Jump to content

Danny Baker


Wilbur
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

The old "do as I say, not as I do" excuse?

Besides that, the only commandments that the bible actually refers to as the ten commandments are not the ones Christians say are the ten commandments. Makes you wonder.

What is this 10 commandments nonsense - there are 613 . . .ūüď£

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


13 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

OK, here goes:-   An atheist is someone who doesn't accept the belief claims of religions. There is no atheist belief system, it's a lack of belief.

Who says that there was "nothing". We don't even know if "nothing" is possible. Nobody has seen "nothing". It's impossible to even have a sample of "nothing" as then, by definition, it is something.

If you are referring to the big bang theory then it doesn't talk about an explosion, but an expansion.

The religious are the ones that believe in magic and supernatural.

Maybe aliens did what?

Ah, trying to direct things by using "creating".

You obviously don't understand chance. Things that are highly unlikely happen all the time. There was no "reason" if you mean "intention" or "deliberate act". There was reason if you mean things acted as they could and not in a way they couldn't - you know, like in a way that Christians believe is possible.

What specific part(s) of the Theory of Evolution don't you accept?

You are deliberately using a straw man argument. It won't work.

I wouldn't want to misrepresent you so can you confirm whether or not you are a young earth creationist and/or believe that the creation story in Genesis is literal and/or believe that the bible is inerrant?

 

I am no going to play tennis on this one - here is my one go, just for you...

Atheist's belief system is as you say a lack of belief - we are just using synonymous terms - thanks for confirming that atheists are lacking in belief though... lack is seldom helpful.

There are folk who claim the universe came ex-nihilo - nothing can be defined as "having a total lack of being or existence"

So you are pro the Big Bang? AND it is about expansion - there is a lot out there and lots of theories and ideas about this, but from what I understand some religious folk and even many Christians consider the "God said let there be light" to be that big bang event beginning. Though others don't. There is plenty of contradictory scientific research on this one...

Again you use the term religious - if you mean Christians, then for them God creates everything so supernatural magic is in his power - some of this maybe just be utilising nature to His advantage, but can we ever know for sure every instance of the many "magic" events from history?

The Alien ones is pure Dawkins - since anything but God can bring all the stuff needed for the Big bang - this solves the from nothing issue for him - He's a royal RIOT...

Everybody understands chance - but how often does a big explosion or expansion produce the myriad of creation - this is one Myth that needs unimaginable faith...

Unlikely - to the tune where its beyond mathematical likelihood is back to the unimaginable faith following that Myth...

Evolution is a theory … it is vast and evolutionary scientists are split on many aspects of it. It is too big a subject for me to paint all my views, but here is the easy one for you - micro evolution is fine - macro evolution is fanciful and you need incredible faith or brainwashed to accept the evidence for it...

I suspect that you would love to pigeon hole me as a young earth creationist and take Genesis as literal and believe that the Bible is inerrant.... but I may be wrong....

I have extensively investigated the creation arguments and heard all kinds of arguments - the truth is no one on earth can prove how old the earth is or exactly when things appeared - the time lines move regularly and some of the methods for dating are questionable and have proved so. So I am not convinced that the earth is either very young or very old  I simply don't know, and don't believe anyone has a compelling argument to convince me otherwise.. To ask if I take an entire book of the Bible like Genesis literally, tells me that you don't really understand it's genre or the context each part is written in... is the Bible inerrant - there in lies lots of arguments too... If you include translation errors then definitely how can it be . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sweeper07 said:

 

Atheist belief system : the belief that at some point there was nothing, and then nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, (or maybe aliens did it), creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself by chance or for no reason whatsoever, and somehow this allowed self-replicating bits to turn into dinosaurs from fish n stuff after a lot of time - wow - makes perfect sense - see those religious twits, how do they not get this!!! How could you believe their stuff with this kind of certainty?

 

You are using the argument that because science doesn't have all the answers that it somehow validates the arguments religious people put forwards? That is logical nonsense. Why would you think that was a reasonable thing to suggest?

You are not debating in good faith here. Your suggestion that you need to read the Bible in the original Hebrew to be able to criticise it is utterly ridiculous. There are probably no more than a handful of people alive who have done this. If atheists really can't comment on the bible for that reason then logically you are saying neither can the overwhelming majority of Christians who also haven't read it in that format. The whole of Christianity may as well shut up shop if you are correct.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

You are using the argument that because science doesn't have all the answers that it somehow validates the arguments religious people put forwards? That is logical nonsense. Why would you think that was a reasonable thing to suggest?

You are not debating in good faith here. Your suggestion that you need to read the Bible in the original Hebrew to be able to criticise it is utterly ridiculous. There are probably no more than a handful of people alive who have done this. If atheists really can't comment on the bible for that reason then logically you are saying neither can the overwhelming majority of Christians who also haven't read it in that format. The whole of Christianity may as well shut up shop if you are correct.

Thanks for joining in - just before I am out  - but you deserve a reply on this above.

I am not using the argument that science doesn't have all the answers (That is your presumption) - that is a given, though some folk who don't believe in God use exactly the opposite argument i.e. somehow that Science disproved God... And your scenario that this somehow validates religious arguments is crazy talk...even you say that is nonsense - so you are assuming I am daft?

Wrong again - I am debating in good faith - I might do exactly what others on both sides of the debate do, by throwing in some of the "banter" that supports their ideas or opposes the other sides arguments - but that is what both sides do in these debates... don't crucify me for it please...

I have not suggested that unless you read the Bible in the original Hebrew you are unable to criticise it - what I have done is said that arguing critically against it with a lack of knowledge is not wise... The Bible is in 3 different original languages - not too many people are experts in all three. We have access to much better books and tools these days though, so checking can be properly done without arguing from a position of ignorance. If you criticise from a position of ignorance, you will often get shown up. e.g. One poster argued that the Bible categorises bats as being birds - but it is  a clear error in translation and the Hebrew used means winged creatures... but he simply copied what someone who was ignorant claimed - hook line and sinker...

I see from the above that you are reading into what I say and coming out with things that are not intended - that is another danger... and yes the whole of Christianity believes many different things often by wrong teaching or the same presumptions and errors...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

I was referring to a lack of belief in religious claims, as you well know. So a lack of cyanide in your dinner is seldom helpful? The religious lack non-belief, so that's seldom helpful? We can both play this game, you know. I prefer a conversation based on facts. You know, it's a fact that science says this and a fact that the bible says that, sort of thing.

Are there folk who claim the universe came ex nihilo? Who? Any scientists? Are you just talking about some guy down the pub?

Anything can be defined, that doesn't mean that it can exist (beyond the definition). I can define a six second old, six foot tall human with an 18 foot waistline, size 16 feet and weighing 3 grammes. Look, I just did, I'll call it a Blofabilly. Doesn't exist, though and can't exist.

Yes, I am aware that most Christians believe in the big bang, that's why I asked you if you believed certain things.

1. What exactly is "contradictory scientific research"? Scientific research is something you do, how can it be contradictory?

There is absolutely no evidence anywhere of any "magic" events ever.

2.You're misrepresenting Dawkins on this. He has never seriously claimed that aliens did it. He has used it as another unprovable scenario for creation and said it is therefore just as likely as the Genesis story.

3. Who said it is beyond mathematical likelihood? Where are you getting this stuff from? We don't know how many "big bangs" there have been. We don't know how many times life started on Earth. Do you know why? Because we only have one of each that we can investigate. Please go look up some peer reviewed scientific papers for information and stop taking your information from places like AIG.

I thought that would be your example. 4. If you believe that micro evolution is real then the only thing that stops you believing in macro evolution is time. This means that you actually are a 5. YEC and I don't have to pigeonhole you, you've done it yourself.

What did you do to extensively investigate creation arguments? What did you read?

6. It can be proven how old the earth is. What dating techniques have been proven to be questionable? The only places you see that claim are the likes of AIG when their "scientists" try to use dating techniques on objects or for lengths of time that they are unsuitable for. Like trying to carbon date rocks.

The timelines don't move, the error bars do - they get smaller.

You've already proven that you don't believe in an old earth by the micro/macro evolution stuff. Talking of that, you are aware of ring species, aren't you? And that new species gave been observed in labs?

7. I asked about Genesis because there are people who claim that it is literal. I am well aware of the genre etc, it is those who claim it is literal who aren't.

I wasn't asking about everybody's opinion on those things, so those arguments over them are irrelevant, I was asking about yours.

Hope I haven't missed anything. emoji4.png

Seriously, I don't have the time to play this game - this is why I won't play tennis with you on it on it..... I suspect it won't be fruitful for either of us too... here is my last go before we get pelters for being off the topic....

1. Contradictory Scientific research finds opposing views and is used to make claims that their data disproves the other scientific work and theories. e.g. There are over 200 scientific theories which have had papers published on various arguments about the root causes for,  Global warming, Global Dimming, Climate change from sea deposits, etc. they all make claims about root causes and effects which disagree with one another's other theories theories). The tobacca industry did scientific research to convince people that cigarettes did not do people any harm - other scientists came up with an opposite view on this - I would say that was pretty contradictory...

2. No I have not misrepresented Dawkins - watch the video - Expelled. It is fascinating how for him he will believe anything but God. It comes out in his other writing and debates too.

3. If I tell you my sources will you bother to read them? (Same for the stuff I have read - it is too much to list here) It does not sound to me like you will so I won't list it... sorry if I misjudged you here... Some things have a reasonable chance - for others though the likelihood is beyond never. e.g. my chances of winning the lottery are next to nil - I don't buy a ticket - that is not to sat that someone will buy one one day and post it through my door - chances though are not great.

4. You pegged me wrong here - the only thing that stops me believing in macro evolution is EVIDENCE. Given the claims of the world being hundreds of millions of years old, there ought to be some tangible evidence by now - lots and lots of bones have been dug up - yet so many of the claims were soon disproved, some desperate forgeries for all the wrong reasons etc.

5. Wrong again - I don't know how old the earth is - I am not sure - I am not claiming either... I don't believe anyone can prove that their theory is absolutely correct on the age of the earth from the arguments that they present - a measure of trusting their arguments OR faith is required... though I don't believe it will be less than say 10,000 years...

6. I have answered this for you previously, but you obviously let it go over your head and are still stuck in the same place...I won't waste my time doing repeats...

7. Even your question is questionable. On the one hand you claim to be aware of the genre, but on the other you are implying that none of it can be taken literally. You are out of your depth on the Bible my friend... common for folk who only listen to or are determined to stay on a fixed mindset... You need both sides ideas to find balance . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

What's f**ked up?

Don't you understand plain English?

It looks like , you have been trying to twist the grammar from early doors . .

like

adjective

Definition of like (Entry 3 of 9)

1a : the same or nearly the same (as in appearance, character, or quantity) suits of like design ‚ÄĒformerly used with as, unto, of it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren ‚ÄĒ Hebrews 2:17 (King James Version)
b chiefly British : closely resembling the subject or original the portrait is very like
 
A man of your age should have seen enough Humanity this lifetime to know that a Human Being is not an ape , banana or even a Chimp for that matter . I am of course assuming , that you do have a mind of your own. .
 
Do you understand plain English ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

I never said, anywhere, that a human was a chimp or a banana. Any properly functioning person reading this thread knows that.

Words often have more than one meaning. If you can't figure out the context of the word from the remainder if the sentence, that is your problem, not mine.

You don't even see that what you quote backs me up. the same or nearly the same (as in appearance, CHARACTER, or quantity). We have similar characteristics to chimps and bananas when you consider the context of the categories I put them in (apes and eukaryotes, respectively). We ARE human, we ARE apes and we ARE eukaryotes.

You quote definitions to try and prove me wrong, while only proving me right, but, since you want to use definitions, the scientific definition of ape describes humans and the scientific definition of eukaryote describes humans. Yes, I am using scientific definitions, mainly to stop you later saying "but it's only a theory". Normal (or everyday) usage is useless when trying to define things, as you proved with "like".

----------

The family Hominidae (hominids), the great apes, includes three extant species of orangutans and their subspecies, two extant species of gorillas and their subspecies, two extant species of chimpanzees and their subspecies, and one extant species of humans in a single extant subspecies.

----------

eukaryote

/juňźňąkar…™…ô ät/

noun

plural noun: eukaryotes

an organism consisting of a cell or cells in which the genetic material is DNA in the form of chromosomes contained within a distinct nucleus. Eukaryotes include all living organisms other than the eubacteria and archaea.

----------

If you want to argue with definitions, and I don't think you do since you used one, then go argue with the people that make them. Me? I'll just use them - properly.
 

You clearly have problems with differentiation and human awareness . .batter in

 

Have a nice day 

Edited by saintnextlifetime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2019 at 10:31 AM, Slartibartfast said:

That makes absolutely no sense - that's usually the way that someone gets out of a discussion/argument/debate when they realise that they are out of their depth. Nice to see you using it. emoji12.png

Before you go, though, you still haven't told us what you think a human is.

Well if  differentiation makes no sense to you, you're maybe stuck in identification , which would certainly make sense with your regard to the use of things being alike .

Some guys go into a lab and with some jim-dandy equipment can show that humans and chimps and even the humble banana all share to some degree chemical matter and you decide based on that , you are a beast that walks and eats and dies. .

Despite all your use of scientific nomenclature , I can assure you , I'm not out of my depth . As I said to you before , a man of your age should have seen enough humanity this lifetime to know that we are not animals , if you believe you are then so be it but I hardly think you posting some nomenclature from the science guys will convince anyone or is indeed a discussion it is more like you just trying to make others wrong , something which l have seen you attempt to do on other threads . .

 

Good day to you. .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:



I'm now thinking Oaky was right when he warned me that I shouldn't argue against stupidity.

 

That suggests there was a time when you thought I was wrong about that.ūüėā

He doesn't believe anything which comes from science so there's no point wasting my time engaging in an intellectual discussion on this stuff with him.

The reason why he doesn't trust science is well documented by him and has something to do with either him or someone close to him and psychotropic drugs. Beyond that I am not interested. His postings and weird unconstructed ramblings are concerning enough that I am keeping well out of it. Something is definitely amiss there.

Others are free to make their own judgements about whether to talk to him but it's not for me.

Anyway, we are clearly animals, there is a wealth of proof and most normal people accept that evidence. Personally I wouldn't close the door on other sensible theories but religious people can kick their nonsense into the sea. It is outrageous that they can pretend their tripe is on a par with science.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

That suggests there was a time when you thought I was wrong about that.ūüėā

He doesn't believe anything which comes from science so there's no point wasting my time engaging in an intellectual discussion on this stuff with him.

The reason why he doesn't trust science is well documented by him and has something to do with either him or someone close to him and psychotropic drugs. Beyond that I am not interested. His postings and weird unconstructed ramblings are concerning enough that I am keeping well out of it. Something is definitely amiss there.

Others are free to make their own judgements about whether to talk to him but it's not for me.

Anyway, we are clearly animals, there is a wealth of proof and most normal people accept that evidence. Personally I wouldn't close the door on other sensible theories but religious people can kick their nonsense into the sea. It is outrageous that they can pretend their tripe is on a par with science.

This is precisely why I am out early on this kind of discussion. Presumption you guys know the truth and all religious guys must be stupid or fundamentalist nut jobs....

BALANCE is the secret . . . it is difficult to attain with a closed mind . . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Sweeper07 said:

This is precisely why I am out early on this kind of discussion. Presumption you guys know the truth and all religious guys must be stupid or fundamentalist nut jobs....

BALANCE is the secret . . . it is difficult to attain with a closed mind . . . 

Religion will get balance and be treated on a par with science when it starts producing and embracing an equivalent framework of verifiable peer reviewed research.

Quite frankly it is laughable that you should expect religious theiries to be treated with respect by intelligent humans without this very basic and very reasonable framework.

By the way, the bold sentence? I am unaware of any scientist on here who claims to know the truth. 

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Religion will get balance and be treated on a par with science when it starts producing and embracing an equivalent framework of verifiable peer reviewed research.

Quite frankly it is laughable that you should expect religious theiries to be treated with respect by intelligent humans without this very basic and very reasonable framework.    By the way, the bold sentence? I am unaware of any scientist on here who claims to know the truth. 

 

7 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Or when it makes an accurate prediction (and not in an after the fact, Nostradamus like, way) about something that isn't commonly known, like storms, wars and earthquakes will happen.

 

Just knew that you were both dying to prove my point . . . THANKS  :cheers

It would not matter what anyone argued - you believe you know better...ūüĎ®‚Äćūüéď

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
48 minutes ago, Sweeper07 said:
Just knew that you were both dying to prove my point . . . THANKS  :cheers
It would not matter what anyone argued - you believe you know better...emoji67.png‚Äćemoji310.png

If someone presents a rational argument, I will listen. You have failed to do so and, on some occasions, have even failed to state the point you are arguing for. For instance, what is it that you believe humans are, if they aren't animals? Don't avoid the question, just answer it. Personally, I think that you don't want to say what you believe, because you don't want to look foolish.

Take a look at your previous responses - is that rational and open minded?

You claim I am a AIG freak - which I am not etc etc… Even your final statement tells me you don't believe I have anything constructive to say... that is why I am out on this

You think you know better fine . . . I am happy to agree to differ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

My responses are totally rational. Point out where they aren't. You provide an argument that is backed by evidence, and not just assertion, then I'll consider it. I don't know how a response can be open minded, though.

I have never claimed that you are an AIG freak, I have claimed that you are using the same arguments as the freaks at AIG and it therefore appears that you are getting at least some of your "information" from there.

To be honest, you're right, I don't believe that you have anything constructive to say because, if you did, you would have said it already.

Now, can you answer the question that you've been asked several times - what do you believe a human is, if not an animal?

Agree to differ? FFS, I've already said you can believe what you want. The point is, you've done a complete Dickson on this thread by misrepresenting things that I've said and trying to make me look stupid while, in reality, only making it appear that you don't understand plain English. Hope you haven't got any dinner parties planned.
 

I think you have lost the plot on this one - you have mixed up what I wrote to you and what someone else did and your presumptions about where my sources come from are wrong - so you have pigeonholed me in your mind no matter what.

A response is a response, but if someone has a closed mind, it doesn't matter what arguments people provide - my take on this is that you don't really want debate - you have your mind made up already...

If you are absolutely right, you have nothing to worry about - but if not, you will one day have to face your maker!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sweeper07 said:

If you are absolutely right, you have nothing to worry about - but if not, you will one day have to face your maker!

And if you are right about that I'll be asking him about why he sat back and allowed children to have cancer without lifting a finger to do anything to help them and their families.

And after he answers, I'll be asking him for a one way ticket to the "burny place" where personally I would rather spend the rest of time in preference to spending a further minute in his presence.

If there is a god in the way you describe him, he is undoubtedly a total c**t.

Now I believe we have a match on today.

COYS.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sweeper07 said:

A response is a response, but if someone has a closed mind, it doesn't matter what arguments people provide - my take on this is that you don't really want debate - you have your mind made up already...

 

A closed mind is what characterises all religious followers. Not having a framework of peer reviewed research and blindly "having faith" without rigorously questioning, caused paedophilia to run unchecked for countless decades throughout organised christian religions and it now seems islam as well. I haven't even mentioned the historical brutality of missionaries yet in the poorest countries of the world.

Having faith is not a character strength. It is a weakness which is exploited by the worst kinds of people in society. Here's a wee clue. If someone tells you that only following THEM is virtuous and that all others are going to burn in hell, you are being manipulated. End of story. At that point an intelligent person would say to themselves "OK I'm about to be asked to hand over money". Sure enough there's a long line of mugs paying 10% of their wages to these people. It beggars belief that anyone would be so stupid as to fall for this but clearly it happens all the time. You want me to respect these people and put their crackpot theories on a par with science? You have to be f**king joking bud.

I don't think people like you should be wagging the moral finger at anyone.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

√ó
√ó
  • Create New...