:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
128. "However..."
In response to Reply # 120


  

          


>You say that like its a bad thing. Any so-called scientist
>that BEGINS, as you say, from that point has already played
>his hand. It shows he is starting from a point of faith and
>not science.


You're failing to recognize that a scientist starts from a point of faith as well.
Science begins with unprovable pressupositions just as ANY investigation/argument does.


--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Wed Mar-30-05 04:58 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
95. "Dragons"
In response to Reply # 93


  

          

Are pretty easy to explain actually. It's a combination of people that had no idea what a dinosaur was, unearthing bones that defied anything they had ever seen. The second part of this, is the fact that the average person never traveled more than 50 miles from his place of birth. Add those two together and you get dragon legends. How so? Well once people saw those bones, they knew something like a dragon really did/does exists. Now it just takes one exception to the "50 mile rule" to return home after traveling someplace far away. When he comes back, he spreads the story about how he saw dragons much like the bones in his village. While I'm typing this I just realized I'm explaining why dragons ARE myth. 40th St you're right. Why are we wasting our time with this?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
mcdeezjawns
Charter member
26056 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:20 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
66. "Ok, i'll conceded that the figure of 4.6 billion"
In response to Reply # 3
Tue Mar-29-05 07:23 PM by mcdeezjawns

  

          

May not be the exact age of the earth, however, it is a number that was arrived at by years and years of study, as opposed to your 10,000 yrs which were simply an idea created by a man with a pen.i will not conceded that it is a "theory"..and I will most certainly not conceded it to anyone who believes that the earth is but a mere 10,000 years old and cannot even explain something so simple as the existence of dinosaur fossils..

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 10:12 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
81. "Let's talk about Dinosour Fossils then..."
In response to Reply # 66


  

          



here's what I just got through reading that inspired the post...

Dinosaur Fossils: Age of the Dinosaurs
Dinosaur fossils were once thought to be millions of years old. This age was based upon the geologic column. The geologic column dates fossils by the rocks in which they are found, and dates rocks by the fossils they contain. Critics insist this is circular reasoning. "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks" (J.E. O'Rourke, "American Journal of Science," 1976, 276:51). Furthermore, the geologic column assumes uniformity, which has come to be disproved by such geologic features as poly-strata fossils, misplaced fossils, missing layers, and misplaced layers (such as layers in reverse order, or "ancient" layers found several layers above "modern" layers). Most recently, advocates of an "Old Earth" turn to Radiometric Dating to prove dinosaurs to be ancient. Though they cannot date the dinosaur remains themselves, they can date rocks buried near the dinosaur remains. This is not accepted by many authorities as valid, as Radiometric Dating is based upon controversial assumptions held to be erroneous by many scholars, as indicated by empirical research. Dinosaurs are assumed to be millions of years old. Many now propose they died off in recent times and are responsible for the myriad of dragon myths. This has come to be a popular theory with such discoveries as the Ica Stones, the Glenn Rose tracks, etc. In addition, human remains have been found buried with dinosaur remains on more than one occasion. It may be that man hunted dinosaurs to extinction.

Dinosaur Extinction: Another Theory
Dinosaur Extinction is a hot topic for debate. New theories for the catastrophe that killed the dinosaurs are presented every couple of years. We have viewed the evidence and have decided to present our own theory.

Dinosaur Extinction: The Premise
Dinosaur extinction -- Most scientists believe that dinosaurs went extinct about 50 to 65 million years ago. Most scientists agree that man’s conception of dinosaurs has been limited to the past 180 years or so (the word itself wasn’t even coined until 1841). Therefore, if we discovered evidence of man’s knowledge of (or coexistence with) dinosaurs during the last couple of centuries, “science” (as we know it) would be turned upside down.

Dinosaur Extinction: The Evidence

1. Human & Dinosaur Fossils. Human bones and tools coexist in the same fossil layers as dinosaur bones in Texas and the Dakotas.
2. Human & Dinosaur Footprints. Footprints of dinosaurs, humans and other mammals coexist in the same fossil layers in Texas and New Mexico.
3. Native American Petroglyphs. Cave and cliff drawings in Utah and Colorado crudely depict certain dinosaur species (dated from 400 A.D. to 1300 A.D.).
4. Ica Stones. Ceremonial burial stones discovered in Ica, Peru depict numerous species of dinosaurs, some in activities with man (dated from 500 A.D. to 1500 A.D.).
5. Acambaro Figurines. Ceramic and stone figurines discovered in Acambaro, Mexico represent many species of dinosaurs (dated from 800 B.C. to 200 A.D.).
6. Dragon Accounts. China, Europe and the Middle East share similar accounts of “dragons” and other beasts. Some cultures revered these creatures. For instance, records of Marco Polo in China show that the royal house kept dragons for ceremonies. In other cultures, it was a great honor to kill these beasts. There are numerous records of warriors killing great beasts in order to establish credibility in a village.
7. Behemoth, Leviathan and the Dragons of the Bible. Job writes of great creatures, Behemoth and Leviathan, nearly 4000 years ago. Although more recent Bible translations use elephant, hippo or crocodile instead, the original Hebrew does not allow for these interpretations. The word “dragon” (Hebrew: tannin) is used numerous times in the Old Testament, and most directly translates as “sea or land monsters.”
8. Gilgamesh, Fafnir, Beowulf and other Legends. Many famous legends, including the mythology of Egypt, Greece and Rome, include specific descriptions of dragons and other dinosaur-like creatures.
9. Dragons in Ancient Art. Dinosaur-like creatures are featured on Babylonian landmarks, Roman mosaics, Egyptian burial shrouds, and many other pieces of art throughout the ancient world.
10. Current Legends & Discoveries. There is a huge and credible legacy of sea, lake and swamp “monsters,” even to this day.



Dinosaur Extinction: The Theory
Dinosaur Extinction is a recent phenomenon. Many of the great sea and land monsters went extinct in a global flood about 4400 years ago. Some of these creatures survived and inhabited earth with man, until they too went extinct as man killed them for sport, safety, and expansion (like black bears in Florida and bison in the Western U.S.). We know this theory is revolutionary to many! However, we must admit – it’s not original. In fact, the theory isn’t really a “scientific” theory at all. It’s based on the established truth of the Biblical record – a record that’s not dependant on mankind’s ever-changing view of science and reason. We absolutely encourage you to carefully examine the evidence for yourself!

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 09:49 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
107. "McDeez? Comments on this??"
In response to Reply # 81


  

          


No?

It's what you asked for right?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 08:10 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
104. "RE: Ok, i'll conceded that the figure of 4.6 billion"
In response to Reply # 66


          

>May not be the exact age of the earth, however, it is a
>number that was arrived at by years and years of study, as
>opposed to your 10,000 yrs which were simply an idea created
>by a man with a pen.i will not conceded that it is a
>"theory"..and I will most certainly not conceded it to anyone
>who believes that the earth is but a mere 10,000 years old and
>cannot even explain something so simple as the existence of
>dinosaur fossils..


I tend to hold your viewpoint. However, you MUST concede that it is a theory, otherwise you completely contradict the point you are trying to make.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 05:26 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
127. "RE: Ok, i'll conceded that the figure of 4.6 billion"
In response to Reply # 104


          


The problem is the frequency with which people confuse the words "theory" and "hypothesis." It's easy to dismiss a hypothesis, just as easy as it is to construct one. It's hard to dismiss a scientific theory, just as hard as it is to construct one. A theory is battle-tested, supported by a wide consensus of evidence and argument. A theory is a successful, well-supported hypothesis. The "young earth" is an unsuccessful, unsupported hypothesis.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 05:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
149. "RE: Ok, i'll conceded that the figure of 4.6 billion"
In response to Reply # 127


          

Sorry, I didn't realise you were talking about the Christian hypothesis.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
brokenchains79
Member since Nov 22nd 2003
6567 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 11:31 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
87. "Lol... you said rationally debate."
In response to Reply # 3


  

          


******************************
http://profiles.myspace.com/users/1281849
******************************
"me as a black man will not
stand here and allow you to
talk dumb shit about white
women that simply is not true"
SouthPhillyMan

"If I see

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 05:27 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "Every generation has those that think it's the "last days""
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

I've been hearing this shit since I was a kid. My grandmother told me that during WW II there was hella people who thought it was the start or Armageddon. Before that WW I was the start. So on and so on. Problem is, every generation feels like their "time" is special for better or worse. What these people fail to see is, things have been much "darker" and "immoral" at many points in the past. The "Dark Ages" sure wasn't any picnic. With the plague killing a 1/3 of the population in some regions, roaming bands of thieves and rapist and a corrupt power (Popes of the time) coming in the name of god )anti-christ anyone) I'd say that time fit the bill far more than anything today. The funny thing is, that if you actually believe there will be a "last days" then those same people should also believe god will come "like a thief in the night" Meaning when it's least expected. I've never understood those that say times getting worse is proof of the last days. Your belief is your belief, but at least stay consistent.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 05:55 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
4. ""more bloodshed..."
In response to Reply # 2


  

          


in the 20 century than all other previous centuries combined."

Is a statement I've heard a lot of support for. Do you contend it?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 05:56 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "RE: "more bloodshed..."
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

in the sense there is more people then maybe. But I wouldn't agree this is a more violent time. Not even close

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
13. "that's because..."
In response to Reply # 6


  

          


You've just announced that "quanity" doesn't come into your assessment of which time is "more" violent. Tell me how you go about it then.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:10 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "Let's start here"
In response to Reply # 13


  

          

"When a man is discovered lying with a married woman, they shall both die; the woman as well as the man who lay with her; you shall rid Israel of this wickedness. When a virgin is pledged marriage to a man and another man comes upon her in the town and lies with her, you shall bring both of them out to the gate of the town and stone them to death; the girl, because, although in the town, she did not cry for help, and the man because he dishonored another man's wife; you shall rid yourselves of this wickedness. If the man comes upon such a girl in the country and rapes her, then the man alone shall die because he lay with her. You shall do nothing to the girl, she has done nothing worthy of death; this deed is like that of a man who attacks another and murders him, for the man came upon her in the country, and though the girl cried for help, there was no one to rescue her. When a man comes upon a virgin who is not pledged in marriage and forces her to lie with him, and they are discovered, then the man who lies with her shall give the girl's father fifty pieces of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has dishonored her. He is not free to divorce her all his life long." -Deuteronomy 22: 23-29


So is this a less violent time?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
jenNjuice
Charter member
3527 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:22 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
29. "RE: Let's start here"
In response to Reply # 19


          

"So is this a less violent time?"

instead of addressing the point your using the bible as a mechanism to attack that persons frame of reference, good tactic, but your elluding the point.

the bible verse you used was a punishment based on certain principles, not an intentional violent act.

no one went around stoning people for heck of it unless they broke the law, im sure there was no justice back then, BUT today you do have more people intentionally committing crimes within the justice system, there are new inventions i.e guns which=more crime,more spousal abuse, child neglect, and more parents violently killing their children, etc...more KIDS killing each other aimlessly, more money, more power, national neglect is also an indirect form of violence, etc

and it will get worse
this was also prophesized in the bible as well

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:26 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
33. "You missed the bigger point"
In response to Reply # 29


  

          

A female who is being raped should be stoned for not crying out if she is in a town? So in other words, she must have liked it is what they are saying. If this is the case, why should she be stoned? Or maybe she was scared she would be killed if she screamed. All this shows is the lack of respect for women by these so called "holy" men who wrote the bible. If that's a sign of a more "moral" time then more power to you. As a man with two daughters, I'll take 21st century ethics over that shit any day.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
jenNjuice
Charter member
3527 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:43 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
45. "i don't think so"
In response to Reply # 33


          

have you ever been raped?
no one who is being raped, and violated remains silent, unless told other wise. Now if the word specified that if the woman does not cry out as a result of her being forced to remain silent and they still stone her than maybe that's extreme and i can agree with you on that.

But as a woman, i cannot comprehend being violated and remaining silent out of fear. i can comprehend remaining silent out of a sick sense of enjoyement.

i think theres a greater sense of whats being conveyed here

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
50. "Stay with me here"
In response to Reply # 45


  

          

If a woman does not cry not because she is fearful but because she actually enjoys the act, is that rape? So why should she still be stonned? Seriously, you don't feel many of these old laws were anti-female?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
jenNjuice
Charter member
3527 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:58 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
55. "RE: Stay with me here"
In response to Reply # 50


          

"If a woman does not cry not because she is fearful but because she actually enjoys the act, is that rape? So why should she still be stonned?"

if she is enjoying it (although the initial intent was based purely on a violation) than no its not rape because now it is 2 adults enjoying an act

i believe that's why God regarding it as an evil act and required that they be stoned

"its Seriously, you don't feel many of these old laws were anti-female?"

yes, in the way a human would comprehend it.

the old laws was based on a concept of purging and purification to the extreme that was misused by people who were carnal minded. and if your looking at in on a "flesh" level you would only see a man and a helpless sinful woman

but the true parallelism of the man and wife in the old testament is God and the church.

in regards to the law, that's why another law was needed. remember what Jesus did when they were about to stone that woman. Did he not stick up for her?

if you want to attack the bible for the main purpose of just attacking it that's fine.but there's many faccids of it thats on a deeper level than what you see.peace

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:05 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
60. "And this was my core point"
In response to Reply # 55
Tue Mar-29-05 07:06 PM by OldPro

  

          

"if she is enjoying it (although the initial intent was based purely on a violation) than no its not rape because now it is 2 adults enjoying an act

i believe that's why God regarding it as an evil act and required that they be stoned"

I was simply debunking the first posters assessment this is a more "immoral" time. You just agree that if there were no screams it could be due to it being a consensual act. But still say that stoning is just under this law. I don't agree that stoning people cause they got busy is moral in the least bit. But hey, maybe that's just me.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:09 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
62. "They love to teach this"
In response to Reply # 55


  

          

"the old laws was based on a concept of purging and purification to the extreme that was misused by people who were carnal minded. and if your looking at in on a "flesh" level you would only see a man and a helpless sinful woman

but the true parallelism of the man and wife in the old testament is God and the church."

But tell that to the girl that was sold to her husband at age 12 to a man 3 times her age. What you're really saying here is the idea of morality changes. Which is something the church itself likes to challenge with those outside the faith say the same thing.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 09:39 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
78. "you've not been asked..."
In response to Reply # 33


  

          

... to adopt an old testament ethic.

Neither have I.

Nice false dichotomy.



--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Wed Mar-30-05 04:05 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
92. "not the point"
In response to Reply # 78
Wed Mar-30-05 04:07 PM by OldPro

  

          

point is why should I trust writings from people with the type of ethics that allowed these sort of things to take place

if the well is poisoned, why drink from it?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "I will contend it"
In response to Reply # 4
Tue Mar-29-05 06:09 PM by moot_point

          

>in the 20 century than all other previous centuries
>combined."

How whimsical! You cannot conceivably attempt qualify this.

>Is a statement I've heard a lot of support for. Do you
>contend it?

Supported by whom? Billion year old writers? If you consider the context that any writer in history can provide on this matter, it still remains a spec of cosmic dust in the universe of time.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 10:28 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
85. "you're assuming..."
In response to Reply # 14


  

          

... an earth millions of years old.

For a moment, don't assume that, because you don't KNOW it.

Consider the exponential rate of population growth. Consider the grand scale atrocities of this century alone (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Mous), and now try and imagine, taking into account population growth, when annihilation of this magnitude could have ever been equalled.


peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 06:31 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
101. "Neanderthal Man or Genghis Khan"
In response to Reply # 85


  

          

take your pick

oh, that's right, all those fossils of Neanderthals musta been more 'hoaxes' and stuff...

damn, it's hard to debate with someone who refuses to believe evidence.

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
chief1284
Member since Nov 08th 2004
3003 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 07:16 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
102. "RE: Neanderthal Man or Genghis Khan"
In response to Reply # 101


  

          

heh lets not forget the crusades.

------------------------------------------------------------

Check my man Lao at www.myspace.com/lazzriel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 06:22 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
132. "can anyone say Black Death?"
In response to Reply # 102


  

          

how about Influenza?

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 06:22 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
133. "can anyone say Black Plague?"
In response to Reply # 102


  

          

how about Influenza?

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 06:52 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
151. "oops, the ole' double reply"
In response to Reply # 133


  

          

trying to hit stop and change 'black death' to 'plague' cos i coudln't remember if it was actually called 'death'...

and there i am repeating myself like a newbie, lol

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 07:01 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
152. "RE: oops, the ole' double reply"
In response to Reply # 151


          

That's exhaustion and frustration! I'm giving up on this forum.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
chief1284
Member since Nov 08th 2004
3003 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 07:49 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
153. "RE: oops, the ole' double reply"
In response to Reply # 151


  

          

its actually death anyway! lol! and yeah although numbers differ its generally considered over 40% of Europe's population died during it.

------------------------------------------------------------

Check my man Lao at www.myspace.com/lazzriel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

chillsm00th
Member since Mar 25th 2005
6177 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 05:59 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
8. "100 years ago, there was no way to trace earthquake activity worldwide."
In response to Reply # 0
Tue Mar-29-05 06:02 PM by chillsm00th

  

          

so basically you're talking a possibly higher instance in the last century. without giving any data as to how many earthquakes occurred during the previous ten-year periods, or their intensity.

edit: not to mention there are more people on earth now than before, so earthquakes would kill more people. there were half as many humans on earth as recently as 75 years ago.

<--All-American couple


"people on here just be like " go for it man! its sex! god forbid you turn down SEX! *dances around the baal statue*" -- Stephbit

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:08 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
17. "there were historians with pens"
In response to Reply # 8


  

          



But it is reasonable to assume that historians, in any era, would take note of the whole earth shaking. No?

Additionally, they HAVE.

Additionally (regarding your EDIT), the point of the list was not quanity of casualty, but rather frequency and intensity. K?

I think it's interesting.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Sat Apr-09-05 06:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
167. "there are more ppl now living in more hazardous locations"
In response to Reply # 17


  

          

plus, recorded history hasn't always been preserved... nor was the flow of information as great back "then" as it is now

«SiG»
“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice."
-Qur’an 4:135

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

jenNjuice
Charter member
3527 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:08 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
16. "i believe it"
In response to Reply # 0


          

i been having some crazy dreams about earthquakes, and about the kingdom of heaven, and thrones being set up in various places since last year

i believe this generation will see the coming of God. Watch

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:11 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "RE: i believe it"
In response to Reply # 16
Tue Mar-29-05 06:12 PM by moot_point

          

Dreams are not premonitions. Don't worry yourself too much

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
jenNjuice
Charter member
3527 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:29 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
36. "RE: i believe it"
In response to Reply # 21


          

i wouldn't say that im worried, but i do believe that some dreams are preminitions

i can't explain it, but i've been dreaming about certain things since i was little and they have come true. i just recently gave myself to God, and i don't know the bible front to back, but i have dreamt about certain things in the bible before i actually read it. by which i can't explain

so i don't know. i think everyone sees things, but whether or not one chooses to believe it-its up to them

peace

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:15 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "So why are you different?"
In response to Reply # 16


  

          

I've heard at least 100 people (most of who have which passed) say the same thing while I was growing up.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:16 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
25. "RE: So why are you different?"
In response to Reply # 24


          

here, here

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
jenNjuice
Charter member
3527 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:26 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
34. "RE: So why are you different?"
In response to Reply # 24


          

because a hundred people said the same thing, does that make it false? please explain

the bible says that the end will not come with our careful observation but as in the days of noah so shall it be with this generation, i.e People eating, drinking, partying, etc

so no one will know when the hour will come, but signs shall be shown in the heavenlies, through DREAMS (read joel)

i believe in what i've seen.

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:29 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
35. "yeah that's true. we ARE the first generation to eat and party."
In response to Reply # 34


  

          

i don't know how our grandparents got through without it, really.

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:44 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
47. "RE: yeah that's true. we ARE the first generation to eat and party."
In response to Reply # 35


  

          

Yea and those crazy Romans had nothing on us.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
jenNjuice
Charter member
3527 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:47 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
51. "there is nothing knew under the sun"
In response to Reply # 35


          

everything that is has already been

*ecclesiates*

peace

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:51 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
52. "It's called odds"
In response to Reply # 34


  

          

"because a hundred people said the same thing, does that make it false? please explain"

If 100 people tell you they can turn you into a rabbit but none do, would you have any fear that #101 was going to succeed? I'm not basing my doubts about your "prophetic" dreams coming true on odds alone but I must admit, those odds aren't in your favor

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
jenNjuice
Charter member
3527 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:05 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
59. "actually its even"
In response to Reply # 52


          

100 people dream the same thing, and you find no significance in that. really?

if 100 people identify the sky as blue, would you not accept this as a fact? does the agreement or similarity in perception not become the basis for which common knowledge of the sky being blue is based on or is it just a mere coincidence or odd?

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:22 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
68. "Say What?"
In response to Reply # 59


  

          

>100 people dream the same thing, and you find no significance
>in that. really?
>
>if 100 people identify the sky as blue, would you not accept
>this as a fact? does the agreement or similarity in perception
>not become the basis for which common knowledge of the sky
>being blue is based on or is it just a mere coincidence or
>odd?

Who has said they dreamed the end days were near and had the world end shortly after to prove they were right? Look, I'm sure you are s weet person and all but I've been around and around with people with your belief system my whole life. We won't get anywhere here as you can not see past your "heart". Peace to you sista

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
jenNjuice
Charter member
3527 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:39 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
71. "RE: Say What?"
In response to Reply # 68


          

"Who has said they dreamed the end days were near and had the world end shortly after to prove they were right?Look, I'm sure you are sweet person"
I am-thanks for the compliment. im sure you aint bad yourself

"and all but I've been around and around with people with your belief system my whole life."

me 2, and i don't mess with them like that either.

"We won't get anywhere here as you can not see past your "heart"."

this is more than a matter of the heart. if your not willing to get past your layers of anger in regards to christianity and whatever happened in your past experience with other believers than no sweety we can't go any where.

you see I CAME from the world in which your from. i thought like you thought. sought to find everything wrong with the bible and i contended everything about this faith. i know the knowledge of what some believe nullifies the reality of christianity.but i tasted and experienced something far better than what so called "proof" (which really isn't) can provide.

and i aint here to preach, nor am i going to waste time arguing. so peace to you 2.

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:50 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
72. "Last thing on this"
In response to Reply # 71


  

          

So-called Christians aren't the victim here so please spear me that. It's not a matter of me being angry it's a matter of me not having respect for a body that sells false hope and lies to people. I came out of that world you are in now. If there is a god, I thank him for giving me the ability to reason and see through these lies. But don't talk to me like I've just picked out Christians and attacked them for no reason. You have no idea the shit I've seen them do to people's lives.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
jenNjuice
Charter member
3527 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 08:17 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
74. "RE: Last thing on this"
In response to Reply # 72


          

im sorry, but im not making christians out to be the victim here.
anyway, I BEEN in the church, i left the church, and im back. but i learned God doesn't exist in the pews nor is he really in the hearts of christians who do evil. you think you seen some crooked christians? i've seen more than you and then some. i been robbed by these crooked pastors out here, shoot im african, and if you think these american pastors out here are doing wrong, please you have no idea as to what SOME of these people are doing out here. BUT i realized GOD IS STILL GOD. what they do doesn't take away a thing from who he is to me. And i thank God i had the ability to discern that which is true from what is false.seperate the word from the hands of which are holding it than judge and see for yourself...

anyway, it was nice talking with you.peace

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 09:56 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
79. "be specific"
In response to Reply # 52


  

          


Are you posing that scenario under the presupposition that "a person who can turn another into a rabbit" can exist? Or are you assuming out-of-hand that this type of person does not exist.

If you begin by allowing for the existence of such a person, 100 false rabbit-prophets do not in ANY way effect the odds of number 101... all things being equal.


See this?

You have to make explicit the presupposition you're beginning from.
This is probably one of the most crucial issues and broadly misunderstood concepts in the materialist vs. supernaturalist discorse.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 08:01 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
103. "RE: be specific"
In response to Reply # 79


          

>
>Are you posing that scenario under the presupposition that "a
>person who can turn another into a rabbit" can exist? Or are
>you assuming out-of-hand that this type of person does not
>exist.

Nice try! The presupposition is quite clear; that this person does not exist.

>If you begin by allowing for the existence of such a person,
>100 false rabbit-prophets do not in ANY way effect the odds of
>number 101... all things being equal.
>
>
>See this?

Of course your point is clear. Person 101 is mutually exclusive from the 100 false prophets before him.

>You have to make explicit the presupposition you're beginning
>from.

However, the supposition was clear; that no individual can turn another into a rabbit. The mention of 'odds' was sarcasm and you know it!

>This is probably one of the most crucial issues and broadly
>misunderstood concepts in the materialist vs. supernaturalist
>discorse.

You tried to muddy the conceptual waters here, not Oldpro. In any case, it was jenNjuice who misunderstood the materialist/supernaturalist dichotomy (post 59.) by attempting to establish a similarity between 100 people stating that the sky is blue (materialist) and 100 people dreaming of the same premonition (supernaturalist)..

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 11:07 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
115. "nice try??"
In response to Reply # 103


  

          



>Nice try! The presupposition is quite clear; that this person
>does not exist.


Then one's beleif that the 101st person will also fail to turn me into a rabbit is NOT in any way based on the "evidence" of the first 100. But rather, it is based WHOLLY on my presupposition that such a person cannot/does not exist.

agreed?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 11:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
117. "RE: nice try??"
In response to Reply # 115


          


>Then one's beleif that the 101st person will also fail to turn
>me into a rabbit is NOT in any way based on the "evidence" of
>the first 100. But rather, it is based WHOLLY on my
>presupposition that such a person cannot/does not exist.
>
>agreed?

Absolutely. But, with respect, I think this was Oldpro's presupposition and it was specific.

>In any case, it was jenNjuice who misunderstood the >materialist/supernaturalist dichotomy (post 59.) by attempting to >establish a similarity between 100 people stating that the sky is >blue (materialist) and 100 people dreaming of the same premonition
>(supernaturalist)..

Agreed?


  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:16 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
26. "here's another list-"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

these are the earthquakes that my country had, in the last MONTH.


Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2381558 NZST: Fri, Mar 25 2005 8:31 pm
Magnitude: 3.4 Depth: 5 km
20 km south of Kaikoura, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2379725 NZST: Tue, Mar 22 2005 3:17 am
Magnitude: 4.1 Depth: 30 km
10 km west of Eketahuna, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2378887 NZST: Sun, Mar 20 2005 2:40 am
Magnitude: 4.2 Depth: 15 km
30 km south of Arthur's Pass, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2377942 NZDT: Thu, Mar 17 2005 6:52 pm
Magnitude: 3.1 Depth: 5 km
Within 5 km of Matata, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2377760 NZDT: Thu, Mar 17 2005 8:32 am
Magnitude: 3.3 Depth: 2 km
Within 5 km of Matata, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2377454 NZDT: Wed, Mar 16 2005 2:28 pm
Magnitude: 4.3 Depth: 12 km
40 km east of Haast, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2377308 NZDT: Wed, Mar 16 2005 6:07 am
Magnitude: 3.1 Depth: 2 km
Within 5 km of Matata, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2376763 NZDT: Mon, Mar 14 2005 9:04 pm
Magnitude: 5.5 Depth: 12 km
100 km west of Te Anau, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2376734 NZDT: Mon, Mar 14 2005 7:29 pm
Magnitude: 4.7 Depth: 110 km
60 km south-west of Wanganui, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2376700 NZDT: Mon, Mar 14 2005 5:52 pm
Magnitude: 3.2 Depth: 5 km
10 km west of Turangi, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2376455 NZDT: Mon, Mar 14 2005 4:08 am
Magnitude: 6.4 Depth: 150 km
80 km south of Opunake, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2376319 NZDT: Sun, Mar 13 2005 8:19 pm
Magnitude: 2.9 Depth: 12 km
30 km north of Ranfurly, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2375513 NZDT: Fri, Mar 11 2005 6:47 pm
Magnitude: 3.3 Depth: 7 km
30 km east of Arthur's Pass, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2375124 NZDT: Thu, Mar 10 2005 9:28 pm
Magnitude: 3.0 Depth: 5 km
20 km north-west of Whakatane, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2374613 NZDT: Wed, Mar 09 2005 4:11 pm
Magnitude: 2.4 Depth: 2 km
Within 5 km of Kawerau, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2374319 NZDT: Tue, Mar 08 2005 11:23 pm
Magnitude: 3.2 Depth: 11 km
40 km south-west of Seddon, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2374160 NZDT: Tue, Mar 08 2005 1:40 pm
Magnitude: 3.2 Depth: 5 km
20 km north-west of Whakatane, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2373654 NZDT: Mon, Mar 07 2005 8:52 am
Magnitude: 4.2 Depth: 120 km
10 km west of Ohakune, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2373439 NZDT: Sun, Mar 06 2005 10:16 pm
Magnitude: 3.2 Depth: 7 km
10 km north-east of Harihari, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2373422 NZDT: Sun, Mar 06 2005 9:29 pm
Magnitude: 3.2 Depth: 7 km
10 km north-east of Harihari, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2371672 NZDT: Wed, Mar 02 2005 8:07 pm
Magnitude: 3.0 Depth: 15 km
10 km south of Blenheim, details...
Map of New Zealand showing earthquake location. 2370899 NZDT: Tue, Mar 01 2005 0:35 am
Magnitude: 4.1 Depth: 50 km
30 km north-west of Porirua, details...

http://www.geonet.org.nz/recent_quakes.html

seriously, these things are a constant fact of life for us. just because the news featured a couple of huge ones in the last few months doesn't mean a damn thing.


how do you think most of the mountain ranges on the planet formed? it's called 'uplift', and it involves a lot of earthquakes.

your next study area: geology and geography. sorry i'm not available for online lessons; i might suggest your local library or university though. although this sort of thing should really have been covered at high school..

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:21 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
28. "RE: here's another list-"
In response to Reply # 26


          

Oh my God, all those earthquakes in one month! Its conclusive!
Its time to dig a hole in my back garden, fill it with food and porn, and take refuge before the rat-race begins.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:26 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
32. "actually that was quite a slow month, lol"
In response to Reply # 28


  

          

89 was worse

and last century had some bastards too, the 1930s especially


but this is higher than, say, the late 90s, because the Indo-Australian Plate is moving round a bit at the moment. (as some people have noticed....)

ok. here's the advice of someone who used to live in a place called Earthquake Flat:


DON'T PANIC.

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
chief1284
Member since Nov 08th 2004
3003 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
40. "RE: here's another list-"
In response to Reply # 26


  

          

omg I can't believe ur even humouring these wackos with an argument. I mean this is the funniest post I've ever seen, I mean damn! The Earth is 10,000 years old! The apocalypse is coming (again)! ROFL! This is the classic. Archive, archive!

Oh and also think about this - unless u believe the hitchikers guide to the galaxy and mice planted dinsaur fossils to humour future generations of scientists, think about those fossils. Enlightening eh?

------------------------------------------------------------

Check my man Lao at www.myspace.com/lazzriel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:38 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
41. "fighting unwinnable arguments with christians ="
In response to Reply # 40


  

          

= the perfect cure for insomnia.

(all the fossils are dragons, btw. and every single scientist ever has apparently dated them wrong. yup. all of them.)

ok i really gotta sleep now...

remember kids. DON'T PANIC

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
chief1284
Member since Nov 08th 2004
3003 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
49. "lol"
In response to Reply # 41


  

          

------------------------------------------------------------

Check my man Lao at www.myspace.com/lazzriel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:57 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
54. "I don't hate these folks"
In response to Reply # 49


  

          

I feel sorry for them. Most are good people that are doing what they believe is the right thing. They are sold false hope. It's those that have taught them that I have the problems with. They would be surprised to find out, that most of those in power don't really believe what they teach. It's all about how they can profit from it. It's always been that way and always will be.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
61. "RE: I don't hate these folks"
In response to Reply # 54


          

True. But is it not that many who are teaching, have too at some time been sold a false hope?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:11 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
64. "RE: I don't hate these folks"
In response to Reply # 61


  

          

>True. But is it not that many who are teaching, have too at
>some time been sold a false hope?

This is true too. It's a damn messy cycle thats for damned sure.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Harmonia
Charter member
14560 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
58. "lol, my avatar seems so appropiate to this!"
In response to Reply # 41


  

          

Heaven or hell folks...here comes God to judge you all!

***************************************

www.twitter.com/MsKianga
http://nativebeadwork.blogspot.com/
'I can't stand Tim McCarver. He has a penchant for making blindingly obvious statements in a self-congratulatory tone' Kyle Lohse

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:16 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
65. "RE: lol, my avatar seems so appropiate to this!"
In response to Reply # 58


          

Well I should be quite safe. Pascal's Wager for me!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 06:52 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
53. "that's just the sleeping dragons in their subterranean caves waking up"
In response to Reply # 26


  

          

all the LOTR geeks vacationing in NZ to see Middle Earth woke them up with their Elvish incantations.

------
"Ladies and gentlemen, what you are seeing is a total disregard for the
things St. Patrick's Day stand for. All this drinking, violence,destruction
of property. Are these the things we think of when we think of the Irish?"

- Kent O'Brockman

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mcdeezjawns
Charter member
26056 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:28 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
70. "well played!"
In response to Reply # 26


  

          

this debate is laughable at best...

peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:10 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
63. "when has the following not been the case tho??"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God -- having a form of godliness but denying its power.


«SiG»
“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice."
-Qur’an 4:135

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:27 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
69. "RE: when has the following not been the case tho??"
In response to Reply # 63


  

          

>
>But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.
>People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money,
>boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents,
>ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous,
>without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good,
>treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than
>lovers of God -- having a form of godliness but denying its
>power.
Best point of the thread so far. It can apply to any time and was written so as to do just that. Always keep people afraid and in need of "guidance". But I do find it amusing that those that teach the end is near, still like to raise plenty of money for a future they say will never come.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
jenNjuice
Charter member
3527 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 07:58 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
73. "RE: when has the following not been the case tho??"
In response to Reply # 69
Tue Mar-29-05 08:23 PM by jenNjuice

          

Always keep people afraid and in need of "guidance".

"But I do find it amusing that those that teach the end is near, still like to raise plenty of money for a future they say will never come."

yep. in the book of Acts were not ALL the disciples "selling all of what they had and GIVING it to the poor". its also funny how Jesus told that very rich young man who wanted to follow him to sell all his possessions and give it to the poor. yet you have to have in order to give. and the truth is the majority of christians are financially depleted, in any event i do believe way too much emphasis is being placed on using the word of God as a means to prosperity. Yet the most beautifullest thing preached by Paul was when he said "I've been rich, and ive been poor. Yet i've I learned to be CONTENT in all situations"

also it was prophesized that many false teachers will arise and lead MANY astray. that's why its up to the body to learn for themselves whats in the word of God so that they can see whats real from whats a false.

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
jahmani3
Charter member
454 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 11:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
86. "If we only took all the Church Building Funds....LOL"
In response to Reply # 69


  

          

We could wipe out hunger,AIDS,and who knows what else.



>>
>>But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last
>days.
>>People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money,
>>boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents,
>>ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous,
>>without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good,
>>treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than
>>lovers of God -- having a form of godliness but denying its
>>power.
>Best point of the thread so far. It can apply to any time and
>was written so as to do just that. Always keep people afraid
>and in need of "guidance". But I do find it amusing that those
>that teach the end is near, still like to raise plenty of
>money for a future they say will never come.


Favorite Teams:
NFL - BENGALS (Bears & Cowboys)
NBA - Pistons (Shaq & KG's team)
College B-Ball - Bearcats ('Cuse & NC)
Football The Ohio State (Notre Dame)
MLB - Reds

Have you ever given yourself a stranger?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed Mar-30-05 01:05 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
88. "Consider this Zewari"
In response to Reply # 63


  

          


Neitzche died in 1900.

This century IS different. These times ARE markedly distinct.

Malcom Muggeridge said:

"If God is dead, someone is going to have to take His place, and it will be either megolomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clinched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner".

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Wed Mar-30-05 03:53 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
90. "I'll take Heff"
In response to Reply # 88


  

          

>"If God is dead, someone is going to have to take His place,
>and it will be either megolomania or erotomania, the drive for
>power or the drive for pleasure, the clinched fist or the
>phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner".

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Roberts: She googled your ass.

Dr. Kelso: Don't you use your street lingo on me!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Wed Mar-30-05 06:36 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
96. "RE: Consider this Zewari"
In response to Reply # 88
Wed Mar-30-05 06:40 PM by moot_point

          

>
>Neitzche died in 1900.
>
>This century IS different. These times ARE markedly
>distinct.
>
>Malcom Muggeridge said:
>
>"If God is dead, someone is going to have to take His place,
>and it will be either megolomania or erotomania, the drive for
>power or the drive for pleasure, the clinched fist or the
>phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner".

What remains lacking is a cogent argument. Who gives a fuck what Malcolm Muggeridge said? Semantic erotica... no more! You fail to provide even a snifter of a coherent argument that these times are different. Your religion is opium.

I put it to you that you cannot provide a single convincing argument without bandying a quote from the biblical or fundamentalist book of approximations to support your argument..

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 09:55 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
109. "question..."
In response to Reply # 96


  

          


(that you will think laughable, and I used to as well)

The question is... Does the Bible count as one of the "biblical books" I'm not allowed to reference?


I'm dead serious.

peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 10:01 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
110. "RE: question..."
In response to Reply # 109
Thu Mar-31-05 10:01 AM by moot_point

          

>The question is... Does the Bible count as one of the
>"biblical books" I'm not allowed to reference?

Of course it does!

>I'm dead serious.

Me too.

>peace.

Peace.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 11:14 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
116. "then..."
In response to Reply # 110


  

          


I'm afraid I'm unable to answer your question. The presupposition I'm beginning with (nay, basing my life on) is that of Biblical truth.

What presupposition do your arguments begin with?


peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 02:57 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
122. "Not just the bible"
In response to Reply # 116


  

          

but any book of "faith". If did allow faith as a starting point, we could be here arguing about the existence of thunder coming from the god Thor.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 06:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
130. "GREAT OBSERVATION... Notice what follows..."
In response to Reply # 122


  

          



>but any book of "faith". If did allow faith as a starting
>point, we could be here arguing about the existence of thunder
>coming from the god Thor.



Can you prove to me that Thunder does NOT come from the god Thor?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 06:31 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
135. "Seriously"
In response to Reply # 130


  

          

>
>
>>but any book of "faith". If did allow faith as a starting
>>point, we could be here arguing about the existence of
>thunder
>>coming from the god Thor.
>
>
>
>Can you prove to me that Thunder does NOT come from the god
>Thor?
>

Where are you trying to go with this? What I think you're trying to do, is to get me to lay out the science for how lightening occurs and then ask how do I know that it's just not the doing of a god or gods. While this argument can be technically correct, it's doesn't work in the realm of common sense. One could make any sort of contention using that logic. But doing such, is neither reasonable nor productive. If you can't understand this then as flava flav said "I Can't Do Nuthin' 4 Ya Man"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 07:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
137. "RE: GREAT OBSERVATION... Notice what follows..."
In response to Reply # 130


          

Yes, it comes from my arse after a curry.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 10:21 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
141. "sure-doppler radar shows no mystical hammers flying around thunderclouds"
In response to Reply # 130


  

          

>Can you prove to me that Thunder does NOT come from the god
>Thor?

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Roberts: She googled your ass.

Dr. Kelso: Don't you use your street lingo on me!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 01:19 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
145. "So your pressuposition..."
In response to Reply # 141


  

          


... is that God/gods must be empirically observable facts.

That, logically, can't be of any use to you in arguing against creationism of any sort. No worries though, you can always arm yourself with sarcasm. Especially when obvious points such as the above are pointed out.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 01:49 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
147. "no"
In response to Reply # 145


  

          

>... is that God/gods must be empirically observable facts.

my pressuposition is that thunder does not come from the god Thor. That does not presuppose that God/gods as a whole must be empirically observable facts.

>That, logically, can't be of any use to you in arguing against
>creationism of any sort.

That's ok, cuz I never said anything about that.

>No worries though, you can always
>arm yourself with sarcasm.

Or I can arm myself with scientific refutations of pseudoscientific creationist claims, as I did in post #42. But when you ignore that, sarcasm does help get the point across.

And BTW, while the doppler radar thing was indeed sarcastic, it's also a perfectly sound argument.

>Especially when obvious points
>such as the above are pointed out.

Especially when such obvious points have nothing to do with my arguments.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Roberts: She googled your ass.

Dr. Kelso: Don't you use your street lingo on me!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 12:10 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
154. "yes"
In response to Reply # 147
Fri Apr-01-05 12:11 PM by inVerse

  

          



>That's ok, cuz I never said anything about that.


Unless I'm mistaking you, you did. The question posed was "can you (forget who it was addressed to) prove that lightening does NOT come from Thor?"

The answer to this question is obviously, no, it can't be proven

But you responded to the effect of "sure - thor's not detected by doppler".

Therefore you did say something about that.
And your pressupposed/assumed/implicit premise is "gods are empirically observable"

Which, I pointed out, was a completely useless premise when discussing a "creator god".


>Or I can arm myself with scientific refutations of
>pseudoscientific creationist claims, as I did in post #42. But
>when you ignore that, sarcasm does help get the point across.

They weren't ignored =) Just not responded to. I'm doing a lot of reading, and when I come across something interesting I post it. As I've said, I'm a philosopher and not a scientist, so finding some of the objections to the "old earth theory" (which again, I ACCEPT!) intriguing is not only forgivable, but I would think, encouraged.



>And BTW, while the doppler radar thing was indeed sarcastic,
>it's also a perfectly sound argument.


Let's see:
1) whatever causes lightening is entirely explained scientifically
2) doppler is entirely effective for detecting said "causes"
3) some believe that thor, a god of lightening, exists
4) thor is not detected by doppler.
Therefore
5) Thor is not the cause of lightening.

Is that we're were at? I wanna see if you agree on the syllogism before examining it.



peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 05:24 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
159. "you're mistaken"
In response to Reply # 154


  

          

>Unless I'm mistaking you, you did. The question posed was
>"can you (forget who it was addressed to) prove that
>lightening does NOT come from Thor?"
>
>The answer to this question is obviously, no, it can't be
>proven

No that is not obviously the answer.

>But you responded to the effect of "sure - thor's not detected
>by doppler".

No, I said Thor's hammer is not detected by radar.

>Therefore you did say something about that.
>And your pressupposed/assumed/implicit premise is "gods are
>empirically observable"

No. My premise is not that "gods" are empirically observable. I am dealing with one specific god here.

>Which, I pointed out, was a completely useless premise when
>discussing a "creator god".

But we weren't discussing a "creator god" in this instance, we were discussing a thunder god.

>They weren't ignored =) Just not responded to.

Why not? You responded to everything else.

>I'm doing a
>lot of reading, and when I come across something interesting I
>post it. As I've said, I'm a philosopher and not a scientist,
>so finding some of the objections to the "old earth theory"
>(which again, I ACCEPT!) intriguing is not only forgivable,
>but I would think, encouraged.

It's not forgivable when you claim that it is "suppressed evidence" proving some anti-god conspiracy in the scientific community, when you don't understand the science and have no basis to make such claims. Particularly when the "science" behind what you post is just flat-out wrong.

And just because you ponder these questions doesn't make you a philosopher.

>Let's see:
>1) whatever causes lightening is entirely explained
>scientifically

I didn't say that (even though it's true)

>2) doppler is entirely effective for detecting said "causes"

I didn't say that.

>3) some believe that thor, a god of lightening, exists

I didn't say that. And I don't even think the Asatru (aka Odinists - modern-day followers of old Norse religion) really believe that Thor literally exists.

>4) thor is not detected by doppler.

I didn't say that either.

>Therefore
>5) Thor is not the cause of lightening.
>
>Is that we're were at? I wanna see if you agree on the
>syllogism before examining it.

That's where you're at maybe, but that's not where I'm at. Thor created thunder with his hammer Mjolnir; when he threw it at something the strike of the hammer caused thunderclaps (didn't you read comics as a kid?)

Now, if there was indeed a hammer flying around striking things and causing thunder, that would be detectable, wouldn't it? You are over-analyzing a very simple argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Roberts: She googled your ass.

Dr. Kelso: Don't you use your street lingo on me!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
soundsop
Charter member
12988 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 06:27 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
162. "*Raises arms* TOUCHDOWN, 40TH STREET"
In response to Reply # 141


  

          


------
Baddest Motherfucker in the OkaySports Hall of Fame

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 03:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
123. "RE: then..."
In response to Reply # 116


          


>I'm afraid I'm unable to answer your question. The
>presupposition I'm beginning with (nay, basing my life on) is
>that of Biblical truth.

It remains that you are unable to establish a causal link between the earthquakes of the last century and bible prophecies of the end of the world.

If there is such a causal link (and we are to believe the media), then did your God initiate the tsunami that hit Thailand, in order to force MORE children into sex slavery?

(I'm referring to what you suggested and I responded to on the "Another eathquake question: Is it a coincedence that...." forum)

>What presupposition do your arguments begin with?

Reason.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 05:59 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
129. "hold on..."
In response to Reply # 123


  

          


>It remains that you are unable to establish a causal link
>between the earthquakes of the last century and bible
>prophecies of the end of the world.

Of course it remains. Declaring that it's the end of the world is 1) a bigger task than I'm capable of accompolishing. 2) Moot, if you have predetermined that the book which suggests an "end to the world" is false.

I'm only raising the point that there have been A LOT of earthquakes. That, taken into consideration along with what we have witnessed in the 20th century concerning the annihilation humans, an attempt to relativize good and evil, an the development of the means by which to destroy the entire planet many times over... all this gives me, a believer in that book (mentioned above) pause to think.


>If there is such a causal link (and we are to believe the
>media), then did your God initiate the tsunami that hit
>Thailand, in order to force MORE children into sex slavery?

Better question: If this God, nor any other exists, what's wrong with sex slavery? Good luck with that.


>>What presupposition do your arguments begin with?
>
>Reason.


You misunderstand. "Reason" is "how" you argue. Any particular argument though begins with an assumption/pressuposition of some kind. ANY argument.

But let's accept your answer for a moment. Use your presupposition then, "reason", to explain to me WHY you begin with that presupposition.

Good luck with that too.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 06:11 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
131. "RE: hold on..."
In response to Reply # 129
Thu Mar-31-05 06:13 PM by stravinskian

          

>Better question: If (neither) this God, nor any other exists, what's
>wrong with sex slavery? Good luck with that.

It forces children to do things they seriously don't want to do. Simple as that.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
OldPro
Member since Dec 10th 2002
34401 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 06:23 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
134. "Which is more righteous?"
In response to Reply # 131


  

          

Doing things as to not want to hurt others or because you fear punishment? There is such a thing as "morals" without religion but they never seem to get this.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 09:47 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
140. "Don't misunderstand"
In response to Reply # 134


  

          

>Doing things as to not want to hurt others or because you
>fear punishment? There is such a thing as "morals" without
>religion but they never seem to get this.


When someone says "without God all is permissable", many take that to mean that the person is saying that the only reason to do "good" is to avoid punishment, and conversely, and the only reason not to do evil, is because of the punishment.

This fails to understand what's really being debated (and suggested by Dostoyevsky's statement). He recognized (as you do when someone wrongs you) that morality is objective/real/absolute, and that they ONLY place an law which was objective to human minds could come from was from a MIND objective to human minds.

To say that a person "merely does good to avoid punishment" is to completely misunderstand the nature of humanity and especially the nature of God. God IS goodness. It is His very nature. When you act as you were designed to act, you are partaking of the very nature of God. This is what the "Euthyphro Problem" wholly fails to understand, and why it is a false dichotomy, and hense, not a problem at all.

peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 09:38 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
138. "questions Strav"
In response to Reply # 131
Thu Mar-31-05 09:40 PM by inVerse

  

          

>>Better question: If (neither) this God, nor any other
>exists, what's
>>wrong with sex slavery? Good luck with that.
>
>It forces children to do things they seriously don't want to
>do. Simple as that.


1) You can't account for why one SHOULD NOT force them to do that .

2) What if child consents? Is it right to prostitute them?


As per #1, you cannot account for the origin of the moral law you espouse. You can say it comes from "right reason", but you cannot explain why it is "right".

You cannot explain why someone "should be moral". The best you can do is appeal to the "society" factor, which is true, but then what of the uber-person? If I can dominate others in all necessary areas, why should I be moral?

You'll probably say "fine, don't then, but they'll rise up and destroy you eventually"... to which I would ask "on what moral basis would they do that?".

If you say because "you were wrong for dominating them", we're right back to "why should I adhere to your standard of right/wrong?"

If you say they would do it on "no moral basis, put purely on the basis of what's pracical for the majority"... I would then ask you if your moral code's only origin is that of what's practical for the majority?

As per #2, well, I'd like to hear your answer to that as well.

peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 11:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
142. "RE: questions Strav"
In response to Reply # 138


          

>>>Better question: If (neither) this God, nor any other
>>exists, what's
>>>wrong with sex slavery? Good luck with that.
>>
>>It forces children to do things they seriously don't want to
>>do. Simple as that.
>
>
>1) You can't account for why one SHOULD NOT force them to do
>that .

Not try'n to.

>2) What if child consents? Is it right to prostitute them?

Not necessarily. The view that's generally held these days is that most children have too little understanding of these matters to make a properly informed decision; that even if they might claim to consent, they do not understand what they're consenting to. On those grounds, even a "consenting" child should not be put into that situation.


>As per #1, you cannot account for the origin of the moral law
>you espouse. You can say it comes from "right reason", but
>you cannot explain why it is "right".

Again, I'm not trying to. And I'll point out as I have before that you can't say why God's will is "right."

>You cannot explain why someone "should be moral". The best
>you can do is appeal to the "society" factor, which is true,
>but then what of the uber-person? If I can dominate others in
>all necessary areas, why should I be moral?

I'm not trying to explain "why" you should be ethical. Nobody's ever given a solid, coherent, all-encompassing explanation of this question (even from a religious perspective).

Luckily, I don't need one. Morality does not require external justification.

>You'll probably say "fine, don't then, but they'll rise up and
>destroy you eventually"... to which I would ask "on what moral
>basis would they do that?".

Would they need one?

>If you say because "you were wrong for dominating them", we're
>right back to "why should I adhere to your standard of
>right/wrong?"

Good thing I would never make such a simple-minded argument!

>If you say they would do it on "no moral basis, put purely on
>the basis of what's pracical for the majority"... I would then
>ask you if your moral code's only origin is that of what's
>practical for the majority?

Not necessarily, but the best (admittedly incomplete and unnecessary) justification I've found for it is (very loosely) along those lines.

>As per #2, well, I'd like to hear your answer to that as
>well.

What, you trying to set up a little trap there? Are you waiting to point out that children sold into prostitution hardly constitute a majority? Then we would see why I wouldn't use the word "majority" in such an argument. Instead, I would use the word "society."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 01:13 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
144. "unanswered of course"
In response to Reply # 142


  

          


The statement was originally made that conception of God is not needed in order to show why prostituting children is wrong.

You agreed with that by chiming in with "because it forces them to do something they don't want".

To which I pointed out that you can't explain why THAT is wrong.

To which you replied:


>Not try'n to.


So what are you tryin' to explain? You've dodged all the logical questions about what is moral and why it is moral as soon as they lead in a direction your assumption denies. Of course your "tryin to explain why it's wrong"! You said very clearly "because it forces them to do something they don't want" as an answer to the question. But when the question "Why is THAT wrong?" is posed, you back out.





>>2) What if child consents? Is it right to prostitute them?
>
>Not necessarily. The view that's generally held these days is
>that most children have too little understanding of these
>matters to make a properly informed decision;

1) Who are you to enforce your ideas on these consenting children?
2) What is it that they don't understand? What IS a properly informed decision regarding this matter?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 04:11 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
148. "psh"
In response to Reply # 144


          


You're viewing the dynamics of the conversation much differently than I am. I'm saying that it's clearly wrong to sell children into prostitution, due to the empathy we all seem to share for our fellow human beings. The (clear) existence of that empathy is enough to justify the statement that such behavior is "wrong."

You then ask me to explain where that empathy comes from. I don't know, and I don't particularly care. The fact is it's here. We don't need to know "why" it's here to know that it's here.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 12:36 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
156. "but you're wrong here.."
In response to Reply # 148


  

          

in the following regard...

>I'm saying that it's clearly wrong to
>sell children into prostitution, due to the empathy we all
>seem to share for our fellow human beings. The (clear)
>existence of that empathy is enough to justify the statement
>that such behavior is "wrong."

But we don't ALL feel it. If WE ALL felt it, it would not be going on!

The question remains, YOU FEEL IT and I FEEL IT, but on what grounds do we impose that belief on one who DOES NOT FEEL it?

If you say "because we outnumber him", your gonna go some scary places ad absurdum. That's a "majority creates morality" view, and I don't really think you hold it, Thrasymachus.

If you say "because it's REALLY wrong", we're right back to where we started, cause I'm gonna ask you why you discriminate and impose your view on the guy who thinks it's REALLY right?


>You then ask me to explain where that empathy comes from. I
>don't know, and I don't particularly care. The fact is it's
>here. We don't need to know "why" it's here to know that it's
>here.

But it's NOT there for some. Why do you discriminate against them? Why can't they do as they wish and you do as you wish?



--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                        
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 04:56 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
157. "RE: but you're wrong here.."
In response to Reply # 156


          

>in the following regard...
>
>>I'm saying that it's clearly wrong to
>>sell children into prostitution, due to the empathy we all
>>seem to share for our fellow human beings. The (clear)
>>existence of that empathy is enough to justify the statement
>>that such behavior is "wrong."
>
>But we don't ALL feel it. If WE ALL felt it, it would not be
>going on!

Cute, but simplistic. We all feel gravity, but people can still fly in planes.

>The question remains, YOU FEEL IT and I FEEL IT, but on what
>grounds do we impose that belief on one who DOES NOT FEEL it?

Why do we need any?

>If you say "because we outnumber him", your gonna go some
>scary places ad absurdum.

I hope someday you'll stop butchering that phrase.

Oh and by the way, I hope you notice that if someone was really trying to reject objective morality (something I'm obviously not trying to do), then the obvious point you raise about "scary places" would seem to stand in just fine.

>That's a "majority creates
>morality" view, and I don't really think you hold it,
>Thrasymachus.

Thrasymachus, nice. Of course, it's not a "majority creates morality" view, it's a "society defines morality" view.

And again, I'm not trying to explain where morality comes from. You're still worked up over an argument we had here months ago.

>If you say "because it's REALLY wrong", we're right back to
>where we started, cause I'm gonna ask you why you discriminate
>and impose your view on the guy who thinks it's REALLY right?

So you say that if I'm morally certain of a given position, I should dismiss that certainty if faced with a person who claims to be certain about an opposing position? Now who's the moral relativist?

>>You then ask me to explain where that empathy comes from. I
>>don't know, and I don't particularly care. The fact is it's
>>here. We don't need to know "why" it's here to know that
>it's
>>here.
>
>But it's NOT there for some.

That's not altogether clear.

>Why do you discriminate against
>them?

Why not?

>Why can't they do as they wish and you do as you wish?

Because our wishes are in direct conflict. If dude "wishes" to rape my daughter, we can't all just get along.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                    
soundsop
Charter member
12988 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 06:24 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
160. "mirror neurons"
In response to Reply # 148


  

          

>You then ask me to explain where that empathy comes from. I
>don't know, and I don't particularly care. The fact is it's
>here. We don't need to know "why" it's here to know that it's
>here.

------
Baddest Motherfucker in the OkaySports Hall of Fame

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 06:51 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
136. "RE: hold on..."
In response to Reply # 129
Thu Mar-31-05 07:14 PM by moot_point

          

>Of course it remains. Declaring that it's the end of the
>world is 1) a bigger task than I'm capable of accompolishing.
> 2) Moot, if you have predetermined that the book which
>suggests an "end to the world" is false.


>I'm only raising the point that there have been A LOT of
>earthquakes. That, taken into consideration along with what
>we have witnessed in the 20th century concerning the
>annihilation humans, an attempt to relativize good and evil,
>an the development of the means by which to destroy the entire
>planet many times over... all this gives me, a believer in
>that book (mentioned above) pause to think.

Then all things considered, I think we have nothing further to discuss on this point.

>>If there is such a causal link (and we are to believe the
>>media), then did your God initiate the tsunami that hit
>>Thailand, in order to force MORE children into sex slavery?

>Better question: If this God, nor any other exists, what's
>wrong with sex slavery? Good luck with that.


Before I consider the better question, are you willing to withdraw what you wrote on the other post (re: the tsunami/Thai sex slavery)?

Of what incidence is the existence of a God in a 'real' sense when I or others develop a sense of right and wrong? It is my belief that western religion has developed to mythicize by use of metaphor/narrative (and therefore make understandable) each man's individual struggle with psychomachia. In other words, man made God - in part - to police each individual's struggle to conform with what society prescribes as right and wrong. I've no problem with this reading of religion. I was brought up in the Church. The Church did not fully develop my sense of right and wrong but it DID contribute greatly to it. I do not have to believe that there is a real God who has the capability to punish the Thai population for their promiscuity to know that the sex trade there is deplorable.

>You misunderstand. "Reason" is "how" you argue. Any
>particular argument though begins with an
>assumption/pressuposition of some kind. ANY argument.

>But let's accept your answer for a moment. Use your
>presupposition then, "reason", to explain to me WHY you begin
>with that presupposition.
>

reason (JUDGMENT)
noun
the ability of a healthy mind to think and make judgments, especially based on practical facts. (Cambridge Online Dictionary)

Because in the final analysis, reason is a process, not a presupposition. In any case you are moving further into semantics and away from cogency.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 01:02 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
143. "holding"
In response to Reply # 136
Fri Apr-01-05 01:04 AM by inVerse

  

          

>>Better question: If this God, nor any other exists,
>what's
>>wrong with sex slavery? Good luck with that.
>
>
>Before I consider the better question, are you willing to
>withdraw what you wrote on the other post (re: the
>tsunami/Thai sex slavery)?
>
>Of what incidence is the existence of a God in a 'real' sense
>when I or others develop a sense of right and wrong?

Because you "really" believe that right is "really" right and wrong is "really" wrong. You don't merely think they are just matters of taste, else you would not hold others against them. You would simply say "well I don't prostitute children, but to each his own". You, and every other human, believes in a real right and wrong. If you did not, if we did not, boards like this would be meaningless. The very concept of activisim would be meaningless, as anyone who was trying to get THEIR OWN WAY would be an activist in the EXACT same sense that anyone on this board is. We both know that is not the case. Why? Because some people fight for what is "really" right. Objectivel right. Not subjectively. Not whims. Not preferences. Facts. Moral facts. The only place a moral law, which is objective to human minds can come from is from a MIND which is objective to human minds. NO human mind can create an objective moral law/rule/fact.

> I do not
>have to believe that there is a real God who has the
>capability to punish the Thai population for their promiscuity
>to know that the sex trade there is deplorable.

Of course not. We're free not to believe in God. But we're not free to invert the moral order, only violate it.

>reason (JUDGMENT)
>noun
>the ability of a healthy mind to think and make judgments,
>especially based on practical facts. (Cambridge Online
>Dictionary)

There's a pressuposition in there. Do you see it?


>Because in the final analysis, reason is a process, not a
>presupposition.

You've just restated exactly what I said in response to your "reason is my pressuposition" statement.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 06:22 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
150. "RE: holding"
In response to Reply # 143
Fri Apr-01-05 06:34 AM by moot_point

          

AGAIN, are you willing to withdraw what you wrote on the other post (re: the tsunami/Thai sex slavery)?

>Because you "really" believe that right is "really" right and
>wrong is "really" wrong. You don't merely think they are
>just matters of taste, else you would not hold others against
>them.

Lol, in future, read the full post before yoe respond to it! I wrote:

In other words, man made God - in part - to police each individual's struggle to conform with what SOCIETY PRESCRIBES AS RIGHT AND WRONG.

You would simply say "well I don't prostitute children,
>but to each his own".

Have you heard of the rule of law?

You, and every other human, believes in
>a real right and wrong. If you did not, if we did not,
>boards like this would be meaningless. The very concept of
>activisim would be meaningless, as anyone who was trying to
>get THEIR OWN WAY would be an activist in the EXACT same sense
>that anyone on this board is.

As above.

We both know that is not the
>case. Why? Because some people fight for what is "really"
>right. Objectivel right. Not subjectively. Not whims. Not
>preferences. Facts. Moral facts. The only place a moral
>law, which is objective to human minds can come from is from a
>MIND which is objective to human minds.


Any activist that claims to fight 'objectively' fails to see that the subjectivity/objectivity distinction is a misnomer. It is also likey that he is uttlerly self-conceited. How can each individual's conception of right and wrong be subjective except his. Ah, but this is the Christian activist who does the work of God. The problem lies herein...


NO human mind can
>create an objective moral law/rule/fact.


...is the Bible (upon which your very original post relied) not written by man?


>Of course not. We're free not to believe in God. But we're
>not free to invert the moral order, only violate it.


Eh?!


>>reason (JUDGMENT)
>>noun
>>the ability of a healthy mind to think and make judgments,
>>especially based on practical facts. (Cambridge Online
>>Dictionary)
>
>There's a pressuposition in there. Do you see it?


What? The presupposition that the subject has a healthy mind to think and make judgment or that said judgment will be based on facts?


>>Because in the final analysis, reason is a process, not a
>>presupposition.
>
>You've just restated exactly what I said in response to your
>"reason is my pressuposition" statement.

It is inconceivable that I am agreeing with you? Are we not here to learn and exchange ideas? Or are you here to impose (*cough* objectively)?

Ultimately it is the process that disproves the presupposition/hypothesis. Remember that it was you that posted this forum. It was my job to disprove your hypothesis through the process of reason. I achieved this by establishing that your hypothesis contradicts the SCIENTIFIC LAW of causality. The only presupposition I needed was that I believed yours was incorrect.

Do you see it?






  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 12:29 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
155. "help me out"
In response to Reply # 150


  

          



>Have you heard of the rule of law?


Have you considered the very obvious fact that the "rule of law" is not your final arbiter for what is right and wrong? If not, consider it. Then tell me, when you object to some law, on what higher law is your objection based? If it's merely based on personal preference/whim (even IF it's a conviction you hold), then you are simply demanding that your views be imposed on others, something which, if turned against you, you'd fight.

It sounds like your suggesting that there is no higher law than the "law of the land"... and I wanna believe I'm mistaken, cause I can't believe you'd suggest that.


>Any activist that claims to fight 'objectively' fails to see
>that the subjectivity/objectivity distinction is a misnomer.
>It is also likey that he is uttlerly self-conceited. How can
>each individual's conception of right and wrong be subjective
>except his.


You have not meditated on this long enough to realize that any activist who's not appealing to "objective law" in order to "right" a situation, isn't "righting" a situation at all, but MERELY imposing their personal preference on it, at the expense of others, and is thus the very type of hypocrite/tyrant he/she claims to fight.


If someone takes your wallet, and you find them and confront them and you say "You shouldn't have done that". You're not merely saying "in my personal belief you shouldn't have done that". Because why would your personal belief about this issue have ANY bearings on the other person? Maybe in HIS personal belief he SHOULD have taken your wallet. When you say to somone "that should not be done", you're appealing to a real, objective moral law that you implicitly expect the other person to identify with, otherwise ALL moral language (should, should not, good, bad, better, worse) would be utterly meaningless.



>I achieved this by establishing
>that your hypothesis contradicts the SCIENTIFIC LAW of
>causality. The only presupposition I needed was that I
>believed yours was incorrect.


1st) "young earth" is not my hypothosis

2nd) so you believe in the Scientific Law of causality? Do you then beleive in an "infinite regress" of causes? Do you believe in God? If NOT, do you disbelieve on the basis of your belief in "scientific causality"?


ps - I can't retract my statement because it wasn't a statement of belief, I merely found it interesting that an area of the world where HORRID abuses of human rights are going on just suffered an awful atrocity.
I'm not sure what about that there is to retract.

peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Fri Apr-01-05 05:15 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
158. "."
In response to Reply # 155
Fri Apr-01-05 05:22 PM by stravinskian

          

.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Sun Apr-03-05 02:35 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
163. "You are incorrigible!"
In response to Reply # 155


          

*Sigh* Here we go again!

>Have you considered the very obvious fact that the "rule of
>law" is not your final arbiter for what is right and wrong?
>If not, consider it. Then tell me, when you object to some
>law, on what higher law is your objection based? If it's
>merely based on personal preference/whim (even IF it's a
>conviction you hold), then you are simply demanding that your
>views be imposed on others, something which, if turned against
>you, you'd fight.

'The very obvious fact'? Sic!

The rule of law is not the final arbiter because it often changes in accordance with the ruling power/populist opinion (another debate!) of what is right and wrong. (Just like the Church does - homosexuality anybody?!) Similarly, the criminal law and civil law are not the bodies of law by which all choose to live.

Objections to this present state of the law do not need to be based on the existence of a ‘higher law’; one simply needs a sufficiently strong (subjective) conviction to voice an objection. This conviction is likely to originate in our internalisation of the other codes (including those of the Church) which determine our views of right and wrong.

>It sounds like your suggesting that there is no higher law
>than the "law of the land"... and I wanna believe I'm
>mistaken, cause I can't believe you'd suggest that.

Again, there are several discursive codes that form our views of right and wrong; not just the ‘law of the land’. The rule of law was applicable to what you wrote earlier.

>>Any activist that claims to fight 'objectively' fails to see
>>that the subjectivity/objectivity distinction is a misnomer.
>>It is also likey that he is uttlerly self-conceited. How can
>>each individual's conception of right and wrong be
>subjective
>>except his.
>
>
>You have not meditated on this long enough to realize that any
>activist who's not appealing to "objective law" in order to
>"right" a situation, isn't "righting" a situation at all, but
>MERELY imposing their personal preference on it, at the
>expense of others, and is thus the very type of
>hypocrite/tyrant he/she claims to fight.
>

Are you serious?! You patronise me and qualify this by repeating the point I made! I absolutely believe that activists, who fight for change, are attempting to impose a new order. On a certain level this makes a hypocrite of the activist. But as Ginsberg (one of the greatest modern activists) explained to Lofton: ‘I am large, I contain contradictions’. According to your logic, only the Christian activist is absolved from such hypocrisy because he is the only one who appeals to God’s objective law. Such folly!

>If someone takes your wallet, and you find them and confront
>them and you say "You shouldn't have done that". You're not
>merely saying "in my personal belief you shouldn't have done
>that". Because why would your personal belief about this
>issue have ANY bearings on the other person? Maybe in HIS
>personal belief he SHOULD have taken your wallet. When you
>say to somone "that should not be done", you're appealing to a
>real, objective moral law that you implicitly expect the other
>person to identify with, otherwise ALL moral language (should,
>should not, good, bad, better, worse) would be utterly
>meaningless.

Yawn! Then perhaps he should explain his personal belief in a court of law.

>1st) "young earth" is not my hypothosis

I did not suggest that it was. I thought that ‘end of earth/earthquakes as precursor’ was your hypothesis.

>2nd) so you believe in the Scientific Law of causality? Do
>you then beleive in an "infinite regress" of causes? Do you
>believe in God? If NOT, do you disbelieve on the basis of
>your belief in "scientific causality"?

Lol. For every proponent of your cosmological argument there are several opponents. I’m not getting into this debate. However, I will state that I was careful earlier to muse that religion developed – IN PART – to explain man’s personal struggle with right and wrong. It has also developed as an attempt to make sense (in the same mythical way) of what we are unable to explain in the Universe.

I am tired now. I know that neither of us will change our position and you have consistently failed to address my main points. Feel free to respond but this will be my final post on the matter.

Peace.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Taharka
Member since Apr 18th 2003
7769 posts
Tue Mar-29-05 10:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
80. "RE: Earthquakes happen all the time the highest recorded"
In response to Reply # 0
Tue Mar-29-05 10:04 PM by Taharka

  

          

previously was 8.8 right here in Amerikkka(georgia state) before the one in the Indian ocean.

Thousands of quakes are recorded each year most of them are not very strong, but the more people you have the more cities and various construction the more deaths. Earthquakes don't kill people it is the stuff that we build that kills us.(of course unless the quake is similar to the one that happened in 2004 causing massive tidal waves)

<--- The lovely Ms Hill when she wasn't thrown off.

LOOK WHOS RAPPIN NOW
http://www.myspace.com/quil215

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

te_pakeha
Charter member
2545 posts
Thu Mar-31-05 09:45 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
139. "Yawn...."
In response to Reply # 0
Thu Mar-31-05 09:52 PM by te_pakeha

  

          

This kind of thinking can only evolve on the continents eh. Come live on top of a tectonic plate junction like we do, it'll give you some perspective.

(Just to reinforce previous points)

Your reasoning is flawed for starters because you're only looking at the earthquakes that affect people, rather than all earthquakes. It's just like the so-called increase in hurricanes, you'll find the number is acutally fairly consistent, it's just luck as to whether folks'll be affected or not.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Francirevolutionara
Member since Oct 18th 2004
1038 posts
Thu Apr-07-05 11:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
166. "end of the world...you think you'll end in the heaven all promised"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


Mass communication media it possible for all people, not just aristocracy, to get the news.Internet is the heaven .
So, the shit was alwas happening, people just didn't know about.
How about just making this palnet a better place to live, and don't take everything for granted, as the bible says...................................

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #29666 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com