Creation Evolution Debate

[timwakefield 68]

Everything you could ever reasonably want to know about philosopher Stephen Hales.

You wholly ignored the substance of my question. You essentially ignored the question entirely, despite quoting it. I wanted to know how and why YOU were so sure of him. Frankly it would be quite difficult for you to convince me that you'd ever heard of him before you came across his name in that wikipedia article, but I thought you'd at least try. To be totally frank though, nobody really cares because we all know you're joking.EDIT: Ooooh you're still playing the sneaky edit game! Broken link ---> fixed link, sorry for quoting you so early.

[LimbaughGod 0]

You wholly ignored the substance of my question.

no i didn't

You essentially ignored the question entirely, despite quoting it.

no i didn't. not essentially. Not implicitly. not artistically nor any other qualifier will make this true.

I wanted to know how and why YOU were so sure of him.

speaking of ignoring... I'll repeat it for you: google is your friend.

Frankly it would be quite difficult for you to convince me that you'd ever heard of him before you came across his name in that wikipedia article

Who cares? what is this irrelevant drivel?

, but I thought you'd at least try.

because you're a doofus

To be totally frank though, nobody really cares because we all know you're joking.

You have a real love for frank in this post. but anyway, you keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, sport. Better to call it a joke than deal with a God fearing man who calls you out on your bullcrap. you're the joke

[BaseJester 1]

The literalist reading, despite its attractive simplicity, does not fit the evidence. First, there are two stories of creation, found in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-2:25. These accounts have different chronological orders, a fact that didn’t bother Christians who lived in the centuries before the discipline of history emerged. As odd as it may sound, people long ago talked about the past in radically different ways. Past events could be placed in an order reflecting their importance, for example, rather than their chronology. History is simply not done like this today, and we cannot imagine writing the history of the United States with the Civil War coming after World War II.

I think you're being a little too kind to this practice. Writers could get away with fudging events' sequence to meet their purpose because no one was checking them. It's not as if ancient people were unaware that real events had an actual chronology.

[LimbaughGod 0]

I think you're being a little too kind to this practice. Writers could get away with fudging events' sequence to meet their purpose because no one was checking them. It's not as if ancient people were unaware that real events had an actual chronology.

You seem to presuppose each new writer could glean the "actual" chronology from the text or word of mouth they may be drawing from, or combining with other text or word of mouth - or personal experience - to form new text or word of mouth... regardless of how the previous text or story was arranged chronologically. If this long and unwieldy mess of a sentence makes any sense. It probably doesn't, I felt like TimWakeFailed while writing it.

[timwakefield 68]

no i didn't

Yeah-huh.

no i didn't. not essentially.

Yeah-huh. Essentially means "in essence."

speaking of ignoring... I'll repeat it for you: google is your friend.

Google cannot possibly tell me what you know about the man and what you've read by him. Blatantly impossible.But even so, I'm sorry but this is just too funny, googling Stephen Hales brings us to a wealth of pages and links regarding a totally different man named Stephen Hales. Your Stephen Hales, "Is professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania," as of 2005. Was he your professor? Care to explain how you know so much about him while google knows so little? Or is it the same dude and he's 300 years old? Stephen Hales:You didn't even google him yourself! I hate when people say this but it just seems so fitting: FAIL.

[BaseJester 1]

You seem to presuppose each new writer could glean the "actual" chronology from the text or word of mouth they may be drawing from . . .

What makes you think that I presuppose that? You were positing the order served the writer's conscious purpose, right? So it would seem the writer's ability to ascertain the actual chronology is irrelevant in this scenario.

[LimbaughGod 0]

What makes you think that I presuppose that? You were positing the order served the writer's conscious purpose, right? So it would seem the writer's ability to ascertain the actual chronology is irrelevant in this scenario.

That's fair. my brain is burnt from dealing with this WakeFailed doofus and I think it's rubbing off on me.

But even so, I'm sorry but this is just too funny, googling Stephen Hales brings us to a wealth of pages and links regarding a totally different man named Stephen Hales. Your Stephen Hales, "Is professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania," as of 2005. Was he your professor? Care to explain how you know so much about him while google knows so little? Or is it the same dude and he's 300 years old?

Professor "Steven D. Hales" nets 217,000 results, paging through a few there is nothing but relevance. i can't take this, this kid can't even google correctly then spouts off about other peoples FAIL?? This is just silly.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

The Bible.

you lost it right here.

[timwakefield 68]

Gets owned. Runs away. That "D." didn't appear in any of your other google-suggestions. GG, you still didn't even bother trying to address my questions about your previous knowledge of him and his work.Wait, did I just out-troll a bona fide troll? That's gotta be like a triple-fail for him.

[LimbaughGod 0]

Gets owned. Runs away. That "D." didn't appear in any of your other google-suggestions. GG, you still didn't even bother trying to address my questions about your previous knowledge of him and his work.Wait, did I just out-troll a bona fide troll? That's gotta be like a triple-fail for him.

I'm going to have to just pray for you. The fact that you couldn't gather the ever-elusive "D" from the very citations on the wiki page you were harping about post after post is an abject failure of your ability to research anything on the web. you are so hopelessly clueless that you are in need of prayer, not argument.

[LimbaughGod 0]

you lost it right here.

No sport, I once was lost. Now I'm found. you might want to get searching yourself.

[speedz99 145]

To be totally frank though, nobody really cares because we all know you're joking.

And yet...

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

No sport, I once was lost. Now I'm found. you might want to get searching yourself.

i search myself every night. and i always find my treasure.

[LimbaughGod 0]

i search myself every night. and i always find my treasure.

Maybe if you read the Bible and learned how to be a man you could find a wife. probably gets pretty tedious boy-handling your own little twig and wrinkled berries every night.

[timwakefield 68]

I'm going to have to just pray for you. The fact that you couldn't gather the ever-elusive "D" from the very citations on the wiki page you were harping about post after post is an abject failure of your ability to research anything on the web. you are so hopelessly clueless that you are in need of prayer, not argument.

:D

[brvheart 1,752]

I have no definite answers to any of those questions. What does that prove? That humans, despite being many many measures more intelligent than any other animals on Earth, are still generally clueless when it comes to questions about the meaning of life and why we're here? I think it's almost impossibly arrogant to assume that those questions must be answerable by humanity at any point in our (future, current, or past) history, and I think it speaks to a blatant desire to be comforted in a cold unfeeling universe when one clings to ancient religious testimony as having the definitive answer to all of those questions, in spite of a 100% lack of any supporting scientific evidence for any of it [God created the 'verse, God started it, it wasn't always just there, it didn't just pop out of nothing - God constructed it].

I wasn't trying to prove anything.

Oh Jesus. Come on brv, you know there is a commonly held scientific theory about how everything in the universe came to be, all the way back to the big bang. If you want to argue about some intelligent being having had to create the big bang, fine, but then we go to "but who created that being...if that being can be infinite or come from nothing, why can't the universe be infinite or the big bang come from nothing", after which LLY comes and tells us that, yes, something can come from nothing.

I don't get it. If God, who is hypothetically an animate being, is infinite, why would that automatically open the door for an inanimate thing - the universe - to also have the possibility of being infinite. That seems like a major jump in logic.

[brvheart 1,752]

And yet...

hahaSpademan sucks him in again...

[vbnautilus 48]

I don't get it. If God, who is hypothetically an animate being, is infinite, why would that automatically open the door for an inanimate thing - the universe - to also have the possibility of being infinite. That seems like a major jump in logic.

First, whaaaaaat? Second, animate/inanimate? How does that figure in to this at all and what does it even mean here? Why would it have any bearing whatsoever on infinity? Third, come on you totally get it. Speedziziz point was that the argument which says there must have been a god because everything has to have a cause ( an argument you seemed ready to imply) is simply pushing the problem back because the same issue would apply to any creator. I think it would benefit us to embrace mystery rather than filling it in with imaginary supernature just to pretend we have an explanation.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

If you ask why the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists? There is exactly one answer: God.

Heh.That's like saying, "4+5 = 9 because of God."

[Balloon guy 158]

Back on topic, the debate has started: The first PZ Myers Memorial Debate features Dominic Saltarelli vs Vox Day and concerns the evidence and logic for the existence or nonexistence of gods.The first submissions have been submitted, and the rebuttals here is the Pro-God side with rebuttal .Here is Con-God side with rebuttalThe judges have gone over both the opening statements and the rebuttals here .I was going to cut and paste these, but they are pretty long and I'm not sure the ethical implications of doing this even though I watch movies for free on line.To remind you, the three judges are made up of 1 Christian, 1 Agnostic and 1 Atheist.

[LimbaughGod 0]

I'd still like to get some LLY confirmation on this.

Heh.That's like saying, "4+5 = 9 because of God."

And there you have it. not only does he not find fault in the physics content of my post (not surprising, since reality isn't a matter of opinion), he goes a step further and agrees that God is responsible for the fundamental tautologies of reality - even helpfully providing a second example. I must say it's nice to see LLY isn't the dogmatic fundy secularist I thought he would be given his liberal education. Well done my man, well done.

[speedz99 145]

I don't get it. If God, who is hypothetically an animate being, is infinite, why would that automatically open the door for an inanimate thing - the universe - to also have the possibility of being infinite. That seems like a major jump in logic.

Frankly, I think the idea of an animate being being infinite is a far greater reach in logic than the universe being infinite. I do find the visual amusing...god having been around 'for infinity' before he creates the universe. I guess he was just kind of hanging out in, well, nothing. There was nothing for him to hang out in. Must have been a lonely, boring infinity, although at least he had an infinite amount of time to plan the universe. Although it sucks he couldn't build any models or draw out any plans to help himself out.

[Dread Aidan 8]

To remind you, the three judges are made up of 1 Christian, 1 Agnostic and 1 Atheist.

I tried to read all of it, but got bored, so I skipped ahead to the judging. Then I got bored with that, so I skipped ahead to the results.If anyone cares, all three judges gave the first round to Vox Day.

[Balloon guy 158]

I tried to read all of it, but got bored, so I skipped ahead to the judging. Then I got bored with that, so I skipped ahead to the results.If anyone cares, all three judges gave the first round to Vox Day.

Yea..it can be dry..having people argue from really high levels.I must admit to finding it tedious as well, even though I am rooting, as it were, for the results to be one way.I had to copy the arguments and rebuttals to a word doc and take it outside and light a cigar to get through it.Cliffs: There is a God, and Dawkins is a complete buffoon.

[speedz99 145]

I'm not sure how high of a level this is at...if I understand correctly, it's just a couple of dudes from a religion forum. I actually don't mind Vox's overall point, in that he doesn't seem to distinguish "gods" from very advanced extraterrestrial beings. I thought he'd be arguing ridiculous stuff, i.e. bible-specific god stuff.