[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/26/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/26/96 [00:35] Pos

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 - 3/26/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/26/96 [00:35] PostModrn (guest@kiowa.wildstar.net) joined #apologetics. [00:37] Acolyte (st_aidan@ joined #apologetics. [00:37] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [00:37] hello. [00:37] hullo [00:38] I have seen your web site. [00:38] I have read your logs. [00:38] really [00:38] I remain unconvinced. [00:38] me? [00:38] IC and what are you? [00:38] a non-theist. [00:38] what type? [00:39] what are my choices? [00:39] don't you know? [00:39] how can I know? [00:39] good question [00:39] indeed [00:40] r u an atheist? [00:40] pantheist? [00:40] what? [00:40] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip97.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [00:40] re pascoe [00:40] hello. [00:40] I am a non-theist [00:40] hello, pascoe. [00:40] brb [00:40] PostModrn: wow. [00:41] pascoe: he asked. [00:42] PostModrn: I am impressed that you did not tackle the claim of atheism as many try to do. [00:42] hmmm. [00:42] what epistemology do you hold to? [00:42] PostModrn: non-theist is so much more appropriate for most people since they are not prepared to defend the atheistic claim. [00:43] Acolyte: that we cannot know what we think we know. [00:43] are you a naturalist? [00:43] define knowledge [00:43] pascoe: indeed. [00:43] PostModrn (guest@kiowa.wildstar.net) left irc: WildStar public access IRC. telnet telnet.wildstar.net login: guest [00:44] how do you know pascoe? [00:45] PostModrn (guest@kiowa.wildstar.net) joined #apologetics. [00:45] Acolyte: he kinda admitted it didn't he? [00:45] are you a naturalist? [00:45] define knowledge [00:45] sorry, I have a time limit here. [00:45] ic [00:45] PostModrn: me too and its about up. 8( [00:45] please tell me what did not convince you? [00:46] I might be a naturalist. and knowledge is the certainty of knowing. [00:46] how is that not circular? [00:46] Acolyte: the transcendental argument. [00:46] ic, what about the transcendental argument? [00:47] the idea that to know anything, one must presuppose theism. [00:47] ok, what in particular? [00:47] that IS in particular [00:47] that seems to general to me [00:47] please elaborate [00:48] one cannot KNOW anything. Therefore, the argument that one must presuppose theism to know anything falls short. [00:48] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal36-04.ppp.iadfw.net) joined #apologetics. [00:48] hello Achimoth. 8) [00:48] how do you come to the conclusion that no one cannot know anything? [00:48] i figured you all headed over here.... [00:49] knowledge requires certainty, which we cannot possess [00:49] are you certain of that? [00:49] nope [00:49] because I CAN'T be. [00:50] then how do you justify that claim? [00:50] how do you know you can't be ? [00:50] Acolyte: he is certain we cannot be certain. 8) [00:50] I don't pretend to. I don't know that I can't be. Because I can't be. [00:50] re [00:50] oh my goodness. [00:50] hello ProfG [00:51] Postie for dinner? [00:51] :-) [00:51] kinda self defeating, you can't be but you don't know it, then why do youhold to what you don't know? [00:51] I have been to your web page, ProfG. [00:51] seems like an unjustified claim [00:52] for the same reason that all do. One cannot know, therefore one can only hold to that which one cannot know. [00:52] so why not believe in Theism then? [00:52] if everything is meaningless, why not construct a myth? [00:52] seems like you have [00:53] You really *are* postie, aren't you? [00:53] Theism requires "knowing" [00:53] indeed. [00:53] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip97.csrv.uidaho.edu) left irc: Read error to pascoe[xslip97.csrv.uidaho.edu]: Connection reset by peer [00:53] well again that depends on a CERTAIN defintion of knowledge [00:53] whcih I reject [00:53] I am not a Modernist either [00:53] I am a NON-Modernist [00:53] I reject STRICT foundationalism [00:54] Pstmodern, you are still a modernist tho [00:54] you are still working off of Descartes epistemology [00:54] in essence [00:54] Action: ProfG isn't really here, sorry [00:54] if your claims to knowledge that you don't and cannot know are unjustified, why believe them at all? [00:55] PostModrn (guest@kiowa.wildstar.net) left irc: Write error to PostModrn[kiowa.wildstar.net], closing link [00:56] hmmmm [00:56] Action: ProfG wishes he had the time to spend with Postie ---------------------------------------------------------- [01:25] Science doesn't deal in proof; it deals in evidence. One thing evolutieon has lots of. [01:25] heh [01:25] creation is archaology origin science? [01:25] Fauxreal: sure [01:25] pascoe it uses the methodology which makes it a science [01:25] I do commend you for your debate tactics. [01:26] Acolyte: strictly speaking I disagree. 8) [01:26] Acolyte: Probably since it deals with events that happened once in the past and you can't observe them. Origin sciences deal not with falsifiability but with probability. [01:26] Aco...this is a test of the IRC humor broadcasting system...this is only a test...."This guy walks into a bar with a duck under one arm....." [01:26] pascoe streictly speaking you're wrong :) [01:26] Acolyte: the requirement of strict science is repeatability. [01:26] Acolyte: Music, too, uses methodology. ;) [01:26] Acolyte: but then again some people think politics is a science. 8) [01:26] Deanr2 (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) joined #apologetics. [01:26] the requirement of strict science is repeatability. [01:26] fauxreal not any methology, I said THE methodology. [01:26] the requirement of strict science is repeatability. [01:27] hey, pascoe, I resemble that remark [01:27] ProfG: I noticed. 8) [01:27] heh [01:27] ooooof... [01:27] hi Deanr2 [01:27] :-) [01:27] Then I hate to say it, but Henry Miller repeated the incipient stages of life. [01:28] PageMastr (user@whx-ca5-24.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [01:28] Henry Miller repeated the incipient stages of life. [01:28] Henry Miller repeated the incipient stages of life. [01:28] cassidy Scott is reading Chilton [01:28] FauxReal: hahahahahahaah You have no idea what you are talking about. [01:28] FauxReal: embryology was refuted. 8) [01:28] the formation of proteins from amino acids. [01:28] what's the topic [01:28] whats the diffence [01:28] who care??? [01:28] faux I am an evolutionist and you are in error on that point [01:28] repetitiveness, Page [01:28] FauxReal: All he did was make amino acids. Hardly the incipient stages of life. [01:28] who knows [01:28] Aco...your long-term investment in scott is admirable... [01:28] Creation, the amino acids they got all make life impossible, they kill life [01:28] cassidy what do youmean? [01:28] DEANR, are you even here? [01:29] fauxreal: how about the formation of RNA from neucleotides, before proteins? [01:29] electrolyte [01:29] hmmm... [01:29] shock [01:29] Miller did not justify his use of electricity in his experiments. [01:29] FauxReal: No, no proteins were formed. only amino acids. The closest was Sydney Fox who got what he called "proteinoids" which are a poor example of proteins. [01:29] sma [01:29] Sorry, that was stanlyey miller. [01:29] somebody tell Deanr he's an op now. sheesh. I'm going to bed. [01:29] tibc [01:29] profg ok [01:29] thanks [01:29] nite poof [01:29] nothing more than what I said. I find it difficult to stick to one person especially when they drag their feet for so long. [01:30] prof [01:30] PageMastr (user@whx-ca5-24.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [01:30] hey, he called me a poof [01:30] nite poofg [01:30] bye ProfG. 8) [01:30] :-) [01:30] bye profg [01:30] Deanr (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) left irc: Ping timeout for Deanr[KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM] [01:30] I'll kick the whole lot of ya [01:30] blah [01:30] Acolyte: Not all. But a lot of them. They did get the 20 (not in the same experiment mind you) but along with 50 different non-biological amino acids. That creates big problems when you only find 20 in biological systems. H ow do you select for those.. [01:30] :-) [01:30] no works of supererogation for you! [01:30] Action: Cassidy_ runs for the hills... [01:30] Deanr2 (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) left irc: Ping timeout for Deanr2[KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM] [01:30] Acolyte: 20 out of the plethera that are there. [01:30] Deanr (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) joined #apologetics. [01:30] re deanr [01:31] According to my biology book, he synthesized those amino acids which, in part, make up an organism. [01:31] deanr y ou're an op here [01:31] re [01:31] fauxreal yeah it took intelligence to do it too [01:31] Mode change '+o Deanr ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [01:31] finally [01:31] hey thanks! :) [01:31] FauxReal: bricks, in part, make up a building. 8) [01:31] FauxReal: Amino acids = life?????????? [01:31] deanr now, see hwo good I am to you. (You may kiss the ring now.) [01:31] Cassidy and Deanr: I now need bios and pics from you for the Web page. [01:31] FauxReal: Not [01:32] creation I said incipient stages. [01:32] AND PASCOE. [01:32] Aco...in a few years perhaps. [01:32] ProfG: you resemble science. [01:32] Action: Deanr takes Acolyte's ring and..... stuff's it in his shirt pocket. :) [01:32] I should have added in the formation of life from abiotic substances. ;) [01:32] cassidy, it will take many yrs for me to become a Bishop [01:32] prof...youu got it. [01:32] heh [01:32] deanr you'll see [01:32] ;) [01:32] FauxReal: Yeah well, you are going to have a LOT of problems with the concerto effect and the law of mass action. [01:32] Miller did not justify his use of electricity in his experiments. [01:32] creation: if i remember by Nova episodes properly, isnt there a problem with the formation of RNA from nucleotides? as Enzymes are required to replicate RNA and enzymes are made BY RNA? [01:32] prof...how long should the bio be (how short)? [01:32] WE ARE ANGLICAN. RESISTENCE IS FUTILE. YOU WILL CONVERT! ahahahahha [01:33] hehehe [01:33] Cassidy: look at the bios on the page now for help [01:33] lol [01:33] pascoe Storms. We see them on other planets. [01:33] hehe [01:33] Action: pascoe is Christian, already born again. 8) [01:33] FauxReal: you mean lightening? [01:33] prof...whats the adress? [01:33] FauxReal: Concerto effect!!! The same energy that creates also destroys!!!! [01:33] pascoe which is better to drive a car with four wheels and an engine or a new Acura? [01:33] MrBell (Micah@ppp209.ihug.co.nz) joined #apologetics. [01:33] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [01:33] FauxReal: if Miller had used lightening it would have destroyed his lab and burnt up all his ingredients. [01:34] Achimoth: Yeah, it is the problem of what came first, protien or nucleic acids. Besides, you have a problem with racemic mixtures. [01:34] Aco: "I am Pentium of Borg. Division is futile. You will be approximated." [01:34] cech found that modern cells use RNA catalysts called ribozymes to catalyze the synthesis of new RNA. [01:34] creation Prometheus Press sent me a new bk against creationism [01:34] LOL [01:34] hehe [01:34] profg Anlgicanism is better [01:35] ;) [01:35] Acolyte: four wheels and an engine is better than a washer. 8) [01:35] pascoe: He did it in a scale model. [01:35] pascoe but you can't drive a washer ;) [01:35] FauxReal: how do you scale a lightning bolt? [01:35] faux and he designed it too [01:35] FauxReal: Cech Ribosomes have proteins in them that are NECESSARY for the function of the ribosome. [01:35] gentlemen...I have an exam to study for. I will catch you all on the flip-side. [01:36] bye Cassidy_. [01:36] byebyebyebyebyebyebyebye. [01:36] by cass [01:36] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@irv-ca22-20.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [01:36] hmmmmm [01:36] wanna have some fun? [01:36] What that proved though is that you don't need to have proteins to synthesyze RNA. [01:37] Action: ProfG is falling asleep on his keyboard [01:37] bye ProfG. 8) [01:37] profg call me [01:37] at work [01:37] NOW [01:37] asdf (sadf@GN-205-161-161-31.gulfnet.com) joined #apologetics. [01:37] ok? [01:37] um... ok [01:37] FauxReal: They also concluded that the smallest RNA molecule that you could get that could act as a functional catalyst is one that is about 400 nuceotides long. This is way to big for what the first primordial RNA catalyst wa s. [01:38] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) joined #apologetics. [01:38] hey zx [01:38] hello zx. 8) [01:38] hi [01:38] um... I need a number, Aco [01:38] whats up [01:38] FauxReal: But the question remains: How do you get the RNA???? You still have the same problems as you have when you are trying to get proteins. [01:38] hello all [01:38] ok [01:39] nite all [01:39] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) left #apologetics. [01:39] FauxReal: Concerto effect, Racemic mixtures of left and right handed sugars, etc. [01:39] Deanr (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) left irc: Ping timeout for Deanr[KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM] [01:39] FauxReal: how do you scale a lightning bolt? [01:40] protobionts. [01:40] very carefully... [01:40] pascoe: You can measure them now. Just project it. [01:40] asdf (sadf@GN-205-161-161-31.gulfnet.com) left #apologetics. [01:40] pascoe: Depends on what kind of atmosphere you have. Was it mildly reducing? strongly reducing? Oxidative? [01:40] karen-1 (ajanssen@lbx-ca6-04.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [01:41] FauxReal: how does Miller justify electric currents in his experiment tho? lightening would destroy his lab and burn stuff. [01:41] FauxReal: How do you keep all your necessary elements in the atmosphere (methane, ammonia, etc.)? [01:41] pascoe lightning equals electrical current... [01:42] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial50.fiu.edu) left irc: Ping timeout for ProfG[fiudial50.fiu.edu] [01:42] MrBell (Micah@ppp209.ihug.co.nz) left #apologetics. [01:42] Paladin (Adversary@ts40-7.homenet.ohio-state.edu) joined #apologetics. [01:42] FauxReal: yes, why didn't Miller use lightening in his experiments then? [01:42] Simple, he couldn't. [01:43] FauxReal: If you don't have ozone, then you don't have protection from the UV light. YOur methane gets polymerized and you get an oil slick 1-10 meters thick all across the globe. YOur ammonia would be photodestroyed into nit rogen and hydrogen. [01:43] greetings and salutations [01:43] FauxReal: the reason he didn't use lightning is because it would destroy his experiment. [01:43] FauxReal: And what ever is left over would have been absorbed into the ocean due to its high solubility. [01:43] Who said there was no ozone? [01:43] FauxReal: There was no OXYGEN!! [01:43] As far as I remember it, there wasn't ozone... [01:43] FauxReal: NO oxygen, no ozone [01:43] pascoe Lightning striking a couple glass tupes probably would. [01:44] The UV light helped to act as a catalyst, however, instead of being harmful [01:44] FauxReal: how did Miller justify the use of glass tubes in his experiment? [01:44] Action: Paladin is going to get his biology textbook... [01:44] Paladin: WRONG!!! It would act as both a catalyst and it would also destroy your product. [01:44] pascoe Glass is non-reactive with biological substances. [01:45] creation: We are bombarded with UV everyday. [01:45] Paladin: The same energy that creates also destroys. Carl Sagan realized this concerto effect. [01:45] FauxReal: did he need glass tubes to isolate his products perhaps? [01:45] To keep them in a closed system like the earth was. [01:45] FauxReal: We have Oxygen in our atmosphere. You propose that there was no oxygen in the atmospher at the time of abiogenesis. [01:46] FauxReal: evolutionists argue that the earth is open system. [01:46] Pascoe: Yes, but not to a different atmosphere! [01:46] FauxReal: but if real lightning were to strike the ingredients Miller used, it would more likely burn them all up. [01:46] creation: Not at all. For there to be water, there haad to be O. [01:46] creation: according to biological theory, oxygen was spread into the atmosphere after organisms began to photosynthesize [01:47] Paladin: sounds like chicken-egg syndrome. [01:47] BTW, what does this have to do with apologetics? [01:47] pascoe: The very small amount that he had, probably. However. We're talking on a global scale. [01:47] Paladin: I dunno, evolution came up. 8) [01:47] pascoe: how so? free oxygen isn't necessary for photosynthesis...it's a waste product from the breaking down of water [01:48] FauxReal: yes, my point is that Miller's experiment is unlikely to occur on a global scale. [01:48] FauxReal: *sigh* It HAS TO BE *FREE* oxygen. Not oxygen in a compound. ozone is O3, oxygen is O2. THere is a big difference between free oxygen and that which is found in compounds. [01:48] Paladin: I'm talking about before there was life. How did you get it? [01:48] T1 (TGJoyce@www-20-216.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [01:48] FauxReal: Miller did not justify the inclusion of electric currents on the scale he applied them in his model. [01:48] I was using it for the word oxygen, dumb@$$. [01:49] creation: there wasn't any [01:49] Paladin: That is my point. So, how do you protect your methane from the UV light? [01:49] Paladin: How do you protect your ammonia from the UV light? [01:49] pascoe: All he needed the current for was to induce certain changes in the atmosphere. Lighting does that without killing everything. [01:49] karen-1 (ajanssen@lbx-ca6-04.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for karen-1[lbx-ca6-04.ix.netcom.com] [01:50] ever go near where lightning has struck? You'll smell O3 [01:50] FauxReal: your point? [01:50] T1 (TGJoyce@www-20-216.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [01:50] creation: I don't know...I remember from somewhere that UV light has been used in exchange of electricity in reproductions of the of Miller experiment, with about the same results [01:50] FauxReal: so the glass tubes were to contain the O3 he just produced? isn't that cheating? [01:50] FauxReal: ARe you saying that lighting created enough ozone to protect everything? hehehehehahahahahahahha [01:51] creation: Chemistry is not my strong point, however...What was the problem you said there is with UV rays? [01:51] Paladin: Well, take an organic chemistry course. You'll learn that UV light easily causes methane to polymerize into oil, and it destroys your ammonia (converts it to hydrogen and nitrogen). [01:51] The current represents atmospheric lightning. No, pascoe, they didn't. I was talking about what current does now. It was a simile. [01:52] there must have been an abundance of glass tubes in the prehistoric environment. 8) [01:52] pascoe: hehehehe [01:52] creation: Not at all. It's an example that atmospheric lightning will cause slight changes in gasses et. al. [01:52] pasnflowr (stormy08@fre-ca1-16.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [01:52] creation: from what I remember, Miller's choice of gases was later decided to be inaccurate based upon more recent discoveries...he used methane and ammonia, correct? [01:53] FauxReal: how often were electric currents necessary in the experiment? [01:53] FauxReal: it is ad hoc. It doesn't help your situation. [01:53] Paladin: Um, can you point to an experiment that didn't use those gases? [01:53] pascoe I don't know. Occasional sparks, though. Not constant current. [01:54] creation: no, I can't...that's why I stated it just as something I remember from somewhere, just fact...wondering if anyone else remembers similar [01:54] brentf (brentf@ip-pdx10-43.teleport.com) joined #apologetics. [01:55] creation: ok, I'm reading the section in my textbook on the Miller experiment... [01:55] Paladin: There are variations on the theme but the problems are still there. Another thing that they don't tell you is that in order to create sugars for your DNA you need formaldehyde but your formaldehyde fixes your amino ac ids. CATCH 22. [01:55] FauxReal: so on a global scale the lightning would have had to strike the same location more than once without destroying the products? [01:55] hello brentf. 8) [01:56] Howdy, pascoe :) [01:56] creation: according to my text, Miller repeated the experiments himself using carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide in place of methane [01:56] pascoe: No, it only needed to be in the atmosphere. Miller never had the current touch the water. [01:56] Action: creation wonders if Acolyte is taking notes hehehehehe (just kidding) :) [01:57] Paladin: But you will learn that the more oxidative the conditions become the less the yield. [01:57] pasnflowr (stormy08@fre-ca1-16.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [01:57] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip20.csrv.uidaho.edu) left irc: Read error to pascoe[xslip20.csrv.uidaho.edu]: Connection reset by peer [01:57] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip20.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [01:57] creation: true, but by then, the photosynthetic forms had developed. [01:58] creation: yes, and there wasn't a great degree of free oxygen until photosynthesis started [01:58] FauxReal: How????? That is a giant leap. [01:58] creation: all this happened in the space of about 24 hours and within the same little pond. 8) [01:58] creation: that was one of the main premises that the Miller experiment started with, that considering the corrosive effects of oxidation, a reducing atmosphere would be necessary instead [01:59] FauxReaL: You're going from non-living chemicals straight to complex cells. Without the intermediate steps. You can't even account for your atmosphere yet. How can you talk of complex life? [01:59] pascoe: try worldwide and over millions of years [01:59] creation: once you've got it going, it proceeds forth. [01:59] Action: pascoe marvels at the convenient appearance of photosynthetic forms. 8) [01:59] creation: he was jumping ahead because you were asking about an oxygen atmosphere...that happened later [01:59] Paladin: But you get back the problem on not having protection from UV light. [02:00] creation: chicken-egg syndrome. [02:00] FauxReal: you haven't even got it existing. [02:00] thanks paladin. [02:00] creation: well, my text says that the UV light was a useful source of energy instead of a damaging force... [02:00] Paladin: they generally don't admit things like that. [02:01] Paladin: I'm talking about before life. It does no good to imagine after life starts when you can't get out of the drawing room. [02:01] pascoe: how do you mean? [02:01] lopomac (ddd@pm-lo-21.terminus.com) joined #apologetics. [02:01] creation: I'm talking about before life too [02:01] without free oxygen, you would lack an ozone layer [02:01] hence more UV light [02:01] pascoe: Funny, mine does. It even talks about young stars emiting even more UV radiation. [02:01] Paladin: it doesn't promote the theory to poke holes in it from the start. [02:01] Paladin: You have to go to the primary sources. What the heck does it mean by usefull? what were the yeilds? [02:01] hence more energy to act as a catalyst for the formation of polymers, complex molecules [02:02] It isn't an organic chemistry text--that's all it mentions, so that's all I can verify now about the theory [02:02] Paladin: Hence more destruction. Your point? [02:02] Action: creation notices how everyone forgets about the destructive action of lightning and UV light and just focus on the creative force only. [02:02] I'll look into what you were saying though about the destructive potential of the UV light...my friends are considerably more knowledgable in chemistry than I am and I ask tomorrow [02:03] creation: 8) [02:03] Paladin: That is fair enough :) [02:03] creation: with a reducing atmmosphere, it takes considerable energy to join these molecules. Lightning and UV radiation provided it. [02:04] FauxReal: hey, you said the lightning was only for atmospheric changes. [02:04] FauxReal: But you forget that they also destroy it too. One second oyu have it, the next you don't. [02:04] Is this another attempt to disprove evolution and therefore prove creationism by default? [02:04] creation: I'm afraid not. [02:04] Paladin: Creation hasn't even been mentioned. [02:04] Paladin: I am only aware of those two basic alternatives. [02:05] Just wondering... [02:05] FauxReal: And you prove yourself to be ignorant. [02:05] Paladin: panspermia? [02:05] ;) [02:05] pascoe: well, disproving one does not prove the other one...you don't believe in something just because you can't think of alternatives [02:05] FauxReal: is the lightning for atmospheric changes or for energy input into the product? [02:05] FauxReaL: panspermia doesn't solve the problem, it is just Crick's vain attempt to move it some where else. [02:06] Action: Paladin wishes everyone would get off this damn chemistry kick...he's going to bed soon [02:06] Paladin: in the absence of more than 2 alternatives, evidence against one is taken as evidence in favor of the other. [02:06] UV radiation does not kill (from so far away), it will however induce mutation. [02:06] Action: creation is going to bed soon too. [02:07] pascoe: Quite simply, no. [02:07] pascoe: It did a lot more with the atmosphere. Wherever it touched down, it probably killed stuff. [02:07] Fauxreal: hahahahah What? The long wave length UV light destroys, period. [02:07] Use your imagination. I can come up with plenty more... :) [02:07] FauxReal: I imagine that is mostly what it did since that is all it tends to do today. Even complex systems cannot synthesize that much energy input into useful work. [02:08] vea lo m⋅s tarde voy surfing [02:08] Paladin: really? like what? [02:08] Fauxreal: Long wave length UV light doesn't create. It destorys. There is a narrow range of UV light that can be used to create, but that can be destructive as well [02:08] lopomac (ddd@pm-lo-21.terminus.com) left #apologetics. [02:08] Squirrels did it. [02:08] That's why there's so many damn trees. [02:09] Paladin: the question was regarding the origin of life. invoking squirrels ignores the question. [02:09] creation: as I said -- it has been found that young stars generate more intense (shorter wave) UV radiation. [02:09] Action: creation feels sorry for those that hold to abiogenesis. He hasn't even begun on the destructive reactions yet :) [02:09] No, these are transcendant squirrels. [02:09] Paladin: so you are arguing my side now? ok. 8) [02:10] No, because they formed the world by gnawing on the great cosmic roots that had always existed. [02:10] Hardly creation ex nihilo... [02:10] :) [02:10] Paladin: are they alive? [02:10] FauxReal: Sorry, doesn't help your situation. \ [02:10] They are, yet they aren't! [02:10] They are beyond life! [02:10] Action: creation isn't feeling well, has a sore throat. He needs to get some sleep. [02:11] I thought as much. Run before we attack creationism. [02:11] Action: Paladin tosses creation a virtual throat losenge [02:11] FauxReal: Oh please. [02:11] ;) [02:11] Paladin: did the squirrels always exist too? [02:12] pascoe: Squirrels must be God :) [02:12] I don't know...I haven't been able to ask them yet. [02:12] And quite frankly, I don't think they'd talk. They're quite snobbish, y'know. [02:12] creation: yes, I'm still looking for the alternative. 8) [02:12] creation: how would you explain dinosaurs? [02:12] Anyone who doesn't have a bushy tail just isn't good enough... [02:12] Paladin: are the squirrels intelligent? [02:12] FauxReal: Well, they are reptiles and they lived and they died. [02:12] Nick change: Paladin -> ex_nihilo [02:13] Why, FauxReal, dinosaurs lived alongside Adam and Eve! [02:13]  [02:13] Action: creation agrees with ex_nihilo [02:13] no. [02:13] yes [02:13] Action: pascoe agrees with ex_nihilo as well. [02:13] yes. [02:14] He was being facetious. [02:14] You see, Satan put those bones in the earth at various levels and falsified the entire geological record. [02:14] He also seriously enlarged them from their previous size... [02:14] Paladin: are the squirrels intelligent? [02:14] They were actually quite gerbil like [02:14] pascoe: I don't know...they just giggle when I ask [02:14] ex-nihilo: nope, no need for satan. The fossils are easily explained from a scientific stand point. [02:15] But enough about the squirrels... [02:15] ex-nihilo: don't you know that reptiles continue to grow as long as they live? [02:15] ex_nihilo: I thought you were claiming to know of an alternative but it seems to be just smoke now. [02:15] pascoe: well, I could count the number of religions on earth... [02:15] ...and that still wouldn't take into account variations in scientific theory [02:15] ex_nihilo: isn't it convenient that gigantic forms are found mostly in the reptile group? [02:16] So the big question we are all waiting to hear the answer to is... [02:16] How old were those crazy ever-growing dinosaurs anyways? [02:16] we have nothing like the tyrannosaurus or pterodon(sp). [02:16]  [02:16] ex_nihilo: the general creation model does not specify a name for the Creator, so naming each religion adds no new alternatives. [02:16] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit. [02:17] FauxReal: how many t-rex fossils are known? [02:17] pascoe: you really need to read more if you think they can be lumped in together that easily [02:17] Faux: And we have nothing like the Do Do bird either. You know why??? Because it went extinct! [02:17] pascoe: I have no idea. [02:17] ex_nihilo: you really need to supply a different alternative than the two general ones already known. [02:18] FauxReal: about 12. and surprisingly, they are all t-rex. that is an amazing coincidence given the alleged timelines and changes involved. 8) [02:18] bitwise (pilgrim@tahoe-d21.foothill.net) joined #apologetics. [02:18] hello bitwise. 8) [02:18] salutations :) [02:18] what's that supposed to mean? [02:19] pascoe: wait...you asked him how many t-rex fossils are known, and then you said 12 and said it was surprising that they were all t-rex... [02:19] creation (dcovalt@ux7.cso.uiuc.edu) left irc: have to get work done and sleep. [02:19] What DOES that mean? [02:20] ex_nihilo: yes. it just seems curious to me the great coincidence involved such that we find t-rex in the same form in every instance given the timescale alleged. [02:20] ??? [02:21] but then I have come to accept that no transitionary series are known, so it is no surprise that the t-rex finds are all t-rex. [02:21] It begs the question: Where are the "almost t-rex" forms and the "t-rex plus" forms? [02:21] They're all in the same span of eras. [02:21] FauxReal: amazing. is that what happened with the 6 archeopteryx finds too? [02:21] Okay, how about transitionary man? [02:22] W (cservice@undernet.org) got lost in the net-split. [02:22] FauxReal: ya, how about it? where is it? [02:22] transitory species would be classified as different species, and hence wouldn't be t-rex finds, Captain Obvious [02:22] pascoe: I'm no expert in paleontology. [02:22] ex_nihilo: name the transitions leading to t-rex or pteranodon or archeopteryx. [02:23] FauxReal: I expect very little and have not been disappointed. don't be ashamed. 8) [02:23] I'm not a dinosaur expert, but there are plenty of species similar to all of them [02:23] pascoe: As soon as we find every fossil, it will be done. ;) [02:23] Do you expect evolution to be a smooth spectrum? A continuous smear? [02:23] Indeed, ex_nihilio. [02:23] FauxReal: it would be nice to start with at least one transitionary series. [02:23] bitwise (pilgrim@tahoe-d21.foothill.net) left #apologetics. [02:23] Okay, try man. [02:23] ex_nihilo: I expect fossil evidence if such a thing occured, yes. [02:24] we got a post-modern debate raging in #bible.. hehe [02:24] Achimoth. 8) [02:24] pascoe: yes, and then after we give you two closely related ones, you point out the gap in them...and then the gap between those if we fill the previous one... [02:24] ex_nihilo: I need to have a transitionary series, not a intermediate form. [02:24] pascoe: You obviously don't understand evolutionary theory then, because it doesn't happen that smoothly, nor is it a linear transformation [02:24] pascoe: all forms are transitionary [02:25] Ever hear of punctuated equilibrium? [02:25] ex_nihilo: yes, yes, I know. it was too fast to be seen in the fossil record and too slow to be seen today. [02:25] ex_nihilo: the embarassment of the fossil record requires things like punct equil. [02:25] pascoe: hardly too fast to be seen...just not like climbing a staircase [02:26] ex_nihilo: what you are saying is that you can't provide the fossil evidence. but then I don't expect you to. [02:26] ex_nihilo: you expect me to accept evolution on faith as you have. my faith is in an intelligent Creator tho. [02:26] pascoe: no, I'm saying that what you are asking for does not exist, nor did it ever, nor would evolutionary theory require it because that's not how the theory works [02:26] W (cservice@undernet.org) joined #apologetics. [02:27] Mode change '+o W ' by okc2.ok.us.undernet.org [02:27] pascoe: We can trace it in horses. Leading from hyracotherium -> Mesohippus -> Merychippus -> pliohippus -> Equus (modern horse. [02:27] pascoe: don't believe in evolution...you really have nothing to lose. It isn't something I think about every day. [02:28] FauxReal: the horse 'series' is a manufactured chronology that is not even supported by evolutionists. the arragement in order of size is not chronological or geographical. [02:28] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) joined #apologetics. [02:28] FauxReal: But, but, what about the gaps? you have distinct species there...they should all blend into a smear!! [02:28] creation: evolutionists are still using the horse 'series'. [02:28] I'm in my room now :) [02:28] Oh my gosh!!! [02:28] you have to be kidding me. [02:29] FauxReal: evolutionists might just as well arrange the dog species in order by size and call it a transitionary series. [02:29] Gee, Pit ponies and Clydsdales are both horses [02:29] it's an example of phyletic progression. Not smallest to largest. [02:30] FauxReal: the museum horse display was arraged in order by size. [02:30] creation: yes, but they're both distinctly Equus. [02:30] pascoe: It *did* get larger. [02:30] FauxReal: By what characteristics? [02:30] FauxReal: It *did* get discarded too by most evolutionists when they discovered the underlying data. [02:30] by the characteristic of being able to interbreed successfully [02:31] You can look at the hoof evolution. [02:31] paladin: You know, if you still want to discuss that naturalism/nihilism and ethics/knowledge, acolyte is the best man to talk to. He can explain it far better than I can. [02:31] pascoe: not true. [02:31] the North American progression goes from 3 toes to one while the South American went from one to 3 toes. supposely during the same timeframe. [02:31] creation: sorry, acolyte has always gotten on my nerves... he can't even type right [02:32] kept on misspelling my nick [02:32] RedTango (silver@ip9-014.lax.primenet.com) joined #apologetics. [02:32] RexMundi (RexMundi@pm2-10.netexpress.net) joined #apologetics. [02:32] There were many ends. At the top of the tree do you get one branch or many? [02:32] Nick change: ex_nihilo -> Adversary [02:32] FauxReal: is the horse 'series' the best example you can offer in the way of fossil evidence? [02:32] FauxReal: You erase the branches and what do you have? Different kinds of animals with no transistions. [02:32] pascoe: No, Hyracotherium was 3-toed. [02:33] hey, its creation..on his favorite subject! [02:33] I gave you the complete transition from hyracotherium to Equus. [02:33] FauxReal: was hyracotherium north or south american? I never can remember since they were all mixed up in the progrression. 8) [02:33] red: yep [02:33] hahaha [02:33] hey, creation, i ahve been reading up on creation. [02:33] bitwise (pilgrim@tahoe-d21.foothill.net) joined #apologetics. [02:33] Red: Like what? [02:33] hyracotherium splin in the eocene period into orohippus and pachynolophus. [02:34] hey, bhey bitwise, long time.... [02:34] Red! :) [02:34] crreation, i bought a book from a christian bookstore [02:34] where have you been, bit? [02:34] FauxReal: was hyrachterium north or south american? [02:34] name? [02:34] Orohippus survived to create mesohippus -> miohippus. [02:34] Off and on. [02:34] the story of creation..i lent it to a friend, so i dont remember the author [02:35] RedTango: and so what did you learn? [02:35] FauxReal: and chiwawa survived to create spaniels too. 8) [02:35] pascoe. This was the original. Besides, if you remember, horses were *introduced* into the americas by the Spanish! [02:35] nothing new! [02:35] RedTango: Doesn't sound familiar. Probably not the best you could get as a represtative of what is out there. [02:35] FauxReal: are you thinking of 'modern' horses now? [02:35] FauxReal: let's not get our timeline mixed up. 8) [02:35] fauxreal: actually, it was because the native population had hunted horses to extinction that they were absent from the Americas... [02:35] the spaniards reintroduced them [02:35] miohippus branched into anchitherium hypohippus and parahippus. [02:36] creation, well, it gives me alot of the stories and things that i have read in other books..i also have another book called darmwin's delimma. [02:36] FauxReal: eohippus is supposed to be the original. but that one is debatable now. 8) [02:36] Parahippus survived to go on. [02:36] pascoe: there are no duckbilled playpuses indiginous to the americas, either. [02:36] creation, i notice alot of repeat information, even reused graphics, in unrelated books. [02:37] eohippus was probably more like a pig than a horse, but hey, you take what you can get. [02:37] FauxReal: good point about the platypus. [02:37] platypus...there's one hell of a nonconforming animal... [02:37] Red: who wrote Darwin's dilema? [02:37] a mammal that lays eggs [02:37] Hume (lagorer@pm106.spots.ab.ca) joined #apologetics. [02:38] pascoe: and we're more like chimpanzees than horses. Your point? [02:38] Adversary: one of the many evolutionary miracles. 8) [02:38] RedTango: Darwin's Dilemma? Hmmm, sounds familiar. Is that talking aobut Darwin's Dilemma about how truth value doesn't necessarily correlate with survival value. The truth of a belief held doesn't necessarily coincide with its survival value. [02:38] pascoe: one of the many evidences of transition [02:38] Bit, actually, its called darwins enigma..written by Luther Sunderland. [02:38] pascoe: if god created the platypus, he must have been crazy. [02:38] Adversary: transition from what? [02:38] creation, i got the title of the book wrong.. [02:39] FauxReal: He did it to keep you up at night. 8) [02:39] pascoe: reptiles, probably [02:39] Red: ahh, yes... and what was your opinion? [02:39] Adversary: of course. [02:39] bit, my opinion stands, that the idea of creation is ridiculous and unfounded. [02:39] Red: That is what I thought. Yeah, I've seen the book. havn't read it yet. I'm busy trying to read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins and "The Creationists" by Numbers. [02:39] pascoe: but of course, you want the gaps all sealed, don't you? paying no attention to the sometimes small size of the gaps... [02:40] Action: creation 's opinion still stands as well. [02:40] Pascoe: Looks like you're the one who stays up at night, worrying. You need to gather all the info you can to try to disprove evolution. [02:40] Adversary: actually I'm willing to start modestly. a single solid transitionary series would be nice. a series leading to a modern specied would be even better. [02:40] "So this individual t-rex then mutated, and became taller, and then this type of t-rex had evolved, and his children mutated in this way..." [02:40] I was also given some papers supposedly invalidating carbon dating but they didnt, these creationsit papers leave out some very important information. They also borrow from science when they want, then twist it around. [02:40] "...and so on down through the 30,000 generations" [02:41] Red: You should read "The Mystery of Life's Origin's" by Bradley, Thaxton and Olsen if you really want a good book to read and not piddle around with those other books. [02:41] RedTango: do you know of a transitionary series? [02:41] creation, Ill see if i can find it, but im not going to waste any more money on them. [02:42] Red: Too bad [02:42] FauxReal: I went to the evolution web page and looked under transitionary series and they didn't have the horse????? [02:42] redtango: wise choice...once you've read one, you've read them all [02:42] Pascoe, i havent studied enough in the area of transitory skeletons. [02:42] RedTango: oh. [02:42] Red: I never knew it to be a waste to gain knowledge even if you don't agree with the position. [02:42] pascoe: Never been there so I can't say. [02:42] creation, i said it was a waste of money, not time. [02:42] Oh, THE evolution web page, eh? Well, I guess FauxReal's been pulling your hoof all along then [02:42] FauxReal: they must have forgotten about it. 8) [02:43] pascoe: I don't need to waste my time. [02:43] Red: A waste in any sense. [02:43] Hume (lagorer@pm106.spots.ab.ca) left #apologetics. [02:43] FauxReal: You should write them and tell them not to forget the horse 'series' on their web page. 8) [02:43] Im not going to shell out tons of money for creationist books, sorry. [02:44] I don't need to. People don't need to include every example. They generally use what they know best or what best demonstrates the [02:44] principle they're upholding. [02:44] Action: Adversary yawns [02:44] FauxReal: oh. [02:44] Red: hmmm, how do you logically conclude that a $11.00 book equals tons of money? [02:44] where did you get $11.00 from? [02:45] Action: Adversary yawns again [02:45] Red: I simply suggested a book and you come up with "tons of money" so... [02:45] Action: pascoe wouldn't spend $11 on evolutionist books either. 8) [02:45] Action: Adversary almost...no, wait...no, the yawn was stifled that time [02:46] stop that Adversary...you're making me yawn !!! [02:46] Action: FauxReal tosses adversary a couple vivarin and some Sartre to keep him awake during this tedious exchange... [02:46] So what was the name of Adam's pet dinosaur? [02:46] Action: FauxReal giggles inanely. [02:46] I have several christian books, i went out an purchased a $20.00 creation book, and a book called "Why Knock Rock" which is really hilarious. [02:46] Red: What creation book costed 20 dollars? [02:46] redtango: any of them put out by the watchtower association? theirs are the funniest... [02:47] cost even [02:47] The one called "The story of creation" [02:47] RedTango: you buy books like 'Why Knock Rock' and complain about creationist books? 8) [02:47] Rex? [02:47] I complain about them all! Actually, they are all quite interesting. [02:47] brentf: yes? [02:47] Spot. [02:47] Well, I hope you looked through it before you bought it. [02:47] As in what Adam was when his pet bronto stepped on him. [02:48] creation, i checked it out, then went back and bought it. [02:48]  [02:48] Action: Adversary recommends A History Of God by Karen Armstrong to anyone and everyone [02:48] Acolyte: Have you read that book, "A History of God"? [02:48] creation, do you go to a christian college? [02:48] Action: pascoe recommends the Bible to anyone and everyone. [02:48] Red: No [02:48] I want to read the _Biography of God_. [02:49] Action: Adversary likes the King James Verson the best [02:49] bitwise (pilgrim@tahoe-d21.foothill.net) left irc: Ping timeout for bitwise[tahoe-d21.foothill.net] [02:49] fauxreal: I read it...it's worth the read [02:49] fauxreal: you mean "God: A Biography", right? [02:49] FauxReal: is this an authorized biography? [02:49] Yeah, I guess. [02:49] Are you people aware that most public libraries are willing to buy books if you indicate an interest in checking it out? [02:50] Does it have his signature in goldleaf? :) [02:50] godiva (mpr11sp@www-17-38.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [02:50] Ha, we couldn't get evolution vs. creationism books here. I'm from the state where they can fire you if you teach it as anything other [02:50] Action: creation has read "The Monkey Business" by Eldridge. amusing. and "Scientists Confront Creationism" and amusing again. [02:50] than conjectured theory. [02:51] what state is that? [02:51] TN [02:51] oh [02:51] RexMundi (RexMundi@pm2-10.netexpress.net) left #apologetics. [02:51] Wait, wasn't that where the Scopes trial was too? [02:51] Why do people still say that we came from monkeys? [02:52] Yep. [02:52] godiva (mpr11sp@www-17-38.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [02:52] I dont know, we never did. [02:52] fauxreal: because they just don't know what they're talking about [02:52] FauxReal: You should go talk to Dr. Kurt Wise at Bryon University. [02:52] they set up a straw man for evolution and then tear it down [02:52] Indeed. You paying for the trip creation? [02:52] Adversary: Dayton [02:52] brentf (brentf@ip-pdx10-43.teleport.com) left irc: lagging badly...changing servers [02:52] heheheheheh [02:52] creation: a friend of mine recommended him to me [02:52] brentf` (brentf@ip-pdx10-43.teleport.com) joined #apologetics. [02:52] creation: Columbus, at OSU [02:53] evolution is its own straw man. 8) [02:53] ha. [02:53] oh, my sides... [02:53] Nick change: brentf` -> brentf [02:53] ok I am back [02:53] Adversary: He is a creationist and recieved his Ph.D under Gould at Harvard while he was a creationist. [02:53] creation and pascoe can just go to their local biology professor. [02:53] People need to deny that they are animals. [02:53] redtango why? [02:53] people need to deny their accountability to a Maker. [02:53] Because it feeds the fantasy. [02:54] redtango perhaps nature disposes them to that fantasy? [02:54] there is no accountability to a maker [02:54] pascoe: people need to deny their accountability to reality [02:54] that is a man imposed concept. [02:54] Creation I know that bl [02:54] Red, Adversary> Have you guys seen "The Human Animal" by Desmond Morris? [02:54] Creation I know that bk [02:54] acolyte, what else would [02:54] Acolyte: What did you think of "A History of God" [02:54] fauxreal: yes, and I read The Naked Ape [02:54] redtango thatis the point, nature has disposed you to believe in other mysths [02:54] Creation crappy [02:54] hehehe [02:54] i dont beleive in myths. [02:54] creation about 40 yrs out of date [02:55] Cool, huh! [02:55] redtagno sure you [02:55] do [02:55] evolution is a myth. [02:55] creation thanks [02:55] acolyte: no problem :) [02:55] Redtango ethics are a myth, and yet you hold to them [02:55] creation: ignore acolyte... I highly recommend it as a general look at the philosophical history of the three ethical monotheistic religions [02:55] evolution is atheory, creation is a myth. [02:55] Evolution is fact, you are an animal and will die an animal. [02:55] redtango: theory, but that's much better than myth. [02:55] Adversary: Hmm, I don't think I would ignore acolyte. [02:56] creation she holds to outdated theories on Textual transmission and compostion and holds EXTREMELY late dates that were barely tenable before we had the Dead Sea Scrolls. [02:56] RedTango: but you already said you didn't know of any transitionary series. how can you say it is fact? [02:56] acolyte: ethics are common sense, Einstein [02:56] ethics are something i find that works for me personally. Myths regarding supernatural beings dont. [02:56] Redtango Evolutiuon does not exclude a God, naturalism does [02:56] true [02:56] redtango you have an ethics myth [02:56] pascoe, research into evolution is an ongoing, lifelong process. Science makes new discoveries each year, and i am there to follow the progress. [02:56] redtango it really is not true, but you made it up to cope with reality, hence a myth [02:57] acolyte: myths are stories about supernatural beings [02:57] you mean LIE [02:57] RedTango: you are there to place your faith in what they say. [02:57] acolyte, and it doesnt involve the supernatural..thats what i meany=t by "myth", the supernatural. [02:57] Advasary some are [02:57] advasary mean a myth [02:57] Why is it that Religion thinks it holds a monopoly on morality and ethics? [02:57] advarsay it is an illusion to cope with or explain reality [02:57] religion is about control and power, thats why. [02:57] acolyte: you can't even get the bloody name right!!! [02:57] A D V E R S A R Y [02:57] red: Actually a myth is a god or hero story of any faith/tradition/culture. [02:58] advarsary I am dyslexic, I have a disability, do you have a problem with that? [02:58] Faux, there you go. [02:58] Fauxreal depends on whom you ask [02:58] FauxReal: what is the basis of morality apart from accountability to a Creator? [02:58] ...yawn [02:58] yeah adversary, you got a problem? [02:58] myth connotates neither verit or falsehood [02:58] I am moral without a God. [02:59] RedTango: why? [02:59] fauxreal, so it ir neither true nor false? it carries no true value?> hence it is meaningless [02:59] pascoe: Responsibility to one's self and one's fellow man. [02:59] Action: Adversary is moral without a God as well [02:59] redtango define morality [02:59] acolyte, why define it? [02:59] redtango why should I not rape you? [02:59] You will only sit and tear it apart. [02:59] Morality: a system of ethics that supports the prosperity of human life [02:59] redtango because I wishto know what you mean. [02:59] FauxReal: how do you define irresponsibility then if you are your own judge? [02:59] Adversary thatis ONE SYSTEM of ethics, not all systems [02:59] adv thatis a type of consequentialism [02:59] acolyte, you have spoken to me before, you know my "worldview.." or at least your version of it. [02:59] pascoe: see adversary's def. [03:00] Then by my book that's not morality...that is exploitation [03:00] adva ok, why is explotation wrong? [03:00] Adversary: what authority are you using to make these categories? [03:00] By the fact that I am alive and wish to stay so... [03:00] By my knowledge of philosophy... [03:00] By my rational capability... [03:00] Why do you ask? [03:01] ad Iso you just create ethics ipso facto? [03:01] Ethics does not come from authority [03:01] ad how do you justify any ethic as correct? [03:01] Ad how do you know? [03:01] By the consequences, and by the rational principles behind the theories [03:01] ad Ic, why value the consequences? [03:01] ad what principles would those be? [03:01] sort of the whole point of ethics, to produce a certain result [03:02] question beggin [03:02] g [03:02] ad that is consequentialist ethics, which is only good if youvalue a thing, I want to know why value X, not the results of X [03:02] the problem with ethics based upon authority is that there is no argument for them if you do not recognize the authority [03:02] ac: the determination of right and wrong. [03:02] ad that depends on what authority one is arguing for [03:02] acolyte: you mean why do I value life? [03:02] Faux thats better [03:02] ad yes why? [03:03] Because I enjoy living. [03:03] It's a choice, if nothing more. [03:03] ad ok but nature has disposed you to enjoy it, how do you know that it is right tho? [03:03] And I make that choice with full responsibility of the consequences. [03:03] Right by what standard? [03:03] responsible to whom? [03:03] Life is the standard by which I define right. [03:03] Responsible to reality... [03:03] However, we think human sacrifice is wrong and our ancestors thought that their gods wanted it. [03:03] how do you get an ought from an is? [03:03] Responsible for supporting my own life, instead of being a parasite off of the ability of others [03:04] fauxreal not my ancestors [03:04] is determines what should be [03:04] ad so you grow your own food? [03:04] acolyte: I work to earn it [03:04] Ad how do you derive from nature what ought to be? [03:04] is-ought fallacy? [03:04] ad you still depend onothers [03:04] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip20.csrv.uidaho.edu) left irc: Ping timeout for pascoe[xslip20.csrv.uidaho.edu] [03:04] creation yes [03:04] acolyte: I exist in a society, but I give my return to it...I am paying for my education, I pay for my housing, I pay for my food [03:05] I pay taxes [03:05] adversary-how do you derive from nature what out to be? [03:05] Because reality determines what is necessary to maintain a certain state [03:05] I wish to maintain my life in happiness [03:05] ad or acolyte please change nicks. It's difficult to tell you apart. [03:05] fbut again, why value what is? [03:05] What is real, what my nature is, determines how I need to do that [03:05] If I don't, then I die [03:05] ok, so then you do not know what is true,but what nature determines you to think eh? [03:05] If I don't recognize reality, then my chances of survival decrease significantly [03:06] ok, why value survivial? [03:06] What is true is what is real [03:06] how do you know what is real? [03:06] Because I am conscious [03:06] I observe, I experience [03:06] but that is determined by nature [03:06] yes, reality [03:06] you only know what mnature determines yout o know [03:06] which may not be true [03:06] yawn [03:06] survivial beleifs may have LOW truth value [03:06] Spit [03:06] Not by definition [03:07] I beg to differ [03:07] for example [03:07] Truth is what enables us to survive [03:07] hehehehehe [03:07] go ahead, beg [03:07] not necessarily [03:07] ROTFL!!!!!!! [03:07] for example [03:07] Nick change: Adversary -> Paladin [03:07] jack may run away froma tiger for MANY reasons,not all of them true [03:07] not just because he wishes to survive or not just because he is scared [03:08] Acolyte, you seemed determined to prove that God is the only way anyone's morals and values can be justified or valid, there is this strange mistrust you have about individuals making choices for themselves, like these choices a re always wrong. Why? [03:08] If at least one is true, then he made the right decision. [03:08] red i make choices for myself all the time, whats the problem? [03:08] Acolyte: So who then do I rely upon to tell me what is true, if I can not? [03:08] RedTango: Verrrry niiicce. [03:08] acolyte, but you have your god myth as a defense. [03:08] Paladin, that is not what I am saying at all [03:08] I either rely upon my own mind, or I give up my responsibility to think and leave it to someone else [03:08] We dont, so you pick, pick pick at our choices and values. [03:08] redtango and you have irrationality as yours, so? [03:09] Acolyte, i am talking about YOU for a moment. [03:09] red I pick my choices too, so? [03:09] And pretending there is some aspect of reality that doesn't follow natural laws does not prove your position of a spiritual realm [03:09] Your hobby here is to pick pick pick at our choices. [03:09] redtagno and I am talking about me 2 and you, so? [03:09] paladin I did not say that [03:09] Paladin, yes, true. [03:09] Acolyte, you are always inclined that way, however. [03:09] paladin I said nature may produce beleifs in you that have LOW truth value but HIGH survivial value and you would have no way to verify the truth of EITHER of them since what you think is determined by nature [03:10] redtango your point? [03:10] Acolyte: with all due respect, could you speed it up a bit? I need to get some sleep soon... [03:10] Red: Let's not point fingers. [03:10] paladin, sorry if I am not speedy gonzales here ok [03:10] You told me the other day that you are not like me..you are not made of the same things I am..what else can that mean, but that you think you are connected to a deity, while we are not, and you sit and pick and pick at our choic es. [03:10] Acolyte: You're really not accomplishing much by saying that what I believe is determined by reality [03:10] paladin answer my point please [03:10] paladin sure I am, it is not verifiable [03:10] Faux, i am pointing right at Acolyte. [03:10] Acolyte: What has nature made me to be? [03:11] redtagno you totally miscontrued whatI said [03:11] What everyone believes and how they act are determined by reality. [03:11] I said VERY clerly that things in my paradigm are VERY different than the things in yours [03:11] Acolyte, then if i have misunderstood, then lets clear this up..... [03:11] redtango i just did [03:11] Now, what determines that reality? and is it the same for all? [03:12] paladin it has determined youto have certian beleifs, how do you verify them? [03:12] Do you feel your morals and values are more rational, better, more real because you believe in God? Your answer to this will clear it up. [03:12] Acolyte: so how do I know that what enables me to survive is true? [03:12] ac: observation and ration. [03:12] Redtango I think Theism is the only rational basis for ethics and epsitemology [03:12] Is that your basic question? [03:12] fauxreal is that part of nature or outside of natures detemrination? [03:12] Acolyte, well, there you go..you proved my point exactly. [03:12] paladin thatis one question [03:12] You have a valid point about the man running from the tiger... [03:12] redtango which was? [03:13] paladin thank you [03:13] Iris (iris@prism.com) joined #apologetics. [03:13] observation, part; ration, outside. [03:13] We do act and then later rationally justify our action [03:13] regardless of whether or not that was the original intention [03:13] Acolyte, you think your system of morals and values are more valid than ours. [03:13] However, we do have a talent for correcting our mistakes [03:13] paladin but the point was, survival beleifs are not necessarily true beleifs [03:13] thats the point. [03:13] redtango not more valid., your system is not valid logically at all. [03:14] Acolyte: What enables us to survive must be pretty close to reality, otherwise it wouldn't work, now would it? [03:14] paladin still determined by nature [03:14] Acolyte, then if my system isnt valid logically, why is my life going so well? [03:14] red & ac: stop bickering. [03:14] still determined by reality, yes [03:14] Paladin, but there is no way to verify it to know [03:14] Faux, we talk here frequently. [03:14] redtango in spite of it, not because of it [03:14] Please dont tell me how to conduct my conversations. [03:14] Red i have ops here don't worry about it [03:14] faux chill [03:14] red: still, that's the past. leave it there while we're discussing the issue at hand. [03:15] We verify our knowledge through more experience, which tends to either disprove or further support our beliefs [03:15] Acolyte, so, somehow, by some crazy twist of luck, i have manages to make good of a life based on total iirationality..somehow, it is working... [03:15] Knowledge is always an approximation... [03:15] paladina nd that experience is determined by nature as well and so on... [03:15] redtango luck? what luck? there is no luck [03:15] paladin is that an approximation too? [03:15] acolyte: and once again, you are really not accomplishing much by saying that my experiences are in reality [03:16] touché [03:16] paladin I did not say that, i said every experience is determined an henc enot verifiable [03:16] Acolyte, it seems you insinuate that my life is going really well in spite of my worldview, you cant admit that my worldview may actually contribute to my success in life..thats just impossible, eh? [03:16] verified by what means? stepping outside of reality? no, it can't be done that way... [03:16] acolyte: even your experience with god? [03:16] redtango yup, but not how you think I think of it [03:16] it is verified only through comparison [03:16] AColyte, hahahaha [03:16] fauxreal I am talking about paradigms here, not in mine [03:17] paladin is allreality physical? [03:17] define physical [03:17] paladin material, composed of matter [03:17] reality is physical; nature goes somewhat beyond. [03:17] or don't you know what that is? [03:17] no, all of reality is not composed of matter [03:17] paladin then what is it composed of? [03:17] energy [03:18] matter=energy [03:18] BFD [03:18] matter is a possible state of energy [03:18] energy = matter [03:18] hehehe [03:18] energy exists by physical laws and is therefore physical. [03:18] Paladin what are ideas? [03:18] creation: no energy = matter times the speed of light squared. ;) [03:18] hmm...concepts held by a mind [03:19] paladin and what is a mind? a brain perhaps? [03:19] Acolyte, you dont sound like the type of person who has had much experience in life. [03:19] redtango perhaps [03:19] Fauxreal: mc^2 = energy in ergs. [03:19] the mind is the pattern of the brain's functioning [03:19] redtango and perhaps not [03:19] the brain is the physical reality that expresses the pattern [03:19] How old are you, early twenties? [03:19] paladin and what are ideas [03:19] red mid 20's [03:19] red and u? [03:19] 29 [03:19] 19 [03:19] red you are 4 yrs older than me [03:20] just turned 20. [03:20] Your inexpereince shows. [03:20] kids [03:20] REd yeah I can see all those 4 fricken years on you. [03:20] red you are truely ancient [03:20] hehehehe [03:20] no, but certainly wizened. [03:20] It isnt simply chronological age. [03:20] red I don't have to take poision to know that it will kill me either [03:20] red true [03:20] It is experiencing people. [03:20] ideas are a product of intellectual action [03:20] a thought [03:20] a belief [03:20] red and what specifically are you referring to? [03:20] paladin they are chemcials in the brain [03:21] It is gaining a braoder understanding about differences between people. [03:21] yep, that's the physical reality that the patterns are expressed in [03:21] red I understand the difference quite well [03:21] chemicals in the brain are the physical manifestation of these patterns. [03:21] just as the pattern of life is expressed in carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. [03:21] Being able to step outside yourself and experience and take people at face value. [03:21] paladin, fine, and what is the brain governed by? what laws? [03:21] No, you dont. [03:21] disrupt the physical reality, the pattern is disrupted as well [03:21] red, oh I don't now, oh please inform me [03:21] paladin, fine, and what is the brain governed by? what laws? [03:22] You are still into making assumptions about people, and they are not educated assumptions. [03:22] laws of reality [03:22] the brain is governed by physical laws. [03:22] red IC and what assumptions might those be? [03:22] but I dislike the term laws [03:22] fauxreal good, now, so your thoughts are governed by what laws? [03:22] like the one you just made about aco, red? [03:22] axioms, perhaps? [03:22] irisi which was? [03:22] Iris (iris@prism.com) left #apologetics. [03:22] laws are man-made, descriptions given to observed tendencies [03:22] You are very very self protective as well, very concerned, if not a tad paranoid, about losing control. [03:22] hmmm, sounds like redtango is making some assumptions about acolyte himself. [03:22] paladin so do they exist or no? [03:22] ac: thoughts are governed by the laws of behaviour and psychology. [03:23] do what exist? [03:23] red control of what? [03:23] creation, and i stand corrected if i am wrong. [03:23] fauxreal which are laws of nature [03:23] acolyte, your direction, your options. [03:23] red ic [03:23] red what else [03:23] Red what would I need to say to prove you wrong? [03:23] Acolyte, i only see what is here on IRC, i cant delve into other parts of your life. [03:24] acolyte: I'm sorry if you wish for a reality that is not governed by identity, but it is not about the compromise for your whims [03:24] Red: But you are still making assumptions which was your point. [03:24] red then why make the judgement? [03:24] to exist is to have an identity [03:24] to have an identity is to have traits [03:24] creation, and i am waiting to be corrected. [03:24] to have traits is to behave in a particular way [03:24] paladin all your choices are determined by natureal laws, its vbery simple, you are a machine [03:24] that's the way reality works [03:24] acolyte, i am judging you on what i have seen displayed here. [03:24] red from your perspective [03:24] acolyte, what else? [03:24] red I can undertsand how you see me [03:24] Acolyte: no, it's very complex and a machine is a fairly acceptable analogy [03:25] I would ask, try to see things how I see them, just try [03:25] acolyte: now, did you just ignore what I typed before, or will you respond to MY statements? [03:25] Acolyte, it is only one part of you [03:25] paladin no it is not an anology at all [03:25] not really laws, but they fit within the parameters of observable situation. [03:25] paladin I have [03:25] paladin how are you not detemrine by nature if you are only part of nature? [03:25] AColyte i cant sit and guess about anything else, i have no information about you other than your conversations about basically one subject here on IRC. [03:25] In order to command nature, you must first obey it... [03:25] I am part of the system of reality, sorry to tell you. As are you. [03:26] Reality exists, and so do you, and you can't choose otherwise. [03:26] paladin but even that commading is part of your being determined by it [03:26] My being is that command, that tendency of the matter to behave in that way... [03:26] paladin so no free will eh? [03:26] My will is not free from reality, no [03:26] My will is not dictated by the will of other humans [03:26] Acolyte, what is your personal fascination with "determination by nature?" Its a real sticking point with you. Why is that? [03:26] nor is it dictated by the will of gods [03:26] paladin so your will is determined by physical states [03:27] my will is a physical state [03:27] redtango it is a fatal flaw in naturalism. [03:27] Acolyte: A friend of mine as that Bonson and Stein debate on tape. I'm going to borrow it some time. [03:27] paladin then iut is determined [03:27] Ahhh...determinism rears its ugly head [03:27] creation do yourself a favor and memorize it [03:27] will is determined by identity and conciousness with a good mix of sapience. [03:27] to exist is to have an identity [03:27] > to have an identity is to have traits [03:27] brentf a certain KIND of it tho [03:27] Acolyte: Ok :) [03:27] to have traits is to behave in a particular way [03:27] creation its great [03:27] Acolyte, do you feel that your theories have flaws as well? [03:28] paladin so? [03:28] So what? [03:28] redtango I have worked out most of the bugs, but they are not my theories [03:28] redtango If there are any, I know jwhere they are, no on has yet been able to find them. [03:28] redtango but they are not true defeaters to my system [03:28] Acolyte, tell me, what flaws are still left in your beleifs that are still a problem for you..can you describe one for me? [03:28] amen [03:28] red can i ask you a personal question? [03:29] sure [03:29] why do you talk to me so much? [03:29] Reality behaves in a particular way. No, I am not free from reality. [03:29] Acolyte, you are one of several people i talk to regularly on IRC [03:29] paladin then your choices are determined and hence you only thnk what you are determined to think [03:29] Red why? [03:29] why what? [03:29] Red why talk to me? [03:29] should i not? [03:30] Acolyte: at that level of perspective, you can not separate my identity from what is determining it, however [03:30] that is not what I asked [03:30] paladin true [03:30] Red why talk to me? [03:30] Acolyte, why not? [03:30] acolyte: it really accomplishes very little to talk of human will and morals from anything but the perspective of a human identity [03:30] Red will you answer or no? [03:30] i did answer. [03:30] you want specifics ? [03:30] red yes [03:31] Paladin: Amen! [03:31] acolyte: so what was your point? [03:31] acolyte: I already knew that I was ultimately a unified part of reality, so what are you getting at? [03:31] I talk to people who beleive differently than i do...see the world differently, solve problems differently. You are one of many who are different than i am. [03:31] paladin, the point is, that moral and all ideas in your paradigm have no truth value since 1. there is no way to verify them since every attempt would be a determiend outcome as well [03:32] red but why me if I am so wrong? [03:32] red do you enjoy talking to me? [03:32] Acolyte, i dont come here to convert or convince people they are wrong...i dont care if someone doesnt beleive the same wasy I do. [03:32] acolyte: That's from the physical/reality point of view. [03:32] Yeah, i enjoy talking to you [03:32] red I care [03:32] red why do you enjoy it? [03:32] fauxreal I know [03:33] fauxreal which is the point [03:33] ac: Take a look at it from the conciousness/identity point of view. It won't be easy, then. [03:33] because i need to think..i dont want to sit around in boring channels and "sip coffee" and goof off. I want ot think and tos around new ideas. [03:33] acolyte: saying that I am not free from the reality that created me does not destroy the tendencies of human identity within that reality [03:33] rather, it supports them... [03:33] We behave the way we do for a reason... [03:33] Red: Amen! [03:33] faux if you hold to non-material reality sure, I am a Dualist, he is not, hence his problem,not mine [03:33] It is part of our very nature, and something that can not be separated from us [03:33] paladin no, it codifies them [03:34] paladin that is part of the point [03:34] acolyte: which is...? [03:34] acolyte: You are trying to take the stance of someone looking down on us poor determined humans from afar [03:34] paladin your ideas are determined, you could never verify anyone fo them. they are meaningless [03:34] We don't operate that way [03:34] Acolyte, I would like to hear from you what flaws you have a problem with in your own beliefs. [03:34] I would not be communicating right now if ideas were meaningless [03:34] paladin so you don't operate according to the principles of nature? ar eyou above nature in some way? [03:34] there, verification [03:35] Red I bet you would [03:35] Acolyte, you keep asking the same questions over and over. [03:35] acolyte: i never said otherwise [03:35] I said that we don't look at ourselves as from outside [03:35] Paladin how is that verification if it is detemined as well? [03:35] acolyte: so, you're saying identity codifies reality? [03:35] we look through our own eyes [03:35] fauxreal no [03:35] Acolyte seems to have a deep fear of meaninglessness. [03:35] acolyte: I'M saying that identity codifies reality [03:36] redtango to you or to them? [03:36] I'm saying that to exist to have identity [03:36] Red yes I do, is jthat a problem? [03:36] what? [03:36] paladin, so, still determined [03:36] and it is our identity to be able to observe reality [03:36] Acolyte, i am just trying to understand the man behind the message. [03:36] paladin, so, still determined [03:36] STILL DETERMINED BY WHAT IS REAL AS OPPOSED TO YOUR FANTASIES, YES [03:36] reed can I be frank? [03:36] yeah go ahead [03:36] Now what's the point before I go to bed? [03:37] paladin, which means that your ideas are determined as well, hence they are meaningless [03:37] THAT IS THE POINT [03:37] THAT IS THE POINT [03:37] THAT IS THE POINT [03:37] oh, brother... [03:37] paladin, which means that your ideas are determined as well, hence they are meaningless [03:37] geez. [03:37] No, it means they are firmly rooted in reality instead of being arbitrary [03:37] By determinism, acolyte, then so are yours. :) [03:37] Paladin!Adversary@ts40-7.homenet.ohio-state.edu kicked by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: go to bed already [03:37] fauxreal nope [03:37] Paladin (Adversary@ts40-7.homenet.ohio-state.edu) joined #apologetics. [03:37] Hmmm...I don't fear meaninglessness as much as I enjoy meaningfullness...therefore, I choose to seek a system which gives meaning and purpose to life...which determinism does not. [03:37] fauxreal i am nto a naturalist, he is [03:38] fauxreal i am a dualist, not a monist [03:38] red if you wishto undertsnad me, truely, you are going about it the wrong way [03:38] but if, by being a determinist, his ideas are meaningless, then yours, by the same token of his determinism, would be equally meaningless. [03:38] faux real true. if his poaradigm were actually the case [03:38] brent, i live without a God and I determine my own meaning and what i am going to do with the time i have here. it is a big responsibility, and I am mature and creative enough to handle it. [03:39] ac: for him, it is. [03:39] faxreal which would make the whole convo meaningless [03:39] Indeed. [03:39] red if you wish to know me, talk tome on the phone [03:39] Action: Paladin thinks Acolyte is meaningless [03:39] goodnight all [03:39] Paladin (Adversary@ts40-7.homenet.ohio-state.edu) left #apologetics. -------------------------------------------------------------- [04:07] jp22 (jperrinjr@p5.pm0.theriver.com) joined #apologetics. [04:07] hello [04:07] hello, jp22 [04:07] what is up with the topic? [04:08] Heh, I was wondering the same thing. [04:08] glad i asked [04:08] Topic changed by Acolyte!st_aidan@ The Home of rational Theism [04:09] is there such a thing as rational theism? [04:09] jp22 yes [04:09] i disagree [04:09] jp22 why? [04:10] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) joined #apologetics. [04:10] yeah [04:10] seeing as theology is the study of a religion which is based on the spiritual that you cannot prove exists [04:10] hey zx [04:10] define proof [04:10] how can something you cannot see be classified as rational [04:10] Mode change '+o zx ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [04:10] jp22 can you see an idea? [04:10] no [04:11] who me? [04:11] hehehe [04:11] aco i got to get back lotta action over there [04:11] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) left #apologetics. [04:11] ok [04:11] jp22 are ideas classifiable and yet not tangable? [04:11] yes they are [04:12] being non-material is not a deteriment to classification [04:12] are you arguing proof or rational theism [04:12] Action: Achimoth is ï back ï [04:12] both [04:12] how can you rationalize on a whole theology, the study of the spiritual [04:12] jp22 r u an atheist? [04:13] no [04:13] then what? [04:13] does it matter [04:13] yes [04:13] why [04:13] cause I asked [04:13] how is that pertinant to rational theism [04:13] fine don't anmser [04:14] i wont [04:14] i will asume u r an atheist [04:14] fine by me [04:14] you know what they say about people who assume [04:14] and why are you assuming that i am atheist [04:14] jp22 I don't care what others say [04:14] obviously [04:14] I care abvout what is reasonable, don't you? [04:14] perhpas not [04:15] achimoth I gotta go home and go to bed [04:15] achimoth its late [04:15] leaving so soon [04:15] ok [04:15] Mode change '+o Achimoth ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [04:15] its 1 am here and I gotta drive homme [04:15] is it reasonable to assume that i am atheist [04:15] jp22 yes [04:15] how is that reasonable [04:16] you know nothing about me [04:16] jp22you are a non-bliever you do not believe inthe xian God, hence you are a form of Atheist [04:16] simeple enough [04:16] how do you know that [04:16] you told me [04:16] are you xtian [04:16] you talk like it as well [04:16] yes I am [04:16] r u? [04:16] you sure are quick to judge for a xtian [04:17] maybe [04:17] no i am not a xtian [04:17] are you a jew? [04:17] are you a Muslim? [04:17] no [04:17] no [04:17] to quote Acolyte: what is your paradigm? [04:17] are you a theist? [04:17] define theist [04:17] let me ask you this [04:17] theist-one who believes in a deity or deities [04:17] ask away [04:18] can a person believe in Christ as the son of god and not be a xtian [04:18] RLB (rbruno@van-as-11b01.direct.ca) joined #apologetics. [04:18] jp22 no [04:18] rlb the Arian [04:18] is it not historically proven that Christ was the son of God [04:18] historically written [04:18] I don't think so [04:18] wait [04:19] then who was christ according to history? [04:19] Christian=follower of Christ [04:19] what do you mean? [04:19] jp22 the bible is considered as a historicaql document [04:19] RLB, how I agree and disagree with you there [04:20] what do I mean?> [04:20] jp22who is Jesus in your opinion? [04:20] The son of GOd [04:20] bur we both know believers wrote it [04:20] jp22 does he have his fathers nature? [04:20] that is historically written that he was the son of God [04:21] historically (secular historians) that ever wrote that jesus is the Son of God were believers too [04:21] RLB the bible is a biased outdated non-factual prophesising document that may tell us about society in the times of Jesus, but is it a valid source seeing as it was so mass produced and written by scribe after scribe [04:22] jp22 if the NT is not reliable no piece of ancient writing is [04:22] yep [04:22] and why is that? [04:22] jp22 the multipe ancient copies of the Nt make it reliable [04:22] because we can check against other copies against errors [04:22] you can't do that with other documents [04:23] because [04:23] they only have a few copies [04:23] 22 its the most well keep historical account during those times [04:23] and the time gap is so vast betyween when they were written and when they were originally composed [04:23] i dont doubt that, but did it ever occur to you that folklore changes, most of Paul's stories were told by Paul to people who then told the scribes [04:23] jp22 how is the Nt non-factual? [04:23] see abouve [04:24] jp22 how is the Nt non-factual? [04:24] jp Paul did not write the Gospels [04:24] thats for starters [04:24] jp22: Paul wrote those epistles [04:24] second if it changed we have no evidencer that it did change [04:24] did i say he wrote the gospels? [04:24] jp22 how is the Nt non-factual? [04:24] jp22 I was pointing it out for you [04:24] jp22 how is the Nt non-factual? [04:25] but you leave it open that there is a chanve that pauls epistles could have been changed [04:25] Action: Achimoth finds it interesting that the book of Isaiah is almost completely unchanged from the time of the Qumran settlement to now [04:25] jp22 sure and there is a chance that aliens took jesus to heaven, but I don't go on what COULD BE, I go on what I have evidence for [04:25] don't u? [04:26] and how do you have evidence that Moses parted the red sea? [04:26] achimoth 7 varient words over 1,100 yrs of transimmsion [04:26] jp22 how is the NT non-factual? [04:26] acolye: mindboggling from atheistically POV [04:26] etaro (s334285@s334285.slip.cc.uq.oz.au) joined #apologetics. [04:26] achnith naybe [04:26] and how do you have evidence that Moses parted the red sea? [04:27] jp I have asked you first 7 times, please answer [04:27] jp22: do you have evidence it didnt? [04:27] then I will be more than happy to answer yo9ur question [04:27] if you scroll back you will see my answer [04:27] jp22 I did, and you gave me no example of how it is non-historical [04:27] jp22 how is the nt false? [04:27] etaro (s334285@s334285.slip.cc.uq.oz.au) left #apologetics. [04:28] the fact that the epistles were passed down by word of mouth leads to what could be a question of validity, and that changes history [04:28] must sleep goodnight [04:28] RLB (rbruno@van-as-11b01.direct.ca) left irc: [04:28] jp22: they werent [04:28] theres your flaw [04:28] jp22, the epistles were written, hence epistles, LETTERS [04:29] by word OR epistle [04:29] hence the epistle is not word of mouth [04:29] no flaw, Paul told what he saw to a scribe who then wrote them, how do you know that Paul sat down and wrote those epistles [04:29] all the epistles were letters written by the apostles to others, that were preserved.. and copied [04:29] jp22 because he says so [04:29] also the bible is also translated from hebrew [04:29] jp22: Paul was greek trained.. he wrote fluent greek and spoke it as well [04:30] the OT was [04:30] jp22 if my secretary transcribeds what i said, it is stillmy words [04:30] your willing to take his word [04:30] jp22 I have no evidence not to [04:30] Paul was not some ignorant preacher off the street.... [04:30] achimoth anyhow I gotta go to sleep [04:30] and go home [04:30] achimoth later [04:30] paul was a platonist [04:30] he was a Pharisee trained by the best teachers... [04:31] jp22 AHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH [04:31] jp22 that allagation is about 90 yrs old [04:31] and 90 yrs refuted [04:31] aco: i may kick this guy.. sheeesh [04:31] where des he get this? [04:31] see J. Gersham Machen, the Origin of Pauls religion [04:31] read Ceasar and Christ [04:31] by whom? McCabe? [04:31] already done that [04:32] and who is it refuted by, christians? [04:32] do you want toknow why paul was not a platonist? [04:32] Paul believed in the Resurrection of the BODY, Platinists thought the material body was evil, [04:32] simple fact of history [04:33] jp22 even liberal scholars do not hold that view, they have not for about 90 yrs [04:33] Don't kick him. And don't be so condescending, either. There are polite ways of disagreeing and pointing out errors in one's opinions and beliefs. [04:33] jp22 who is the author of the bk you mentioned? [04:33] i dont remember [04:33] but i read parts of it [04:33] it was by prometheus press right? [04:33] huge book [04:33] jp22 see The gospel and the greeks, By ronald nash [04:34] jp22 go to the CRI web site and Nash has an article on that very issue [04:34] jp22 its under apologetics [04:34] Time magazine had an article on the bible too, fact or fiction [04:34] brentf: theres a difference between rational debate and pulling possibilities out of thin air [04:34] jp22 I know I read it [04:34] jp22 it was a pretty fair article [04:35] i have the article, i just havent read it yet [04:35] achimoth did you hear, we have Jeremiah's fingerprints now???? [04:35] from where? [04:35] achimoth from clay seals [04:35] ahh... [04:35] achimoth with his name on them, and finher prints [04:35] Achimoth: Agreed. But good debate begins by understanding your opponent's position, not by ridiculing it. [04:35] paul was a platonist, but then converted to christianity [04:36] that would be about the only way they could be preserved too [04:36] jp22 Paul was a Pharasee and a Jew and no Platinist [04:36] jp22: wrong [04:36] he was a Pharisee... [04:36] on the fast track to a seat on the Sanhedrin [04:36] so you agree that history can disagree [04:36] a student of Hillel IIRC [04:37] jp22 he was a Rabi, an not a Platonist and then he disagreed with Philo and other Neo-Platonists of his day [04:37] that there is not one way that you can tell if history is correct or not [04:37] jp22 no I think you are ignorant of the facts [04:37] I am goingto be [04:37] bed [04:37] later [04:37] how am i ignoreant [04:37] night Aco [04:37] i think that is funny [04:37] you call me ignorant and then run [04:37] jp22 I bet you do, mosty fools do as well [04:37] achimoth when have I run? [04:38] jp22 you were done 10 minutes ago [04:38] not ever as far as i know [04:38] you look like the fool when you start something call someone ignorant and then say you have to go to bed [04:38] achimoth have him for a snak [04:38] Now that's what I call good rational debate :( sheesh [04:38] jp22 I gave you 4 sources, go read them [04:38] jp22: hes been saying hes had to go to bed since youve been on channel [04:38] achimoth before that even [04:38] then why did he start an argument [04:38] yep [04:38] when creation was on [04:39] jp22 if you think you are so slick email me [04:39] Arai (iris@prism.com) joined #apologetics. [04:39] what do i e mail you [04:39] ~st_aidan@deltanet.com [04:39] hullo arai [04:39] arai how old r u? [04:39] Hi Aco [04:39] er.... [04:39] 41.. why????????? [04:39] just wondering [04:39] arai u m or f? [04:40] female [04:40] where do you live and what church do you attend presently? [04:40] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) joined #apologetics. [04:40] I am just curious is all [04:40] whats going on in here! [04:40] acolyte is it safe to say that your sources are biased towards your religion [04:40] jp22 some are and some are not [04:41] I live in Perris California. I'm non denominational.. but I rarely attend one specific church. havent done that in years. [04:41] Don't try to prove the Bible correct by using the Bible [04:41] hehehe [04:41] jp22 see Oscar Cullman, The christology of the NT [04:41] jp22 and see also Raymond Brown, An Introduction to NT Chrstology [04:41] Arai (iris@prism.com) left #apologetics. [04:41] and I. Howard Marshall, The Origins of Nt Christology [04:42] why are you asking me to read all these books [04:42] what will i get out of it [04:42] jp22 they are standard works iun the field that is why [04:42] then you won't be ignorant any longer [04:42] what is the point that you are trying to prove to me by assigning me of these books [04:42] at least of Nt criticism [04:42] i read 3 books and im cured of ignorance [04:42] JOY [04:42] jp22 for verification by top scholars in the field of what I ams aying [04:43] anyhow [04:43] I NEED TO DRIVE HOME [04:43] and GO TO BED [04:43] by zx [04:43] achi [04:43] later [04:43] bye aco [04:43] Mode change '+o zx ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [04:43] i still dont see how theism is rational [04:43] or can be rational [04:43] not my fault [04:43] jp22: are you rational? [04:43] which is what we started arguing [04:43] see Sturat hackett, The Reconstruciton of the Christian revelation Claim [04:43] and that is where this whole argument began :) [04:43] baker books [04:44] Stuart even [04:44] BYE [04:44] Acolyte (st_aidan@ left irc: Leaving [04:44] he never proved me wrong, he went off on something else [04:45] Say again why you believe theism is not rational. I think I remember, but really don't want to scroll back that far. [04:46] seeing as theology is the study of a religion which is based on the spiritual that you cannot prove exists [04:46] seeing as theology is the study of a religion which is based on the spiritual that you cannot prove exists [04:46] seeing as theology is the study of a religion which is based on the spiritual that you cannot prove exists [04:46] how can something you cannot see be classified as rational [04:46] how can you rationalize on a whole theology, the study of the spiritual [04:46] that's the line I remember. [04:47] (the second one) [04:47] yah [04:47] I believe Acolyte's point was that ideas can be rational without being *seen* [04:48] one can be tottaly grounded in the 5 sense and be tottally irrational [04:49] ok, but theology is a study of a religions correct, the spiritual side? [04:50] theology is the study of God and his Nature [04:50] right the spiritual side [04:50] what you speak of is another branch of though entirely [04:50] thought even [04:51] theology = theos (God) logos (word) or *a word about God*...even atheism is theology as it is an idea about God :) [04:52] but there are so many people in this world who belive God said so many things, how can you possibly rationalize all of them [04:53] when there are thousands of different interpretations [04:54] I don't try to rationalize all of them. Many of them are contradictory. I use my ability to reason to choose those which I believe to be rational and reject the rest as irrational. [04:55] then what is "rational theism" [04:55] I think a better title might be *The Home of Rational Debate About Theism* :) [04:56] _79188711 (thebasher@ joined #apologetics. [04:56] <_79188711> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [04:56] -_79188711:#apologetics- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [04:56] CTCP ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^: from _79188711 (thebasher@ to #apologetics [04:56] <_79188711> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [04:56] -_79188711:#apologetics- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [04:56] CTCP ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^: from _79188711 (thebasher@ to #apologetics [04:56] jp22 (jperrinjr@p5.pm0.theriver.com) left #apologetics. [04:56] <_79188711> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [04:56] -_79188711:#apologetics- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [04:57] Mode change '+b *!*@205.139.116.* ' by Achimoth!adarcaan@dal36-04.ppp.iadfw.net [04:57] CTCP ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^: from _79188711 (thebasher@ to #apologetics [04:57] _79188711!thebasher@ kicked by Achimoth!adarcaan@dal36-04.ppp.iadfw.net: ï[X]ï ***NumbSkull KiCK*** [04:57] That was interesting [05:00] very lame [05:05] Menalcas (scud@wh707.wave.co.nz) joined #apologetics. [05:05] hi, anyone talking? [05:06] Hello...I've been watching the #bible channel [05:06] have you [05:06] hi [05:06] hi [05:06] have you been discussing anything? [05:07] not recently [05:07] It's been a good five minutes since the last debate ended [05:07] is achimoth your name? [05:07] its my assumed nick [05:08] Menalcas (scud@wh707.wave.co.nz) left irc: Read error to Menalcas[wh707.wave.co.nz]: Connection reset by peer [05:09] Menalcas (scud@wh707.wave.co.nz) joined #apologetics. [05:12] jp22 (jperrinjr@p5.pm0.theriver.com) joined #apologetics. [05:12] that dude was flooding me [05:12] so i left [05:12] he flooded all of us...and was banned [05:13] i left before i got kicked off [05:13] the server [05:13] I survived [05:14] Action: Achimoth uses hacking scripts as they have excellent floodprotection [05:14] what is "flooded" [05:15] menalcas: when someone sends a larghe amount of data on the screen to the point the server disconnects you [05:19] jp22: Was your basic question, "What is rational Theism" (as in a certain type of theism), or "What is rational *about* Theism" (as in, can theism be rationa l)? [05:19] the second [05:20] i dont see how one theism can be rational and others cannot [05:26] It seems that you want to say that since not all forms of Theism can be correct (in that they are contradictory to each other), then no form of theism is correct, or rational. [05:27] Action: brentf is still struggling to understand your question...sorry :( [05:28] sounds like post-modern thought to me [05:29] i dont see how you can take one form of theism as you say you do and judge it rational when there are other theisms that are just as rational when looked at through unbiased eyes, how can you have one universal rational theism [05:29] I still think a better title might be *The Home of Rational Debate About Theism* [05:29] because Jesus Christ IS [05:30] but to a Muslim, ALLAH IS [05:30] ahh but the muslim says a Jesus was a prophet of God and hence taught proper doctrine [05:30] I don't believe there is any such thing as *unbiased eyes*. I admit I am biased toward what I believe to be true. [05:30] yet Jesus said this: [05:30] to the buddist BUDDAH IS [05:31] wrong.. to the Bhuddist Bhudda was and is no more.. [05:32] jp22 (jperrinjr@p5.pm0.theriver.com) left #apologetics. [05:33] hmphhh [05:33] And so the debate is about which form of theism is *more* rational, not whether theism is rational or not. [05:34] I would be confused, too, if I tried to merge all forms of theism into one *universal theism* [05:34] Menalcas (scud@wh707.wave.co.nz) left irc: Read error to Menalcas[wh707.wave.co.nz]: Connection reset by peer [05:34] hehehehe [05:36] Looks like Punxy should be in this channel :) [05:36] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal36-04.ppp.iadfw.net) left #apologetics. [05:40] brentf (brentf@ip-pdx10-43.teleport.com) left irc: calling it a night...God bless you as you seek His truth [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_26_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