Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9176 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,655 Year: 4,912/9,624 Month: 260/427 Week: 6/64 Day: 2/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
ICANT
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 961 of 1725 (603933)
02-09-2011 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 918 by Blue Jay
02-07-2011 1:47 PM


Re: Dust to dust!
Hi jay,
Bluejay writes:
I don't see how you get Pangaea out of this scripture.
Its easy for me as the text says:
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
You mean you can't get all the water in one place which would leave the dry land that did appear being in one place?
Bluejay writes:
It sounds like God was taking a bunch of water from somewhere
Our atmosphere as we know it today was made breathable air. Which left the earth covered with water. This took place on the second day.
The pile of rock and dirt with its molten core we call earth which was created in Genesis 1:1 was covered in water in Genesis 1:2
All that water was collected into one place leaving a body of land that protruded above the water in Genesis 1:9. That would look like my Avatar whice is a modified picture of Pangea. This took place on the third day.
Bluejay writes:
To suggest this as evidence that the writer knew about Pangaea before it the existence of Pangaea was discovered by science is, at best, highly tenuous.
I doubt if the word Pangea existed when Genesis 1:9 was written.
But the man that wrote it knew that at one time all the water was in one place and dry land protruded out of it.
How do I know he knew that? Because that is what he wrote.
When he did his writing he knew there was land on the other side of the sea as when he killed the task master he fled acrose the sea to Midian, and spent 40 years there.
Bluejay writes:
Of course, everybody else is probably just avoiding this line of argument because they don't want to get into a discussion about how prepositions are used in Hebrew and what the Hebrew verb translated into English as "let" actually means.
In Genesis chapter 1 there is no Hebrew word that is translated let.
It was added by translators.
Here is the KJV text with strongs numbers of the Hebrew words in
Genesis 1:9
Gen 1:9 And God 430 said 559 , Let the waters 4325 under the heaven 8064 be gathered together 6960 unto 413 one 259 place 4725, and let the dry 3004 [land] appear 7200 : and it was so.
If you look those numbers up you will get the basic word but not the exact word with the prefix's or suffix's that are in the Hebrew text.
The author of Genesis also knew that in the beginning there was no seas.
There is no way the author of Genesis could have known there were no seas in the beginning or that at one time all the water was collected into 1 place leaving land in 1 place without the information being provided by an outside source.
Thus the requirement for a Super Natural Being.
Unless you or someone can provide a different source for the information.
Remember I am not trying to prove anything. Neither am I debating an issue. I have simply pointed out that the author of Genesis wrote about things that the information was not available to him at the time of his writing. The information became available a very long time after his death.
bluegenes had said if our ancestors knew things that is recent knowledge that would put doubt on his so called theory.
Moses wrote about many things that was not known until the last few hundred years.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 918 by Blue Jay, posted 02-07-2011 1:47 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 962 by DrJones*, posted 02-09-2011 2:11 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 982 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2011 10:03 PM ICANT has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2293
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 962 of 1725 (603936)
02-09-2011 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 961 by ICANT
02-09-2011 1:59 AM


Re: Dust to dust!
You mean you can't get all the water in one place which would leave the dry land that did appear being in one place?
why would moving all the water to one place move all the land to one other place?

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 961 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2011 1:59 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 963 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-09-2011 2:35 AM DrJones* has not replied
 Message 976 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2011 4:48 PM DrJones* has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 963 of 1725 (603937)
02-09-2011 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 962 by DrJones*
02-09-2011 2:11 AM


What "Great Debate" topic is this related to?
The "Peanut Gallery" topic is intended for side discussion for members not part of a one-on-one "Great Debate". I have no idea of what "Great Debate" this alleged side discussion is related to. This needs to be presented.
All in all, this topic is a giant mess. Probably time to harpoon it and put it out of its misery.
Adminnemooseus
Added by edit:
The subtitle is not a rhetorical question. I really do want to know the answer. Please, someone reply to this message with such.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 962 by DrJones*, posted 02-09-2011 2:11 AM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 969 by xongsmith, posted 02-09-2011 12:07 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1007 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2011 2:41 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 964 of 1725 (603950)
02-09-2011 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 957 by xongsmith
02-08-2011 5:49 PM


Re: The issue is settled?
Straggler writes:
Would you like to give us an example of a being that is not hypothetical or imagined and therefore is 'on-topic'?
X writes:
Jesus Christ
I am certain there are some here in EvC who would argue that he is not hypothetical or made up.
Firstly do you understand that bluegenes theory is first and foremost a theory about human behaviour? And that demonstrations of human capabilities and proclivities are therefore very much on topic - Do you "get" this?
Secondly - Is there a shred of evidence to suggest that any supernatural element of the Jesus concept is anything other than derived from human imagination?
X writes:
But there are some here who disagree with us.
Do you consider belief itself to be a form of evidence for that which is believed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 957 by xongsmith, posted 02-08-2011 5:49 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 970 by xongsmith, posted 02-09-2011 12:16 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 965 of 1725 (603951)
02-09-2011 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 956 by Jon
02-08-2011 5:11 PM


Re: Literacy
jon writes:
If not, what makes you think his 'subjective evidence' talk has anything to do with 'deities'?
Can you tell us what RAZD's current discussion with Bluegenes is about if not deities?
I know you love your definitions Jon:
Link
link writes:
deity (d-t, d-)
n. pl. deities
1. A god or goddess.
2.
a. The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity.
b. Deity God. Used with the.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 956 by Jon, posted 02-08-2011 5:11 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 968 by Jon, posted 02-09-2011 11:53 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 966 of 1725 (603952)
02-09-2011 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 955 by Blue Jay
02-08-2011 3:59 PM


Re: Peanut Gallery of the Peanut Gallery
BluJ writes:
But, ignoring the fact that this is incidentally just such a case, I still declare you guilty.
As charged.
BluJ writes:
Side Note: When stuff that happens in the Peanut Gallery thread draws gallery-style commentary itself (e.g., this post), maybe it's time to consider the possibility that the Peanut Gallery is no longer acting as a peanut gallery.
I think this peanut gallery needs a peanut gallery. And so we crack shells in a orgy of infinite regress with no peanut to sate us at the end of our quest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 955 by Blue Jay, posted 02-08-2011 3:59 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 972 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2011 1:37 PM Straggler has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 967 of 1725 (603955)
02-09-2011 8:15 AM


Abuse Of "The Great Debate"
Petrophysics, who declares himself a deist, wishes to debate RAZD, also a deist.
Fair enough.
But in his OP petrophysics does not quarrel with anything at all that RAZD has ever said. Instead, petrophyiscs says:
* "the atheists here, who have no evidence for their position"
* "strong or absolute atheists are hidding behind their keyboard"
* "I have looked for months here where the atheists could present no evidence."
If he has a beef with atheists, then he should man up and pick an intellectual fight with atheists. Instead, he has used the "Great Debate" forum as a way to hit at atheists where we are not allowed to answer back.
And having hidden behind the forum rules, he tops this off by accusing atheists of "hidding behind their keyboard".
This is an abuse of the "Great Debate" format.
Suppose that Straggler and I asked for a "Great Debate" where we should discuss whether creationists are knaves or fools. Suppose that you allowed that. I think that the moderators should not allow that, but even if they did it would be an abuse of that privilege for me to say that creationists were "hiding behind their keyboards" because they did not answer me on a thread on which the moderators forbade them to answer me.

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 968 of 1725 (603977)
02-09-2011 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 965 by Straggler
02-09-2011 7:12 AM


Re: Literacy
Can you tell us what RAZD's current discussion with Bluegenes is about if not deities?
What does their current discussion have to do with whether or not RAZDs comments on 'subjective evidence' were meant to relate to 'deities'?
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 965 by Straggler, posted 02-09-2011 7:12 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 987 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 10:15 AM Jon has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 969 of 1725 (603979)
02-09-2011 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 963 by Adminnemooseus
02-09-2011 2:35 AM


Re: What "Great Debate" topic is this related to?
The Great Debate that keeps getting referred to is the one between bluegenes and RAZD over bluegenes proposed theory:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
Forgot to add:
See EvC Forum: the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)
Message 1
Edited by xongsmith, : link to Great Debate

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 963 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-09-2011 2:35 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 970 of 1725 (603981)
02-09-2011 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 964 by Straggler
02-09-2011 7:07 AM


Re: The issue is settled?
Straggler writes:
Straggler writes:
Would you like to give us an example of a being that is not hypothetical or imagined and therefore is 'on-topic'?
X writes:
Jesus Christ
I am certain there are some here in EvC who would argue that he is not hypothetical or made up.
Firstly do you understand that bluegenes theory is first and foremost a theory about human behavior? And that demonstrations of human capabilities and proclivities are therefore very much on topic - Do you "get" this?
Of course.
Secondly - Is there a shred of evidence to suggest that any supernatural element of the Jesus concept is anything other than derived from human imagination?
I have not seen any myself. Now - note that right there you did NOT specify objective scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed journals, so, for example, Iano's subjective evidence would qualify for him.
X writes:
But there are some here who disagree with us.
Do you consider belief itself to be a form of evidence for that which is believed?
Of course not.
Meanwhile, DANG it....there I was, getting closer to Straggler's triple-digit posts in this thread...and just when I felt like I was going to overtake him, he comes back and *blink* builds up a 40 post lead again. *sigh*

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by Straggler, posted 02-09-2011 7:07 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 985 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 10:07 AM xongsmith has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 971 of 1725 (603987)
02-09-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 939 by Rahvin
02-07-2011 7:23 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
The absence of evidence has to specifically be the absence of specific, expected evidence in a specific location where the evidence would be expected to be found if the hypothesis were true.
That's hardly worth calling an absence of evidence... The only reason seems to be to try to argue that the absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.
Its better to realize that its the positive evidence of the desk being unblocked by a pen that leads us to conclude that there is no pen on the desk. What we have is evidence of absence, and that is not from an absence of evidence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If you thought you were saying something new and interesting, or contributing anything other than semantic bullshit by saying "lol, but you need more than the pen,"
You wrote:
quote:
Or does the clear lack of an observation of those objects tell us that it is overwhelmingly likely that there is not a pen on this desk in the picture, and neither a computer, nor a keyboard, nor a monitor, nor a clock, nor anything else at all?
I don't think its the lack of observation of the object that tells us that it is overwhelmingly likely that there is not an object there, I think it is the observation of the desk being unblocked by an object that is the positive evidence of absence that allows us to conclude that there's no object on the desk.
It doesn't make sense to use an absence of evidence as evidence, to use non-evidence as evidence. There is evidence there, and that's what is really being used, not the non-evidence.
You don't simply glance towards a desk and go, "Nope, didn't see a pen, ergo there's no pen on the desk." You look at desk itself and see the entire unblocked surface and use that positive evidence as actual evidence of absence. You don't actually rely on an absence of evidence for the pen.
then perhaps you should try to improve your reading comprehension skills.
Yeah, well maybe you should be more succinct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 939 by Rahvin, posted 02-07-2011 7:23 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 973 by Rahvin, posted 02-09-2011 2:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 977 by Jon, posted 02-09-2011 6:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2786 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 972 of 1725 (603990)
02-09-2011 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 966 by Straggler
02-09-2011 7:15 AM


Re: Peanut Gallery of the Peanut Gallery
Hi, Straggler.
Strag writes:
And so we crack shells in a orgy of infinite regress with no peanut to sate us at the end of our quest.
If we reformat that a bit, we could come up with:
quote:
And so we crack shells in a orgy of infinite regress
with no peanut to sate us at the end of our quest.
...which actually has rhyme and a semblance of meter, and so, could pass as a hoity-toity version of a classic Strag rap.
Peanut galleries all the way down, foo'!

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 966 by Straggler, posted 02-09-2011 7:15 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 986 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 10:09 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 973 of 1725 (604003)
02-09-2011 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 971 by New Cat's Eye
02-09-2011 1:15 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
Its better to realize that its the positive evidence of the desk being unblocked by a pen that leads us to conclude that there is no pen on the desk. What we have is evidence of absence, and that is not from an absence of evidence.
CS, the entirety of your "argument" rests on semantic gymnastics.
You are drawing a disctinction between "observing the entire surface of a desk unblocked by a pen" and "failing to observe a pen when searching a desk." These two statements mean the same thing. You are drawing a distinction without a difference so that you can play word games and maintain your pre-established position that an absence of evidence can never be evidence of absence, even when the evidence is specific and expected, and the area in question is limited and easily searched.
A distinction without a difference, CS, is not a difference. Your argument is essentially this:
"A is not evidence of B. A is evidence of B."
You do this because you want to be able to cling to a tired and misused maxim, that an absence of evidence can never be evidence of absence, even though it is childishly easy to demonstrate scenarios where that maxim is false.
How does it feel to have such strong cognitive dissonance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 971 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2011 1:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 974 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2011 3:07 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 975 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2011 3:49 PM Rahvin has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 974 of 1725 (604006)
02-09-2011 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 973 by Rahvin
02-09-2011 2:48 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
CS, the entirety of your "argument" rests on semantic gymnastics.
You are drawing a disctinction between "observing the entire surface of a desk unblocked by a pen" and "failing to observe a pen when searching a desk." These two statements mean the same thing. You are drawing a distinction without a difference so that you can play word games and maintain your pre-established position that an absence of evidence can never be evidence of absence, even when the evidence is specific and expected, and the area in question is limited and easily searched.
Or I'm right, and you're the one playing semantic games so that you can claim that the absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.
But really, is there any use in speculating one another's motives rather than arguing the positions like we're s'posed to?
I don't really care about the semantic argument, but if someone asked me if there was a pen on the desk, the desk tells me the answer, not the non-evidence of a pen.
You do this because you want to be able to cling to a tired and misused maxim, that an absence of evidence can never be evidence of absence, even though it is childishly easy to demonstrate scenarios where that maxim is false.
Seems you would've went ahead an demonstrated you're correct rather than attacking my character...
How does it feel to have such strong cognitive dissonance?
I don't know. What's it feel like to be such a douche?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 973 by Rahvin, posted 02-09-2011 2:48 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 989 by Rahvin, posted 02-10-2011 11:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 975 of 1725 (604016)
02-09-2011 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 973 by Rahvin
02-09-2011 2:48 PM


appeal to a relevant 'authority'
Introduction to Logic, Eighth edition, Carl Cohen and Irving M. Copi, 1990 (Chapter 3, Fallacies) writes:
In some circumstances, of course, the fact that certain evidence or results have not been got, after they have been actively sought in ways to reveal them, may have substantial argumentative force. New drugs tested for safety, for example, are commonly given to mice or other rodents for prolonged periods; the absence of any toxic effect upon the rodents taken to be evidence (although not conclusive evidence) that the drug is probably not toxic to humans. Consumer protection often relies upon evidence of this kind. In circumstances like these we rely not on ignorance but
upon our knowledge, or conviction, that if the result we are concerned about were likely to arise, it would have arisen in some of the test cases. This use of the inability to prove something true supposes that investigators are highly skilled, and that they very probably would have uncovered the evidence sought had it been possible to do so. Tragic mistakes are sometimes made
in this sphere even so; but if the standard is set too high - if what is required is a conclusive proof of harmlessness that cannot ever be given--consumers will be denied what may prove to be valuable, even lifesaving, medical treatments...
... Not to draw a conclusion, in some cases, is as
much a breach of correct reasoning as it would be to draw a mistaken conclusion.
Wikipedia suggests that an earlier edition puts it more succinctly:
Copi, 1953 writes:
In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
I continue to be surprised that people will assert the maxim as if it were some absolute truth seemingly just because it has a nice ring to it. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is cool to say too...
Edited by Modulous, : Ontogeny not ontology. Ontology is what we're talking about....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 973 by Rahvin, posted 02-09-2011 2:48 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 980 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2011 9:22 PM Modulous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024