Peanut Gallery

Hi jay, Its easy for me as the text says: 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? 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 1:2All 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. 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. 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 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."

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

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.AdminnemooseusAdded 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.

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? Do you consider belief itself to be a form of evidence for that which is believed?

Can you tell us what RAZD's current discussion with Bluegenes is about if not deities?I know you love your definitions Jon: Link

As charged. 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.

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.

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

The Great Debate that keeps getting referred to is the one between bluegenes and RAZD over bluegenes proposed theory: Forgot to add:See EvC Forum: the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only) Message 1Edited by xongsmith, : link to Great Debate

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Of course. 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. 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

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. 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. Yeah, well maybe you should be more succinct.

Hi, Straggler. 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.

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?

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. Seems you would've went ahead an demonstrated you're correct rather than attacking my character... I don't know. What's it feel like to be such a douche?

Wikipedia suggests that an earlier edition puts it more succinctly: 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....