RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (46) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   
  Topic: Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?, Anti science.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,19:32   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2009,03:38)
Their tactics are a combination of Seagull and Princess of the Politeness Police.

The seagull element involves them flying in, squawking loudly and shitting everywhere, the PotPP element involves them pre-emptively whining about Teh Meanness so they have an excuse to run away or ignore inconvenient things like facts or logic...All very familiar, all very pathetic. Watch the tu quoque this engenders.
--Louis


   
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,18:55)
You really crack me up guys.  This place is like a high school locker room.

Your strategy is to ask a million questions, gripe because I don't address all of them.  Then comes all the trash talk and name calling because "I'm scared,"  or "I'm a creobot."

Then you find some little fact that I got wrong which has nothing to do with the evidence or argument at all.  

That's the reasoning you guys use.  Oh-- clown shoes made a mistake, so that means he knows nothing, therefore all evidence for a young earth is nullified and evolution is true.


 
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,19:04)
Seriously, it amazes me that you guys are scientists or professors or whatever you are.  Some of you are very juvenile--you just use big words to cover it up.



LOUIS IS A PSYCHO PSYCHIC

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,20:04   

i still think it's broken, just a little juice left in the battery

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1012
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,20:32   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 07 2009,20:04)
i still think it's broken, just a little juice left in the battery

That may explain the change of subject.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,20:41   

Deadman wrote      
Quote
So, why didn't you answer my questions above, Scienthuse?
Quote
(1) how the Redwall formed and how it was deposited IN CONTEXT of other underlying and overlying strata, keeping in mind basic rules of deposition like Stokes' Law. I don't want guesses here, I want evidence-supported materials, showing how such rapid formation is even possible at all, FOR the Redwall and surrounding strata...a COMPLETE PICTURE, WITH REFERENCES.
(2) How the Redwall lithified and dolomitized -- with chert lenses from silicified algal mats. NO GUESSES, DETAILS, baby. WITH references, please.
(3) Karstic erosion surfaces (with sinkhole/caves!) and paleosols (old land surfaces) resulting from multiple "long-time" transgression- regression
sequences. DETAILS
(4) How those fossil crinoid, bryozoan, coral and brachiopod fossils formed at all. DETAILS!! Make sure you include a section on ichnofossil burrows found in the Redwall Members...that don't fit Austin's previous claims. That way, maybe we can get Austin to deal with Glenn Morton in person, here -- something Austin has been avoiding

Can't do that, can you? Not with any of your YEC resources online. Oh, yeah -- I'm really unnerved and on edge about your teenage incompetence and that of Steve Austin ( who's only just a little better at bullshitting than you, Clownshoes) .


Deadman let's take your last line there.  Are you inferring that I am misrepresenting myself or evidence.  I don't remember claiming to be a PhD or a professor or an authority in science.  Can you find that post?  But that does not mean I don't understand anything about standard geology, or  chemistry, or biology, or cytology, or bacteria.  

I understand it enough to know that there are plenty of problematic questions   (in reference to origins), so I have a problem with being interrogated and insulted by educated people who know the problems or things science can not account for.  The origin of dolomite is one --so why would you demand me to give account for it--when scientist can not find dolomite being formed??   I said once they believe it could have undergone a secondary chemical  change because of pressure and/or heat but there is no proof of this. Dolomite

Stokes Law--What is it you are getting at here? Are you suggesting that water does not move boulders?

I don't know if this is possible but I  wish you would stop pushing me as far as time.  I am very busy and all the referencing and research will take time.  Sometimes I have more time but now is not good.

I would like to say this to everyone here in closing.  Can this go on the record, so that everyone here will know what I understand.  I am well aware of the fact--before I got here--of the fact that limestone is currently forming from corals and other organisms  in shallow calm marine waters. Forminefera, and phytoplankton are also forming calcereous  oozes in deeper waters and these are the most common over the deeper ocean floor.

The issue is not whether the redwall was formed by corals and other calcite producing organisms but whether the origin of the formation is primary?  Is it in place, or is it a result of transport?  This is why I wish to present evidence that has not been mentioned here on this forum.

The problem has been that everyone wants to control the debate.  I will ask no questions--I want only to do one small  research post and if you can rip it apart then go ahead.  I will just learn.

Then I will begin on deadman's questions.  I don't know if you guys will wait that long though.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,21:04   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,21:41)
Deadman let's take your last line there.  Are you inferring that I am misrepresenting myself or evidence.  I don't remember claiming to be a PhD or a professor or an authority in science.  Can you find that post?  But that does not mean I don't understand anything about standard geology, or  chemistry, or biology, or cytology, or bacteria.  

Hey, idiot.

First, he would be implying, not inferring.

Second, he's not implying anything. He's flat out saying it. Repeatedly. And he's right.

Third, not having a PhD does not mean you don't understand anything about those topics.

Not having a fucking clue however, does.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,21:34   

Scienthuse, check out a couple of books by donald l baars:  Navajo Country and The Colorado Plateau.  pages 16-19 in the latter talk about the deposition of the Redwall Limestone.  

Neither book is going to do you much good however if you continue to hang on to a 6000 year old earth perspective.

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,21:36   

Hey troublemaker.  Infer and imply are the same thing.

Infer 1 : "to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire — L. A. White> — compare imply"  

Imply 2 : "to involve or indicate by inference...."

I guess you don't know everything--but you think you do--that's YOUR problem--not mine --that's why I learn.  Take a lesson bright boy.

The height of the cliffs are 150-200m not thousands as deadman said.

The purity of the redwall which I was not aware of (because there are different purities of limestones) argues against primary formation.  Where's the silicate and sand from the ocean bottom(s)?

This is not from Steve Austin--it's from me.  I going to give you guys a research post after I ignore your arrogant bursts of deranged gloating.  What kind of science is this?

See you later.

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,21:41   

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 07 2009,21:34)
Scienthuse, check out a couple of books by donald l baars:  Navajo Country and The Colorado Plateau.  pages 16-19 in the latter talk about the deposition of the Redwall Limestone.  

Neither book is going to do you much good however if you continue to hang on to a 6000 year old earth perspective.

Thank you nmgirl.  I will.  I'm not "hanging on."  Give me some time here--I don't have much.  I need to be getting this post ready.  But I will remember his name--and thank you again.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,21:45   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,21:36)
The height of the cliffs are 150-200m not thousands as deadman said.

The purity of the redwall which I was not aware of (because there are different purities of limestones) argues against primary formation.  Where's the silicate and sand from the ocean bottom(s)?

This is not from Steve Austin--it's from me.  I going to give you guys a research post after I ignore your arrogant bursts of deranged gloating.  What kind of science is this?

See you later.

Hey, genius, try reading my post for comprehension. I said there are thousands of feet of OVERLAY on top of the redwall.

     
Quote
Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y154985

This doesn't mean that I said the CLIFFS are thousands of feet in exposed height. Do you know what "stratigraphic column" means? I posted an illustration that was just that.

P.S. the context of your statement: " Are you inferring that I am misrepresenting myself or evidence. " means that Lou is right. Beyond this, there is the Oxford English Dictionary remark on the matter. The OED being  the gold standard for Dictionaries:
Quote
— USAGE The words imply and infer do not mean the same thing. Imply is used with a speaker as its subject, as in he implied that the General had been a traitor, and indicates that the speaker is suggesting something though not making an explicit statement. Infer is used in sentences such as we inferred from his words that the General had been a traitor, and indicates that something in the speaker’s words enabled the listeners to deduce that the man was a traitor. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/imply?view=uk



I wasn't "inferring" anything from your statements nor is that able to be rationally derived from my comment that you cited. Is english your first language or do you have some kind of learning disability? I'm asking this directly because this is not the first or even third time that you have shown major comprehension problems

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,21:59   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,22:36)
Hey troublemaker.  Infer and imply are the same thing.

Infer 1 : "to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire — L. A. White> — compare imply"  

Imply 2 : "to involve or indicate by inference...."

I guess you don't know everything--but you think you do--that's YOUR problem--not mine --that's why I learn.  Take a lesson bright boy.

The height of the cliffs are 150-200m not thousands as deadman said.

The purity of the redwall which I was not aware of (because there are different purities of limestones) argues against primary formation.  Where's the silicate and sand from the ocean bottom(s)?

This is not from Steve Austin--it's from me.  I going to give you guys a research post after I ignore your arrogant bursts of deranged gloating.  What kind of science is this?

See you later.

No, they are not, tardbucket. Read the fucking definitions you just posted, moron.

And from what you've shown just in that one post, you contradict your own assertion in the next sentence about learning.

Fucktard.

Also, again, note what I mentioned the last time.

You might should do the goddamned research before you run your yap at people who've devoted their lives to studying the subjects on which you're bloviating.

BEFORE.

BEFORE.

BE FUCKING FORE

Get it? Should I misspell it for you, too? Would that help, if I spoke in fluent creobotese?

Put in the time and the work first. The conclusion comes last. After. After you learn the basics, after you do the research, after the evidence is gathered, after it's evaluated, after it's reviewed.

You haven't even started learning the basics, and you're going to lecture geologists about geology?

Ha. Your unjustifiable arrogance is as great as your complete ignorance. Project much?

Clown shoes.

Idiot.

Dining room table.

Each and every epithet perfectly appropriate.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,22:06   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,19:55)
This was not caused by a glacier.
Durham Canyon

You really crack me up guys.  This place is like a high school locker room.

Your strategy is to ask a million questions, gripe because I don't address all of them.  Then comes all the trash talk and name calling because "I'm scared,"  or "I'm a creobot."

Then you find some little fact that I got wrong which has nothing to do with the evidence or argument at all.  

I'm not done--I've been busy with work--you ever heard of it? I'll give you a nice research paper. Then you answer the EVIDENCE, not me.  

I already found a fact that deadman got wrong--namely the height of the redwall cliffs--by quite a bit.  Oh my, SEE, that means evolution is false because deadman got the height of the cliffs wrong!  That's called sarcasm, lest my words be used against me.  But will you ride that one for the next 50 posts--no because he's your boy!

That's the reasoning you guys use.  Oh-- clown shoes made a mistake, so that means he knows nothing, therefore all evidence for a young earth is nullified and evolution is true.

trash talk and name calling comes because you, somehow, think "this was not caused by a glacier" is relevant to the discussion.

because you fail to read for comprehension and then piss and moan about the height of the cliffs.

because you try to sneak bullshit lines like "all the evidence for a young earth" like there was any.

it's old hat, friend.  you should ask blipey for some tips on how to make this clown shtick a little more believable.  but then, he takes it seriously.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,22:25   

Quote
The problem has been that everyone wants to control the debate.  I will ask no questions--I want only to do one small  research post and if you can rip it apart then go ahead.  I will just learn.

1. This isn't a "debate" in any meaningful sense.
2. I'd love to see your "research" post. It should be a hoot, given your track record so far.

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

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,00:06   

I started reading Baar's book again and as he talks about the beauty and majesty of the Grand Canyon as seen from a small raft on the river, I just don't understand why YECs have to believe in this 6000 year old earth and things happening in just moments.  Can't they see the wonder of millions of years of geologic activity, one process building on the other to create this fantastic place? Why is this not evidence of creation over millions of years?

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1012
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,01:07   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,20:41)
The issue is not whether the redwall was formed by corals and other calcite producing organisms but whether the origin of the formation is primary?  Is it in place, or is it a result of transport?  This is why I wish to present evidence that has not been mentioned here on this forum.

Given that the Redwall formation is found in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and California one doubts it was transported.

Edit to add link.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,01:19   

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 07 2009,22:06)
I started reading Baar's book again and as he talks about the beauty and majesty of the Grand Canyon as seen from a small raft on the river, I just don't understand why YECs have to believe in this 6000 year old earth and things happening in just moments.  Can't they see the wonder of millions of years of geologic activity, one process building on the other to create this fantastic place? Why is this not evidence of creation over millions of years?

Because big numbers are scary and confuse them?
Maybe they can't count that high :p

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,04:32   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,00:55)
shorter Louis:  I'm just here to meet boyfriends.

Dammit. Rumbled.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,04:39   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,03:59)
[SNIP ABUSE]

Each and every epithet perfectly appropriate.

Oh Lou I am bitterly disappointed. All that vitriol, all that abuse. You missed so much out! Here are a few choice bon mots you missed....

anti-intellectual fuckpig

clueless gibbering tosspot

mammering gudgeon (a personal favourite from ages hence)

But wait, there's more!

;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,04:48   

Quote
That's the reasoning you guys use.  Oh-- clown shoes made a mistake, so that means he knows nothing, therefore all evidence for a young earth is nullified and evolution is true.


Clownshoes, no one has said this, no one would say this. If they said this in my presence I would be all over them vastly harder than I would pounce on any mistake you may or may not have made.

I know this is shocking, but just maybe, juuuuuust maybe there are a couple of punters here that know more about this subject than you, or even your heroes Gish, Ham, Baugh, Hovind etc etc etc etc ad very large nauseum.

I know, shocking isn't it. Anyway, I know you're having fun sneering at people with a greater understanding of the subjects at hand than you, and nailing yourself to a martyr's cross because we're so mean, so I'll leave you to enjoy yourself.

Louis

ETA: In case you haven't got it yet, take this tiny piece of advice: You said you work in the building trade. I couldn't build a building if my life depended on it, I haven't the first clue about building. Oh I can stick one brick on top of another with some tiny chance of not being mocked off the site by a real bricky. Both my grandfathers were chippies and taught me a lot so I can do a good bit of carpentry. I know some basic electrics and plumbing, but beyond that I leave it all to the relevant experts. I know my limits. This doesn't mean I cannot learn these things, this means I currently have not learned them. (Same applies to you btw)

Imagine if I came to your workplace, the pub/bar you have a beer in with your buddies, or perhaps even a message board on the internet you frequent which, whilst there is a lot of irrelevant banter and silliness, was populated by a bunch of builders and experts on building topics. Imagine I then burst into this place and started spouting off about how stupid what all these people thought and knew was, how sophomoric and mean they all were. Imagine if I started regurgitating age old nonsense, long refuted, about how to build a house by hanging bricks on sky hooks and building down (sky hooks it should be noted, don't exist). Imagine if I did so very arrogantly, with a tone of condescension. What reaction would I get? Like it or not this is the equivalent of what you are doing.

You might not realise it but you are utterly transparent in this regard. We've seen it all before. Your claims aren't new, your manner is certainly not new, and the utter pap you are spouting about science is hilariously nonsensical. It's ok, I know you don't get this. Just think about it. As mean as Lou's message comes across, as mean as I come across (and I am a terrible meanie!), listen to it, he's right. Do your research FIRST. It's pretty clear that you haven't despite what you claim.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,04:53   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,01:32)
[SNIP]

LOUIS IS A PSYCHO PSYCHIC

You were right first time.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,06:12   

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 08 2009,01:06)
I started reading Baar's book again and as he talks about the beauty and majesty of the Grand Canyon as seen from a small raft on the river, I just don't understand why YECs have to believe in this 6000 year old earth and things happening in just moments.  Can't they see the wonder of millions of years of geologic activity, one process building on the other to create this fantastic place? Why is this not evidence of creation over millions of years?

He can't see it that way because he is stuck with his literalist interpretation of the bible.  Giving up on that would be like giving up on God.  To me it is a form of idolatry, worshiping the book, rather than God.  The earth has to have been created in 6 days.  There has to have been a world-wide flood.  It says so in the bible!

It's the same thing with FL.  You can see the fear in his writing.  He can't allow for the possibility that things are not as he believes them to be.  Christians who veer from the straight and narrow of his biblical Christianity are in danger.  If they abandon the faith, they're on the down elevator to hell.

That's why they come here and spout off about subjects they know little about and lecture experts on the "facts", the real "truth".  They think we're the ones with the blinders on, we're the ones with the closed minds.  Why don't we open our eyes to the real truth?  It comes from God, so it must be true!  How can we leave out God and learn anything about his creation?  This makes no sense to them.  In fact, it is a threat to their own faith.  We can't be right.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,07:36   

Quote (ppb @ Oct. 08 2009,07:12)
It's the same thing with FL.  You can see the fear in his writing.  He can't allow for the possibility that things are not as he believes them to be.  Christians who veer from the straight and narrow of his biblical Christianity are in danger.  If they abandon the faith, they're on the down elevator to hell.

Yup. I call it the Get Out Of Hell Free Card.

  • I gotta have a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • If I do all the right stuff, I get a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • But if I have to interpret the Bible, I might interpret it wrong.
  • If I interpret the Bible wrong, I might not get my Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • Therefore the Bible must be inerrant un-inerpretable so I don't have to make any choices and can be assured of getting my Get Out of Hell Free Card.

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,07:39   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,20:04)
And just for the record--the post that I put down that starting all your moaning about cutting and pasting--That was actually an outline by memory.  The one you called the gish gallop.

I had spent two hours preparing with quotes, references and elaboration when my system crashed.  i had to put it down quickly or guys would have whined or claimed that I had run out of steam or something.

I see you didn't look up "Gish Gallop". Your original post would have been an example of a Gish Gallop.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,07:45   

let's face it: it's always nice to find a chewtoy willing to run the gautlet for our amusement. But this one (and FL) are starting to get tiresome...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,08:40   

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 08 2009,13:36)
Quote (ppb @ Oct. 08 2009,07:12)
It's the same thing with FL.  You can see the fear in his writing.  He can't allow for the possibility that things are not as he believes them to be.  Christians who veer from the straight and narrow of his biblical Christianity are in danger.  If they abandon the faith, they're on the down elevator to hell.

Yup. I call it the Get Out Of Hell Free Card.

  • I gotta have a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • If I do all the right stuff, I get a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • But if I have to interpret the Bible, I might interpret it wrong.
  • If I interpret the Bible wrong, I might not get my Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • Therefore the Bible must be inerrant un-inerpretable so I don't have to make any choices and can be assured of getting my Get Out of Hell Free Card.

But the problem is they do interpret the bible. There is no other option available to them

The bible they read is at least a translation of a translation of a compromise set of documents of various ages written by different authors at different times with different goals which have been abridged, added to and modified several times before and after the specific translation they are dealing with. And even then it has to pass the filter of their preconceptions derived from their cultural and social prejudices and ideas.

This isn't a criticism by the way. It is practically impossible for any one individual (or even group of collaborating individuals) to do anything else with a "book" (it really isn't a single book) of this historical nature. That's even granting them the ability to do so as objectively as possible in the absence of the huge cultural significance and social environment that such a "book" has.

The "literal" reading they claim to give this "book" really is nothing of the kind. Even the sophisticated theologians are really doing little more than the best that literary criticism and analysis can achieve with (for example) The Lord of the Rings. At best the biblical scholarship that is so often trotted out as some kind of defence of a specific religious interpretation rises to the level of an English Literature major/student/academic's literary criticism. At the worst it is navel gazing, the self referential arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I.e. utterly useless unless you sign up to their beliefs in the first place, and pretty much useless even then.

BTW I agree with you that the subtext (and it ain't very sub!) of the dreck spouted by FL and chums is "ZOMG YOU DOODS GOING TO HELLZ!!!!!!!!1111!!!111ONEELEVEN1111!!!!! I'M DUN WANNA GOES TO HELL I'MA GONNA STICK WITH MAH JEBUS!!!!!!!111!!!!1!!1"

It's funny, but it's very dumb and very annoying.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,08:41   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,13:45)
let's face it: it's always nice to find a chewtoy willing to run the gautlet for our amusement. But this one (and FL) are starting to get tiresome...

Starting?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,08:54   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,09:40)
Quote (JonF @ Oct. 08 2009,13:36)
Quote (ppb @ Oct. 08 2009,07:12)
It's the same thing with FL.  You can see the fear in his writing.  He can't allow for the possibility that things are not as he believes them to be.  Christians who veer from the straight and narrow of his biblical Christianity are in danger.  If they abandon the faith, they're on the down elevator to hell.

Yup. I call it the Get Out Of Hell Free Card.

  • I gotta have a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • If I do all the right stuff, I get a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • But if I have to interpret the Bible, I might interpret it wrong.
  • If I interpret the Bible wrong, I might not get my Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • Therefore the Bible must be inerrant un-inerpretable so I don't have to make any choices and can be assured of getting my Get Out of Hell Free Card.

But the problem is they do interpret the bible. There is no other option available to them

The bible they read is at least a translation of a translation of a compromise set of documents of various ages written by different authors at different times with different goals which have been abridged, added to and modified several times before and after the specific translation they are dealing with. And even then it has to pass the filter of their preconceptions derived from their cultural and social prejudices and ideas.

This isn't a criticism by the way. It is practically impossible for any one individual (or even group of collaborating individuals) to do anything else with a "book" (it really isn't a single book) of this historical nature. That's even granting them the ability to do so as objectively as possible in the absence of the huge cultural significance and social environment that such a "book" has.

The "literal" reading they claim to give this "book" really is nothing of the kind. Even the sophisticated theologians are really doing little more than the best that literary criticism and analysis can achieve with (for example) The Lord of the Rings. At best the biblical scholarship that is so often trotted out as some kind of defence of a specific religious interpretation rises to the level of an English Literature major/student/academic's literary criticism. At the worst it is navel gazing, the self referential arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I.e. utterly useless unless you sign up to their beliefs in the first place, and pretty much useless even then.

BTW I agree with you that the subtext (and it ain't very sub!) of the dreck spouted by FL and chums is "ZOMG YOU DOODS GOING TO HELLZ!!!!!!!!1111!!!111ONEELEVEN1111!!!!! I'M DUN WANNA GOES TO HELL I'MA GONNA STICK WITH MAH JEBUS!!!!!!!111!!!!1!!1"

It's funny, but it's very dumb and very annoying.

Louis

I agree completely.  I have to laugh whenever someone tells me they don't interpret the bible, the just do what it says.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,08:56   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,15:41)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,13:45)
let's face it: it's always nice to find a chewtoy willing to run the gautlet for our amusement. But this one (and FL) are starting to get tiresome...

Starting?

Louis

yes, because before that I was most happy to use their names in search of funny anagrams.

For exemple, Floyde Lee gloriously comes out as Yodel Elf...


EDIT: and you, Louis, come out as Oil Us...weird...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,09:11   

{Aside: SD are you prepared, you are about to enter the AtBC upper echelons, I have spoken to the Masters and your admission has been agreed. You will be taught the secret handshake. How you respond to this post will determine your level of entry. Choose carefully.}

Quote


[SNIP]

Oil Us

[SNIP]


That's what your mum and female relatives/girlfriend said.

Thank you.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,09:20   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,16:11)
{Aside: SD are you prepared, you are about to enter the AtBC upper echelons, I have spoken to the Masters and your admission has been agreed. You will be taught the secret handshake. How you respond to this post will determine your level of entry. Choose carefully.}

 
Quote


[SNIP]

Oil Us

[SNIP]


That's what your mum and female relatives/girlfriend said.

Thank you.

Louis

Er....herm.....



PM me for my mom's and "relative" girlfriends contacts (including phone numbers, facebook accounts, yearly OBGY results and such...)

So, about that promotion...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,09:25   

About that promotion again, I feel like I should have gone "HARHAR, THIS IS YOU" and select a lolcat of choice.

But life sometimes brings unto us choices that are, in the words of Esope, "bloody hard"

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
  1350 replies since Sep. 08 2009,09:59 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (46) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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