Believeing Christian myths

[txviper]

Mr. Neil,

 

"I've disassembled all of your attempts to attack evolution, modern astronomy, and the scientific method.

 

You lose."

 

Okay, I lose. The Bible is inaccurate and the moon is not a light. Though if you live in Alaska, where I have a house, you'd be amazed at the non-light it puts out when it is full and there is snow on the ground. But then, to say that the moon is full is not really scientifically correct is it? "Completely unobscured by the earth" would be better, huh? The Bible calls it a "new moon" as if gets replaced once a month. How untechnical is that!?

 

In view of your masterful argument, we can call the moon a "dark" instead of a light.

 

 

"I am not invested in any of them, the double-impact theory seems most plausible, barring further examination."

 

So, with a trophy secured by pro-realityism, would you care to apply your "evolution, modern astronomy, and the scientific method" arsenal and flesh out the double-impact theory? To be honest, you are already sounding very timid.

[Samurai Tailor]

How many of his books do you have? I hope you realize he'd be dissappointed in you if he found out you'd fallen in with the PE crowd.

Read The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins does not object to PE, he objects to Gould's dichotomous characterization of the internal debate as 'punctuated equilibria' vs. 'constant speedism.' As Dawkins notes, the gradualistic models were never consistent with single-speed change in the first place, thus Gould's overt chest-thumping about PE being a paradigm shift was a misrepresentation from the outset.

[crazy-tiger]

Mr. Neil,

 

"I've disassembled all of your attempts to attack evolution, modern astronomy, and the scientific method.

 

You lose."

 

Okay, I lose. The Bible is inaccurate and the moon is not a light. Though if you live in Alaska, where I have a house, you'd be amazed at the non-light it puts out when it is full and there is snow on the ground. But then, to say that the moon is full is not really scientifically correct is it? "Completely unobscured by the earth" would be better, huh? The Bible calls it a "new moon" as if gets replaced once a month. How untechnical is that!?

 

In view of your masterful argument, we can call the moon a "dark" instead of a light.

Ok, so now you're just being intentionally dense, probably in a pathetic attempt to save face...

Full Moon - When the visable side of the Moon is Fully illuminated. (scientific enough?)

Saying that "being completely unobscured by the Earth" would be better might do, if it was the obscuring effect of the Earth that caused the Phases of the Moon. Since it's fuck-all to do with that, you're just being daft for the hell of it.

The Moon only reflects light, so there is no way it can put out light. Again, you deliberately say something stupid.

 

You've just managed to respond with the same immaturity as a 6 year old...

[Mr. Neil]

"I've disassembled all of your attempts to attack evolution, modern astronomy, and the scientific method.

 

You lose."

 

Okay, I lose. The Bible is inaccurate and the moon is not a light. Though if you live in Alaska, where I have a house, you'd be amazed at the non-light it puts out when it is full and there is snow on the ground. But then, to say that the moon is full is not really scientifically correct is it? "Completely unobscured by the earth" would be better, huh? The Bible calls it a "new moon" as if gets replaced once a month. How untechnical is that!?

 

In view of your masterful argument, we can call the moon a "dark" instead of a light.

Quit equivocating. If something that reflects light is also a light, then everything is a light, save for black holes. Is the snow also a great light? After all, it's only doing the exact same thing the moon is doing.

 

Luckily, for the sake of coherency, we have proper ways of defining what constitutes as a light. The term "light" is used in reference as the source of illumination, but the moon is not a source of any illumination. It is merely a reflection of the illumination of the sun.

 

Furthermore, the Bible describes the sun and the moon as TWO great lights, and it even explicitly states that the moon is the lesser of the two great lights. Thus, you have your own Bible telling you that the moon is a light like the sun, but only not as bright.

 

Now, what you're trying to do is to change the context so that the meaning of the word "light" is different for only one of these two objects, even though the word is being used in reference to both at the same time. This is the fallacy of equivocation, because you are waffling back and forth between the source of light and the reflection of light.

 

Again, this is a question-begging tactic, because you've reinterpretted the scripture in a way that you cannot justify. You have no point of reference, and thus your conclusion of an inerrant Bible precludes your investigation, creating a circle. And as such, you attempt to wash away the stain of errancy using the dizzying spin cycle of apologetic reasoning.

 

"I am not invested in any of them, the double-impact theory seems most plausible, barring further examination."

 

So, with a trophy secured by pro-realityism, would you care to apply your "evolution, modern astronomy, and the scientific method" arsenal and flesh out the double-impact theory? To be honest, you are already sounding very timid.

It amazes me that you would think that evolution, a theory of biology, could somehow apply to the formation of the moon.

 

In typical creationist fashion, you regard tentativeness as a weakness, and thus you accuse me of being timid for not dogmatically asserting that the moon was formed in a double-impact. You are either ignoring my clarifications about functionality over authority, or you are simply not reading my posts in their full context. Your contempt for tentativeness is a direct assalt on the process by which we learn things, which is why I've repeatedly accused you of being anti-learning.

 

As I am not completely confident in the double-impact theory, I feel no need to defend it. I would also like to add that had I chosen to do so, any defeat of the theory would not justify Christian theism. Making such an appeal would again be the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, which means that it's a non sequitur, because the logic does not follow.

 

Thus, every attempt you've made to trump me has failed, and as any reader can plainly see, several of your arguments have been abandoned, while I've maintained my core premise for several posts that science is tentative and is not to be confused the dogmatism of religion.

 

Strangely, txviper continues to miss this point.

[txviper]

Mr. Neil,

 

"using an interpretation that you cannot back up"

 

Hardly. You can't apply an English science class definition here. The meaning of the Hebrew word for light used in Genesis 1:14 is as follows:

 

3974 ma'owr maw-ore' or maor {maw-ore'}; also (in plural) feminine mpowrah {meh-o-raw'}; or morah {meh-o-raw'}; from 215; properly, a luminous body or luminary, i.e. (abstractly) light (as an element): figuratively, brightness, i.e.cheerfulness; specifically, a chandelier:--bright, light.

 

215 'owr ore a primitive root; to be (causative, make) luminous (literally and metaphorically):--X break of day, glorious, kindle, (be, en-, give, show) light (-en, -ened), set on fire, shine.

 

Gen 1:14 ..Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 

The particular meaning is in the context, "to give light upon the earth".

 

 

 

"...you would think that evolution, a theory of biology, could somehow apply to the formation of the moon"

 

If you think that biology is the only disipline that has prefixed itself with "evolutionary", you are uninformed.

 

 

 

"Making such an appeal would again be the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, which means that it's a non sequitur, because the logic does not follow"

 

All this is nothing more than double-talk and word games. You guys love to compartmentalize arguments and act as if that were an effective response. It is not. All it does is highlight the fact that you didn't have a good answer or counter-argument.

 

 

 

"..I've maintained my core premise for several posts that science is tentative...."

 

Actually, you've been all over the board. You've just wised up and quit committing at this point. On the subject of the moon, you would have been smart to just say "There have been all kinds of theories proposed and every one of them is flawed. They don't have the first serious clue about its origins".

[Mr. Neil]

"using an interpretation that you cannot back up"

 

Hardly. You can't apply an English science class definition here. The meaning of the Hebrew word for light used in Genesis 1:14 is as follows:

 

3974 ma'owr maw-ore' or maor {maw-ore'}; also (in plural) feminine mpowrah {meh-o-raw'}; or morah {meh-o-raw'}; from 215; properly, a luminous body or luminary, i.e. (abstractly) light (as an element): figuratively, brightness, i.e.cheerfulness; specifically, a chandelier:--bright, light.

 

215 'owr ore a primitive root; to be (causative, make) luminous (literally and metaphorically):--X break of day, glorious, kindle, (be, en-, give, show) light (-en, -ened), set on fire, shine.

 

Gen 1:14 ..Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 

The particular meaning is in the context, "to give light upon the earth".

Wow, this is a desperate Gastrich-esque interpretation if I ever saw one. The word in question, light, is a noun, but viper's defined it as an entire phrase, "to give light upon the earth". He appears to be mining from the verb or action form of the word, which is inappropriate when talking about light as a noun, which is being referred to in the verse I cited, Genesis 1:16:

 

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

To get around this problem, Viper had to diligently mine through whatever definitions he could find in order to find something (anything) that could harmonize this debacle of a verse. From the second definition he provided above, he finds the word "give"...

 

215 'owr ore a primitive root; to be (causative, make) luminous (literally and metaphorically):--X break of day, glorious, kindle, (be, en-, give, show) light (-en, -ened), set on fire, shine.

...and thus begins his apologetic spin-doctoring, using the most conveniently vague word he could find. He then selects the phrase "to give light upon the earth" as his definition, which is not supported at all in the references he provided but was, as we can see, simply extracted from Genesis 1:15! He invented an interpretation and tried to sell it as legitimate!

 

I would also like to draw the readers attention to the fact that he arbitrarily skipped those words most fatal to his premise; words like causative and make, which would not work in his postulation, because the moon does not cause or make light. He also ignores key words like luminous, because the moon is obviously not luminous; it's reflective.

 

And by actually reading his "reference", what we find is that his "give" usage is actually parenthetical to a larger definition and series of examples which is clearly indicating that this word is describing a body which, in context, is luminous; i.e., emitting light! If we were to ignore the parentheses for a moment, the light would shine upon his shortcuts, which he has neatly tucked away in the shadows. It's here that we find only one definition available, which literally says, "TO BE LUMINOUS", and then proceeds to give a series of examples of things that both literally and figuratively emit radiance, such as the break of day, that which is glorious, and the word "kindle". I would like to remind txviper that the moon does not emit light, and thus is not luminous. Txviper's own reference betrays him.

 

Speaking of which, I could make a case about the fact that he has not identified his reference, but I think the argument that I've supplied is damaging enough and does not warrant crying over spilled milk.

 

He seems to have again missed the point I made about equivocation. It refers to one body which is luminous and another which is not. In other words, if we are to assume that the Genesis author is referring to both bodies as a "light", then he is either waffling on his meaning of light as he used it to decribe the sun and the moon simultaneously, or he thinks that the moon is a light.

 

Again, txviper's absolutely pathetic attempt to harmonize that which cannot be harmonized shows that he is guilty of circular reasoning. He assumes the Bible is correct in advance and so tries desperately to make this particularly embarrassing revelation work. He refuses to see what is before his very eyes.

 

One quick question, though, viper. Since you brought up Genesis 1:15, it mentions that the two great lights are "in the firmament". What's the firmament?

 

"...you would think that evolution, a theory of biology, could somehow apply to the formation of the moon"

 

If you think that biology is the only disipline that has prefixed itself with "evolutionary", you are uninformed.

Nice bluff, Bluffy McBluffington. Unfortunately, this assertion can be added to the growing list of claims that viper cannot justify. What he'll find, if he tries to back his assertion up, is that while scientists use the term "evolutionary" to describe processes of change, none of them appeal to it as a discipline, nor are they literally applying evolution to their particular science.

 

In fact, just calling evolution a "discipline" is all I need to demonstrate that txviper still doesn't understand the difference between science and religion, as he still assumes that the theory of evolution is held authoritatively. This is a point that he's continuously ignored.

 

"Making such an appeal would again be the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, which means that it's a non sequitur, because the logic does not follow"

 

All this is nothing more than double-talk and word games. You guys love to compartmentalize arguments and act as if that were an effective response. It is not. All it does is highlight the fact that you didn't have a good answer or counter-argument.

Again, completely lost in his argumentative psychobabble, txviper witlessly appeals to ignorance. That the atheist may not have a prepackaged theory of moon formation is regarded as a weakness. He has contempt for the very tentativeness that science thrives on.

 

Furthermore, I was absolutely right. If the creationist tactic is merely to defeat a theory he does not like with the intent of sliding his God hypothesis in its place, then he has made the god-of-the-gaps fallacy. Because the apologist doesn't understand that this is a false dichotomy, and that other explanations can be utilized, he simply assumes that evading the most prominant theory is all that is needed to verify his question-begging mythology.

 

Viper's logic is as follows: If theory presented by Neil is wrong or non-existant, then Bible is right.

 

But he will not be able to account for such a strange logical step, because none exists. He simply views his Bible as something that must not only be refuted but completely replaced. This is to be expected from a creationist apologist, who, when unable to justify his waffling interpretation of the origin of the moon, as told in the Bible, begins to stack obstacles in front his ridiculous creationist story in an attempt to block it from further scrutiny. He thinks that if he attacks my position while smokescreening his, that he wins by default.

 

This is the god-of-the-gaps argument, and it's an argumentative fallacy. His god thrives on the margins of scientific knowledge.

 

"..I've maintained my core premise for several posts that science is tentative...."

 

Actually, you've been all over the board. You've just wised up and quit committing at this point. On the subject of the moon, you would have been smart to just say "There have been all kinds of theories proposed and every one of them is flawed. They don't have the first serious clue about its origins".

This is evidence, above all else, that txviper is not even paying attention to my posts. While I've been addressing many different topics, my core premise remains that science is tentative in its assertions.

 

Again, txviper is just talking out of his ass, as he fails to realize that every scientific theory has flaws in it, and thus his contempt for tentativeness surfaces once again. The fact that more than one theory exists is indicative of a weakness to him, which again highlights his complete misunderstanding of how science works. Science works by trial-and-error reduction, and thus the dogmatic authoritarianship that he expects is not needed, nor is it wanted.

 

All of the theories about the moon work from clues available to them, much like the varying theories of a crime scene, but since the investigation has not reached a point at which some of the weaker theories can be stripped away, all theories remain a certain level of legitimacy, even if there is not one in particular that resonates above all others.

 

It has not occured to txviper that "I don't know" is a suitable and honest position to hold on any given topic. And thus the difference between txviper and myself becomes aparent. Neither one of us actually know what caused the moon, however, he is willing to fill his gap in knowledge with the first postulate that comes along, while I am not. I submit that there are various theories that could account for the moon's origin, and until such time as one of them is substantiated within a given degree of precision, I remain undecided.

 

Again, txviper will simply assume that tentativeness is a weakness and will claim victory, but I need only remind the reader that tentativeness is the way of science and the way of learning. The irony should not be lost on the reader that viper chooses to use a computer to voice his anti-science assalt on tentativeness.

[Amethyst]

Heh heh...

 

I'm surprised his computer hasn't imploded from the sheer illogical statements he's made.

 

[Zach]

Science tells us that the moon only reflects light, but the Bible tells us that the moon is luminous. Mutually exclusive? Hardly.

 

 

Clearly, God created the moon so he could apply his divine face in the morning.

[txviper]

"light, is a noun, but viper's defined it as an entire phrase, "to give light upon the earth" "

 

 

I quoted "to give light upon the earth" from verse 15 to show the context the noun is used in.

 

 

 

"Viper had to diligently mine through whatever definitions he could find in order to find something (anything) that could harmonize this debacle of a verse. From the second definition he provided above, he finds the word "give" "...

 

One source. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. First published in 1890. The definitive work. But the point is, Hebrew words have their own meaning, not your incandescent meaning.

 

 

 

"the point I made about equivocation. It refers to one body which is luminous and another which is not"

 

The only point you made was one of confusion. The meaning is clear in the Hebrew. A source of illumination.

 

 

"while scientists use the term "evolutionary" to describe processes of change, none of them appeal to it as a discipline, nor are they literally applying evolution to their particular science."

 

Right.

 

 

 

That the atheist may not have a prepackaged theory of moon formation is regrded as a weakness.

 

Well sortof, but with the emphasis on science. I mean, the moon is right there. We've even been there and know the chem-composition of it. You'd think there would be at least something plausible on the table at this point.

 

 

 

"the creationist tactic is merely to defeat a theory he does not like with the intent of sliding his God hypothesis in its place"

 

Defeat? There isn't even a skirmish. You don't have a decent theory to work with.

 

 

 

"He thinks that if he attacks my position while smokescreening his"

 

Smokescreen? What smoke? I listed every single label I could be tagged with (except I forgot Futurist). I'm not tentative at all. I don't have to be. I'm not stuck with such imbecilic notions as accidental DNA copy errors being solely responsible for every species that ever existed, but leaving the billion year old ones untouched. Nor do I have to choose between exponentially impossible spontaneous self-creation and outer space origins. You need the smoke of tentativeness.

 

 

 

"he fails to realize that every scientific theory has flaws in it"

 

 

The ones that were formulated in accordance with scientific method do not have flaws. The rest are not scientific, they are just theories, driven by ideology, not fact and experiment.

 

 

 

"It has not occured to txviper that "I don't know" is a suitable and honest position to hold on any given topic"

 

Are you then an atheist or an agnostic?

 

 

 

"All of the theories about the moon work from clues available to them, much like the varying theories of a crime scene"

 

There are no clues. If you think there are, list them.

 

 

"since the investigation has not reached a point at which some of the weaker theories can be stripped away"

 

The hell it hasn't. List them and note the strong points of the weaker theories.

 

 

"all theories remain a certain level of legitimacy, even if there is not one in particular that resonates above all others"

 

What is the resonance about the double impact theory? I know you are not sold on it but you did mention that it was the most appealing.

[Mr. Neil]

The only point you made was one of confusion. The meaning is clear in the Hebrew. A source of illumination.

The moon is not a source of illumination. Illumination means that it gives off light. Does the moon give off light? No, it reflects it.

 

Idiot. You just refuted yourself.

[greasemonkey]

I find this part to be the most ironic...

 

That the atheist may not have a prepackaged theory of moon formation is regrded as a weakness.

 

Well sortof, but with the emphasis on science. I mean, the moon is right there. We've even been there and know the chem-composition of it. You'd think there would be at least something plausible on the table at this point.

 

"Plausible" coming from someone who believes some invisible guy spoke it into existence somehow doesn't hold much water...

 

color me silly for thinking that...

[crazy-tiger]

"light, is a noun, but viper's defined it as an entire phrase, "to give light upon the earth" "

 

 

I quoted "to give light upon the earth" from verse 15 to show the context the noun is used in.

So the Bible got it wrong when it described the Moon as a light then...

"Viper had to diligently mine through whatever definitions he could find in order to find something (anything) that could harmonize this debacle of a verse. From the second definition he provided above, he finds the word "give" "...

 

One source. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. First published in 1890. The definitive work. But the point is, Hebrew words have their own meaning, not your incandescent meaning.

Yes, they do... but the Hebrew word for "light" is not the same as the word for "reflect"

 

Two different words, and it's definitely refering to a "light" not a reflective body...

"the point I made about equivocation. It refers to one body which is luminous and another which is not"

 

The only point you made was one of confusion. The meaning is clear in the Hebrew. A source of illumination.

Yes, the Moon is a source of illumination... but it's not a "light"

Of course, we could very truthfully declare that the Earth is a source of illumination... since light is reflected from it.

Why else do they talk about seeing things on the moon by Earthlight?

So, is the Earth a "light in the firmament"?

 

No, and neither is the Moon...

"while scientists use the term "evolutionary" to describe processes of change, none of them appeal to it as a discipline, nor are they literally applying evolution to their particular science."

 

Right.

 

That the atheist may not have a prepackaged theory of moon formation is regrded as a weakness.

 

Well sortof, but with the emphasis on science. I mean, the moon is right there. We've even been there and know the chem-composition of it. You'd think there would be at least something plausible on the table at this point.

There is... just because you don't like/understand it doesn't mean it isn't there.

"the creationist tactic is merely to defeat a theory he does not like with the intent of sliding his God hypothesis in its place"

 

Defeat? There isn't even a skirmish. You don't have a decent theory to work with.

"He thinks that if he attacks my position while smokescreening his"

 

Smokescreen? What smoke? I listed every single label I could be tagged with (except I forgot Futurist). I'm not tentative at all. I don't have to be. I'm not stuck with such imbecilic notions as accidental DNA copy errors being solely responsible for every species that ever existed, but leaving the billion year old ones untouched. Nor do I have to choose between exponentially impossible spontaneous self-creation and outer space origins. You need the smoke of tentativeness.

What part of natural selection processes did you manage to forget this time?

You've been corrected on that mistaken assumption too many times now, but you insist on throwing it back out.

 

No wonder you can't understand it when you refuse to learn the basics of it.

"he fails to realize that every scientific theory has flaws in it"

 

The ones that were formulated in accordance with scientific method do not have flaws. The rest are not scientific, they are just theories, driven by ideology, not fact and experiment.

Find one that doesn't have flaws in it...

What you fail to understand is that EVERY SINGLE THEORY HAS FLAWS because we'd need to know EVERY SINGLE DETAIL OF EXISTENCE TO RULE THEM OUT!

 

You don't even understand the simplest concepts of the Scientific Method, shown by your totally fucked up claim...

"It has not occured to txviper that "I don't know" is a suitable and honest position to hold on any given topic"

 

Are you then an atheist or an agnostic?

Dunno about Neil, but the answer in my case is "yes"

"All of the theories about the moon work from clues available to them, much like the varying theories of a crime scene"

 

There are no clues. If you think there are, list them.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Mr. Neil]

Well sortof, but with the emphasis on science. I mean, the moon is right there. We've even been there and know the chem-composition of it. You'd think there would be at least something plausible on the table at this point.

There are, but that's not the point. It's not my worldview that's on trial here. It's not my responsibility to replace your creation myth with hard, scientific theories. I already told you that I don't know enough about moon formation to really engage in an argument here. This, however, does not verify the Bible, which clearly categorizes the moon as A LIGHT.

 

"the creationist tactic is merely to defeat a theory he does not like with the intent of sliding his God hypothesis in its place"

 

Defeat? There isn't even a skirmish. You don't have a decent theory to work with.

I don't have to! That's the entire point! You keep trying to shift into scientific theories about moon formations, as if falsifying any of them is going to make creation true. It's not!

 

Get your head out of your fucking ass. You're doing exactly what I said above, which is that you're trying to put my opinions on trial so that creation can claim victory. That's not how it works, viper.

 

"He thinks that if he attacks my position while smokescreening his"

 

Smokescreen? What smoke? I listed every single label I could be tagged with (except I forgot Futurist). I'm not tentative at all. I don't have to be.

You have no choice but to be tentative. It's how you learn. Everyone learns by trial-and-error reduction. You cannot choose otherwise. That's why your anti-science arguments are hypocritical.

 

I'm not stuck with such imbecilic notions as accidental DNA copy errors being solely responsible for every species that ever existed, but leaving the billion year old ones untouched. Nor do I have to choose between exponentially impossible spontaneous self-creation and outer space origins. You need the smoke of tentativeness.

Oh boy, here viper stumbles into a strawman, because he doesn't understand any of the topics that he's talking about.

 

 

"I'm not stuck with such imbecilic notions as accidental DNA copy errors being solely responsible for every species that ever existed..."

 

Strawman. It's mutations + natural selection. Anything else is a strawman. Yes, there are copy errors, but the "error" is only in the context that the copy is not the same as the original. Mutations happen at every generation, but its those that get selected due to their advantages under environmental pressures that result in evolution. It's not "solely" copy errors.

 

If you're going to argue, then please don't mischaracterize my position.

 

 

" but leaving the billion year old ones untouched."

 

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this.

 

 

"Nor do I have to choose between exponentially impossible spontaneous self-creation and outer space origins."

 

A combination of a strawman and a false dichotomy. No atheist believes in spontaneous self-creation. What we believe is that repeating chemical processes eventually resulted in this weird organic phenomenon called life.

 

Furthermore, the "outerspace origins" (actually, the innerspace of another planet) you speak of, while interesting in its own right, is not in competition with abiogenesis, because life would still have to originate from some sort of organic chemical process, whether it came from another planet or not. So basically, it doesn't matter.

 

Thus, txviper's argumentum ad temper tantrum is an entirely meaningless gaggle of strawman fallacies and incoherencies.

 

"he fails to realize that every scientific theory has flaws in it"

 

The ones that were formulated in accordance with scientific method do not have flaws. The rest are not scientific, they are just theories, driven by ideology, not fact and experiment.

IDIOT!!!!

 

All of science is theory, and all theories have phenomena they can't account for! How stupid are you!? What do you think scientists do if not work exclusively with the theoretical?!

 

By the way, viper, THEORY does not mean GUESS!!!

 

"It has not occured to txviper that "I don't know" is a suitable and honest position to hold on any given topic"

 

Are you then an atheist or an agnostic?

Wow, haven't heard that one before! Viper doesn't know what an atheist is.

 

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god. Period. Furthermore, unlike an agnostic, I don't hold out for the existence of god, because the theist claim is incoherent. This is not to say that there aren't unknown truths. It simply means that a postulation that is internally meaningless is one that does not deserve further consideration.

 

Furthermore, I find the term "agnostic" to be redundant, as we're all agnostic about something. If anyone here is an agnostic, it's you, because you have faith. Faith implies that you don't know.

 

Once again, though, you show us that you have contempt for tentativeness, which is the process by which we learn things.

 

"All of the theories about the moon work from clues available to them, much like the varying theories of a crime scene"

 

There are no clues. If you think there are, list them.

Again, my speciality is not astronomy, thus I don't have to defend anything!

 

If you want to learn something about moon formation theories, why don't you go look some up yourself!?

 

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...=moon+formation

 

What is the resonance about the double impact theory? I know you are not sold on it but you did mention that it was the most appealing.

It's appealing because of all of the computer simulations produced of a large impact hitting Earth, from a glancing blow to a direct impact, the one that worked the best was one in which a large body strikes the Earth, bounces off the surface, and is brought back in for a second strike. It's because it was tested and it works.

 

Now, is there any converging evidence that supports this? I don't know. I have absolutely no idea. I mostly study biology, and I don't spend much time reading about astronomy.

 

Also, there are other theories. One of the first few results in that Google search queue above rules out such theories as the capture theory and the fission theory. There's also the ejected ring theory, which I don't know much about. It doesn't look like a very strong theory to me, but then again, I don't know much about it, so I can't make any arguments against it. It's entirely possible, that upon further reading, that I might find it compelling. I just don't know.

[crazy-tiger]

" but leaving the billion year old ones untouched."

 

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this.

He's talking about some fossilized bacteria that are similar to the same type of bacteria that exists today...

 

Despite the fact that the source he quoted from mentioned that they were not the same, he still insists that they are exactly the same.

 

 

It's yet another example of his use of incorrect facts to bolster his flawed arguments.

 

Or in other words, he's lying to cover his ass...

[Mr. Neil]

Ahh... See, I can't decipher vague references to strawman arguments very well. Thanks.

 

By the way, there's one little nitpick I wanted to make.

 

Yes, the Moon is a source of illumination... but it's not a "light"

Of course, we could very truthfully declare that the Earth is a source of illumination... since light is reflected from it.

Why else do they talk about seeing things on the moon by Earthlight?

So, is the Earth a "light in the firmament"?

 

No, and neither is the Moon...

I would strongly contest any claim that that the moon is a source of illumination, because illuminationation is explicitly defined as self-generated light. The moon does not do this.

 

However, even if we were to accept a strained interpretation in which the moon is counted as a source of light, then we also have to apply the same standard to the Earth, which you've correctly identified. By not doing this; by not referring to other reflective objects as "lights", the Bible would be inconsistant in its use of "light".

 

Of course, the simpler explanation is that the author of the Bible, having lived in an age prior to the enlightenment of scientific discovery, assumed that the moon was a light like the sun, which is easily supported by the text. In fact, txviper has no argument at his disposal falsifying such an interpretation. By default, he must employ circular reasoning, in which the Bible is right, and therefore there must be an alternate interpretation to conform to what is actually known about the moon today.

 

I'm going to use your point about inconsistancies to jump back into my point about equivocation, because I think they go hand-in-hand. As we can see, the Bible is referring to both the sun and the moon as "two great lights". simultaneously. It says "two great lights", but in doing so, it's using a two different contexts in one usage, because the sun illuminates and the moon reflects. It's an equivocation, and it's literally no different than taking a lightbulb and a bike reflector and referring to them as "two lights".

 

This is blatantly misleading, because it's likening it to the sun! There's nothing in the Bible to correctly lead the reader to the realization that the moon is actually a planetoid, like the Earth! This is an error, because it implies that which is false, which is that the moon is a lesser light than the sun, which it is not! You'd think that something God-inspired, like the book of Genesis, would take a verse or two to set the record strait.

[crazy-tiger]

I would strongly contest any claim that that the moon is a source of illumination, because illuminationation is explicitly defined as self-generated light. The moon does not do this.

Illuminationation??

 

I see you suffer from the "double up half a word as you get your point across" typo as well...

 

 

 

But yes, you are right... and a search of the meanings of "illumination" confirm it.

 

illumination

 

n.

1. lighting or light. • (illuminations) lights used in decorating a building or other structure.

2. the action of illuminating.

3. understanding or enlightenment.

It's clear that the Moon isn't #1, very clear that #2 is describing a verb, and #3 would make less than no sense in the verse...

 

Poor txviper has come up with an explaination that creates more problems than it solves... are we sure he's not Jason?

It's an equivocation, and it's literally no different than taking a lightbulb and a bike reflector and referring to them as "two lights".

Exactly... but he'll never admit it.

 

Ahh... See, I can't decipher vague references to strawman arguments very well. Thanks.

Well, I wouldn't have remembered it myself if I hadn't spent the time REFUTING THE DAMN THING less than a week ago after txviper THREW IT AT ME AND GOT SOUNDLY SPANKED FOR IT!

 

You think he'd remember when HE GET'S HIS REAR END MINCED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, but I see he's doing an Invictus and COMING BACK A FEW DAYS LATER AND REPEATING THE SAME OLD BOLLOCKS!

 

 

 

 

Speaking of which, there's been a distinct lack of TJR recently... do you think we made his brain meltdown?

[Mr. Neil]

The definition of the word "luminous" (the root of "illumination") is even more damning. And as luck would have it, that's precisely the word used in viper's reference. He's betrayed by his own source.

 

He literally has no alternative now but to argue against logic, which he'll do without hesitation.

 

Speaking of which, there's been a distinct lack of TJR recently... do you think we made his brain meltdown?

He's a funny guy. I kinda miss him. I miss playing forum tag with him. If I happened to show up at the forum at the same time he did, he would scram. Then he'd return maybe fifteen minutes later, after he thought I was gone, and he'd disappear again.

 

Basically, he wouldn't post unless I was down for the night, because apparently he feels that the longer his nonsense goes unanswered, the longer it has merit. Gotta feel sorry for the people who live for those two or three hours that their bullshit is not getting torn to ribbons.

[Amethyst]

He literally has no alternative now but to argue against logic, which he'll do without hesitation.

 

Or possibly admit that his argument is based on feelings and not logic, which it is.

[Flyby Stardancer]

Now, is there any converging evidence that supports this? I don't know. I have absolutely no idea. I mostly study biology, and I don't spend much time reading about astronomy.

 

I remember seeing a program on double-impact theory, and I remember it mentioning samples from the moon having similar composition to samples from the Earth's core.

 

Then again, it's been a while since I've seen it and I'm saying this totally based on memory.

[txviper]

Mr. Neil,

 

“Yes, there are copy errors, but the "error" is only in the context that the copy is not the same as the original”

 

This is wrong. The errors that slip by, about one in one billion during replication, are the ones which escape astonishing enzyme proof-reading and correction functions.

 

 

“Mutations happen at every generation, but its those that get selected due to their advantages under environmental pressures that result in evolution”

 

Oh yeah. Mutations and advantages, the most obvious thing in nature. Second only to mutations and disease.

 

 

“It's not "solely" copy errors”

 

Yes, it is solely copy errors. You can forget about selection and environmental pressure unless you have a mutation to select. And keep in mind that your clergy are currently claiming that mutations and selection combined to “diverge” whales from a common ancestor they share with hippos. What faith. You should compose hymns about this.

 

 

“No atheist believes in spontaneous self-creation. What we believe is that repeating chemical processes eventually resulted in this weird organic phenomenon called life.”

 

I can’t believe you actually posted this.

 

 

“THEORY does not mean GUESS!!!”

 

But…..never mind.

 

 

“tentativeness, which is the process by which we learn things.”

 

You betcha. Research, observation, experiment and tentativeness.

 

 

“a large impact hitting Earth, from a glancing blow to a direct impact, the one that worked the best was one in which a large body strikes the Earth, bounces off the surface, and is brought back in for a second strike. It's because it was tested and it works.”

 

A cosmic “boing!” roared through the solar system. The crowds were standing in their seats screaming for more. Large body halted, wheeled around, pushed the roadies out of his way and headed back towards the crater……..”I’ve got a moon to make!!!”

 

 

“Now, is there any converging evidence that supports this? I don't know. I have absolutely no idea.”

 

Is this applied tentativeness? I was wondering what it would look like.

 

 

"1. Photosynthetic cyanobacteria evolved very early in the history of life and left unique fossilized communities as stromatolites.

2. Modern-day cyanobacteria of this type, less common because of predation, are virtually indistinguishable from the early forms."

 

http://www2.kpbsd.k12.ak.us/SOHI/rife/AP%2...'00%20-.DOC

 

 

“a strained interpretation in which the moon is counted as a source of light”

 

Like I tried to explain, the Hebrew word is about perceivable illumination or brightness. It is not a technical term. This very same word is used in a different context elsewhere in the Bible. Proverbs 15:30 “The light of the eyes rejoices the heart…”

 

I’ve been in many discussions and debates over things in the Bible, but I have never seen anyone get hung up on something as sappy as this.

 

===================

 

 

Flyby,

 

“I remember seeing a program on double-impact theory, and I remember it mentioning samples from the moon having similar composition to samples from the Earth's core”

 

If you heard that, it was totally wrong.

 

The composition of the earth’s core is unknown. Everything you’ve heard about it is speculation.

 

No iron at all has been found in any moon rocks. Earth’s crust is about 5% iron in some form or another.

 

The moon’s diameter is about one-fourth that of the earth. There is no possible way any kind of impact could remove the material required to form the moon and leave no trace that this occurred.

 

The chances that the moon was once part of the earth are nil.

[Flyby Stardancer]

Mr. Neil,

 

“Yes, there are copy errors, but the "error" is only in the context that the copy is not the same as the original”

 

This is wrong. The errors that slip by, about one in one billion during replication, are the ones which escape astonishing enzyme proof-reading and correction functions.

 

...And here you totally missed Mr. Neil's POINT.

 

“Mutations happen at every generation, but its those that get selected due to their advantages under environmental pressures that result in evolution”

 

Oh yeah. Mutations and advantages, the most obvious thing in nature. Second only to mutations and disease.

 

 

“It's not "solely" copy errors”

 

Yes, it is solely copy errors. You can forget about selection and environmental pressure unless you have a mutation to select. And keep in mind that your clergy are currently claiming that mutations and selection combined to “diverge” whales from a common ancestor they share with hippos. What faith. You should compose hymns about this.

 

Have you not read anything that people have posted? I'll explain it again for you. Mutations are either advantageous or non-advantageous depending on their context. Example: human skin color.

 

Light skin better absorbs sunlight and aids in the formation of vitamin D in the skin. This is a good thing. However, if exposed to too much sun, light skin is prone to damage faster.

 

Dark skin is less able to absorb sunlight and form vitamin D. However, it is also less prone to sun damage.

 

Take two people and place them in a hot, arrid sun-filled evironment. Like, oh, the African plains. The person with light skin would get sunburned very quickly and the damage would lead to an earlier death. The darker skinned person would be able to tolerate the sun better, and thus live longer and healthier. Obviously in this environment the darker skin is advantageous over the lighter skin. Thus natural selection would favor the darker skin in this environment.

 

Now let's take two more people with the same skin colors and place them in a much cooler spot that recieves less sun. An example of this would be somewhere in Europe, like France. The sunlight is much weaker in this area. The lighter skinned person would have an easier time absorbing what light there is than the darker skinned person. As such, the lighter skinned person would form more vitamin D and be healthier. The sun here is weak enough that skin damage from sunlight isn't nearly as big a problem. So, in this environment the lighter skin is healthier, and is favored by natural selection.

 

In a complete vaccuum, neither skin color has an advantage over the other. Thus, it is the environment, aka the context that decides which of the two versions of skin color are advantageous to have.

 

“No atheist believes in spontaneous self-creation. What we believe is that repeating chemical processes eventually resulted in this weird organic phenomenon called life.”

 

I can’t believe you actually posted this.

 

I can't believe you believe that we think that they spontaneously came together in a flash of lightning.

 

“THEORY does not mean GUESS!!!”

 

But…..never mind.

 

But what? Mr. Neil is completely right. In science theory =/= quess. Maybe it does in colloquial english that you hear on the street, but not in science.

 

“tentativeness, which is the process by which we learn things.”

 

You betcha. Research, observation, experiment and tentativeness.

 

I realize you are being sarcastic here, but that is exactly how science works. And no, it is not a weakness. It means we have our minds open to the possibility that we could be, you know, wrong about something. However, you do not have this flexibility and that means your measely world view is more likely to shatter.

 

“a large impact hitting Earth, from a glancing blow to a direct impact, the one that worked the best was one in which a large body strikes the Earth, bounces off the surface, and is brought back in for a second strike. It's because it was tested and it works.”

 

A cosmic “boing!” roared through the solar system. The crowds were standing in their seats screaming for more. Large body halted, wheeled around, pushed the roadies out of his way and headed back towards the crater……..”I’ve got a moon to make!!!”

 

How old are you again? You're acting like a slaggin' child.

 

“Now, is there any converging evidence that supports this? I don't know. I have absolutely no idea.”

 

Is this applied tentativeness? I was wondering what it would look like.

 

 

"1. Photosynthetic cyanobacteria evolved very early in the history of life and left unique fossilized communities as stromatolites.

2. Modern-day cyanobacteria of this type, less common because of predation, are virtually indistinguishable from the early forms."

 

http://www2.kpbsd.k12.ak.us/SOHI/rife/AP%2...'00%20-.DOC

 

Nearly indisinguishable yes, but 1, not completely, and 2, we only have fossiles of ancient cyanobacteria, so there may have been some small changes that we don't know about.

 

Flyby,

 

“I remember seeing a program on double-impact theory, and I remember it mentioning samples from the moon having similar composition to samples from the Earth's core”

 

If you heard that, it was totally wrong.

 

The composition of the earth’s core is unknown. Everything you’ve heard about it is speculation.

 

No iron at all has been found in any moon rocks. Earth’s crust is about 5% iron in some form or another.

 

The moon’s diameter is about one-fourth that of the earth. There is no possible way any kind of impact could remove the material required to form the moon and leave no trace that this occurred.

 

The chances that the moon was once part of the earth are nil.

 

1-I was not speaking to you.

 

2-I openly admitted I was working off of memory, and that I hadn't seen the program in quite some time.

 

3-Ever heard of plate tectonics? The earth's crust is constantly being recycled. Ever heard of any of the times where all the earth's continents were one single landmass before Pangeae? There were quite a few... My dino prof last year mentioned the one directly before Pangeae, but I can't remember the name off the top of my head... And we have very little physical evidence left of that time, because the earth's crust is continually recycled. Thus, older rocks and crust are melted down to create new crust, and erases whatever evidence of impacts and such that were present in that part of crust. It's why earth isn't as filled with craters as the moon, even though we've been hit before. It's also why there's no huge gaping hole to go "THERE WAS A MOON-CREATING IMPACT HERE!"

 

Please, learn how to make yourself not look like a complete moron.

[Mr. Neil]

Viper, I don't know how you could possibly be so stupid. I mean, you just keep saying shit that is totally wrong.

 

“Yes, there are copy errors, but the "error" is only in the context that the copy is not the same as the original”

 

This is wrong. The errors that slip by, about one in one billion during replication, are the ones which escape astonishing enzyme proof-reading and correction functions.

 

 

“Mutations happen at every generation, but its those that get selected due to their advantages under environmental pressures that result in evolution”

 

Oh yeah. Mutations and advantages, the most obvious thing in nature. Second only to mutations and disease.

You know, you're not even trying anymore. You're just proving how much of a jackass you are. You just said, "This is wrong", yet you didn't even explain what you meant. I don't think you even understood my point.

 

I was making a point that the term "error" is misleading, because calling it an error gives one the impression that the new copy is going to be problematic. Case in point, you make a snide remark about disease. However, the only "error" is that the copy is not the same as the original. Whether or not the mutation is bad depends entirely on the context of the environment.

 

“It's not "solely" copy errors”

 

Yes, it is solely copy errors. You can forget about selection and environmental pressure unless you have a mutation to select. And keep in mind that your clergy are currently claiming that mutations and selection combined to “diverge” whales from a common ancestor they share with hippos. What faith. You should compose hymns about this.

Again, you're a fucking moron, as this resonse hardly constitutes as an actual rebuttal.

 

First you start out the outragiously ignorant statement, "Yes, it is solely copy errors. You can forget about selection and environmental pressure unless you have a mutation to select." But in order to have evolution at all, you need environmental pressure, thus it is not solely copy errors! You seem to be missing this point. You have to have both!

 

Listen!!! Without environmental pressure, then mutations are meaningless!! You need to factor in the environment to give the mutation a context in which to be positive or negative! Otherwise, you're just engaging a strawman if you keep trying to assert that evolution is driven by mutation alone, because it's certainly not!

 

“No atheist believes in spontaneous self-creation. What we believe is that repeating chemical processes eventually resulted in this weird organic phenomenon called life.”

 

I can’t believe you actually posted this.

 

 

“THEORY does not mean GUESS!!!”

 

But…..never mind.

What?! You got something to say, idiot? You can't believe I corrected your stupid fucking strawman argument?! Is that it!?

 

Theories are not held dogmatically. They're held tentatively, and they're based on the best interpretation of the evidence. Thus, you are not guessing when you make a theory.

 

“a large impact hitting Earth, from a glancing blow to a direct impact, the one that worked the best was one in which a large body strikes the Earth, bounces off the surface, and is brought back in for a second strike. It's because it was tested and it works.”

 

A cosmic “boing!” roared through the solar system. The crowds were standing in their seats screaming for more. Large body halted, wheeled around, pushed the roadies out of his way and headed back towards the crater……..”I’ve got a moon to make!!!”

I'm not hearing an argument here. I'm hearing an infant throwing a temper trantrum.

 

 

Your contemptuous mockery reveals to us your astonishing ignorance of the theory of relativity. The object didn't "stop". By the time it had hit the first time, it was already captured in Earth's gravitational field. Like I said, it's believed to have been a glacing blow. You know what a glancing blow is, don't you? It means that it actually sort of sideswiped the Earth as it was passing. This was enough to cut its velocity and alow gravity to bring it back in for a second smash, which then produced enough debris around the planet to create the moon.

 

You know, we like to say this jokingly here at Ex-C, but here we have a case where it appears as though a Christian does not believe in gravity!

 

Besides, I should remind you that even if you had a point, attacking this particular theory of science would not bring your creation myth any closer to reality.

 

“Now, is there any converging evidence that supports this? I don't know. I have absolutely no idea.”

 

Is this applied tentativeness? I was wondering what it would look like.

It would be tentative even if I fully accepted the theory. Tentative only means that I accept a proposition with the understanding that it may be wrong. All theories in science adhere to this principle.

 

"1. Photosynthetic cyanobacteria evolved very early in the history of life and left unique fossilized communities as stromatolites.

2. Modern-day cyanobacteria of this type, less common because of predation, are virtually indistinguishable from the early forms."

 

http://www2.kpbsd.k12.ak.us/SOHI/rife/AP%2...'00%20-.DOC

But their not the same. CT already destroyed this argument, and yet you're trying to desperately to revive it.

 

“a strained interpretation in which the moon is counted as a source of light”[/i]

 

Like I tried to explain, the Hebrew word is about perceivable illumination or brightness. It is not a technical term. This very same word is used in a different context elsewhere in the Bible. Proverbs 15:30 “The light of the eyes rejoices the heart…”

But where are you getting that from? If it was perceivable illumination, then why doesn't your source say that? The point of having linguistic translations is to bring it into a context that is understandable in 21 Century English! And the source that you provided is clearly indicating that this word for the moon's "light" explicitly means "luminous", and it specifies the emission of light. If it was possible to squeeze "perceivable illumination" out of this Hebrew word for light, then certainly your resource would have said so.

 

Even the reference in Proverbs that you just supplied doesn't support your re-interpretation. Rather, it supports the original reference that you provided, which defines light as something luminous, whether literally or figuratively. The light of someone's eye is a figurative usage of illumination, because the eye is emiting an emotion.

 

So again, your strained interpretations don't work, and your newly spun "perceivable illumination" isn't supported anywhere.

 

I’ve been in many discussions and debates over things in the Bible, but I have never seen anyone get hung up on something as sappy as this.

This is an evasion. Besides, you still haven't been able to deal with my point about equivocation. If your "perceivable illumination" translation is to fly, then try applying it to the phrase "two great lights". It's referring to both the sun and the moon simultaneously here. So which context is that usage of "light" in, Viper? HMMM?! Is it literal illumination or perceived illumination?

 

Of course, you can't say one or the other, because then the Bible would be saying something explicitly incorrect about one of the two, however if you say that it's contextually valid both ways, then you are admitting that the Bible equivocates on this word.

 

Either way, you lose. This is an unwinnable case, Viper.

 

Of course, the simple interpretation, the one that actually adheres to the resource provided by txviper himself and best explains the simultaneous reference to the sun and the moon as "great lights", is that the Genesis author literally thought that the moon was a light. Viper has absolutely no argument with which to discount this interpretation, but he'll deny it anyway. Why? Because he knows that the moon is not a light.

 

Like a typical apologist, he's not interested in the most likely translation of the text. He's committed to inerrancy first, and thus he has no choice but to appeal to circular logic.

[Amethyst]

It sounds to me like Viper is just desperate to keep his completely literal translation of the Bible. Fundamentalism is a house of cards -- take out the base and the top ones have got nothing to stand on. That is why most Christians are moderate these days. It's the only way the belief can survive in the 21st century. Literal inerrancy was disproven long ago.

[Mr. Neil]

You know what? I tire of this.

 

I'm going to show txviper once and for all that no matter how he interprets the word "light", his inerrancy doctrine is fucked up the ass.

 

You can't win, Viper. But there are alternatives to fighting.