What if the athiests are wrong & there REALLY is God?

[Big John Trapper]

[ March 28, 2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Joseph Botwinick ]

 

[LadyEagle]

[ March 29, 2002, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: EagleLives911 ]

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Big John Trapper:
Wrong, for at least two reasons:

1. In this case, you are taking the affirmative position that these events did not happen. If you are arguing your point from the view that the event in question happened, but there is simply no evidence available to support it, then you cannot establish the affirmative truth of a claim in that fashion. Moreover, you are sticking an I.O.U. into the "evidence pot", and asking your audience to just trust you on it. You can't get away with that in a courtroom; and it also doesn't work to establish the truth of any scientific or historical claim.

2. Second (and more to the point) there is an abundance of contradictory evidence (i.e., evidence which could not exist, if your alleged events had taken place). So in that case, a lack of evidence, combined with contradictory evidence, most certainly does mean that the event(s) in question did not take place.

No, it does not. When Columbus "found" america, if I were to make wild claims that Columbus was not the first person to "discover" it I would be laughed at. Today, I would not.

At the time, if you had asked me to provide this evidence, I would have been at a loss to do so, but now you can site many sources. It was a matter of time and research. There is not relative truth, but there are differing degrees to which we have a knowledge of this truth. You can't change what happened, you can only change what we all think happened when the evidence presents itself.

However, you can say something is the best know theory for the time. There can be no absolutes for historical matters as we were not there to witness them. It is all a matter of faith. Evidence builds that faith and we mainly put our trust in that evidence to build our thoughts and beliefs, but sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes what is common knowledge is completely backwards.

I might also point out that, given your extremely loose and flexible guidelines, we could never rule *anything* out. "The world was created by a giant dodo egg that cracked and the universe came spilling out. No, I don't have evidence, but that's not a problem - I'm sure it's out there, we just haven't found it yet. As soon as we do, we'll be able to formulate a theory." Or, "Napoleon Bonaparte was really a space invader from Alpha Centauri. I haven't got evidence right now, here today, you understand, but I'm sure that I'll be able to find it sometime in the future." Obviously both claims are nonsense. But under your guidelines, scientists and historians would be required to treat such preposterous nonsense with the same respect as skilled research and peer-reviewed material. There is a point where we can say that a particular claim is so full of BS that it should be soundly rejected.

Actually, we never really rule anything out ever do we? How many skeptics out there don't believe we landed on the moon? How many don't think Osama was directly responsible for 911? How many think the archeoptryx is a bird? a reptile? both? neither? How many think Gore won the election? Bush?

Although I love you putting words in my mouth, I would have to get back to the subject at hand. You asked a question that I am still stating is unreasonable to answer. For the longest time people kept saying that King Nebuchadnezzar (as well as Nebuchadnezzar II) never existed, then, poof...proof. So, you are telling me that before they found this proof...he was not a real king with a real empire? Surely you can't! What you are then saying is, "there is not enough evidence for me to believe it" and I am saying, "give it time".

http://www.nisbett.com/people/bp-nebuchadnezzar.htm
http://www.ripon.edu/clark_collection/cuneiform.html
http://www.bible-history.com/babylonia/BabyloniaThe_Babylonian_Chronicle00000196.htm

Although you would like everyone to believe that an event never occured because we can't give 100% definitive proof today, March 28th 2002...this is simply not true. You are asking me for evidence, I provided some (I am sure you will find it insufficient...even the piece in the British Museum.

jason

 

[Melly]

Originally posted by EagleLives911:
BJT: Wow, you certainly know a lot! I could NEVER keep up with all that knowledge! How many hours did it take you to find all those keen web sites? I had to work today, so didn't have time to look up a bunch of stuff! DO you have it organized on your desk top for handy reference, or what?

Wow. What an intelligent, thoughtful, and convincing response to the information BJT posted. I was an evolutionist until I read your articulate, clever comeback. You've totally convinced me, El.

Seriously, what was your point with the above post? Were you trying to make a point about creation as opposed to evolution? Or were you just trying to make BJT look stupid for having a lot of time to dig up this information? Do you have a response to anything he said, or were you just posting to make fun of his thorough understanding of evolutionary theory? I really don't get what you were trying to do with that post, unless it was purely a mean-spirited jab.

Personally, I'd be thrilled if people made fun of me for having too much knowledge. Really...is that supposed to be an insult? Most people consider education and having a wealth of knowledge at one's fingertips to be a GOOD thing.

Sorry to the moderators if this post is overly snarky, but I don't think the tone is any worse than El's original post.

[ March 28, 2002, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Melly ]

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Big John Trapper -

I did a little checking around and I now know who you are. You are committing an act of trespass. If you don't believe me do a search on internet trespassing. The federal court sites are credible enough for you, I'm sure.

Clint Kritzer
Moderator

 

[post-it]

I guess, I will chime in on the rain drop / rainbow issue. Clint is correct on this one folks. And one only need to see a picture of Niagara falls to prove his claim that only water vapor is required.

Having been there myself, you will see rainbows everyday with the sun at the right angle. The rainbows are situated high above where any water drops are found, only rising and suspended water vapors are at those heights. Clint wins, case closed.

[ March 28, 2002, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Since it's you asking, sure, dogwood!

BJT was a previously banned member (one of the guys from II, just imagine! Where's the ethics?). The Federal courts have ruled that internet web sites are real property, just like land or your home and are thus not public domain. Therefore, just as in your home, you can invite someone in, and you can expel someone. IF that person returns, they are guilty of criminal trespass under Federal Law and run the risk of litigation.

So you see, it's not only childish, rude, unethical and dishonest to return to a website from which one is banned, it is also criminal!

Thanks for asking, dogwood! Take care.

- Clint

 

[Clint Kritzer]

HEY! post-it got a picture up!!!

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Kachana:
So can I take it that the Bible is wrong on the languages issue then? I mean, it's possible that I've overlooked a vast mass of evidence that is better conducted and directly contradicts all the other evidence, eplaining the fatal flaws in the evidence I have seen, but given that I have studied 2 courses relevant to this topic at degree level I find that unlikely.

If you have any evidence for me to look at however please point me to it, otherwise my conclusion is that the Bible is not inerrant.

Kachana -

I posted a link or two about the languages issue and nobody said anything about it (Actually, BJT said something about it before he got booted. He said, in essense, 'Linguists are not evolutionists so the entire article is false'. This argument is false on so many levels it should not be taken seriosly)

What is the general idea you have about languages? Common decent of language? As this would be needed to support language from an evolutionary standpoint.

It has been shown that several languages in the world do not have common roots. If they do not have common roots, and could not have gone through the linguistic evolutionary process, from where did they originate?

This is just the start of the discussion, just getting the feet wet so don't yell and complain about me being simple. I am just trying to get the arguments right.

jason

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Originally posted by HRG/alter ego:
Are you sure that you can equate posting to a website to criminal trespass ? If I keep sending you letters - against your stated wishes -which end up in your mailbox, I'm not guilty of trespass either, as long as I don't fill the mailbox and stop you from getting your other mail. Of course, you don't have to put my letters up where everyone can see them!

I haven't seen the decisions you refer to, but I suspect they are actually concerned with the contents and design of websites, not with posting to bulletin boards.

Actually, for me the question is academic since I'm posting from a country where what you describe is definitely not illegal ....

Regards,
HRG.

Yes. I'm quite certain of my facts and just to keep you informed, it is well on it's way to international law. Even at this point, your server could face its share of legal troubles if you were to trespass. You can thank the spamming advertisers for all of this new Federal legislation. If it weren't for them, there probably wouldn't be ANY laws governing the web.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

It's late, but a quick search gave me this site to get you going on your investigation: http://www.lawcommerce.com/newsletters/art_OHS_cybersurfers010117.asp

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Kachana:
If you mean that from an evolutionary standpoint one must show that all languages must develop from a 'first' language, that is not so, much evidence suggests that our ability for language is hardwired, that we have an innate ability to construct languages from no existing language. This is evidenced from observations of children on plantations where the adults spoke different languages and so conversed in pidgin, an asyntactic clumsy method of communication which cannot be considered a language under any existing definition of language. The children of these slaves however developed a language that contained all the syntactic rules we see in most languages, one generation was enough to construct a new language. Similar mechanisms have also been observed in sign languge.

While this is all well and good, this does nothing to sway me away from a tower of babel mass confusion scenario.

1. Hard wired language, as you state it, would give more credability to a design than randomness suggesting we have the ability of language for a reason.
2. This new language scenario is needed by the tower of babel idea but not by standard evolution practices (and actually would hinder an entire species evolution)

Furthermore, analysis of different languages reveal startling similarities in the syntactic structure, there is widely considered to be a 'universal grammar', a plan of syntactic, morphological, and phonological rules and principles, with a small set of varying parameters across all languages. Chomsky went as far as to say that an alien would think that all humans spoke the same language. This supports the idea that languages are something that humans have an innate ability for, the 'language acquisition device' hypothesis.

This has always been speculated, and has even led to some sci-fi devices such as 'language translation this or that'. To date, all attempts to even break down the grammer similiarties of such languages has been futile (to my knowledge). It has also been speculated that there are languages without common roots. This is not a popular theory, even though it is completely valid and even logical, as it would completely destroy our modern world view.

Given the evidence, humans would have always had the ability to speak different languages, and new languages that are not descended from other languages would could soon appear in isolation, there would be no need for us to be scattered to speak different languages by some supernatural force. The neurophysiological evidence (as well as evidence of handedness from hominid skulls and tool use that indicates handedness is highly associated with linguistic ability not just in apes but also in birds such as chaffinches) further suggests an evolved predisposition to speak language.

I have never said humans would not have this ability, as a matter of fact, I would support this. But to say that a starting language is not needed is not so. There ALWAYS has to be something on which to base the next step. If this primitive language was grunts and gurgles (as implied by standard evolution theory), this would still be a language.

As a matter of fact, why do we speak alternate languages at all? Why would we have evolved something which would cut us off from the rest of the species?

I was reading something (can't find the hardcopy article anymore), but it implied that cats (this was about the domestic house cat) can still communicate with other cats from all around the world. This communication was devoid of prejudice and spanned the entire cat family (big, small, domestic and wild). I have not seen any evidence to suggest that animals speak other languages, so why should we?

I could be corrected on the above point, but it does raise and interesting question, no?

In Christ,
jason

 

[PITW]

Originally posted by post-it:
I guess, I will chime in on the rain drop / rainbow issue. Clint is correct on this one folks. And one only need to see a picture of Niagara falls to prove his claim that only water vapor is required.

Having been there myself, you will see rainbows everyday with the sun at the right angle. The rainbows are situated high above where any water drops are found, only rising and suspended water vapors are at those heights. Clint wins, case closed.

I think you're mixing your terms here, Mr. post-it. Water vapor is not equvalent to suspended water droplets. There's water vapor (gaseous water) in the air I'm breathing right now (to about a 50% relative humidity), but no chance of a (non-miraculous) rainbow. To get a rainbow you need suspended liquid water droplets, such as found in clouds, fog, rain, steam, and the mist caused by waterfalls.

Andy