Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2070642

Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 20:14:15 -0500, Moses <moses@sinai.55> wrote:

>Malte Runz wrote:
>> 
>>  Moses wrote:
>> 
>> >> >> >> >> This is exactly what you would expect to see after a massive worldwide flood.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Did it happen?      Oh yes!
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> > according to the Bereshith account, the flood was NOT a "natural
>> >> >> >> > disaster" and the only myth which should be debunked is the myth that
>> >> >> >> > the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism.
>> >> >> >> > according to the Bereshith account God poured out waters and assuaged
>> >> >> >> > them, and this is not some natural catastophe upon which "God" merely
>> >> >> >> > sat and watched a thing that would have happened anyway without "God's"
>> >> >> >> > implementation.
>> >> >
>> >> >> It [flood] was a physical impossibility.
>> >> >
>> >> >this speaks of an interference from some outside agency, and not a physical phenomenon that would have
>> >> >happened anyway if the outside agency had not taken action. calling it a "physical impossibilty" misses
>> >> >that point. Clearly, a God who can create physical universes from scratch can easily cover the surface
>> >> >of the earth with water. ...
>> >
>> >> And make it go away again. And erase all the evidence thereof. Make it
>> >> look like it never happened. That's one helluva God.
>> >
>> >
>> >i never said all evidence was erased ...
>
>> No, that was me. It's the only thing that could have happened, if one
>> insists that the Biblical Flood had taken place 4400 years ago,
>> because there is no evidence left.
>
>well, you don't have a snap shot photograph of exactly how the 
>earth looked pre-flood to compare with how it looks post-flood.

Some physically impossible flood, that never happened?

But actually, we do - geology, palaeontology and plenty of other
-ologies.

>now, the bereshith account does not say earthquakes and tsunamis and
>violent cataclysms caused this flood

What "account"?

Made up bullshit by a pig-ignorant moron totally out of touch with
reality?

>it says this flood was caused over a 40 day period where water was
>pushed up from below ground and rained 

Complete and  utter nonsense.

>from above, until the surface of the earth was covered in water, by an
>interfering conscious being God,

WHAT FUCKING GOD?

>and then the same water was allowed to return to its place and teh
>surface of teh earth showed again.

Idiot.

>almost as if the earth was a fish tank with a pump of water underneath
>and a source of water from above.

Idiot.

>and slowly, the earth is inundated, and slowly the earth is dried off.

Idiot.

>with that sort of process, the earth may have looked very much the same
>before as after.

Idiot.

>but, maybe not, it may look different, a little. so, we have an
>interfering God covering

WHAT FUCKING GOD?

>the dry land with water and moving it away, done. bereshith does not say
>that the ocean
>floor was vomitted all over the dry land. and i have no need to
>substantiate what 
>bereshith does not suggest.

so fucking what? It's complete nonsense with no basis in reality.

>> > ... and it looks like it never happened. ...
>
>> That was me too. It looks as if the Flood didn't happen. What we
>> observe tells a different story.
>
>if the process was controlled and slow, as bereshith suggests, what
>would you expect to see?

Why not address the fact that the story describes a series of physical
and other impossibilities?

>bereshit does not suggest that the earth convulsed with hurricanes and
>earthquakes and violence.
>just water up water down, and its over.

Idiot.

>> > ... the earth has undergone lots of transformations,
>> >some may be remanants of a flood and some may not be. ...
> 
>> Like what? What geological or geomorphological feature do you think
>> might be remnant of, not just 'a flood', but 'the Flood'. That's what
>> we're talking about. 'a flood' is trivial.
>
>easter island used to be easter mountain
>you used to be able to walk to australia.
>the atlantic ocean used to be the atlantic river.
>just remeber, even the molten earth crowd has to maintain 
>that all of the water that is on the earth now, was once in space.
>so, it is possible that some extra water was in space.
>but, i'm not with the molten earth crowd for several reasons, anyway.

Idiot.

>if the earth was molten, we'd have a more uniform dispersal of ores 
>and things like that and not huge pockets of ore here and there
>scattered about teh globe.

Why, moron?

>> > ... disentangling these is not obvious.
>
>> >but yes, that is some awesome God, with that i agree.

PROVE IT.

>> Yeah! High six, brother.
>
>do you think it's "wrong" for human beings to kill animals?  
>like cows and sharks and whatever else human beings may kill//

We're omnivores, imbecile.

>> >> > ... The Bereshith account, does not describe a "natural disaster" 
>> >> >and the only myth which should be debunked is the straw man that 
>> >> >the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism.

The "account" is complete and utter bullshit.

>> >> There are only naturalistic mechanisms.
>
>> >if some conscious being makes a thing happen that would not have 
>> >happened otherwise,

And if pigs had wings, they might fly.

>> >then, that doer is part of -your- 'naturalistic' mechanism.
>
>> Like what? Show me a phenomenon that you believe only has happened
>> because "some conscious being" (I assume you mean none human) made it
>> happen. You can't, nobody ever has, and that's why I say there are
>> only naturalistic mechanisms. Show me the 'black swan', if you know
>> what I mean.
>
>i didn't mean "non-human" but i'd cite the emanation of the physical
>universe itself 
>as a phenomenon that we cannot explain with metastable-state accident.
>you can say; "accident" but you can't show me such an accident that
>results in universes.

Argument from personal ignorance.

There are plenty of hypotheses how it happened perfectly naturally.

But unlike the deity you plucked out of your arse, they are all
parsimonious and based on what is already known.

More importantly, nobody  insists that any one of them it how it
actually happened - it could be any of these, or it could be none of
them if new discoveries suggest something else.

>i'd still argue that skyscrapers would not appear aside from human
>intervention.

SO FUCKING WHAT?

We know that skyscrapers are built by  humans, because we know enough
about humans to know they build them.

We also know that they aren't natural because we have things that
_are_ natural for comparison so we can determine the difference..

Neither of which apply to your hypothetical, totally unjustified god,
because you should have demonstrated it first, and showed us how you
know it created the universe.

And if it created everything then there is nothing natural (at that
level) for comparison.

We don't look at skyscrapers and say, "wow, there must be humans" - we
already know humans and the sort of things they do.

>i wouldn't say skyscrapers are built by a "naturalistic" mechanism.
>
>> >i am not using 'naturalistic' in that manner,
>> 
>> Then I think you should make a new word for it is you talk about.
>> Naturalistic is taken.
>
>"naturalistic" was used correctly by me.

Bullshit.

>> >for example, there is no 'naturalistic mechanism' [according to me] 
>> >that generates ferraris from scratch.

So?

>> [I see where we're headed.]
>
>i wasn't headed there but i'll bite.

Idiot.

>> >no, there are very definite designers who raise the ferrari to being from not being there.
>> >in this respect, ferraris do not appear according to some naturalistic mechanism.

We already know people design cars.

We don't derive the existence of people from cars.

>> >if you'd like to say that the designers of the ferrari are natural people and so, part of
>> >a 'naturalistic' mechanism, you may feel free to do so, ...
>
>> Consider it done.
>
>ok, so, a thing that is planned out by sentient beings is now
>"naturalistic" according to you,
> and so, we may as well agree that an interfering God is "naturalistic"

No, moron.

There is no evidence whatsoever for it, and your fallacious arguments
try  to generate information where there is none.

>and then you can cite 
>an interfering God to make things that have not been shown to have been
>processed by gravity

Idiot.

> and electromagnetic collisions alone, as "naturalistic"

Idiot.

>an interfering God is "naturalistic" according to you.
>now, you can cite it and not feel uncomfortable.

Idiot.

>you show me a random scattering of any set of chemicals you like with
>gravity 
>and electromagmnetism carrying out the mechanism of a living cell to
>produce 
>a living cell that does not as yet exist.

Idiot.

The laws of chemistry aren't random.

And extremely simple cells have been produced in the lab by perfectly
natural processes during abiogenesis research.

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

Elsewhere the team which carried out this research, showed that they
evolved nucleic acids over subsequent generations.

>as of now, you have an imaginary "first organism" as such a first
>organism is not in evidence.

Idiot.

>if you could show me this "first organism" i might believe in it.

Idiot.

>as it is, you may just speak of it, and demand that i accept your quaint
>little tales.

Liar.

>but i don't.

Because you're a deluded moron in complete denial about the results of
objective scientific research.

>> > ... but i don't call intentional conscious interference, "naturalistic"
>
>> I'm sure you don't. You have your own definition. Let's have a look...
>
>things "naturally" seek potential energy wells
>
>when conscious interference drives things out of these potential energy
>wells
>
>we're wandering into "synthetics"

And?

>now, nylon may very well be a "synthetic" product,
>
>but, it may be digested in a pre-existing biochemical pathway
>all without suggesting that the bacteria that digest it have 
>mutated outside of their nature so as to do so.

Apart from those bacteria which didn't even have this pre-existing
biochemical pathway.

>a bacterium that can digest silk will have little trouble being able 
>to digest nylon, it just takes an induction period to get things
>started.

Er... you really have no idea of the mechanisms involved.

I suggest you Google the long term E-Coli experiment.

>> >and a God who consciously interferes and causes a thing that 
>> >would not, and perhaps could not, have happened without
>> >such interference, is not "naturalistic" according to my verbiage. ...

There's no reason even to posit one, apart from one's pre-existing
religious belief, because nothing points to one.

Especially when there are already perfectly natural explanations.

>> I see. 'Naturalistic mechanisms' means 'random and unguided
>> mechanisms'. Mechanisms that can't built a Ferrari. Can't build life.

?

We are the result of 13.5 billion years of unpredictable events. It is
emotionally prejudicial to call them accidents.

We are not the only possible outcome, either.

>well, if all you have is gravity, electromagnetism, 98 some odd chemical
>elements, the elusive "heat" and light,
>kindly explain how these natural forces, cause the components of a
>living cell, gathered up from whatever source,

Go to the link I gave  you - it's a presentation by the researcher who
first observed the formation of proto-cells.

And it was an unexpected result when  he was researching abiotic
proteins - these were formed by heating amino acids (themselves
produced naturally by catalysing simpler compounds).

When the residue was immersed in salt water, what he initially called
protein spheroids were formed.

But when these were investigated, they had the properties of cells  -
they metabolised, reproduced, responded to environmental stimuli and
self-organised.

Later generations even evolved nucleic acids.\ 

>to behave as if they were part of a working device before that device is
>working as if these forces were a little
>machine to produce a device, the living call, that then requires itself
>to reproduce itself.
>just remember, you don't have this imaginary first cell in evidence, if
>if you may just cite it as a given.

Idiot.

>
>> Can they build a Jumbo Jet?
>
>i'd say no, no, gravity, electromagnetism, 98 some odd chemical
>elements, the elusive heat, and light 
>will not build a jumbo jet without conscous interference.

Idiot.

>and guppies will not swim up niagra falls either

Idiot.

>> > ... i see no real reason to go on and on about such definitions.
>
>> Oh yes, please. Stop it right now.
>
>
>i'll go by your rendering, and then say an interfering God is
>naturalistic

WHAT FUCKING GOD?

>even if that God is not composed of 98 some odd chemical elements and

WHAT FUCKING GOD?

>not subject to gravity and electromagtic forces.
>
>> >if you'd like to include a "SuperNature" into Nature, that would not be a 
>> >problem for me.

You would, however have to demonstrate it first.

>> Nothing is further from my mind, but I can imagine you absorb that
>> stuff like a sponge.
>
>there is a reality not composed of 98 some of chemical elements subject
>to gravity and electromagnetic forces.

Prove it.

>materialism simply does not provide a comprehensive portrait of reality.

Prove it.

BTW, very few people are a priori materialists.

It's simply that nobody has ever been able to demonstrate anything
supernatural.

Back to alt.atheism | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.55> - 2016-03-05 20:14 -0500
  Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 20:18 -0600
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-05 20:36 -0600
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 20:49 -0600
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:52 -0700
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.6y> - 2016-03-05 22:48 -0500
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 22:44 -0600
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-05 23:48 -0500
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 23:38 -0600
            Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 02:51 -0500
              Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 02:03 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 03:25 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 09:45 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.54> - 2016-03-06 11:58 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:31 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-07 21:34 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 01:14 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 03:13 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 04:35 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 06:10 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 06:48 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 07:42 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:41 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:30 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:29 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-09 01:12 +0100
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 19:18 -0600
              Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 18:00 -0600
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-05 23:44 -0500
  Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <forget@it.nw> - 2016-03-06 12:01 +0100
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 07:29 -0500
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-06 19:20 +0000
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 13:56 -0600
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-06 14:27 -0600
            Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:35 -0600
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-06 14:33 -0600
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:47 -0600
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-07 20:23 +0000
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 20:53 +0100
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:07 -0600
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-07 22:17 -0500
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 01:20 -0600
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-07 23:37 -0800
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-08 23:15 +0100
            Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 16:56 -0600
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 17:22 -0800
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 18:25 -0700
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-06 05:07 -0800
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 17:08 +0100
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 11:00 -0600
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 09:50 -0600
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 23:01 +0100
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-07 18:30 -0500

csiph-web