• "Try God" billboard vandalized
    184 replies, posted
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42013476]There were enormously more accurate than the ones that were prevalent during the time they were written.[/QUOTE] Hardly when you compare them to other theological systems and we have secular ideas from similar time periods that make more accurate predictions. Saying the stars are what they are isn't as impressive as say hypothesizing the circumference and curvature of the earth using primitive tools. You obviously haven't been comprehending my posts given the fact that you're ignoring the whole bit about explaining other data sets and such. An idea's age isn't a good indicator of its accuracy or value. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42013476] Are you implying that there's a logical solution to the infinite regress? Also I never said naturalism is the same as evidentialism, in fact I've said exactly the opposite.[/QUOTE] There are several proposed solutions to the problem of infinite regress in evidentialism. A quick wiki search provides you with several philosophical systems that provide potential solutions. I personally have no interest in either evidentialism or naturalism. I'm not sure why you're even attempting to classify people as such, or how it is even relevant to the discussion. It just looks like a talking point for you. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42013476] In retrospect you didn't imply that your world view is science, instead you're claiming that Christianity somehow would keep you from doing scientific research properly if you ascribed to it(which frankly makes no sense).[/QUOTE] I didn't imply anything of the sort. I simply said there exist plausible explanations for abiogenesis. I've also stated that the data concerning the origins of life is a little sparse. I've also stated that I refuse to make a claim either way concerning whether such abiotic synthesis pathways are soley responsible for the origins of life, or whether the divine is responsible, or whether it is some sort of combination of the two. I refuse to make an unsubstantiated answer on the matter until sufficient data has been collected. How you got christianity prevents people from doing science out of that I have no idea. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42013476] It isn't the Catholic Church that I'm citing, I'm instead referring to the multitudes of devoted biblical scholars that have repeatedly, over a period of nearly 2000 year, come to the conclusion that Christianity is centered around the Christ's death and resurrection. The earlier ones were Catholics, but the Catholic Church was the only one back then. I'm not even Catholic, but the importance of the historical Church is not to be ignored when it comes to biblical doctrine. There are different Christian Groups that do fit under Christianity; Catholicism, Lutheranism, Russian Orthodox, Roman Orthodox, Evangelical, or Coptic Christianity. While I disagree with many of the claims of some of these denominations, they all hold the Christ , the Resurrection and God's gift of Grace at their core, thus putting them in accordance with what is Christianity. As for the different cults that claim to be Christian, the heresies that they push were proven to not be in accordance with scripture long ago.[/QUOTE] You're still missing out on the whole cultural element of religious identity. You can't simply dismiss someone's identity on the basis of belief. No one can essentially. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42013476] when it comes to the creation accounts, the apocalyptic accounts, or anything similar you cannot get dogmatic about specifically because there is no exact doctrine implied. In terms of the gospel message, the nature of God and the Christ or divine law though, you'll find the scriptures are not nearly so vague in what they say. The scholars of the historical Church were able to find exactly what was taught in these core scriptures, there's really no way of interpreting outside of what they found without contradicting another pert of scripture.[/QUOTE] I'm not going to argue biblical scripture with you, or any world religion for that matter. Almost every idea in christianity has been disagreed on at some point in history by a significant population. Attempting to marginalize people with different ideas and cultures and describing them as heretical is a dick thing to do. No one gets to dictate what religious identity someone else can take. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42013476] I dismissed it because all research into it is far from conclusive, it doesn't really contribute anything to your point, it simply allows for a hypothetical.[/QUOTE] Remember that bit about holding people's claims to the same level of scrutiny as your own? This falls under that category. I'm sorry you probably don't understand chemical and scientific terminology or processes, but your ignorance on the matter does not dismiss you from making fallacious claims. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42013476] My statements on the Mill-Urey experiment are taken from science articles published by reliable sources, the very article you claimed I misinterpreted clearly stated that modern geoscientists tend to doubt the experiments simulated atmosphere.[/QUOTE] Except you're completely misrepresenting the academic essay(I say essay because that's exactly what it is and claims to be. There's a significant difference between academic essays and academic articles.) you linked to. From the conclusion of your essay: [QUOTE]However, there is evidence that amino acids and other biochemical monomers found in meteorites were synthesized in parent bodies by reactions similar to those in the Miller experiment. Localized reducing environments may have existed on primitive Earth, especially near volcanic plumes, where electric discharges (10) may have driven prebiotic synthesis.[/QUOTE] This basically states that the conditions of the Miller-Urey experiment were plausible on earth in localized conditions. Like around volcanic vents. Which just happen to be one of the most significant areas of research in this field. Also, I am for sure certain you aren't familiar at all with this field simply because you're neglecting to mention a more recent article published in 2007 by the very author that wrote this essay: [url]http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11084-007-9120-3[/url] Let me know if you can't get past the paywall. I might be able to help you there if you actually want to read. You'll find in that article that Prof. Bada corrected for these discrepancies in this study and managed to get significant yields of a larger number of biologically significant chemical species. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42013476] It isn't significant to me because it doesn't really challenge my beliefs on the origin of life at all, it just means that we can create life in a lab through intelligent and purposeful actions.[/QUOTE] Except that's exactly not what these articles are demonstrating. They're simulating potential natural abiotic environments that lead to energetically favorable conditions for the synthesis of complex biologically active molecules. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42013476] I have seen no arguments against the deep issues in evidentialism, all people have done in regards to my posts on the subject is repeatedly mistake them to imply that I'm an evidentialist, which I have repeatedly refuted. As for naturalism, I have made no direct arguments against, I've only defended my own position and explained why Occam's razor does not work when comparing Christianity to naturalism.[/QUOTE] I don't care if you're an evidentialist or a nihilist, or something else entirely. You are making qualitative and quantitative claims and judgments without a consistent methodology in a rhetorical/debate environment you created, and holding others to extremely arbitrary standards. You're also making comments on scientific systems, methods, and terms you've displayed an obvious ignorance of. It just so happens that some of these things happen to be closely related to my field of study, and you're telling me that you've got some little nugget of information that I don't and have come to a radically different conclusion than I have. You are simultaneously calling almost everyone in this thread a hypocrite or fallacious while exempting yourself from such criticisms, especially on matters you've displayed little mastery of. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42013476] If you're asking me to be perfectly objective, I can assure you that I nor anyone else is perfectly objective. I've only brought up the issue of world view validating people's arguments when said arguments have been used against my own. I have yet to see an argument for naturalism that is just taking natural events observations and claiming that those validate naturalism.[/QUOTE] Before I can even ask you to be perfectly objective, you've got to display some basic humility. You continue to dictate what is and is not in a variety of settings and subjects, and limiting things to your narrow, specific scope of vision while making general claims. This makes it nearly impossible to discuss nearly anything, especially on a philosophical or rhetorical level, especially with your use and abuse of nonstandard definitions and what looks like deliberate withholding of information and evidence that contradict your claims.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;42014334] I don't care if you're an evidentialist or a nihilist, or something else entirely. You are making qualitative and quantitative claims and judgments without a consistent methodology in a rhetorical/debate environment you created, and holding others to extremely arbitrary standards. You're also making comments on scientific systems, methods, and terms you've displayed an obvious ignorance of. It just so happens that some of these things happen to be closely related to my field of study, and you're telling me that you've got some little nugget of information that I don't and have come to a radically different conclusion than I have. [/QUOTE] Hit the nail on the head with a sledgehammer wielded by a 1920's strongman in a leotard
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.