I am going to bow out of this discussion. I just do not have time to address 5 people every time I make a post. People that only seem to want to tear down, and destroy, finding every flaw with every statement, word, or reference not matter how small.
I congratulate you for trying. I wish I could have helped out, but I got tapped out trying to puzzle out the Flood and the Jesus-spit story. ^^; Maybe again in a few months. Just make sure not to stick things in black and white boxes. If you are unable to head forward in debate, that does not necessarily mean that the only tool at your disposal is faith.
Part of the difficulty, it seems, was because you didn't have the background necessary to land on your feet in a hostile environment, which you must have understood the trolling-type situation of taking your view on a board full of vocal and somewhat evangelistic atheists would surely be. Usually in scenarios like this the point isn't to convince anyone anything, it's to test your own knowledge and skills of the subject. Do some study of the Mediterranean, and Greco-Roman and early church history. Look into biography of the different writers involved, see if it can help put their works in context. When a translation is unclear, check the original language for words that could have several possible meanings, and never sacrifice rigour for convenience, because your opponents will notice immediately. With a little luck, next time you'll be able to give them a wilder ride.
Now let's apply that to the Bible, it exists, it is factually correct both scientifically, and archaeologically.
Again, provide evidence that these scientific claims are true.
A flood filled in the entire earth to the very mountain top with fifteen cubits to spare. Where did all the water come from or go? Where is the evidence of such a flood? Genesis 7:20
Solar and Lunar eclipses were actually the sun going dark and the moon bleeding Joel 2:31
I thought those two were in the bible of Global Warming?
I thought those two were in the bible of Global Warming?
wtf are you talking about?
I think he was trying to make a joke about the legitimacy of global warming. Epic fail, btw.
Are you suggesting that the "science" behind Global Warming passes the "can the theory be modified to explain new evidence" test? I find the Global Warming crowd has more in common with Religion than Science.
As for an image being broken... No idea what image you are talking about. Ahh... I just did a refresh and I see the image I hotlinked before is gone.
Are you suggesting that the "science" behind Global Warming passes the "can the theory be modified to explain new evidence" test? I find the Global Warming crowd has more in common with Religion than Science.
Perhaps, but I have no idea what my those to references have to do with global warming...
Are you suggesting that the "science" behind Global Warming passes the "can the theory be modified to explain new evidence" test? I find the Global Warming crowd has more in common with Religion than Science.
Perhaps, but I have no idea what my those to references have to do with global warming...
The first one is related to the exaggerated effects of rising sea levels because of melting polar ice caps. The second is just a joke based on the idea that we somehow have the ability to totally destroy the planet just by driving a car to work.
Just this morning I was watching TV with my daughter (home sick) and one of those "when you pollute a monkey in Africa dies" commercials came on TV. I thought the ones we had as kids were bad (the crying Indian) but these are just over the top!
The Global Warming folks scare me because when an opposing viewpoint is brought before them they tar and feather the person bringing forth that viewpoint. That is something religious nuts do, not scientific people.
Just this morning I was watching TV with my daughter (home sick) and one of those "when you pollute a monkey in Africa dies" commercials came on TV. I thought the ones we had as kids were bad (the crying Indian) but these are just over the top!
These people have as much to do with science as the Kinoki footpad people.
The Global Warming folks scare me because when an opposing viewpoint is brought before them they tar and feather the person bringing forth that viewpoint. That is something religious nuts do, not scientific people.
I agree that Climate Change is not a myth. I do not agree that the cottage industry that has formed around Climate Change is legitimate.
Selling of Carbon Credits? Eccoterrorism? There is too much of a crossover between anti-capitalists and "all humans are evil (except us)" types in the Climate Change tent. It's early so I can't make it much more clear than that right now.
I also have a problem in that the "human effect" on the environment seems to be the only one taken into account here. It's as if the Climate change folks have a goal in mind and are massaging the evidence to achieve that goal rather than taking the evidence and finding where it leads them.
Just this morning I was watching TV with my daughter (home sick) and one of those "when you pollute a monkey in Africa dies" commercials came on TV. I thought the ones we had as kids were bad (the crying Indian) but these are just over the top!
Yeah, that pollution stuff is great! More pollution, please!
Seriously, I remember that "crying Indian" commercial very well. It pretty accurately reflected the condition of the highways at the time. It was nothing back then to see the person in the car in front of you chuck out a whole bag of fast food garbage or a soda can onto the road. SImilarly, many waterways were in terrible shape. I remember when Lake Michigan looked black nearly all the time. So they cleaned things up. Damn those do-gooders!
I also have a problem in that the "human effect" on the environment seems to be the only one taken into account here.
The "human effect" is what we can change. Will it really bother you that much to turn your thermostat down just a bit? Or try to find a car with better mileage? Or are you really, really married to the idea that you need to consume as much as possible as fast as possible?
Finally, even if I say I agree with you about the global warming types, I also have to agree with Sail: your joke sucks (as usual). I think you should apply the following test the next time you consider posting a "joke". Ask yourself, "Do I think this is funny?" If you do, then don't post it.
Yeah, that pollution stuff is great! More pollution, please!
Seriously, I remember that "crying Indian" commercial very well. It pretty accurately reflected the condition of the highways at the time. It was nothing back then to see the person in the car in front of you chuck out a whole bag of fast food garbage or a soda can onto the road. SImilarly, many waterways were in terrible shape. I remember when Lake Michigan looked black nearly all the time. So they cleaned things up. Damn those do-gooders!
I remember those days. I still get pissed when I see someone in the car ahead of me flick their butt out the window. cleaning up after yourself and not throwing your garbage out the window is a personal responsibility.
The "human effect" is what we can change. Will it really bother you that much to turn your thermostat down just a bit? Or try to find a car with better mileage? Or are you really, really married to the idea that you need to consume as much as possible as fast as possible?
Finally, even if I say I agree with you about the global warming types, I also have to agree with Sail: your joke sucks (as usual). I think you should apply the following test the next time you consider posting a "joke". Ask yourself, "Do I think this is funny?" If you do, then don't post it.
One of my favorite cars was my 94 GEO Metro. That thing got 50MPG!!! My Forester only gets 25MPG but I sat in a few small high MPG cars lately and the comfort is not there. I don't need a car that can do 0-100 in 3.2 seconds. I just want something that is comfortable to drive, gets good gas mileage and can go at least 100MPH.
The Kyoto agreement was a good start but it is flawed in that it does not apply equally to all countries. Instead it punishes "developed" countries while allowing undeveloped countries to pollute. This is inherently flawed because it does not solve a problem. If the protocol applied equally to all I would be more willing to support it rather than discount it for being unfair.
The selling of Carbon Credits is in the same boat. If Carbon emissions are so bad why are companies being pushed to buy indulgences from the Climate Change folks? This smacks of blackmail and payoffs more than real environmental concern.
In practice, science does not advance in a unified way, with someone putting up an idea, everyone giving it a look, going, "My God, you're right!" and changing their framework.
In practice science involves endless academic bickering and political intrigue, and has more to do with who has tenure, who's providing the grant money, and who will lose face if their theory is overturned than with what is most likely to be accurate. Sometimes a theory gets mothballed until the appropriate people die or retire.
In the same vein, if religion is as simple as coming up with an idea and sticking with it, why isn't everyone still Jewish? Why do people spend years in seminary school? Why does the church always seem to be having some sort of council? Why do people publish anal-retentive biblical concordances? What in the world was Protestantism about?
In practice, science does not advance in a unified way, with someone putting up an idea, everyone giving it a look, going, "My God, you're right!" and changing their framework.
In practice science involves endless academic bickering and political intrigue, and has more to do with who has tenure, who's providing the grant money, and who will lose face if their theory is overturned rather than with what is most likely to be accurate.
You're making a pretty grand claim there. I think that, once again you need some evidence to back it up. Otherwise, you're shit-talking.
In the same vein, if religion is as simple as coming up with an idea and sticking with it, why isn't everyone still Jewish? Why do people spend years in seminary school? Why does the church always seem to be having some sort of council? Why do people publish anal-retentive biblical concordances? What in the world was Protestantism about?
Religion did come up with a single idea (an intelligent supernatural force) and stuck with it. All the different sects that arise and all the pettifogging that they do in seminary schools doesn't have anything to do with physical evidence or the lack thereof. They simply ignore evidence and bicker about whose interpretation of the intelligent supernatural force is better.
In the same vein, if religion is as simple as coming up with an idea and sticking with it, why isn't everyone still Jewish? Why do people spend years in seminary school? Why does the church always seem to be having some sort of council? Why do people publish anal-retentive biblical concordances? What in the world was Protestantism about?
Because you can't prove faith.
If Rym says the Flying Spaghetti Monster is covered in a sauce made from sun dried tomatoes and I say the sauce is made from fresh vine-ripened tomatoes there is no way to prove either of us wrong (or right). Instead, whoever has the most charisma pulls the most followers to their point of view.
It does not matter if there is any validity to the basis of the faith. Once you start arguing about the invisible Unicorn in the closet nothing matters because the basis of the argument has never been proven true.
Every christian was. Christianity was a splinter cult of Judaism, itself a relatively minor religion. Catholics were a splinter from that, Protestants a splinter from that, and so forth.
You're making a pretty grand claim there. I think that, once again you need some evidence to back it up. Otherwise, you're shit-talking.
Fair enough. Elaboration to come as time permits.
...why isn't everyone still Jewish?
Everyone was Jewish once?
I suppose the more accurate phrase would be "Why isn't everyone still of the religion that their descendants passed on to them?". A large portion of the world is either Christian or Muslim or otherwise has beliefs that require the Jewish god, as were their parents, so it seemed like an appropriate shorthand.
Comments
Part of the difficulty, it seems, was because you didn't have the background necessary to land on your feet in a hostile environment, which you must have understood the trolling-type situation of taking your view on a board full of vocal and somewhat evangelistic atheists would surely be. Usually in scenarios like this the point isn't to convince anyone anything, it's to test your own knowledge and skills of the subject.
As for an image being broken... No idea what image you are talking about. Ahh... I just did a refresh and I see the image I hotlinked before is gone.
Just this morning I was watching TV with my daughter (home sick) and one of those "when you pollute a monkey in Africa dies" commercials came on TV. I thought the ones we had as kids were bad (the crying Indian) but these are just over the top!
The Global Warming folks scare me because when an opposing viewpoint is brought before them they tar and feather the person bringing forth that viewpoint. That is something religious nuts do, not scientific people.
Selling of Carbon Credits? Eccoterrorism? There is too much of a crossover between anti-capitalists and "all humans are evil (except us)" types in the Climate Change tent. It's early so I can't make it much more clear than that right now.
I also have a problem in that the "human effect" on the environment seems to be the only one taken into account here. It's as if the Climate change folks have a goal in mind and are massaging the evidence to achieve that goal rather than taking the evidence and finding where it leads them.
Seriously, I remember that "crying Indian" commercial very well. It pretty accurately reflected the condition of the highways at the time. It was nothing back then to see the person in the car in front of you chuck out a whole bag of fast food garbage or a soda can onto the road. SImilarly, many waterways were in terrible shape. I remember when Lake Michigan looked black nearly all the time. So they cleaned things up. Damn those do-gooders! The "human effect" is what we can change. Will it really bother you that much to turn your thermostat down just a bit? Or try to find a car with better mileage? Or are you really, really married to the idea that you need to consume as much as possible as fast as possible?
Finally, even if I say I agree with you about the global warming types, I also have to agree with Sail: your joke sucks (as usual). I think you should apply the following test the next time you consider posting a "joke". Ask yourself, "Do I think this is funny?" If you do, then don't post it.
The Kyoto agreement was a good start but it is flawed in that it does not apply equally to all countries. Instead it punishes "developed" countries while allowing undeveloped countries to pollute. This is inherently flawed because it does not solve a problem. If the protocol applied equally to all I would be more willing to support it rather than discount it for being unfair.
The selling of Carbon Credits is in the same boat. If Carbon emissions are so bad why are companies being pushed to buy indulgences from the Climate Change folks? This smacks of blackmail and payoffs more than real environmental concern.
In retrospect, yes my joke was not very funny.
In practice, science does not advance in a unified way, with someone putting up an idea, everyone giving it a look, going, "My God, you're right!" and changing their framework.
In practice science involves endless academic bickering and political intrigue, and has more to do with who has tenure, who's providing the grant money, and who will lose face if their theory is overturned than with what is most likely to be accurate. Sometimes a theory gets mothballed until the appropriate people die or retire.
In the same vein, if religion is as simple as coming up with an idea and sticking with it, why isn't everyone still Jewish? Why do people spend years in seminary school? Why does the church always seem to be having some sort of council? Why do people publish anal-retentive biblical concordances? What in the world was Protestantism about?
If Rym says the Flying Spaghetti Monster is covered in a sauce made from sun dried tomatoes and I say the sauce is made from fresh vine-ripened tomatoes there is no way to prove either of us wrong (or right). Instead, whoever has the most charisma pulls the most followers to their point of view.
It does not matter if there is any validity to the basis of the faith. Once you start arguing about the invisible Unicorn in the closet nothing matters because the basis of the argument has never been proven true.