[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/12/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/12/96 [01:10] Bea

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/12/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/12/96 [01:10] Bear (goau@bryn1-cs-1.dial.bright.net) joined #Apologetics. [01:10] hey bear [01:11] hello what's this all about [01:11] phileo (phileo@os-ppp14.datasync.com) joined #apologetics. [01:11] bear well its like so [01:11] apologetics is the defense of the Christian Religion using Evidence and Reason [01:12] Amen [01:12] hey phileo [01:12] oh well this isn't my place then [01:12] hello acolyte [01:12] bear why? [01:13] hello batteries [01:13] well i was just looking around i'm pretty new to this ... and i am an athiest [01:13] It takes more faith to be an athiest [01:14] why don't you believe in God Bear? [01:14] amen paul [01:14] paul. i have my beliefs and you have yours [01:14] phileo. it's just my way [01:14] What are your beliefs? [01:15] faith in the wrong things that is [01:15] paul. myself [01:15] Your a god unto youself? [01:15] athiest might not really be the best word for me . [01:15] I'm not down on you for your beliefs Bear... we have all not believed before [01:16] jako (yoyo@204.50.229.75) joined #apologetics. [01:16] paul. no i just believe in myself [01:16] But do you provide the air that you breath> [01:16] Did you set the sun in the heavens [01:16] We are dependent on all that God has provided us [01:16] phileo. i didn't think you were [01:17] phileo. that's what you believe [01:17] I agree, that's what I believe [01:17] But only one belief can be true [01:17] well this is where you should be [01:17] phileo. for you [01:18] Either there is a God or there isn't [01:18] yep... [01:18] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@irv-ca13-21.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [01:18] phileo. meaning what [01:18] Aco...have you seen Bons picture? [01:18] ex nihilo existence is highly improbable occurence [01:18] cassidy no why? [01:18] Mode change '+o Cassidy_ ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [01:18] The nature of truth is that it cannot be a contradition [01:18] Either something is or is not TRUE [01:18] i think thats the proper term [01:18] Cassidy relic says hullo [01:18] Bear so you are a relativist [01:18] Aco...she had me goin for two hours last niite with all these disclaimers about her pic on her web-sight.......she is beautiful (if that's truly her). [01:18] hello relic (I dont know him) [01:18] Cassidy_ Relic=Nad [01:18] hullo jako [01:18] OH!!! :-) [01:18] relic! did you name her that? [01:18] phileo. true [01:18] Well, Bear... either what we believe is true, or it is not! [01:19] phileo. I didn't say it wasn't true for you it's just not true for me [01:19] vistor: scroll up i did [01:19] oops [01:20] How is truth possible bear? [01:20] Or there are many gods [01:20] hello Ac [01:20] Cassidy found a fiesty ACC guy on irc last night [01:20] Aco...who? [01:20] i don't want you guys to thnk i came here to stir up trouble... I was just looking around [01:20] cassidy ace-62 [01:20] where does he go? [01:20] Well, we don't exactly get to pick and choose what is true and what isn't [01:20] cassidy parish in the midwest [01:20] hmmmm...did he know his stuff? [01:20] cassiy yeah [01:20] cassidy real kick-butt kinda attitude [01:20] Phileo true [01:20] heh [01:20] really. [01:21] paul. it depends on who you are [01:21] <^aa^> BBL [01:21] There is absolute truth [01:21] bear...perhaps what you believe is false for you, true? [01:21] major lag tonight [01:21] ^aa^ (tm125@dialup02.geko.net.au) left #Apologetics. [01:21] bear thats kewl [01:21] We are hear to discuss and debate such things for the growth of the Church [01:21] bear we can tell ;) [01:21] not on my server... [01:21] Action: Acolyte notes that Reality is not a Democracy [01:21] amen Paul [01:21] Action: Acolyte notes the non-democratic properties of Gravity [01:21] OUCH!! that hurt! [01:21] heheh [01:21] paul here here! [01:22] paul: and here [01:22] cassidy. you might believe so but i don't. just like what you believe may be false for you [01:22] I am so luck to be alive [01:22] lucky, if you believe in such things, (and I dont) [01:23] Dizi (cysmic@cysmic.u-net.com) left #Apologetics. [01:23] Can you prove it bear? [01:23] Xristian (Micah@ppp137.ihug.co.nz) left #apologetics. [01:23] can you disprove it [01:23] Im not the one making the claim you are [01:23] is 1 = 1 right or wrong? [01:23] Paul very good [01:23] If you cant agree that the Truth is absolute and not relative, theres not much point in going further. [01:23] actually cassidy first made the claim [01:23] Action: Acolyte pins a medal on Paul [01:23] bear...tell me...can everything that posesses a truth value be true for one person and false for another? [01:23] Why LOn? [01:23] Merrin (exxcella@aladdin.bc.ca) joined #Apologetics. [01:24] I agree amigo [01:24] hello [01:24] it might [01:24] hullo merrin [01:24] bear it might? [01:24] bear and aliens MIGHt love grilled cheese sandwiches too, SO? [01:24] bear...what claim? Im willing to defend it. [01:24] but if you say that the truth is relative and not absolute, there is absolutely no basis for science, math, philosophy or logic [01:24] kinda shoot yourself in the foot [01:24] yes... the people that followed jim jones thought that was true [01:25] phileao kinda? [01:25] bear but was it true? [01:25] even in math you have to agree on founding principles before you can go on [01:25] for them it was to the rest of the people no it was not [01:25] Gotta hole in my foot to prove it [01:25] bear is it true that the people that folloed Jim jones though it was true? [01:25] (by the way, that was not true, the hole part) [01:25] phileo hehhe [01:25] it must be or they would still be alive [01:26] bea oh no it is only true for you. [01:26] what [01:26] jako (yoyo@204.50.229.75) left irc: Ping timeout for jako[204.50.229.75] [01:26] Merrin (exxcella@aladdin.bc.ca) left #Apologetics. [01:26] take care folks, i gotta go [01:26] se ya amigo [01:26] see ya [01:26] Lon_Amigo (Mike@ppp-2.ts-5.la.idt.net) left #apologetics. [01:27] philoe not bad [01:27] If I say that the answer on question 1 of my midterm is true, and my professor says it is false, I am wrong [01:27] Because it cannot be both [01:28] it must be one or the other [01:28] yes i understand that [01:28] there is no such thing as something being something it is not [01:28] but some things can be true for some people but not true for others [01:29] the word you are using for true is not the true meaning of the word. [01:29] perhaps a word other than true would be better [01:29] oh yes there is.... for me pizza could be the best food in the world for me and that would be true... but it might be false for you or someone else [01:29] bear...thats obvious...like if I have an alergy to grass and you dont, its true I will geet a rash and its false you will get a rash. Like that? [01:29] not gravity [01:29] not mathematics [01:29] not breathing [01:29] cassidy. exactly [01:30] judith oh sure it is ;) [01:30] judith...right! [01:30] flant (blairej@143.207.68.54) joined #apologetics. [01:30] not many many many many things [01:30] That is not a statment of preference having nothing to do with the nature of pizza [01:30] judith try if I cover your mouth/nose if Ithink you are breathing, sure you are ;) [01:30] hey flant [01:30] which I believe to be quite tasty [01:31] if i think it's ok to go bash babies agasint trees is it ok for me to do? [01:31] i agree that somethings there is definately a line of true and false [01:31] well, bear...I dont think anyone here will disagree with that!!! Thats obvious...but the other examples I've seen given will leead you into absurdity if you deny there universal truth!!! [01:31] were do you draw the line? [01:31] Judith!!! :-) [01:31] bear, now there ARE absolutes? [01:32] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip07.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [01:32] what's ok for me is not ok really? [01:32] And that is what we are talking about... Either there is a Supernatural God who created everything or there is not! [01:32] both cannot be true! [01:32] Good point Judith [01:32] judith. not for me or anyone else with morals. can you guys slow down a little : ) [01:32] hey poascoe [01:32] hello Acolyte. 8) [01:32] no matter how much I believe something, that doesn't make it true if it is not [01:32] phileo: right. [01:32] but it's ok for someone without morals to do? [01:33] pascoe just wanted to let you know that I have not had a chyance to look that ref up ye cause 1. I am still at my old place, and all my bks are at my new place. and 2 I have not finished moving [01:33] and then if it's ok for them, there should be no punishment if they do it/ [01:33] pascoe but give me a day or two and I will lokk ok? [01:33] Acolyte: understood. just let me know. 8) [01:35] bear...if you really look at the subject, you must concede. You cant even set out such a position without violating it! think about it. "there are no absolutes" see? [01:35] jako (yoyo@204.50.229.75) joined #apologetics. [01:35] no i think that it's wrong for anyone to do [01:35] Aco: I'm on the chanel arent I? hehehe [01:35] phileo. if someone wants to disbelieve in god and they are happy what;s the big deal [01:36] miche (mspring@206.21.85.39) joined #apologetics. [01:36] yeah but you ain't doin' nothin'!!!!!!!!!! [01:36] it's not ok [01:36] achimoth :P~ [01:36] sorry, we got a revolt on #bible.. heh [01:36] Milhous (hlm3mr@199.218.197.248) joined #apologetics. [01:36] achimoth all the more reason to be here [01:36] Action: pascoe concurs with Achimoth. [01:36] >:> [01:36] judith. was it all right for christians to slaughter innocent american indians because they would not give up thier religious beliefs [01:36] bear why is it wrong? [01:36] ANybody can calim to be christain [01:36] hey miche [01:36] whats up? [01:36] hullo milhous [01:36] Bear - If someone wants to raft down Niagra falls, and they are happy with it , what's the big deal? [01:36] ^aa^ (tm125@dialup02.geko.net.au) joined #Apologetics. [01:36] I still don't understand the necessity of this 'God' person [01:36] no bear, it wasn't [01:36] God allows men to disbelieve, but we believe there are eternal consequences and don't wish that anyone would see hell [01:36] bear what are you talking about? [01:36] and it was not ok for the indians to slaughter entire settler villages either [01:36] should there have been a pusnishment for that [01:37] Milhous real simple, No God=No Ethics [01:37] bear there was [01:37] Milhous make sense? [01:37] Acolyte: Hi, just hangin out. :) [01:37] cassidy. what subject [01:37] Paul very true [01:38] hmmm lag [01:38] brb [01:38] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left irc: Read error to Acolyte[delta1.deltanet.com]: EOF from client [01:38] Milhous (hlm3mr@199.218.197.248) left irc: Read error to Milhous[199.218.197.248]: Connection reset by peer [01:38] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip07.csrv.uidaho.edu) left #apologetics. [01:38] Milhous (hlm3mr@199.218.197.248) joined #apologetics. [01:39] Judith_ (Sandra@dial113.skypoint.net) left #apologetics. [01:39] Aco (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [01:39] Nick change: Aco -> Acolyte [01:39] hmmm [01:40] Awful quiet all of a sudden [01:40] re's Acolyte [01:40] WHY DO PEOPLE INSISt THERE IS A GOD? [01:40] judith. i agree with that so what are you saying that was revenge. isn't that a sin besides what would you do if someone moved into your house and started eating up all your food [01:40] lag [01:40] Milhouse No God=NO Ethics [01:40] Milhouse No God=NO Ethics [01:40] Milhous - why do people insist there ISN'T one? [01:40] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [01:40] People don't insist, God insist's [01:40] There is a God because nature Points to a God [01:40] server normon.ok.us.undernet.org [01:41] ack [01:41] I didn't want to insist there was a God before I got saved, only after [01:41] Without God, anything is permitted. [01:41] he uses me to insist such things [01:41] Kinda rude of people to tell God he doesn't exist. [01:42] . [01:42] Ethics, shmethics. [01:42] well i'm gonna go it was nice talking to you... and i'm sorry i didn't get to answer all of the questions but they were coming pretty fast. : ) [01:42] milhouse tell that to the Jews, 6 million of jthem [01:42] Altruistic instinct. [01:42] Evolution. [01:42] milhous ever see Schinlder's List? [01:42] What about evolution? [01:42] Acolyte: your point? [01:42] Milhouse NAturalism=Ethical Nihilism [01:43] Bear (goau@bryn1-cs-1.dial.bright.net) left #Apologetics. [01:43] miche (mspring@206.21.85.39) left #apologetics. [01:43] Milhouse - Aint no such thing as altruistic instinct [01:43] Milhouse Evoltution does not tell you what you OUGHT to do, it only describes what you do do [01:43] And evolution is blind and amoral. [01:43] Acolyte: Ethical Nihilism=Extinction. [01:43] Lack of ethics is maladaptive. [01:43] Evolution is on the down fall [01:43] Not necessarily. [01:43] Milous how do you know? [01:44] milhous what are ethics in naturalism other than chemicals? [01:44] Do any animals steal from their own kind, as a whole? [01:44] Paul naturalism is, not evolution [01:44] milhous some do [01:44] Milhous - YES [01:44] milhous even if they did, it would only be a description of a state of nature, not what one should do [01:44] Ever watch two dogs? [01:45] Just because it refers to a God doesnt mean it can't be true: 'A house divided can not stand' [01:45] milhous some animals eat their own young [01:45] Milhous what do you mean? [01:45] karen-2: Ever see a mother dog and her pups? [01:45] Milhous in naturalism all you have are chemical states, not obligation [01:45] Evolution is emped in naturalism [01:45] Milhous - I babysat my daughter's dogs last week. Pal kept stealing all the rawhide bones and sitting on them. [01:45] acolyte: Their own young? Like what, for instance? [01:45] milhouse yeah, my dog ate 2 of her pups, SO? [01:45] milhouse dogs and cats [01:46] milhouse very well documented [01:46] they do it at times [01:46] Hm. [01:46] Jerash (tknterry@pool037.Max5.Chicago.IL.DYNIP.ALTER.NET) joined #Apologetics. [01:46] milhouse mice do it too [01:46] Hi [01:46] Now why would that be, do you suppose? [01:46] GOd created them to eat their own kind? [01:46] milhouse nature made them do it, why else? [01:46] hullo jerash [01:46] karen-2 (ajanssen@irv-ca15-02.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [01:46] "The Right Fist of Fellowship..."?? [01:46] Nature? Or God? What's the difference? [01:46] jerash a joke [01:46] milhouse big difference [01:47] Oh, i See, ok [01:47] God created Nature. [01:47] milhouse naturalism is mindless determinism, God gives everything meaning [01:47] milhous I am comparing Naturalism to Theism [01:47] By creating Nature, he created dogs that eat their own young? [01:47] milhous in theism evil in nature is part of the fall of humanity, in naturalism it is just the waythings are [01:47] God sure has a lot to own up to. You'd think an omnipotent entity would do a better job. [01:48] Mil oh really? and you could do better? [01:48] mil let me ask you something [01:48] No. [01:48] He did it was man that fouled things up [01:48] Oh? Man made dogs eat their young? [01:48] Man made the dinosaurs die? [01:49] NO man bought sin into the world [01:49] Man made the lemmings breed so prodigiously that they kill themselves? [01:49] Mil would an all knowing, all benevolent, allpowerful perfect being have a perfect reason for the way the world is? [01:49] Aco: go ahead. [01:49] sorry [01:49] Mil would an all knowing, all benevolent, allpowerful perfect being have a perfect reason for the way the world is? [01:49] Mans fall affected all of creation [01:49] Mil yes or no [01:49] will suffice [01:49] aco: i don't understand the question. [01:50] Mil ok, you tell me God better have a good reason for all of this right? That he has alot to own up to? well I ask you, would a perfect omnipotent, omniscient being have a perfect reason for it or no? [01:50] yes or no? [01:50] would he have a good reason or not? [01:51] jako (yoyo@204.50.229.75) left irc: Leaving [01:51] what would be rational to think about a perfect being like God? Would he have a good reason if he planned it all out? [01:51] I would assume so. Assuming there is a perfect being. (define perfect) [01:51] ok [01:51] Paul (RDENNISON@www-35-25.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [01:51] perfect-total of all perfections in God's nature [01:52] no lack of actuality of the qualities that God has essentially [01:52] Acolyte: That's circular reasoning. What is perfect? [01:52] so if God exists then he has a good reason for all of this. Problem solved [01:52] Perfection-no lackof actuality in the qualities that God has essentially [01:52] No. We haven't proven God's existence. Or at least I don't believe there is a God. [01:53] ok but we have shown that if God exists then he has a sufficient reason for evil [01:53] You mean "God is perfect" [01:53] hence the problem of evil is solved [01:53] and "Perfect is what God is." [01:53] yes I do [01:53] That's circular. It is meaningless. [01:53] same way of saying the same thing [01:53] no sure is not [01:53] perfection is the lack of potentiality in God's essence [01:53] Yes it is. Elementary logic. [01:54] "God is perfect" "Perfect is what God is." [01:54] A=B and B=A [01:54] hardly circular [01:54] But that is not a definition. [01:54] did I give that as a def? No, u did [01:54] perfection is the lack of potentiality in God's essence [01:54] perfection is the lack of potentiality in God's essence [01:54] capiche? [01:54] I asked for a def. Perhaps I wan't clear. [01:54] OK. [01:55] Mil I gave one [01:55] 5 times [01:55] But what if there is no God? [01:55] already [01:55] then no ethics [01:55] no logic weither [01:55] Then it is meaningless. [01:55] either even [01:55] then everything is meaningless [01:55] Why not? [01:55] and you can't make a meaningful objection [01:55] what is meaning without Theism? [01:55] Man's capable of making up anything he likes. [01:55] chemcials [01:55] Sounds good to me. [01:55] sur ebut they are chemcial reactions [01:55] nothing more [01:56] how can chemcials be ABOUT Something? [01:56] Yup. [01:56] thats for starters [01:56] secondly, u don't know anythingn [01:56] you only know what nature causes you to think [01:56] I don't have that big a problem with being a mass of chemicals, nothing more. [01:56] hence you know nothing [01:56] Yup. I know nothing. [01:56] ok, but youonly think that because you are determined to think it, you don't know if it is true or not [01:56] Espistemological Nihilism [01:56] What, being chemicals? [01:57] so you're a Nihilist [01:57] yup [01:57] Epistem..., you mean? [01:57] naturalism=Nihilism [01:57] yes [01:57] sorry [01:57] mispelling [01:57] See You [01:57] Jerash (tknterry@pool037.Max5.Chicago.IL.DYNIP.ALTER.NET) left #Apologetics. [01:57] so you know nothing on your worldview [01:57] flant (blairej@143.207.68.54) left irc: A <> A, make that A != A [01:57] I know lots of things on mine, which is better? [01:57] Nihilist= nothingist. What does that entail? Chemicals aren't NOTHING... [01:57] mine [01:58] milhouse no EPISTEMOLOGICAL NIHILISM [01:58] Define 'better' [01:58] you can't know anything [01:58] You are the monstor of arrogance, to think you know something? That's "better"? [01:58] better=makes knowledge possible [01:58] mine does, your's does not [01:58] yeah sure is [01:58] er monster. [01:58] I know my name for example [01:58] Hmmm. [01:59] calling me names does not make my argument invalid does it? [01:59] I "know" mine. [01:59] no [01:59] ad homenin fallacy [01:59] marc649 (marc649@mon-ca5-10.ix.netcom.com) joined #Apologetics. [01:59] no you don't [01:59] hi everyone [01:59] you only have a disposition of chemicals [01:59] hey marc [01:59] So? [02:00] It's a disposition of chemicals, manifesting itself in my brain as 'thought' [02:00] What's the difference? [02:00] mil, but you don't know that [02:00] there is no way to verify that [02:00] since every action is in turn determined [02:00] hence nihilism [02:00] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip07.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [02:01] hey pascoe [02:01] This still doesn't lead anywhere toward God. Agnosticism is not necessarily nihilism. [02:01] hello Acolyte. 8) [02:01] milhouse no it is not agnos, it is nihilism, agnos is that you can know things but not other things. nihilism is that you can't know anything [02:01] which you admitted [02:02] you said that you knew nothing [02:02] RDENNISON (RDENNISON@www-34-103.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [02:02] those were YOUR words [02:02] So how do you claim to "know" things? [02:02] RDENNISON (RDENNISON@www-34-103.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [02:02] sure [02:02] Excuse me. I was being humble. [02:02] what exactly are you two debating? [02:02] hence if naturalism leads to nihilism it is false, hence I reject naturalism [02:03] Well, perhaps life is meaningless. Eh? [02:03] marc Naturlaims VS Theism [02:03] Action: pascoe rejects naturalism too. 8) [02:03] Perhaps it is nihilism. Maybe it's true. [02:03] mil that is what I am trying to show you. [02:03] if it is true then it is meaningless and hence NO TRUTH [02:03] Milhous: if it were true, you wouldn't know it. 8) [02:03] Ever read The Blind Watchmaker? [02:03] by Dawkins? [02:03] not yet but I have read some of it [02:03] That's it. [02:04] but he maeks the same point [02:04] Read it. [02:04] naturalism=Nihilism [02:04] Um, no. [02:04] Paul (RDENNISON@www-34-103.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [02:04] read Alvin Plantinga, Warren:The Current Debate [02:04] The subtitle is "Why evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design" [02:04] uhm yes [02:04] Naturalism. [02:05] dawkins makes the same point, your faculties have low probability of producing truthgful beliefs [02:05] sure a meaningless universe [02:05] a universe with no purpose [02:05] evolution is increasingly being disputed by the majority of the scientific community. [02:05] no meaning [02:05] no logic [02:05] no truth [02:05] marc649: true. I think its weakness in explaining evidence is becoming more apparent now. [02:05] marc649: As in "Did we evolve from Proconsul or an Australopithecus?" Sure. [02:06] Acolyte: But we created it. Hence they exist. [02:06] mil milhouse still nihilism, why trust a monkeys brain to give truthful beleifs when he is only designed to have survivial beleifs? [02:06] milhouse we made it because anture caused us to. No reason for it at all [02:06] milhouse still nihilism [02:07] Acolyte: First, he wasn't designed. Second, obviously monkeys have more than survival beliefs. [02:07] unfortunately, you missed the special last Sat. on NBC on the many new discoveries that shatter evolution, beyond the fact that evolution doesn't really have any solid evidence to being with. [02:07] ...to begin with. [02:07] mil oh they do? how do you know if nature disposes them to survive? [02:07] Bawn (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [02:08] marc649: Got a better explanation? With third-party, scientific, nonreligious evidence? [02:08] marc649: evolution is built up from assumptions about reality. the raw evidence has never been there. [02:08] Acolyte: Monkeys play. [02:08] Acolyte: Monkeys have learned sign language. [02:08] milhouse only cause nature caused them to [02:08] Milhous: monkeys kill and eat their offspring, sometimes too. hardly a survival advantage. [02:08] yes, these are THIRD PARTY, SCIENTIFIC discoveries... [02:08] pascoe nature caused them too [02:08] Acolyte: hahah, sure. [02:08] pascoe: Right. Tell that to Aclyte. [02:09] milhouse he just did [02:09] marc649: That support another theory? I'm all ears. [02:09] milhouse still nihilism [02:09] Milhous: but Acolyte is arguing your position for you. [02:09] EM (EM@204.112.67.251) joined #Apologetics. [02:09] mil you admitted nature has no purpose, hence you have no purpose and no design [02:09] EM (EM@204.112.67.251) left #Apologetics. [02:09] phileo did you hear that cassidy and I are getting married? [02:09] EM (EM@204.112.67.251) joined #Apologetics. [02:09] mil hence your brain does not produce any meaningful beleifs [02:10] Bawn: congratulations. [02:10] Acolyte: You'll notice I always say "maybe" [02:10] only meaninglESS beliefs [02:10] I didnt say we are.. just asked if you heard [02:10] When are you getting married Bawn [02:10] bawn WHAT?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [02:10] I propose random thoughts. [02:10] we arent. I just asked if you heard that :) [02:10] Bawn: oh. 8) [02:10] milhouse oh so science is about maybe's NOW? IC [02:10] marc649: I'm waiting. [02:10] No, I hadn't heard [02:10] hehe [02:10] milhouse well nihilism is not maybe's [02:10] Milhous: what are you waiting for? [02:10] hehe [02:10] aco: science has always been about maybes and what ifs.. heh [02:10] Acolyte. Duh. Nothing can be known for sure. Central tenet of science. Nihilism again. [02:11] Aco...lost a cookie or two over that one!!! [02:11] mil do you know that for sure? [02:11] Nick change: ^aa^ -> aa [02:11] Acolyte: hahahah. 8) [02:11] Acolyte: its a tenet. 8) [02:12] Acolyte: a 'central' one. 8) [02:12] mil positivism only has that as a position, not all ascience or all ways of knowing [02:12] well, the discovery of fossilized footprints on the same layer of rock, right next to dinosaur prints, with the same dates, would suggest that humans did in fact walk with the dinosaurs. [02:12] acolyte: Nope. There could still be a God, and things can be known for sure. Don't know. Wait and see. [02:12] pascoe a central fallacy [02:12] brb [02:12] Bawn (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) left #apologetics. [02:12] marc that is highly debateavble BTW [02:12] marc649: That doesn't support another scientifiv theory. [02:12] mil if someone said there was a bomb in your house, would you wait and see? [02:12] Milhous: neither do pig's teeth. 8) [02:12] marc649: Waiting for an alternative...you can't get by with "Evolution is wrong" [02:12] milhouse Naturalism and Evolution are mutally exclusive [02:13] Milhous: I propose special creation as an alternate scientific model of origins. [02:13] the alternative would obviously be CREATIONISM. [02:13] mil you cannot logically have both [02:13] Acolyte: If you say so. [02:13] marc649: obviously. [02:13] mil I say so [02:13] pascoe: All right! How bout some physical evidence? [02:13] mil you don't have anything to argue, you're and admitted nihilist [02:13] Acolyte: Am I? [02:13] mil what good would physicl evidence do if you can't know anything? [02:13] mil you are [02:13] member, I say so ;) [02:13] Milhous: ok. where shall we start? how about flood sediment on every continent at every elevation? [02:14] Acolyte: Sorry. Gues at 2 AM I have nihilistic tendencies. [02:14] Milhous: how about the existence of life? [02:14] xrrev (chat@mcguirk.vip.best.com) joined #Apologetics. [02:14] pascoe: thats why non-theists will deny that evolution is wrong.. because to considere otherwise means one must accept a universes that was created... hence a God.. heh [02:14] mil tendencies? hardly, full blown Nihilism [02:14] Action: Acolyte BTW isnot a Creationist [02:14] pascoe: SO? Doesn't give any support to divine creation. [02:14] Milhous: yes. [02:14] Acolyte: Maybe I was playing a part, eh? NFL, all that? [02:15] Milhous: what about the deep marine fossils found on every continent and elevation? [02:15] pascoe: No. It means that perhaps there was a worldwide flood. Hardly proves that the world was created. [02:15] mil maybe you weren't? [02:15] Aco: well, you would seem to have to agree, that there is at least Design to the universe [02:15] Milhous: you asked for evidence, I am giving it. 8) [02:15] pascoe: Means there are deep fossils. Still no sign of a deity. [02:15] achimoth sure, Theistic Evcolution of a type, I am still formulating the theory BTW [02:16] Milhous: it just means you don't accept my evidence. 8) [02:16] aco: I'm noot sure. You've certainly turned me off to nihilism, that's for sure... [02:16] Milhous: but I say the same about pig's teeth. [02:16] the very discovery of complex DNA code shatters the mathematical idea of a RANDOM life forming. [02:16] milhouse good, theism 101 next ;) [02:16] pascoe: None of your evidence proves Divine Creation. [02:16] Milhous: you did not ask for proof. [02:16] aco: i tried theistic evolution.. buti ran into the same problem with standard evolution, not enough physical fossil evidence for it, plus the many other catch-22's they have run across [02:16] Milhous: you asked for evidence and the evidence abounds. [02:16] marc649: Wrong. Read The Blind Watchmaker and we'll talk. [02:17] milhouse get "Our IDea of God; An Intro to Philosophical Theology" By thomis V. Morris, he teaches at Notre Dame [02:17] pascoe: Um, I think I did. [02:17] although with a God, some of the catch-22's can be explained [02:17] Mil, Dawkins theory undermines logic tho, hence his argument is false [02:17] Milhous: you cannot dismiss DNA evidence just because you don't like its conclusions. it remains evidence. [02:17] pascoe: I meant evidence that supports the theory that we were created. [02:17] aco: how so? [02:17] the Blind Watchmaker.. isnt that the mediocrity therom? [02:17] achimoth I beg to differ [02:17] achimoth see "The Creationists" [02:17] the whole idea behind evolution is "MATTER" + "ENERGY", unfortunately.. that doesn't work. It takes INFORMATION!! where do you get the information??? it cert ainly doesn't come from nowhere. [02:17] theorem even [02:17] Achimoth: No. Chaos, actually. [02:17] Milhous: how about the lack of transitionary fossils? [02:18] pascoe: Still doesn't prove Divine Creation. [02:18] marc649: that is evidence too. it begs for a Creator. [02:18] Milhous: you did not ask for proof. [02:18] Milhous: you asked for evidence and the evidence abounds. [02:18] milhouse wll if your faculties are there to produce survival beleifs then they have a low proability for producing turhtful beleifs, hence evoltuion has a low probability for being true. P-R(N/E) [02:19] Milhous: I never claimed to be able to prove creation. 8) but I don't see any proof for evolution either. [02:19] pascoe: I ask for it now. Or EVIDENCE that SUPPORTS it. THE LACK OF transitional forms does NOT support a CREATION. [02:19] pascoe: yep [02:19] One cannot prove either evolution or creationism both are based on some sort of a faith [02:19] Milhous: yes, a lack of intermediate forms implies species without common descent which fits the creation model prediction perfectly. [02:19] EM: exactly. and both have evidences. [02:20] Milhouse, See Alvin Plantinga, Warrent:the Current Deabte, under the chapter, "So What is a Poor NAturalist To Do?" He Refutes Dawkins and Churchland [02:20] pascoe: You can not claim creation as an alternative science if you have no scientific evidence supporting it. [02:20] pascoe: whats the theory now? something about a Pre-Cambrian Explosion? [02:20] Aco: OK, will look it up... [02:20] Milhous: I am giving you scientific evidences and you are denying them. I can't help that. [02:20] phileo (phileo@os-ppp14.datasync.com) left irc: Leaving [02:20] milhouse what is science in a naturalistic paradigm tho? meaningless chemcials. no experiement could be trusted. [02:20] pascoe: I suppose the question comes down to more whether we want to see ourselves as elements of change or design [02:20] milhouse good deal I plan to get Dawkins soon, I gave up books for Lent tho [02:21] xrrev (chat@mcguirk.vip.best.com) left #Apologetics. [02:21] God is out side of science but christ can be proven hisorically [02:21] milhouse so I gotta wait [02:21] EM: yes. accountability or no accountability. [02:21] paul not bad [02:21] pascoe: But it doesn't support creation. If you knew anything about paleontology and the small chances of any organisms being fossilized, you'd know why there are so few "transitional" forms. [02:21] aco: Meaningless chemicals bound by physical laws. Physical laws create a kind of order. [02:21] milhous: few transitional forms, hw about just about none? [02:22] milhouse meanibngless determined no verifiavble order [02:22] Achimoth: Do you know a transitional form when you see one? [02:22] Milhous: that is completely false. you should look into the vast number of fossils that remain uncataloged because their aren't enough people to even do the work. the fossil record is vast and does not support the evolutionary prediction at all. it supports the creation model. [02:22] milhouse: do you? [02:22] Milhous: name one transitional series for us to discuss. [02:22] pascoe: exactly, it comes down to humanistic philosophy [02:23] pascoe: How about some sources, here, huh/ [02:23] Darwin stated in Origin of Species that for his theory to be valid, there HAD to be solid evidence of transitionary forms in the fossil record. [02:23] pascoe: A classic. Archaeopteryx. [02:23] EM: yes, its 95% philosophy/faith. [02:23] AN istanict bird? [02:23] milhous: the fact that we now have fossil evidence that the animals that exist today, (many thought to have evolved) have been found preserved in amber, and other things showing they have been here all along!! [02:23] Achimoth: Until you realize that all forms are "transitional". [02:23] EM (EM@204.112.67.251) left #Apologetics. [02:24] Milhous: I asked for a transitionary series. there are 6 known archeopteryx fossils and all are archeopteryx with completely functional units. [02:24] Milhous: show evidence of change in species.. all there is proof of is adaptation within species [02:24] Milhous: the difficulty is that no transitionary series is known. [02:24] Action: Acolyte notes thatw iwhout a philosophical grid to make sens eout of data, the data is meaningless [02:24] Acolyte: 8) [02:24] Acolyte: Probably right. [02:25] pascoe: Eohippus. [02:25] mil try J.P. MOreland, Christianity and the Nature of Science [02:25] Bawn (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [02:25] Milhous: Eohippus is not a transitionary series, try again. 8) [02:25] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@irv-ca13-21.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for Cassidy_[irv-ca13-21.ix.netcom.com] [02:25] pascoe: The homo spp, for crying out loud... [02:25] Milhous: Platypus is not a transitional series either. 8) [02:26] Milhous: Archeopteryx is not a transitional series either. 8) [02:26] Can I point you guys to an HTTP? [02:26] Milhous: the difficulty is that no transitionary series is known. [02:26] most of the homo series has been shown to be either apes or humans with physical probs [02:26] milhouse for naturalism or evolution? [02:26] Achimoth: How about a source? [02:26] Acolyte: Artificial Life, actually. [02:26] logos5 (pasc8891@hidden.cs.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [02:26] ''java [02:26] ***** JAVAMAN: Richard Lewontin (1981) wanted Java Man ("pithecanthropus") taught as one of his five "facts of evolution", but even its discoverer, Eugene DuB ois, dismissed the skull and femur as parts of a man and giant gibbon. It was already known that the skull and femur were found some distance apart, but DuBois also revealed a 30 year old secret that a fully human skull had been found at the same level . [02:26] matter of fact recently they realized Lucy was not a lucy.. Lucy is Ricky [02:26] mil not possible [02:26] ''peking [02:26] ***** PEKINGMAN: ("sinanthropus", now "homo erectus") While given as evidence in the Scopes trial, only the skulls were ever found and they were all bashed in at the rear. In a cave outside Peking, China, before World War II, the skulls were found with other animal bones and some tools. Far from a tool-user tho, "Peking man" was probably a meal for humans who used the tools to extract the brain from the skulls. [02:26] Milhouse: Interactive version of Dawwkins' Morphs. [02:27] ''nebraska [02:27] ***** NEBRASKAMAN: ("heperopithecus haroldcookii") Perfect evidence of the lack of scientific restraint and abuse of science on the part of many evolutionists, Nebraka man was never known from a nything but a tooth (later found to be a pig tooth). In newspapers the year of the Scopes trial, this tooth was imagined in a skull, which was then imagined on a skeleton, and was then given, by illustration, flesh, hair, and "scienti fic" family name. [02:27] mil Godel's theorum burried that idea [02:27] heheh [02:27] all debunked. [02:27] ''piltdown [02:27] ***** PILTDOWNMAN: A blatant case of evolutionary fraud, Piltdown man was forged from an ape jaw with teeth filed and jaw damaged to hide its true identity; human skull; bones stained to appear old. This hoax, begun in 1912 laste d nearly 40 years as a "fact" of evolution, even dignified with the scientific name "eoanthropus dawsoni". [02:27] Lucy was a knuckle walker. [02:27] '' lucy [02:27] Acolyte: Sorry, no info on: LUCY [02:27] Yeah, piltdown was bad. [02:27] figures [02:27] haha [02:27] How 'bout that Noah's Ark, huh? [02:27] pascoe not reallyt see Leakeys' new bk [02:27] Or the famed Footprints? [02:27] Action: Bawn didnt ever know what piltdown meant [02:27] mil what aboiut Noah's ark? [02:27] aco: Lucy isnt Lucy.. Lucy is actually Ricky [02:28] just knew that you can not simultaneously prevent and prepare for PILTDOWN MAN [02:28] achimoth what? [02:28] '' pekingman [02:28] turns out the Lucy fossil is actually male [02:28] ***** PEKINGMAN: ("sinanthropus", now "homo erectus") While given as evidence in the Scopes trial, only the skulls were ever found and they were all bashed in at the rear. In a cave outside Peking, China, before World War II, the skulls were found with other animal bones and some tools. Far from a tool-user tho, "Peking man" was probably a meal for humans who used the tools to extract the brain from the skulls. [02:28] Bawn: hahahahha. 8) [02:28] AcolyteL Oh, the famous documentary that said they had 'found' Noah's Ark. [02:28] was on cnn this past week [02:28] Bawn (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) left #apologetics. [02:28] Mil so, ? even if they did not, wo what? [02:29] ''nihil [02:29] hmmmmm [02:29] ***** NIHILISM n. [Latin /nihil/, nothing] 1. the philosophical denial of the existence of any basis for knowledge or truth, rejection of morality, religion, etc. 2. the belief that there is no meaning or purpose to existence. [02:29] scottreb (scottreb@www-28-13.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [02:29] scottreb (scottreb@www-28-13.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [02:29] Well, I figure one good turn deserves another on this channel. [02:31] lag [02:31] ''neanderthal [02:31] ***** NEANDERTHAL: ("homo sapiens neanderthalensis") While not an outright fraud, these fossils were once touted by evolutionists as the primary link between man and his ape-like ancestor. As more evidence became available, evolutionists have backed away from this claim. Neanderthal was most likely just homo sapien since each of its physical features are also found in living people. [02:31] thats false [02:31] yeah.. on old man with rickets... [02:31] they are a relative of homo sapiens [02:31] Acolyte: what part is false? [02:32] an even [02:32] kingeorge (bruce@dialup-004.deltainet.com) joined #Apologetics. [02:32] but not a descendant [02:32] Acolyte: who says? [02:32] kingeorge (bruce@dialup-004.deltainet.com) left #Apologetics. [02:32] pascoe according to modern Evoltution he is genetic reletive, but not a descendeant for homos sapeiens, we co-existed even my creationists ANthro prof admitted as much [02:33] Acolyte: hahah. ok. [02:33] revisionist evolutionists.. hehehehe [02:33] Milhous (hlm3mr@199.218.197.248) left irc: Ping timeout for Milhous[199.218.197.248] [ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page [ref003]Return to LOGS Page [ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_3_12_96.html [ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html [ref004] ../

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank