|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution != Atheism (re: the Rejection of Theism in Evolution) | |||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Tal responds to me:
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Since when does math go "out of date"? Since when does a person's fraud somehow become legitimate simply by the passage of time?
quote: Here's a thought: Why don't you look it up for yourself? There's this wonderful thing called "Google" and you can use it to research stuff! If you had simply looked up "codes in Moby Dick," the very first link would have been mine. It "foretells" the assassinations of Indira Ghandi, Rene Moawad (twice), Leon Trotsky, Martin Luther King, Jr., Engelbert Dollfuss, Robert Kennedy by Sirhan Sirhan (four times), John F. Kennedy (three times), Abraham Lincoln, Yitzhak Rabin, and Princess Diana.
quote: Irrelevant. You are confusing the odds of getting a specific outcome with the odds of getting any outcome. Suppose I have a standard deck of 52 cards and draw a card? What is the probability of me drawing the Ace of Spades?What is the probability of me drawing an Ace? What is the probability of me drawing a Spade? What is the probability of me drawing a black card? What is the probability of me drawing a card? You are confusing the probability of drawing a card with the probability of drawing the Ace of Spades. Every long text NECESSARILY has these things in them due to the nature of randomness. Even in a completely random string of letters, you will find skip patterns. Plus, your data is fraudulent. It requires complete rewriting of the text in order for the specific codes to show up. That is, the text that produces one particular string is not the same text as the one that produces another particular string. It would be akin to claiming that you found skip patterns in "the Bible" but neglecting to mention that used the KJV as well as the NIV and treated all patterns found as if they were from the same, singular text. This was published in the same source that Drosnin originally published his claim in.
Statistical Science publishes Bible Codes Refutation From the abstract:
A paper of Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg in this journal in 1994 made the extraordinary claim that the Hebrew text of the Book of Genesis encodes events which did not occur until millennia after the text was written. In reply, we argue that Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg's case is fatally defective, indeed that their result merely reflects on the choices made in designing their experiment and collecting the data for it. We present extensive evidence in support of that conclusion. We also report on many new experiments of our own, all of which failed to detect the alleged phenomenon. Now, of course, you have another problem: You're saying that god endorses Isaiah. But Isaiah calls the Torah an abomination. So why is god endorsing a book that is an abomination? Note, there's a reason why Moby Dick was chosen: Drosnin challenged doubters specifically on that text:
When my critics find a message about the assassination of a prime minister encrypted in Moby Dick, I'll believe them. And, interestingly, Moby Dick's description of the death of Rabin is much more detailed than the Bible's. It details that "Igar Amil," a student at "Bar-Ilan" University and associated with "Eyal" (which is based upon the terrorist group "Lehi") would be the one to kill "Rabin" (who would be "shot dead") over the "Oslo" accords. It would appear that god really loves Moby Dick. Here's the original link for you to try again:
Assassinations Foretold in Moby Dick Oh, some more shocking things in Moby Dick: "Drosnin," himself, is going to be murdered in either "Cairo" or "Athens" by an assassin "driving a nail into his heart" (which "slices out a considerable hole") on "the first day" of his visit to those cities because he is "a treasure hunter" and "liar" who spouts "lies" about the "Torah" (letter 812845 with a skip of -25936).
The Demise of Drosnin Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
PurpleYouko responds to me:
quote: No, the discussion also includes all forms of god that aren't creationist because that is the flaw in your argument. You are overlooking those gods that aren't creationist. You are assuming that god => creation. When did that become agreed upon? The entire point is that you are inappropriately ignoring an entire category that countermands your argument.
quote: Incorrect. It is precisely on topic. You have made a claim and are now trying to say that the evidence that shows your claim to be invalid is "off topic." I'm sorry, but reality doesn't work that way.
quote: And what makes you think it cannot be done? The Catholic church does it. Therefore, your claim that it cannot be done is shown to be false by simple inspection. The problem is that you are assuming that "creation" means "created everything" when that is not supported. That is the Catholic's position: Evolution created the body. God created the spirit. Just because god creates does not mean god creates everything. To claim otherwise is to say that god necessarily causes everything and you've just done away with free will.
quote: And what is "the creator" in the Christian sense? There's two billion of them splintered into dozens of different sects. The single largest group, counting for more than half, seems to think that god and evolution are completely compatible, according to official dogma. It would seem that "creation" does not mean "everything."
quote: Incorrect. What you wrote was not specific enough, at best, and actually said what I claimed it said at worst. "Not believe" is most commonly understood to mean "disbelief." But atheists don't have "disbelief" for disbelief is a belief, too. Instead, they don't have any belief. Belief in absence is not the same as absence of belief.
quote: Since when was it decided that the Christian concept of "creation" meant "life, the universe, AND everything"? You act as if god needs must be involved in all of the above in order to be considered god. But not even Christianity believes that. God doesn't create everything. Does the word "or" mean nothing to you? Does the phrase "some of" mean anything to you? Why is it all or nothing with you?
quote: Yes, but you are committing the logical error of complex question. The question of god creating the universe does not tell us anything about the question of god creating life. And neither of those answers tells us anything about the question of god creating humans. God could have created one, two, all three, or even none of the above and still be considered a creator and even Christian.
quote: Logical error: Excluded middle. There is a third option and your refusal to consider it is the source of your error.
quote: Why does god have to create it all? Why can't he have only created some? Why does he need to create at all? Just because you are not clever enough to figure out how to be Christian and have god not create everything doesn't mean the rest of Christianity hasn't managed to do so. You have admitted you aren't a Christian. Have you considered the possibility that this affects your ability to analyze the situation? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
PurpleYouko responds to me:
quote: No, it isn't. It's "Evolution != Atheism (re: the Rejection of Theism in Evolution)" When did "theism" become equivalent to "Christian"? And when did "creationist" become equivalent to "Genesis literalism"? You're engaging in the logical error of the excluded middle. There is a third option. But even if we accept your claim, are you saying that Catholics aren't Christian? That they don't believe god created? The mere existence of Pope John Paul II disproves your thesis. Why do you keep clinging to it?
quote: Yes. Please read the Magisterium (JPII) and the Encyclical (Pius XII). The official position of the Catholic Church is that evolution is the only scientific theory we have to explain the diversification of life on this planet.
quote: No, I'm saying over fifty years of Catholic cogitation upon the subject has come to the conclusion that there is no other scientific theory to explain the diverisifcation of life on this planet other than evolution. But to get to your subtext, are you seriously saying that the head of a religion isn't the head of a religion?
quote: Then you misunderstand. The Pope overrules the bishops. That's one of the perks of being the Pope. You're the head of the group. Does the leader not get to be the leader? As JPII said, in reiterating the statement of Pius XII and agreeing with it, "there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation." Doesn't the leader get to be the one with the final say? There will always be those who disagree, but doesn't the leader get to be the one with the final say? What is the point of being the leader if you don't get to lead?
quote: I never said it didn't. Since when has evolution ever said anything about a soul? To do that, it would have to perform experiments upon souls and so far, we have never been able to detect one let alone stick it in a box and poke it to see what it does. Remember what I said: The diversification of life. I chose that phrasing for a reason. Actually, for many reasons. It points out that evolution is not about the origin of life but rather about what happens to life after it comes into existence just as chemistry is not about the origin of atoms but rather about what happens to atoms after they come into existence. It also points out that it is about how life changes from one form into another and not about such metaphysical concepts as a "soul" and "vocation." That's how Catholicism gets away with it. Evolution created the body. God created the soul. And since evolution doesn't even know what a "soul" is, there is no reason to deny the Catholic position.
quote: Yes, he does. That's what "ex cathedra" means. I'm not saying that the statements from Pius XII and JPII regarding evolution were made ex cathedra. I'm simply pointing out that your statement is directly contradicted by the existence of the Pope. He does have the power to define the religion all on his own. That's why there are different catholic religions (such as the one Mel Gibson follows as well as the Polish National Catholic Church and the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches...they all disagreed with the Pope over something and thus splintered off.)
quote: Of course. Since when did language follow the rules of Boolean logic? Take a look at the use of "or." In standard English, it really means "XOR," but that's not what we say. When someone asks if you would like the soup or the salad, you are not being offered the option of having both. In logic, a double negative is a positive and while that is a supposed "rule" in English, it is routinely broken. And in many other langauges, you have to have a double negative or you aren't following the rules correctly of how to construct a negative. In Spanish, a negative statement is made by negating everything: "Yo no conozco nada" and not "Yo no conozco cualquier cosa." If you're going to use English, you must be cognizant of the way in which stock phrases are interpreted. If you are going to use an unusual interpretation, then it is best to indicate that you are doing so or perhaps recasting your sentence to avoid the use of the stock phrase that might be misinterpreted.
quote:quote: Then there is no such thing as free will. And among the most fervent Christians such as those that advocate a literal reading of Genesis, they most certainly do not claim that god creates evil. God does not create everything.
quote: But "creationism" does not mean "absolute creationism" (whatever that means...I think you mean "literal Genesis.") This is why you keep erring. Logical error of the excluded middle. Read the topic. Where do we find any statement that we're talking only about a literal reading of Genesis and only such? While such certainly is a theistic framework and a foundation for a certain type of creationism, it is by no means the only one.
quote: But you are assuming that there are only two options. There are at least four. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024