RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:35   

Just had to comment on this:

   
Quote
Why doesn't He intervene and just stop all this rot?  Well, He does sometimes--like with the Flood--and He will again at the End of Time.


So, AFDave's 'evidence' that god intervenes on earth is (a) an event that didn't happen and (b) a mythical event that he thinks will happen in the future.

Only in religious apologetics do things that DIDN'T happen qualify as 'evidence'.

And only in religious apologetics does this DISPROVE the ideas that (a) God simply doesn't exist or (b) if God exists, he simply has no effect on earthly events.

It's no wonder that he thinks Young Earth Creationism is 'obvious'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:38   

he's very close. YEC is oblivious.

   
Rod



Posts: 13
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:47   

AFDave said
Quote
the possibility to evil, which by definition is "opposition to the will of the Creator."


He then drew parallels between parenting, and god's handling of mankind. Does it follow, by extention, that parents should then subject those children who defy their will to unending, inescapable pain and torment? Where is the line drawn in this "in his image" concept? I found his explanation of "Evil in the World" to be kind of creepy.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,07:25   

Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,08:35)
(What links, Faid?)

Here we go again Dave.

http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/literatura/eng/LINGUA.HTM

http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Portuguese/Portuguese.html

http://www.linguaportuguesa.ufrn.br/en_2.php

http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html

http://www.alsintl.com/languages/portuguese.htm

Also posted in the "prove evolution" thread, in case you miss them here.
And I, um, removed the accursed wiki link...

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,07:47   

Yikes C.S.Lewis ??
What are you trying to do half a Dave give the guy a bad name? He wrote children's stories and was not much of an expert at anything else including morality and the universe, as if there were such a thing. Next 1/2 a D will be saying eating vegitables and invading 3rd world countries to steal their oil is immoral and against God's will because the universe sets the rules...sheesh
Yeah 1/2 a D manifest destiny is written in the stars....... in Portuguese French perhaps?
By the way there are more French words in the English language than in the Portuguese language and the 'official' French Language of today  originally came from the Germanic Frankish court/legal system and it was only widely spoken all over France displacing regional dialects around a 100 years ago so are you going to say that Portuguese is a Germanic language perhaps half a Dave?
Oh thats right you don't even understand English.
Have you even studied another language?Oh yeah
Special English

its for special people half a Dave.

All this stuff just re-enforces half a Dave's martyr complex.
"See how badly they treat me God and I still believe in you , you can count on me. When I'm done here I just know you are going to send all these bad , nasty, horrible devils disciples down, down ,down into a Nietzchian 
abyss ** and raise good old me up to be your right hand man dishing out morality to all the angels"



**(The  underworld described in Greek and Egyptian mythology was Nietzsche's  and Dante's (oh and half a Dave's) abyss. Those stories described with easily decoded metaphors commonly understood in their day, something largely lost today unless through scholarship, recognizable milestones for ones progress through and hopefully out of the abyss. Fairy tales for adults . A sort of journey through the psyche, the inner journey as Campbell and Jung described, not unlike tempory schizophrenia i.e. rearranging the brain to function in the real world. The journey through the underworld AS STORY was the treatment in those ancient times. Campbell's take on the  The Egyptian book of the dead (and schizophrenia) is a very interesting read if anyone is game)

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,07:55   

I think it would be true to say in 1/2 a D's case that his brain is frozen in a state not unlike schizophrenia i.e. unable to determine what is real and what is not.
The horse in his case  bolted years ago.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,10:22   

Just for KE:

http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/halfabee.mp3

I don't think half-Dave would even be equivalent to eric, as i believe half-Dave is only the ass-end.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,10:26   

Quote
Well, I see that not everyone agrees with C.S. Lewis ... what a surprise!


LOL.

yes, what a surprise that everyone here doesn't see the author of fictional children's novels as authoritative in the world of science.

complete shocker!

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,10:30   

Quote


It doesn't take a PhD in linguistics to see this, Arden.  


*sigh*  Why doesn't it surprise me that right after i said Dave would be popping in soon to "correct" Arden, he does attempt to do just that?

see, BWE, i told you Dave was completely oblivious.

feel free to set your trap.  he won't see it, even if we discuss the details.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,10:32   

I once had a creationist (a creationist with an engineering degree--big surprise) tell me, in a little coffeeshop across from NCSU, that I should read Mere Christianity and that if I could refute Lewis's arguments I'd be world famous. I had a good laugh at that.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,10:33   

@fractatious:

Do you have a background in clinical psych?

if so, could you comment on the theory that Dave is suffering from a form of cognitive dissonance, as evidenced by the rampant denial and projections he spins daily?

@steve:

Quote
that I should read Mere Christianity and that if I could refute Lewis's arguments I'd be world famous. I had a good laugh at that.


did you point him to the already world famous folks that stood in line to do just that, years ago?

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,12:47   

Quote
see, BWE, i told you Dave was completely oblivious.

feel free to set your trap.  he won't see it, even if we discuss the details.


He is too stupid to take the bait anyway. He hasn't answered a single question from anyone because he can't.

Psychosis, severe head trauma and low self esteem from his poor performance in evangelizing are my diagnosis.

My prescription: Taking up the cloth and living on a mountain. Preferrably one 6000 years old.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,13:15   

Let's recap.
1) AFDave says that Lewis' argument where people "feel" a sense of what is right and wrong is proof of god.
2) Others object, pointing out that Lewis deliberately overlooked the most basic counterarguments to his assertion

3) AFDave overlooks those objections and concentrates maniacally on the origins of Portuguese
4) AFDave is shown wrong in his claim that Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French

5) The original objections to Lewis' assertions remain unrefuted by AFDave

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,14:26   

Dave, why is it that whenever I ask you when you're going to provide affirmative evidence for an earth less than a million years old or evidence that the Bible is correct in its description of the history of the world, you just ignore me? After all, this is the "AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis" thread, isn't it? Amusing as it was seeing your French + Spanish = Portuguese theory getting beaten to death with a shovel, I think it's probably time to get back to the matter at hand.

So: why do you think the earth is less than a million years old, Dave? And please, for the love of god, make your answer more interesting than, "Why, it says right here in the Bible…"

I was over my brother's place a couple of years ago—I think it was about the time the Residents' "Wormwood" CD came out—and we were talking about how arbitrary and irrational the Bible was. My brother had a copy of Marquis de Sade's autobiography on his couch at the time, and he laid a hand on top of it and said, "You might as well have based a religion on this book."

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,15:24   

Quote
My prescription: Taking up the cloth and living on a mountain. Preferrably one 6000 years old.


er, i don't know of any EXACTLY 6000 years old, but would it be ok if it were younger than that?

If so, I have a suggestion for Dave:

go study on top of Space Mountain at Disneyland.

-It's intelligently designed
-Is less than 6000 years old
-the creator of the Eden it's in shared a lot of your senses of morality
-It has fun things to do when you get bored of being a hermit

sounds perfect!

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,15:56   

Folks,

At the risk of sounding as if I am defending Afdave, which is NOT my purpose at all, I am animated to make (yet again) the following point:

The impression that the God of the Old testament (OT) is a mean, vengeful and vicious God could not be further from the truth. It is based on the grotesuely distorted Christian interpretation and translation of the original Hebrew, the real and authentic Bible.

I have already debated this matter with many posters here (such as Jonboy and BWE and others) and yet the same canard keeps surfacing again and again. The reality is that the God of the OT is a merciful, forgiving, indulgent and loving God.

All you need do is read what Afdave writes and you can readily see the massive nature of Christian distortions of the Hebrew text. For example, he says that many prophesies in the OT all lead to and were fulfilled by ("converge" in his terminology) none other than Jesus. Well, if there were a iota of truth to that would you not suppose that the Jews would gladly have accepted Jesus? After all, he was one of their own! The fact is that there is not a shred of support for that statement.

The drinking of the molten golden calf (mentioned above) was a God sanctioned technique to allow Moses to ascertain who was guilty and who was innocent of the murders, rapes and robberies that occured in the chaos of his disappearance. Those who were guilty were punished, those who were innocent were not only unharmed by the potion but came out ahead. Now you may not believe this Biblical story but then you don't know that any of it occured at all. Either way, God comes out just right.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,16:09   

Quote
which is NOT my purpose at all,


yes, yes, Carol.  We all know what your purpose here is.

I think now would be a good time to espouse your new "why Landa's book sits so low in the Amazon book rankings" theory.

well, maybe when your done preaching, eh?

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,16:40   

STJM,

Surely you don't mean to suggest that the value or merit or correctness of a book (or paper) is to be judged by its popularity in the mass market?

By that standard, are we to put evolution to a vote and decide its merit by whether it is popularly supported? The polls have already spoken then and evolution has lost (unfortunately).

By the way, the fortunes of Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF on Amazon rise and fall with ads that periodically appear, as to most products. Jay El's main sales are to schools and institutions, however, and the book is doing quite well. But thank you for your concern.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,17:00   

LOL.

yes, thanks Carol.

You define the word "predictable" almost as well as AFDave.

Done yet, or do you want to taunt us a second time?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,17:14   

Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 21 2006,20:56)
Folks,

At the risk of sounding as if I am defending Afdave, which is NOT my purpose at all, I am animated to make (yet again) the following point:

The impression that the God of the Old testament (OT) is a mean, vengeful and vicious God could not be further from the truth. It is based on the grotesuely distorted Christian interpretation and translation of the original Hebrew, the real and authentic Bible.

Hmm…a (fictional) distorted interpretation of a (fictional) account. Is this something we should care about?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,17:29   

Quote
Is this something we should care about?


surely you mean that rhetorically.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,18:52   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 21 2006,22:29)
surely you mean that rhetorically.

God, I should hope so. The last thing I need is a lecture on how my godless ways will lead to an eternity of punishment.

But at least Carol, evidently being Jewish, seems not to believe in a vengeful god.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,19:28   

Sir Toejam.

Quote
Do you have a background in clinical psych?


Yes. I have worked in that department. I have 4 straight consecutive years in Human Development/Developmental Psychology (Social Science).

Quote
if so, could you comment on the theory that Dave is suffering from a form of cognitive dissonance, as evidenced by the rampant denial and projections he spins daily?


Technically I would not answer something like this publically. However, I'll just sketch over it. Socially we try and maintain a form of consonance, or cognitive consonance. Even if they are opposed in paradigm or some ideology, there can still be achieved, consonance. Dissonant cognition of course is the opposite of this and Festinger (father of cognitive dissonance) ascribed this to drive like abilities, a thirst to or drive to create an atmosphere of dissonance. An example I'll use is Kent Hovind, regardless of his credibility under fire as an authority in the field of evolutionary biology, and the many refutations to his outlandish claims, he is driven to go further, with such comments as "if a car is going at the speed of light and turns on its headlights, then the headlights are going twice the speed of light". That is an outlandish claim, and totally incorrect, but he will support it heaping more outlandish claims ontop. It also is not hard for anyone (whether they have a background in psychology or not) to see via interaction with another individual, how far their dissonance goes.

I hope that helped.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,19:31   

Quote
But at least Carol, evidently being Jewish, seems not to believe in a vengeful god.


best to again specify that you mean that rhetorically, as I'm sure none of us here care to hear Carol expound upon whether Landa's translation of the OT defines whether the refered to deity is in fact vengeful or not.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,19:44   

Quote
I hope that helped.


yup; it's a start.

The reason i ask is that we've been dealing with Hovind types here for years (again, reference AFDave for a perfect example), and they seem unable to utilize evidentiary argument (just as you note with reference to Hovind).  the commonalities are pervasive and consistent.

I was hoping that if we start approaching the issue as if these posters might be suffering from some form of cognitive dissonance, a more productive approach might be discovered.

There has to be a more productive way to engage folks whose minds function like Hovind's does than by arguing the evidence, which seems to lead nowhere fast, or by simple ridicule which ends up being just negative reinforcement; which also doesn't appear to be very productive (well, except for the humor value).

so, not intending to put somebody on the couch, so to speak, could you point to ways you've been taught to more pragmatically converse with those apparently suffering Hovind's form of dissonance?

cheers

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,22:15   

Air Farce Dave,
When you were in the Air Force did anyone ever send you on the typical newby search for slip stream, pneumatic fluid, flight line, or prop wash?  More to the point how long did you spend looking for said items.  Honestly, you must have been a gold mine for old salts, not that Air Force personnel could ever get salty. :p

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,23:47   

Quote
so, not intending to put somebody on the couch, so to speak, could you point to ways you've been taught to more pragmatically converse with those apparently suffering Hovind's form of dissonance?


Usually one tries to remove the subject matter that causes such dissonance (which can be more trouble than its worth). In this type of forum, thats hard to do. It actually culminates it. Usually, when working with the individual directly, you'd have to take away the dissonance stimulus, ideally to eliminate it. Or present it to them in a manner that they have to be accountable. You can also show alternatives, to achieve a balance. Since this is behavioural, behaviours can indeed change. Even whilst dealing with belief systems, these can be changed also. Concepts of self motivation, reward, and punishment have been known methods to work. While reward and punishment are actual extremeties, self motivation is what is usually applied.

A subject has a belief that unicorns exist. While evidence is presented that unicorns dont exist, they will hold stringently to this. So you give them tasks. Such as "draw me a unicorn". The are visualising to you their belief. "Define the attributes of a Unicorn" they will then describe what they believe Unicorns do/are. (This is leading, yet it is addressing the belief directly). "Show me evidence of the Unicorn" this area is very sticky but vital none the less - this is where they are placed in a position to convince YOU its so. What happens if they don't? You tell them why and you let the subject drop. Don't be baited into an argument, let it drop. Change the subject. Disallow their ability to force it. Do this a series of times and its not so much "is it worth it" but they are self evaluating their own data.

Quick version I know. Personally, I disallow them the ability to play games with me. I disallow them emotive attacks. I refuse to focus on anything but the point at hand. Disagreeing basically nurtures their misheld beliefs. Structuring out what YOU see, removing as much means for a rebuttal as possible only allows them to assess.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,00:15   

Fascinating. Only thing is, since you have now voiced this, Afdave would think it is the devil tempting him (to doubt) and would resist it with all his might. It is what he has been doing ever since he came here. For him, it is an issue of heaven or ####. He will not risk going to #### by accepting anything that the "godless" people here comes up with.

The Bible tells him that in his own belief, he should be as a child. Afdave takes this to the extreme. He also believes that by the power of God's word he will sow the seeds, here, in this blog, that is needed to save some "godless" souls. The Bible promises him that God's work will not return to God without having acomplished what it was sent out to do. He is here for one reason, and one reason only. He truly believes that God has told him to "do the Lord's work" here in this blog. He also believes that the Holy Spirit will empower him to overcome the tainted way of thinking that Satan has been fermenting in this blog and it's people. He is here as God's warrior, and he won't give up. (He prays every night that God wil help him say the right things, that it will be God's words and not his own) He truly believes we will all (or some, even at least one) see the light and praise Jesus for it. If he fails, it will not be his or God's fault that we did not see the light, but we would be to blame since we rejected the truth when it was presented to us.

In all of this, Afdave has one great enemy, DOUBT. He cannot dare to doubt, for if he doubts his own faith will falter and he would have failed in his mission here. To have faith, for Afdave, is to have NO DOUBT (and keep it that way).

Also, imagine a world where Afdave will admit that he is wrong. What has he got to loose? Family, friends, maybe even spouse and kids, his whole society. If you think you will convince him, think again. He has too much to loose. He is not here to hear "our" side of the story, he is here to convince us of "God's" side of the story. To accept our views would be to "back-slide" and give in to evil. He also truly believes we are deluded and that Satan has clouded our minds. Need I go on?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,03:32   

Shirley Knott said ...  
Quote
What logic?  A string of ruminations does not constitute logic, nor a logical argument.
Evil is not generally defined as "opposition to the will of the Creator".
Amongst other problems, and they are legion, you are assuming your conclusion.  Were this logic that would disqualify your 'argument' right there.
You have yet to show that the notion of 'Creator' as you use it is meaningful and possible.
You have yet to reconcile omniscience and omnipotence.
Similarly you have yet to reconcile omnipotence and omnibenevolence in the face of evil [in the normal sense of the term] which has nothing to do with human action or will.
You misreprsent the standard objection to your claims -- it is not the case that the argument from evil is "why doens't an all powerful and all knowing beingf stop this?", it is "how can a being described as all-knowing and all-powerful permit this in the first place".

I do understand the claim ... I know it is that "how can a being described as all-knowing and all-powerful permit this in the first place"?  And the answer is "the same way parents can permit their children to experience evil."  Obviously parents are not all-powerful, but the analogy works because parents do indeed have the power to keep their children from evil.  How?  By not having them, or by going to Radio Shack and buying robot "children" instead of having natural children with CHOICE.  God also had the power to keep us from experiencing evil, but chose not to because of the greater good that would result in the big scheme of things.  He could have either not created us, or created us like little robots.  That would be no fun though, just as it would be no fun for human parents.  Omniscience and omnipotence are separate issues.  We obviously cannot comprehend this type of thing because we have never experienced it.  Why is this a proof that it is a wrong idea?  To say it is wrong as you do would be equivalent to a jungle native who had never seen an airplane fly saying that "airplanes are impossible."  Both are denials based upon ignorance.  Truly open minded people say, "there are things I do not understand, but let me try to understand as much as I can, and I will not rule out any possibilities until I have solid evidence to do so."  The notion of an Intelligent Designer is the only plausible explanation for the phenomena we find in the universe.  I (with Paley) have given intuitive arguments.  Bill Dembski is all about giving those intuitive arguments rigorous mathematical proofs, based on our recently acquired knowledge that life is essentially INFORMATION which assembles raw materials.  While neo-Darwinism has been excellent in explaining the variation we see within specified boundaries, it is bankrupt in explaining where the information came from in the first place, and how the information was added to organisms  to add new gross morphological features.  The answer is Intelligent Design and this in turn supports Theism quite nicely.  And Theism has no difficulties explaining the 'omnipotence and omnibenevolence problem' as I have shown.


Norm said ...  
Quote
So, if God's will is that the worshippers of the golden calf must be killed by melting down their calf and making them drink it, that's not evil because it's God's will?  If God's will is that Muslim hijackers crash planes into our skyscrapers, that's not evil because it's God's will?  So, if you get  ebola and die a  horrible death, that's obviously God's will since no man decided you should get that disease? The problem with assuming you have to do God's will is figuring out what God's will is.
You are correct that figuring out God's will is a very big deal and should not be taken lightly.  We also have the question of "Why is it OK for states to execute a convicted murderer?" and the like.  And the answer to all these questions really boils down to an authority question.  And this in turn boils down to the question of "Is there a Creator?  Or is there not?"  Which is precisely why I am so interested in these questions.  Here's the deal.  IF there is a Creator, then it follows that HE gets to make the rules, not us.  IF He says "Go destroy all the Amalekites" and He was the one that created the Amalekites, then how can we say, "No, that's wrong?"  Now of course, you do have the problem of determining if it was really the Creator who created the Amalekites who is now saying go destroy them.  Maybe the Jewish prophet is just a religious scheister and he's just pretending to speak for the Creator.  And this should not be determined lightly.  And it was not.  God went to great lengths to make checks and balances with the Jewish people to make certain that the prophets were validated before they were trusted to give guidance on weighty matters such as destroying entire people groups.  Contrast this with the modern claims of Jihadists.  They have no authority from anywhere that has been rigorously validated by anyone.  

Now regarding the obvious question of "How can God ordering the killing of people groups be considered good" the fact is that IF there is a Creator God, then there are things that we do not know or understand, and how can we say that God is not good if he orders the killing of certain people groups.  In the big scheme of things, maybe He knows that He is doing the world a favor by killing them off.  Killing people is a good thing under certain conditions and if done with the proper authority -- i.e. with government sanction in today's world (God has given life and death authority to governments--see Romans 13).  Did it not do the Americans good to kill off those British soldiers?  Look at all the good that has come to America as a result of killing those Brits and founding an independent nation.  Ditto for Hitler and the Nazis (yes, I know ... Godwin ... OK fine).  As for getting ebola and dying a horrible death, this too can be good if you are looking at it from God's perspective.  Remember, this life is only a small portion of our total life.  Humans will live forever somewhere and this short life within a physical body is nothing in the big scheme of things.

 
Quote
How about a more humanist definition of "good" and "evil"? What is good is what promotes human happiness and co-operation. What is evil is that which disrupts human happiness and co-operation.
What do you mean by that?  How would you apply that if you were Roosevelt and Churchill in WW2?  I would really be interested to hear how your definition would play out in the hard decisions.

 
Quote
So, God must feel the same way about things that you do? Could it  be that you have made God in your own image?
It's logically possible, yes, but you cannot escape the empirical evidence for a real Creator God, so no, when all things are considered it makes more sense to believe that WE were created in His image, rather than vice versa.

 
Quote
So, AFDave's 'evidence' that god intervenes on earth is (a) an event that didn't happen and (b) a mythical event that he thinks will happen in the future.
There is more evidence for the Global Flood of Noah than there is that George Washington lived.  As for the future event which I cannot verify, I believe in this after I have established the authority of the Bible as a whole from a rigorous examination of the claims I can verify.

 
Quote
He then drew parallels between parenting, and god's handling of mankind. Does it follow, by extention, that parents should then subject those children who defy their will to unending, inescapable pain and torment? Where is the line drawn in this "in his image" concept? I found his explanation of "Evil in the World" to be kind of creepy.
 Actually parents in a way do subject their kids to inescapable pain and torment by not always intervening.  Parents all the time choose not to intervene in the lives of kids who make bad life decisions.  These kids end up in pain and torment all their lives because of their own decisions, not because the parents consigned them to this pain.  Why should God be any different?  He offers eternal life to anyone, but He does not force himself on anyone.  If people want to choose to reject Him, it is they who are choosing their destiny, not Him.

 
Quote
yes, what a surprise that everyone here doesn't see the author of fictional children's novels as authoritative in the world of science.
Do you all not realize that the children's novels are allegories of Lewis' Christian faith?  He is primarily a Christian philosopher.  His brilliance is shown in his children's novels because he not only writes exciting kid stuff, but also weaves in essentials of the Christian faith in a hidden sort of way.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,03:52   

I'm cross-posting this for Dave's benefit: he has a bad habit of ignoring any argument that he is unable to deal with.

Been studying.  Let's see if Dave came up with anything.
Quote
Let me deal with Steve's little deal first.  I won't bet you on that because you are correct that Henry was dead long before 1143.  I composed my sentence ambiguously ... it should have read "Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control.  The break away was begun by a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy" --  little more specific.
Sorry, Dave, you lied, pure and simple.  This isn't ambiguous:
Quote
Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.
This is factually wrong.  It is incorrect.  It is a statement written by a moron so that morons will have something to read in the morning.

In fact, you just admitted that you were wrong!  But your ego (typical fundie) won't let you admit that, so you attempt to claim 'ambiguity'.

Since I predicted that you would be unable to acknowledge that you made a stupid statement, I win.

Dave, we realize that you're a fool; we realize that you're ignorant of history, linguistics, philosophy, theology, science, etc.  We understand that, and we pity you - really we do.  It must be #### to be so illiterate that you can't even write a simple statement about history without botching it completely.

But don't you think you could show a little Christian integrity?  By not lying?  By admitting error?  By not making yourself look any stupider than you already have?

Quote
Again, what we are doing here, though is answering a claim by Rilke that I am an idiot for thinking Portuguese is a mix of Spanish and French.
And indeed, you are an idiot for claiming that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'  There are no other possibilities here: you are wrong.

Quote
There will be several lessons learned here.
Are you planning to learn from any of them?  I doubt it, since that would require you to actually both and understand one of our posts.  Your track record isn't very good so far, I'm afraid.

Quote
One will be that I have met many people like Rilke on these threads who are very arrogant about their supposed intellectual superiority and at the same time are quite vehement about attacking the supposed lack of intelligence they see in YECs like me.
Aha!  Once again we see that the problem here is poor Dave's ego.  Wound his vanity by pointing out that he's an idiot and he reacts like a cat that's had it's tail stepped on.

Dave, such vanity is blatantly unChristian.  You should not let your ego get in the way of actual knowledge.  That would be stupid.

Quote
This from Rilke's source of choice (Wikipedia): Although the vocabularies of Spanish and Portuguese are quite similar, phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. It is often claimed that the complex phonology of Portuguese compared to Spanish explains why it is generally not intelligible to Spanish speakers despite the strong lexical similarity between the two languages.Portuguese and French
Interesting.  Nothing in there about Portuguese being a 'mixture of French and Spanish.'

Dave, when you cite something in your support, you really should cite that something that actually supports you.  Otherwise you simply come across as illiterate and illogical.  Do try harder next time, won't you?  I forgive you this time, since you're clearly young and inexperienced with discussion and argument, but if you want to debate with adults you're going to need to practice.


Quote
Of course if you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.
Of course.  That's what history books are for, Dave.  Perhaps you should try reading one?
Quote
What you will see is massive Burgundian influence beginning with the influx of thousands of Burgundian knights in response to Alfonso VI who had a Burgundian wife, then the Burgundian Henry, grandson of Robert I of Burgundy then to Afonso Henriques, son of Henry.  [Oh ... by the way ... I guess I'd better fill you in that Burgundy is in France ... small detail].
Ok, so far we've established that Burgundians helped dear old Alfonso VI.  What, precisely, does this have to do with 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'?

Quote
Anyway, Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.  Then if you do some further reading, you find out that standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon, according to Rilke's other favorite source, Encyclopedia Brittanica.  Can you guess that Lisbon probably had greater French influence than anywhere else in Portugal?  I hope I'm not moving too fast for anyone.
Well, for snails, perhaps.  The rest of us have gotten bored waiting for you to make a point.  Unfortunately, nothing you have regurgitated so far establishes 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'.

Quote
Hmmm ... let's think now ... a whole bunch of French knights come into western Spain to help out the king who has a French wife.  Another French guy comes into Spain and marries a Spanish wife.  They take over Lisbon and set up the Kingdom of Portugal.  Do you see what's happening?  This is not rocket science folks.   This is kind of like 1+2=3.  See?  Spanish + French = Portuguese.
Dave, I wouldn't suggest math as a career choice.  I'll hope you're not an engineer, because only a moron would make such a claim.

You have stated that 'Burgundians were involved during a formative period of Portuguese politics.'  This does NOT establish that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'.

In order to establish that fact, you'd have to deal with linguistic history.

Quote
Now if you have all three of these languages in your own family (my mother speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish and my cousin speaks fluent French), you tend to have a little better overview of these languages than the average Joe (or Rilke).
Which does not give you any understanding of the linguistics or linguistic history of these tongues.  After all, any moron can be taught language.  But it takes some actual intelligence to understand it.
Quote
I can tell you that if you have heard all three languages like I have, the mix is quite obvious.

Ah, so you have now tried two different arguments:

1) there were Burgundians in Portugal during a formative period.

2) I, Dave, personally think these languages sound mixed.  That, of course, is based on the fact that you're not the one who speaks all three - you just listen to them.

Neither of these arguments establishes that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'?

Quote
And if you think and are honest (I'm finding this to be a slightly scarce combo here),
You do have a problem with lying and blatant dishonesty of the intellectual kind, it's true.
Quote
instead of just shoot your mouth off about how all YECs are stupid idiots,
I haven't.  I have pointed out that you, Dave, are

1) ignorant of history
2) ignorant of science
3) ignorant of theology
4) ignorant of logic
5) ignorant of debate
6) ignorant of manners

and

7) not terribly bright.

That hardly applies to all YECs.  Just you.  Otherwise I'd be generalizeing.

Quote
you can see how Wikipedia would make a statement like ...


phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. (by the way, Catalan the language of Andorra -- just below France on the map)[/quote] So?  In what fashion does that establish that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'?

Answer: it doesn't, of course.  Can you demonstrate that Portuguese possesses a mixture of French and Spanish grammar?  A mixture of French and Spanish vocabulary?  A mixture of French and Spanish pronunciation?

Apparently not.

Quote
Either choice you make, I'm going to take this thread back to it's intended content and expand it a bit.  I will pretty much abandon the Ape Thread now as it has served its purpose.  I have successfully shown that there is nothing more than flimsy evidence which could be construed as positive support for Common Descent of Apes and Humans, although there is excellent evidence for common ancestry within the Apes as well as within all the other originally created kinds.
I see.  Choosing to run away?  How Christian.  How brave.

Quote
(Rilke--you probably knew about this little detail in Wikipedia, but just withheld it, right?  Very honest of you)
Not at all.  I presumed you might have the intelligence to read it yourself... and understand it.  Apparently, I was wrong.

Let's sum up, shall we?

Dave claimed, 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'?

Dave has tried to support this by stating that:

1) Burgundians were involved in early Portugese history.

2) Portuguese has phonetic similarities to Catalan and French.

3) Dave thinks that Portuguese sounds like Spanish and French mixed.

What are we to make of this?  

1) Having Burgundians present doesn't mean that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)' - especially since neither of these two languages existed in anything like their present form at the time.  More importantly, the historical fact of the presence of Burgundians doesn't demonstrate anything about the linguistic history of the language.

2) Catalan.  Well, the amusing part here is that Catalan is not French.  From our ever reliable source, Wikipedia (I use it primarily because Dave seems to trust it):
Quote
Ethnologue, its specific classification is a member of the East Iberian branch of the Ibero-Romance branch of the Gallo-Iberian branch of the Western sub complex of the Italo-Western complex of the Romance group of the Italic branch of the Indo-European language family. It shares many features with both Spanish and French, and is the language nearest to Occitan, and is often thought of as a sort of "transitory" language between the Iberian and Gallic languages when comparing the modern descendants of Latin.


So claiming, as Dave did, that the Wikipedia quote concerning the Catalan pronunciation was meaningless.

More importantly, the statement that Portuguese is phoenetically similar to French does nothing to establish the truth of 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)' unless Dave also demonstrates that Portuguese is ALSO PHOENETICALLY SIMILAR TO SPANISH.'

Which he has, of course, not done.

Finally, (3) - Dave's personal opinion that the language sounds that way.  Not actual evidence, Dave - just your personal opinion.

And your personal opinion, as established by your unfortunate ignorance noted above, has been determined to be worthless.


Finally summary:

1) Dave made a blatantly incorrect statement.

2) When called on it, rather than demonstrate any intellectual integrity by admitting his mistake, he stated something quite different (ignoring his original error).

3) When called on the fact that his [i]different
statement was also wrong, he denied it and offered money to salve his ego.

4) Finally brought to bay, he offered various clippings and his personal opinion to try to establish that his second statement was still correct.

5) But his clippings do not establish the truth of his original statement; and his personal opinion is valueless.

Dave, it is unChristian to lie; and disappointing to see you show so little intellectual integrity.

You are, I'm sorry to say, a moron.

But I appreciate that you're not very good at this 'debate' thing, and we'd like to help you learn more.

The first thing to learn is to admit your mistakes and errors, and not commit sins in covering them up.

Christ would like that.  I understand he's your hero; you could do worse than try to emulate him.

If there is anything else we can do to help, you just let us know.

  
  6047 replies since May 01 2006,03:19 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (202) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]