|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I think he knows that he won't turn any of the ardent creationists away from their beliefs, but he may implant a kernel of knowledge into some of the young people who are brought along with their parents. That actually might work.
Ken: So Bill, evolution just can't work because its like a tornado forming a jumbo jet from a junk yard! Bill: Thanks Ken. (turns to audience) you see, kids, this is an incredibly stupid view of evolution because... If he's going into this trying to debate Ken specifically, then they're never going to see eye-to-eye and it'll be a disaster.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It's time that ridiculous accusation that Creationists are opposed to "Science," which was the pre-debate quote from Bill Nye, was put to rest, because it's ONLY the untestable unprovable sciences about the unwitnessed past that Creationists have a problem with and that was what Ham kept emphasizing. But that historical stuff is testable and provable and it really is science, so if you're against that then you really are against Science. And you have to be, because Science shows that your beliefs are ridiculous, and you just cannot let go of your beliefs.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
You all are very good at asserting blindly that the historical sciences are testable and provable, though half a minute's thought should show you that's wrong. But its not wrong. You're just saying that because you want to maintain your belief in your interpretation of the Bible, which happens to be contradicted by historical sciences.
So what's your proof that, say, the Supergroup beneath the Grand Canyon was actually once a mountain range? Remember you have to demonstrate this, you can't just interpret it into Fact. I don't know anything about that. But here's something I know: In the distant past there used to be water on Mars. There haven't even been people on the planet and we can still practice historical science and yield useful results that are accurate.
quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The explanation that the rocks on Mars were formed by water is simply a reasonable guess, a hypothesis. The hard sciences can TEST their hypotheses, that is the difference. You cannot test this one, it can only remain a hypothesis. Except that water still makes rocks look like that today. That's how we know that rocks that look like that were in water. When we find rocks from the prehistoric past that nobody witnessed forming, we apply the same knowledge of the processes that still occur today, to the ones that formed way back then, and come to the conclusion that they formed from the same processes that are still occurring today. The hypothesis has been tested and we've come to a conclusion.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
The Mars Rover is a lab. They sent the lab to Mars and did the testing.
The testing provided results, and they came to a conclusion. That's tested and proven. If you want to use those words in your own different way, while I suppose that's your prerogative, you're going to continue to be wrong.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
As I said, some things can be known, if that is known for sure, fine, no contest. It happened in the unwitnessed prehistoric past, and not even on this planet...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I keep trying to say that some things CAN be known, they are just obvious as is. Mike the Wiz was saying they are actually in the present anyway and what you want explained about them doesn't require any leap into theorizing about events in that prehistoric past, which is what WOULD be untestable. What you cannot KNOW about the fossils for instance is when and how they died, all you can do is hypothesize, but you CAN know that a particular fossil represents a life form that is no longer living on this planet. So IF there is no doubt that the rock formation on Mars was caused by water, no competing ideas about that, fine, but if you come up with a theory about how and when it occurred, that is going to be untestable. Yeah, none of that is really true. Your stuck in a position where you believe something that science shows to be false. Since your belief cannot change, you're left with trying to find a way to believe that science has *not* shown your belief to be false. And your way to do that is to try to discredit the conclusion by saying they're unfounded. But everyone knows they're founded, and correct, and that this is just your way of dealing with having to believe things that are wrong.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
God wisely takes people where they are. They wouldn't listen to Him if He told them to give up their slaves. How impotent is your god? And if he was so wise to figure that one out then why did he put that damned tree right in the middle of the garden? No, this just doesn't add up. You've just offered a post-hoc rationalization of something you can't explain.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you know the Old Testament at all you should know that the history of Israel was of disobedience to God down the centuries until they were finally brought under severe judgment. Well yeah, that's why it doesn't makes sense to say that he couldn't tell them to not have slaves because they wouldn't accept it... They didn't obey much of his stuff anyways so he should have just went ahead and said that slavery was bad too. That you rationalize slavery with the excuse that they wouldn't listen is just a post-hoc rationalization and a very human, and ungodly, excuse for the behavior. The fact that slavery was not disowned is also another reason to realize that we're dealing with the words of men. An omnipotent and benevolent god would have just condemned slavery in his book, and then dealt with the ramifications of his people not being able to accept it. You know, kinda like he did with all the rest of the stuff they couldn't accept.
Only makes sense that He would avoid pushing them to do something that would be a real hardship for them to do. That is contradicted by all the other times that god did push them to do something that would be a real hardship for them to do. Like putting that damned tree right in the middle of the garden with the foreknowledge that they would eat from it. He knew that and he also knew that they couldn't do without slavery, but he didn't hide the tree and he also didn't condemn slavery. That just doesn't make sense.
Abolishing slavery had to wait until a more opportune time in history. Shenanigans. That's just you making up a post-hoc excuse. There are plenty of other things that were abolished that we can't really do. You know how you tell us that we're all terrible sinners in God's eyes and we simply can't hold up to his morality? Why don't you apply the same argument there: he needs to wait until a more opportune time in history.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You know how you tell us that we're all terrible sinners in God's eyes and we simply can't hold up to his morality? Why don't you apply the same argument there: he needs to wait until a more opportune time in history. But that time came, somewhere around 33 AD when God sacrificed Jesus on the cross to pay our debt for all those commands we couldn't keep. You're still not making sense. God created us with a insatiable sex-drive but forbids us to have impure sexual thoughts. But you know what, not having slaves is too hard so that's cool - have at them. I'm sorry, but this has to be one of the most retarded arguments you could make.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Marriage is His solution to that. And yet, according to you, he was incapable of providing a solution to slavery. Well, short of: "don't be too mean to them, but you can still own people." It would have been pretty easy to just have the owners adopt the slaves as children into their family. That way, they still have to be obedient to their parents but they're not actually owned like cattle.
You are comparing apples and oranges it seems to me. Our personal sin life doesn't have anything to do with our means of daily survival, such as in the economic structure that depended on slavery in those days. Okay, then condemn owning slaves at the personal level. Really, there's so many ways out of this. The fact that slavery is condoned only shows, to everyone but the worst of book-worshipers, that we're dealing with human limitations here and not stuff that an omnipotent and benevolent god would actually decree. Your post-hoc rationalizations only go to show the lengths you'll go to in order to defend your unconditional love for ink on paper. ABE:
I'm saying that in ancient times it was too much a part of life to make an issue of it. It wasn't the right time. And yet today, people still can't stop themselves from having impure sexual thoughts outside of marriage. So now is not the right time for that.
it was never "OK," it was merely tolerated as a necessary evil and laws were given to make the slaves' lives easier. But we cannot tolerate impure sexual thoughts outside of marriage as a necessary evil today... Sorry, but this is pure crap. Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
but we're also dealing with a merciful God who takes them into account and doesn't impose rules on us that are too hard. Absolutely false. One of your selling points is that we simply cannot stand up to God's morality and that we're all fallen into such a sad state that it is impossible for us to obey the rules because they are too hard.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
God has provided everything we need for our weaknesses, including power to overcome them if we trust in Him but certainly the payment of our sin debt. But again, according to you, he was incapable of providing the ancients a way to overcome their weakness in needing slaves. Well, except for: "Just wait a really long time until your economy doesn't need them anymore and then I'll get around to stopping condoning it" And what about the people who actually were the slaves? Fuck them, amirite?
You are continuing to lump personal sin together with the cultural economic system that depended on slavery. There's no decree against persons/individuals owning slaves either! Face the facts, Faith: The argument that the god of the Bible condones slavery because he couldn't do anything about it is complete and utter bullshit. You should fall back on your other out: There's got to be some kind of explanation but you just don't know what it is yet. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
But I'm not making any of this up I didn't say you were.
it's information I've absorbed from years of Bible study and sermons and so on, not that I'm sure I have it all right but I'm sure I'm in the ballpark. Its still a bullshit argument. Owning other people is not okay - ever. Like I said, its just a post-hoc rationalization. It would have been great if the Bible condemned slavery, but it doesn't. So, your team has to come up with some explanation for why it didn't. The excuse that god couldn't do anything about it is pathetic. Stop making that argument.
But that's a nonsensical attempt to make it equivalent to personal moral sin, which I guess is one way you are confused about all this. Owning slaves was part of the economy, it had nothing to do with personal sin. Economies don't own slaves, people do. And still, there is no personal moral sin identified in owning another person. There should have been. Thou shalt not own slaves. Geez, to throw a whole 'nother five words on there would have been sooo difficult.
Someone owed you money and you had some animals that needed tending, they came and tended your animals to pay off the debt. You fed and housed them. If they stuck around a long time and raised a family they might choose to make the relationship permanent and in effect become part of your family. Or, after the debt was paid, or perhaps in a Jubilee year when all debts were to be cancelled, you released them to go make their own lives. Maybe if they were Hebrews males... females and non-hebrews were not treated in that way. Another way you got slaves was when your nation's army conquers an enemy's land and you take all the surviving people and make them your slaves. When you get them home you dress them up and pamper them and give them back rubs and make for an all around pleasant experience... er, wait, no, that's not what happened. What the Bible says is that if you beat your slave to death it is a problem, but if they get better in a day or two then that's all good because they are your property. That is reprehensible. All of your moral-relativism combined cannot make up for that, no matter how hard you try.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I believe perhaps a Roman or a Greek philosopher may have considered that slavery is a bad thing once upon a time, although I'm not entierely sure about that, but neither the Romans nor the Greeks gave up their slaves. It's been a pretty universal practice throughout history and across cultures. Only furthers the point that it would have been a wonder to behold God's awesome power in eliminating the practive of slavery. But no, He told us that you just can't beat them to death, go ahead and beat them a little bit, because even though they are other people they really are your property. That's still reprehensible, Faith. And all of your moral-relativism combined still cannot get out of that fact.
Here's how the thinking goes about this interpretation you reject. That's all just a bunch of made-up (not by you) bullshit, though. Its a post-hoc rationalization to save face. There's nothing at all honest about it, its just whatever needs to be said to keep the faith true to its course.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024