Creationist Ken Ham calls to end space program because aliens are going to hell anywa

[alzan]

You still got it or you threw it back?

1) You're still alive, so you're in a position to prove your claim -- Bible writers are not.

2) Since it was just a week ago, chances are that the crock is still there, if you indeed threw it back.

3) If you still have it, you're in a position to show it.

4) If you refuse to show it, then we can take is as you're lying since such a catch can be proven/disproven right NOW.

I think you're missing his point.

Well, can you name the lake, the bait you used, how long ago it was, and the time of day?

Surely, that crock reproduced offspring, and given the short passage of time since your visit, I'm bound to catch one myself.

Tell me, where and when did you catch this?

He already did, the bait is a solved Rubik's Cube.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well, then how I can I trust your memory as to the type of crock you caught, or if it wasn't simply a large fish?

How can you trust anyone's memory that isn't flawless? How do you trust the memories of biblical authors you've never met and can't cross examine?

I'm simply saying that you can be cross-examined...Bible writers clearly cannot be.

And how is that at all relevant? Why did you bring it up? You are either trying to lend them greater credence on that basis or the point is irrelevant. Are you going to suggest that you brought it up for no reason at all?

I sure don't, so why not explain them to me so that I can go find this crock you caught.

Nah.

There is a such thing? When? Where?

Secret family recipe.

You're not dead

Are you sure?

, so that point is moot.

No I don't think it is. It seems to make a difference significantly enough that you decided to bring it up as a point of distinction between myself and the bible authors. You need to explain that.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I think you're missing his point.

Oh, my stars and garters! You think???

He already did, the bait is a solved Rubik's Cube.

Don't go spreading that around. I've really said too much already.

 

[zinfamous]

My point is, just because they haven't "found" evidence doesn't mean that there isn't any, or that the story is "false".

I provided those links to show the ridiculousness of your thinking. At one point in time before we started digging, there was no evidence of anything in the Bible, so it was wholly "false".

Now, that isn't the case. Sure, I submit that everything isn't proven, and I even acknowledge that some thing probably won't even be proven, but its quite silly to call something "false" for that reason.

As far as historical events--battles, royal lineages, the subjugation of entire races, etc, these are things that certainly can be verified through archaeology.

You can't compare the previous non-existence of such tablets and then the later discovery of those tablets to the same standards of evidence required to prove magic events.

You don't need to, nor can one, "dig up" evidence that water can be magically changed to wine in an instance. That real dead dead, dead people can suddenly be returned to life by breathing on their faces. That bushes burn, speak commands of dieties, mete out justice, then extinguish themselves with no loss of foliage. One will not find evidence of a virgin birth in such a manner.

This isn't the role of archaelogy--it is the role of currently observable phenomena, that today's data and methods are perfectly capable of disproving.

Until a directly observable and documented virgin birth occurs, to match the current assumed "standard" with which some humans hold to be a very reasonable rate of 1:108,000,000,000, rational humans have little choice but to assume such claims as false.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So have you converted enough people to atheism? If not, how bad does it chap your ass that you haven't?

This is a peculiar comment. Is it directed at me?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You spend so much time trying to ridicule people that don't believe the same thing as you. Your religion of atheism is the right religion. Yes religion as you atheist are every bit as religious as Christians, Muslims, Jewish...etc when it comes to your beliefs.

 

[zinfamous]

You spend so much time trying to ridicule people that don't believe the same thing as you. Your religion of atheism is the right religion. Yes religion as you atheist are every bit as religious as Christians, Muslims, Jewish...etc when it comes to your beliefs.

I notice that among religious types, definitions have an ever widening application.

So, the lack of belief in one particular thing is a belief? You probably think science is a belief, as well.

The problem is that it is difficult for people raised from a very young age to set as the foundation of their entire understanding of reality, a highly-structured system of simple belief, to ever look outside of that system and accept that the world is probably governed by a series of rational, patterned events. That other humans, perhaps, choose to approach their understanding of the world through a system that is not beholden to simple belief...or blind faith.

For those that know only faith, there is no other reality that they can ever understand.

 

[Retro Rob]

How can you trust anyone's memory that isn't flawless?

You can remember catching a plaid crock, but don't remember if you have it or not.

lol, dummy.

And how is that at all relevant?

Because you're alive, and can prove your findings by showing them.

Nah.

Why not?

Secret family recipe.

Well, I don't need the recipe...I just ask that you paint my computer monitor invisible. I can bring it to you, and simply watch you do it...I don't care about the recipe.

Are you sure?

Sure about what?

No I don't think it is. It seems to make a difference significantly enough that you decided to bring it up as a point of distinction between myself and the bible authors. You need to explain that.

You don't understand the difference between being dead and alive? If you need that to be "explained", then I'm speaking way over your head, chief.

 

[alzan]

You spend so much time trying to ridicule people that don't believe the same thing as you. Your religion of atheism is the right religion. Yes religion as you atheist are every bit as religious as Christians, Muslims, Jewish...etc when it comes to your beliefs.

Is it ridicule to ask a person to approach a subject with objectivity and logic?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You can remember catching a plaid crock, but don't remember if you have it or not.

lol, dummy.

Dummy or not, the evidence for the Alaskan plaid crocodile is mounting rapidly, and you have no evidence that it's false.

Because you're alive, and can prove your findings by showing them.

So what? Does that make me more or less credible than bible authors?

Why not?

It's Thursday.

Well, I don't need the recipe...I just ask that you paint my computer monitor invisible. I can bring it to you, and simply watch you do it...I don't care about the recipe.

Can't. Lost the paint. It's invisible, remember?

Sure about what?

What you said.

You don't understand the difference between being dead and alive? If you need that to be "explained", then I'm speaking way over your head, chief.

I'm just gonna let that one stand on its own. It's just too priceless. :biggrin:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You spend so much time trying to ridicule people that don't believe the same thing as you.

I ridicule people that say ridiculous things. It just so happens religious people say a lot of ridiculous things.

Your religion of atheism is the right religion. Yes religion as you atheist are every bit as religious as Christians, Muslims, Jewish...etc when it comes to your beliefs.

You're terribly confused, and your desperate attempt to dress my worldview in religious clothes only betrays your own negative feelings about religion, and an ignorance (willful or otherwise) of atheism.

 

[Retro Rob]

Dummy or not, the evidence for the Alaskan plaid crocodile is mounting rapidly, and you have no evidence that it's false.


So what? Does that make me more or less credible than bible authors?



It's Thursday.


Can't. Lost the paint. It's invisible, remember?



What you said.


I'm just gonna let that one stand on its own. It's just too priceless. :biggrin:

The more I question you, the less and less of an equivalence this becomes. You're making excuses as to why you can't show X...that is a profound contrast to what is written in the Bible. It [Bible] doesn't remotely hint at people explaining away why they can't show "X".


Like I said, "dummy".

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The more I question you, the less and less of an equivalence this becomes.

Nonsense. Just because you don't have the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You said that yourself.

You're making excuses as to why you can't show X...that is a profound contrast to what is written in the Bible. It [Bible] doesn't remotely hint at people explaining away why they can't show "X".

No, you've apparently adopted that job by reminding us that they're all dead.

Like I said, "dummy".

No evidence against my Alaskan plaid crocodile must mean you believe it's true, right? I mean, I have all this evidence to support my claim, and you have literally zero evidence against it.

Do you believe I caught an Alaskan plaid crocodile, Rob? You can't seem to come up with any reasons we should believe it's false.

 

[DrPizza]

My point is, just because they haven't "found" evidence doesn't mean that there isn't any, or that the story is "false".

I provided those links to show the ridiculousness of your thinking. At one point in time before we started digging, there was no evidence of anything in the Bible, so it was wholly "false".

Now, that isn't the case. Sure, I submit that everything isn't proven, and I even acknowledge that some thing probably won't even be proven, but its quite silly to call something "false" for that reason.

I don't think that the vast majority of atheists have ever claimed that on the surface, the entire Bible is false. I think I can sum it up very well thusly: the movie Titanic (Leonardo deCaprio) is fiction. Imagine a world, 2000 years from now, where someone claims that all the details of that movie really happened - what Rose's life was like, etc., and then uses the finding of the ship pieces at the bottom of the ocean as a basis to support that truth.

Many of the stories in the Bible are parables. And, for centuries, they were recognized as such. If you research historical writing of the era the Bible was penned, you'll see that much of it was parables. And, many of the stories had been passed down, pre-dating Christianity. E.g., Epic of Gilgamesh.

Let's say for a moment that God created the Big Bang. There's no way the Bible could describe this - stars weren't even understood back then. And, how about talking about observing the universe via red shifted galaxies. Red shift? 2000 years ago, there was no concept of electromagnetic radiation. Today, there is nothing clearly stated in the Bible that can be directly interpreted today as describing any scientific phenomenon that wasn't understood back then. You'd think that at some point in the past 2000 years, we'd make a scientific discovery and realize, "OHHHhhhhh, so that's what it's talking about."


Further, the Bible describes space-time relationships in such a manner that Heaven is clearly "up." It's not in another plane of existence. Ancient drawings make it fairly clear that hell was inside Earth, and Heaven was where the stars are - that was the understanding of the time; the Bible caters to that understanding. Yet, we can see "up" with our telescopes. In fact, I'm often left wondering why the literal interpretation completely ignores this. In fact, literally taken, the universe is layered - which we know is not true, but theologians 1000 years ago did not know this. In fact, many early theologians believed in a flat Earth, because to believe otherwise caused some major problems in knowing where Heaven was.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Ham Kens best asset is his name because it sounds like a cut of pork. The hamm is the worst part of the pork though, Bacon and pork chops are much better. Thus, ham ken is the worst of humanity, and everybody else is better.

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't think that the vast majority of atheists have ever claimed that on the surface, the entire Bible is false. I think I can sum it up very well thusly: the movie Titanic (Leonardo deCaprio) is fiction. Imagine a world, 2000 years from now, where someone claims that all the details of that movie really happened - what Rose's life was like, etc., and then uses the finding of the ship pieces at the bottom of the ocean as a basis to support that truth.

Many of the stories in the Bible are parables. And, for centuries, they were recognized as such. If you research historical writing of the era the Bible was penned, you'll see that much of it was parables. And, many of the stories had been passed down, pre-dating Christianity. E.g., Epic of Gilgamesh.

Let's say for a moment that God created the Big Bang. There's no way the Bible could describe this - stars weren't even understood back then. And, how about talking about observing the universe via red shifted galaxies. Red shift? 2000 years ago, there was no concept of electromagnetic radiation. Today, there is nothing clearly stated in the Bible that can be directly interpreted today as describing any scientific phenomenon that wasn't understood back then. You'd think that at some point in the past 2000 years, we'd make a scientific discovery and realize, "OHHHhhhhh, so that's what it's talking about."


Further, the Bible describes space-time relationships in such a manner that Heaven is clearly "up." It's not in another plane of existence. Ancient drawings make it fairly clear that hell was inside Earth, and Heaven was where the stars are - that was the understanding of the time; the Bible caters to that understanding. Yet, we can see "up" with our telescopes. In fact, I'm often left wondering why the literal interpretation completely ignores this. In fact, literally taken, the universe is layered - which we know is not true, but theologians 1000 years ago did not know this. In fact, many early theologians believed in a flat Earth, because to believe otherwise caused some major problems in knowing where Heaven was.

Your "predates" argument is a woefully bad one, as the law against murder in the Ten Commandments "predate" US Laws prohibiting murder. Does that mean that we deliberately borrowed from them to frame our laws? No, as the similarity is purely coincidental, as you would likely agree.

I know you're suggesting that since X predates Y, then Y must have borrowed from X.

This argument is as fallacious as they come. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[alzan]

Your "predates" argument is a woefully bad one, as the law against murder in the Ten Commandments "predate" US Laws prohibiting murder. Does that mean that we deliberately borrowed from them to frame our laws? No, as the similarity is purely coincidental, as you would likely agree.

I know you're suggesting that since X predates Y, then Y must have borrowed from X.

This argument is as fallacious as they come. Correlation does not imply causation.

US law is borrowed from many sources; Code of Hammurabi, English Common Law, etc.

What was the first society or civilization to have laws against murder? It's a multi-pronged answer; certainly societies existed pre-recorded history that had laws against theft and murder as well as other laws.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Your "predates" argument is a woefully bad one, as the law against murder in the Ten Commandments "predate" US Laws prohibiting murder. Does that mean that we deliberately borrowed from them to frame our laws? No, as the similarity is purely coincidental, as you would likely agree.

I know you're suggesting that since X predates Y, then Y must have borrowed from X.

This argument is as fallacious as they come. Correlation does not imply causation.

Holy shit how is it possible for a single person to contain so much stupid?

 

[werepossum]

I don't think that the vast majority of atheists have ever claimed that on the surface, the entire Bible is false. I think I can sum it up very well thusly: the movie Titanic (Leonardo deCaprio) is fiction. Imagine a world, 2000 years from now, where someone claims that all the details of that movie really happened - what Rose's life was like, etc., and then uses the finding of the ship pieces at the bottom of the ocean as a basis to support that truth.

Many of the stories in the Bible are parables. And, for centuries, they were recognized as such. If you research historical writing of the era the Bible was penned, you'll see that much of it was parables. And, many of the stories had been passed down, pre-dating Christianity. E.g., Epic of Gilgamesh.

Let's say for a moment that God created the Big Bang. There's no way the Bible could describe this - stars weren't even understood back then. And, how about talking about observing the universe via red shifted galaxies. Red shift? 2000 years ago, there was no concept of electromagnetic radiation. Today, there is nothing clearly stated in the Bible that can be directly interpreted today as describing any scientific phenomenon that wasn't understood back then. You'd think that at some point in the past 2000 years, we'd make a scientific discovery and realize, "OHHHhhhhh, so that's what it's talking about."


Further, the Bible describes space-time relationships in such a manner that Heaven is clearly "up." It's not in another plane of existence. Ancient drawings make it fairly clear that hell was inside Earth, and Heaven was where the stars are - that was the understanding of the time; the Bible caters to that understanding. Yet, we can see "up" with our telescopes. In fact, I'm often left wondering why the literal interpretation completely ignores this. In fact, literally taken, the universe is layered - which we know is not true, but theologians 1000 years ago did not know this. In fact, many early theologians believed in a flat Earth, because to believe otherwise caused some major problems in knowing where Heaven was.

That's a pretty good summation, although string theorists might argue that the math proves that the universe IS layered and we simply can't perceive it.

I think it's fairly clear that the authors of the Bible borrowed liberally from previous traditions, for two reasons. First, these were things they wanted people to learn from and live by. Second, they wanted the authority to come from G-d, enhancing His perceived power, rather than "just because" and thereby undercutting his power. (Besides, G-d did not begin with Christianity or even Judaism; those are just methods by which we perceive and worship Him.) Was this Divinely inspired or just common sense? Who knows?

 

[zinfamous]

Ham Kens best asset is his name because it sounds like a cut of pork. The hamm is the worst part of the pork though, Bacon and pork chops are much better. Thus, ham ken is the worst of humanity, and everybody else is better.

You forgot the tenderloin and shoulder: also better than ham!

 

[zinfamous]

Your "predates" argument is a woefully bad one, as the law against murder in the Ten Commandments "predate" US Laws prohibiting murder. Does that mean that we deliberately borrowed from them to frame our laws? No, as the similarity is purely coincidental, as you would likely agree.

I know you're suggesting that since X predates Y, then Y must have borrowed from X.

This argument is as fallacious as they come. Correlation does not imply causation.

I feel like I just walked into a playground argument where some 3rd grader was laying the smack down on someone.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Your "predates" argument is a woefully bad one, as the law against murder in the Ten Commandments "predate" US Laws prohibiting murder. Does that mean that we deliberately borrowed from them to frame our laws? No, as the similarity is purely coincidental, as you would likely agree.

What in God's holy name are you blathering about? Who would EVER make the assertion that a similarity between the US penal code and the most well-known ethical code in human history was purely coincidental? Are you under the impression that the founding fathers, some of the most learned men of their day, would have been unfamiliar with the Bible, the most published book of all time?

 

[Retro Rob]

I think it's fairly clear that the authors of the Bible borrowed liberally from previous traditions, for two reasons. First, these were things they wanted people to learn from and live by. Second, they wanted the authority to come from G-d, enhancing His perceived power, rather than "just because" and thereby undercutting his power. (Besides, G-d did not begin with Christianity or even Judaism; those are just methods by which we perceive and worship Him.) Was this Divinely inspired or just common sense? Who knows?

Well, its very easy to find the similarities between any two things...the differences are often either ignored or whitewashed, and take a measure of intellectual honesty to read.

Since DrPizza brought up Gilgamesh, lets try that one, shall we:

First, as to the cause of the Deluge. According to the Gilgamesh Epic, an assembly of gods wanted to destroy man, and that decision was to be kept secret, the god Ea warned his favorite, Utnapishtism about the deluge. One of the gods, Enlil, couldn't sleep because of noise made by humans. He turned for help to the divine assembly of gods who sent a six-year famine, but that didn't quiet the noisy humans. When they decided to send a flood, Ea told the plan to Atrahasis, who built a ship for survival.​

The Epic explains that the gods became full of dismay and sought refuge in the highest heavens of the god Anu. Before entering, they "cowered like dogs," in distress and pressed up against the wall. They wept and they raised voices of protest. Goddess Ishtar reproached herself bitterly for originally consenting in the council of gods to mankind’s destruction.

According to the Epic, following the Flood, when Utnapishtim was about to offer sacrifice, "the gods crowded like flies about the sacrificer." Ishtar, "the great goddess," wanted to exclude Enlil from the sacrifice and criticized him for having caused the calamity. The Mesopotamian account shows Enlil as being enraged that one of the human race had survived.

The Bible, while having details as regards the measurements of the Ark, length of time of the rains etc, only states that God was displeased with the actions and hearts of man and judged them to death.

That's a very simple, and straight-forward account of why God did what he did, and much more believable.

Consider the differences, and you may change your opinion.

 

[Retro Rob]

What in God's holy name are you blathering about? Who would EVER make the assertion that a similarity between the US penal code and the most well-known ethical code in human history was purely coincidental? Are you under the impression that the founding fathers, some of the most learned men of their day, would have been unfamiliar with the Bible, the most published book of all time?

I think you missed my point. Come to think about it, I was wrong in citing that as an example...perhaps I'll chose another more appropriate one.

 

[DrPizza]

Well, its very easy to find the similarities between any two things...the differences are often either ignored or whitewashed, and take a measure of intellectual honesty to read.

Since DrPizza brought up Gilgamesh, lets try that one, shall we:

First, as to the cause of the Deluge. According to the Gilgamesh Epic, an assembly of gods wanted to destroy man, and that decision was to be kept secret, the god Ea warned his favorite, Utnapishtism about the deluge. One of the gods, Enlil, couldn't sleep because of noise made by humans. He turned for help to the divine assembly of gods who sent a six-year famine, but that didn't quiet the noisy humans. When they decided to send a flood, Ea told the plan to Atrahasis, who built a ship for survival.​

The Epic explains that the gods became full of dismay and sought refuge in the highest heavens of the god Anu. Before entering, they "cowered like dogs," in distress and pressed up against the wall. They wept and they raised voices of protest. Goddess Ishtar reproached herself bitterly for originally consenting in the council of gods to mankind’s destruction.

According to the Epic, following the Flood, when Utnapishtim was about to offer sacrifice, "the gods crowded like flies about the sacrificer." Ishtar, "the great goddess," wanted to exclude Enlil from the sacrifice and criticized him for having caused the calamity. The Mesopotamian account shows Enlil as being enraged that one of the human race had survived.

The Bible, while having details as regards the measurements of the Ark, length of time of the rains etc, only states that God was displeased with the actions and hearts of man and judged them to death.

That's a very simple, and straight-forward account of why God did what he did, and much more believable.

Consider the differences, and you may change your opinion.

How ironic it is that literalists generally offer all the flood stories of different cultures as "proof" of a great flood, then one literalist dismisses an earlier story about a great flood as being coincidental. I suppose the Epic of Gilgamesh was talking about some OTHER flood, Hmmmm? One that the Bible failed to mention?

And, you're an idiot if you think it's just a coincidence that "Thou shalt not kill" is in the Bible and our laws make murder illegal.

Further, why didn't you make any attempt at all to address the other points I made? Let's toss another one out: 2000 years ago, they didn't understand what the moon was. In the Bible, God created it to rule the night. Two lights in the sky. However, the light of the moon COMES from the light from the sun. This seems to be a blatant omission; though you can't blame the writers back then, they didn't know any better. You'd have thought that God would have known better though. And, the moon doesn't simply "rule the night" - the moon is visible for just as many daylight hours as night hours; an oversight of the writers apparently. Or, how about Kings 7:23. Back then, they had Pi accurate to about, ohhhh, 1 decimal place. I think the Chinese at that time were out to 3 decimal places or so. But, the Bible has pi as equaling 3. (I'll let this one slide; it's easily explained by "rounding.")