The Steamboat Pilot & Today

Posted on March 20 at 9:26 a.m.
On Jack and Lynny Huston: Pray for Jerusalem

Wow, I haven't been on here in a month, and this thread's still going strong... Okay, where to begin?

emmalee- You do not understand what the term "species" entails, obviously. It's a man-made construct. *WE* assign the term to any group of animals that can breed with each other and produce viable offspring. That's it. Quite obviously, every fossil is going to be a species, as there would have been other animals to breed with it. The term you're looking for is "transitional form". And there are *LOTS* of transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx is the most famous one, for starters. It had the wings and feathers of a bird, and the teeth and scales of a reptile. A lizard/bird, in short. So, to answer your question, yes, we've dug up a lot of those. As for this comment of yours: "...are the scientists not as narrow minded as some believers." why, yes, at times they are. That's why science has developed things like peer review, double-blind testing, statistical analysis, etc. Religion, on the other hand, has no such system of checks and balances.

michyah- I'll give you the benefit of the doubt when you say you've read your holy book in the original Hebrew. I'll point out, though, that we don't have any of the New Testament in Hebrew. The earliest translations we have were in Koine Greek. Read that too, do you?

egoeater- "...God describes when he likens people as the size of grasshoppers. Basically He is describing His point of view." He's not very high up in the air, then, is he? A hundred feet or so? Or maybe he's just really tall.

katrinka- "Only one man split time in our history." Incorrect. Before posting, look up the facts, please. We use the Gregorian calendar (which was flawed in its starting date to begin with), and as we're Americans and the world's only remaining superpower, international business goes along with us. Other calendars in use around the world make no mention of (or allusion to) Joshua of Galilee.

H_Press- "and a treed bear is bad for the fruit..." That made me grin.

Is egoeater seriously suggesting that his devil is Hunterdog's father? o.O

ethan- Hunterdog, again and again, has underscored this: If you make an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary evidence. You claim your god exists. You claim that the early Christian writers (whom *ALL* lived long after the events which purportedly took place and wrote everything by hearsay) got the details right. Where is the empirical evidence of this? Your appeal to emotion is invalid in debate, as are anecdotes. You say the Bible is true because it makes you feel all warm inside. Sorry, the real world doesn't work like that. To requote Nietzsche, "A causual stroll through an insane asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."

Hunterdog- Props and kudos to you for keeping up the good fight.

Posted on February 13 at 12:05 a.m.
On Jack and Lynny Huston: Pray for Jerusalem

seven- Oh? Let's find out: damn Israel to hell. Oh, dear. I just cursed at Israel. I better watch out for falling lightning bolts.

trustme- No, I wouldn't say religion is the cause of all wars. But it does make a handy excuse.

blog- Cute, but I've heard it before. :)

Flinx- According to Joshua of Gallilee in Matthew 5:22 "...whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." You really should be careful about slinging that word around. "JayK claims to have read the Bible but when you read his interpretation his ignorance is glaring." Please, point out my inconsistencies and/or logical errors. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, but it seems I know the Bible better than you do.

"Dendochronolgy[sic] to back it up is flawed because the people creating the database for backup refuse to submit their evidence for statistical review." Where'd you get that, and don't you mean peer review? I'd just like to say that it's a good thing there are any number of other dating methods being used besides radiocarbon dating and dendochronology, because those two only date back less than 50,000 years. For instance: uranium-lead, uranium-thorium, potassium-argon, argon-argon, fission track, cosmogenic isotope, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, rhenium-osmium, lutetium-hafnium, paleomagnetic, thermo-luminescence, ice cores, lichenometry, varves, and so on. The geological column is quite clear.

As for evolution being junk science, I'll leave you for now with this quote: when asked what would disprove evolution, biologist J. B. S. Haldane said, "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian." It's late and I need sleep. I'll write more later.

Posted on February 13 at 12:02 a.m.
On Jack and Lynny Huston: Pray for Jerusalem

JazzSlave- Ah, my bad. I thought you were linking that shark's virgin birth in earnest.

kielbasa- I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. I agree that it's possible that life has evolved elsewhere. I agree that it's probable that if life evolved elsewhere, it wouldn't have evolved along the same lines as on Earth. I agree that significantly advanced technology would appear magical to someone not in the know. A flashlight would be incomprehensible to someone from biblical times. What I don't agree with is that advanced technology would be unexplainable through our sciences... at least, not in the long run. The universe runs on a set of (as far as all the evidence points) unbreakable rules: the gravitational constant, the inverse square law, the velocity of light, etc. Science is ever-expanding what we know about reality. The difference between us and biblical figures is that we have the scientific method, the tried-and-true way of learning the facts. We don't automatically assume that something we can't immediately explain is supernatural or divine (or, at least, the more rational of us don't). If scientists can't find a logical explanation for something, they worry away at the problem until they can. Incidentally, telepathy and telekinesis are impossible according to the inverse square law of physics... and there's also never been any empirical evidence for either. I'm a sci-fi fan, too. Time travel, extraterrestrials, psionic powers... these are staples of the genre, and always spice up a storyline. But I always keep in mind that it's still fiction, until something comes along to prove otherwise. I should point out that this: "we use a very small portion of our brain capacity consciously" is incorrect. That's a variant of the old "we only use 10% of our brains" myth. I know you don't like clicking links but you should read this: http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?m... Your statement shows a profound misunderstanding of the subject matter.

Posted on February 12 at 4:47 p.m.
On Jack and Lynny Huston: Pray for Jerusalem

Faith- As for your call to readers to Christendom, keep this in mind: I used to be a member in good standing. I know all your arguments, all your appeals, and all your rationalizations. But when I actually looked with a skeptical eye at what I believed for so long, it became obvious: I was told lies. They were no doubt told with the best intentions, and those telling them were not aware of their untruth, but that does not make them true.

Posted on February 12 at 4:45 p.m.
On Jack and Lynny Huston: Pray for Jerusalem

Faith- In addition to which, how do you explain the internal contradictions within the Bible? There are a very large number of problems with the Bible, and Christian apologists struggle to explain them away. But answer me this: if the Bible were divinely inspired by an all-knowing and all-powerful being, and is meant to be a guidebook for humanity for all time, why is there not a single verse anywhere in it that could not have been written by someone living in the first couple of centuries CE? And why even need Christian apologists? Why shouldn't the Bible be entirely straightforward, easy to understand for everyone?

"Without God in the mix, we are mere humans and limited to human knowledge or what we have discovered thus far (Exactly, and rightly so.). Scientific methods cannot prove the origin of the earth (in what way have geology, astronomy, physics, and so forth not done so?), so why does the Bible have to pass its test to be real (because science is all about coming to objective truth with as little bias as possible... religion is all about bias). Do we not really exist since we cannot scientifically prove how we came to be (I think you missed my point.)? We cannot control nor recreate evolution (Incorrect... MRSA is a prime example of our meddling with natural selection) or creation (Of course not. It wouldn't be possible for us to be anywhere in the vicinity of a naked singularity.)..."

"For me the Holy Bible is from God; not because of the data I have presented today, but because of Faith." I will reiterate Friedrich Nietzsche: "A casual stroll through an insane asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." You may have faith in anything you wish. That does not make it objectively true. Faith of the sort you promote is irrelevant in the light of reason.

Posted on February 12 at 4:45 p.m.
On Jack and Lynny Huston: Pray for Jerusalem

kielbasa- Having reread what I posted, I realized that I never actually answered your question: do I believe in life outside of Earth? The answer is I would like to believe, but there's no evidence for it, other than the possible fossils of bacterial life in Mars' past. So I neither believe, nor disbelieve. Now, your next question, whether I believe life arose purely through random events: yes or no, depending on what you mean. If you mean whether I believe that life arose from the so-called "primordial soup" without outside influence or not, then yes. But it's been shown that carbon atoms (the essential elements of DNA and RNA) are self-organizing... thus, prebiotic synthesis may not have occurred entirely "randomly". There are all sorts of theories for how life originally arose, but still no evidence for divine intervention.

Faith- I said I would not kick the crutch out from under you, but by re-entering the debate/discussion (as you are more than welcome to do... I thoroughly enjoy discussions of this nature), you've willingly opened your views to rebuttal. Very well. Your first mistake is that you are again (as Hunterdog pointed out earlier) using the Bible (and other early Christian writings) to verify the Bible (and other early Christian writings) is factually true in regards to Joshua of Galilee's divinity. This is circular reasoning ("the Bible is true because the Bible says it is") and invalid in debate. Your second mistake is assuming that I'm disputing the Bible was written by a lot of people over a long period of time... I'm not. I fully accede that the Bible took a long time to write, and that a lot of people contributed to it. What I'm disputing is that any of those people were at all "divinely" inspired or guided. Your third mistake is here: "non believers say that Christians created the manuscripts with their prophecy after it had all been fulfilled so they knew what to write in the Old Testament". No. No, no, no. That's not what we're saying at all. The Old Testament was taken from the Hebrew Tanakh, which was compiled long before Joshua supposedly lived. What we're saying is that the writers of the New Testament *knew* the prophecies from the Tanakh, and wrote down events so that it would seem those prophecies were fulfilled. In addition, there is textual evidence that that's exactly what happened. Ask yourself this: how difficult would it be for the gospel writers (who *all* lived about a century or even more after the events chronicled supposedly took place) to write it so? The answer is: not very difficult at all.

Posted on February 12 at 12:02 p.m.
On Jack and Lynny Huston: Pray for Jerusalem

armchairqb- What we should be teaching kids in kindergarten is critical thinking skills and a reliance on logic and reason... or at least, what they're capable of understanding of it at that age. Everything else stems from that central focus.

id04sp- A quick quote for you on faith by Friedrich Nietzsche, "A casual stroll through an insane asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." As for a few Biblical prophecies, here are a few that failed:
Genesis 2:17-- The day Adam eats the fruit of the magic tree, he'll die... he eats it in the next chapter, then lives for another 930 years.
Genesis 4:11-12-- For killing his brother, Cain is sentenced to be a fugitive and vagabond... then in a couple versus, he takes a wife and builds a city.
Genesis 46:4-- God promises that Jacob will return safely from Egypt... but he later dies there.
Ezekiel 27: 7, 14, 32-- Nebuchdrezzer of Babylon will destroy Tyre... never happened.
Ezekiel 29:10-12-- Babylon will conquer Egypt and scatter its people among the nations... nope, didn't quite work out that way.
Micah 3:12-- Jerusalem would become "a heap of ruins" by Sennacherib... the city was sieged but not destroyed.
Those are only a very few of the things that were supposed to come true, but didn't, in the Bible. For a longer list, see http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/...

As for the New Testament supposedly confirming the old, how difficult do you think it would be for the NT writers to write it so that it looks like they're confirming prophecy from so long ago? In point of fact, we have textual evidence that that's exactly what they did... namely the entire question of whether or not Mary was a virgin. Do the research and you'll see for yourself.

Posted on February 12 at noon
On Jack and Lynny Huston: Pray for Jerusalem

kielbasa- As for your question of whether I "believe in life outside of Earth", I think I know where you're going, and I'll answer it. I believe that statistically speaking, it's highly probable another world capable of supporting life exists. Whether that world has ever developed life or not, is open to speculation because we have no evidence confirming or denying it. I would like to believe that Earth isn't the only planet with life on it in the cosmos, but that's just my own personal opinion. Now what your next argument is going to be is that the question of a deity is the same as life existing elsewhere: that there's no evidence for or against it, so the question is open. However, that analogy doesn't hold up. We *know* that it's possible for a planet to support life; we *know* that it's possible for life to arise on Earthlike planets; we know this because our own existence is irrefutable evidence of it. It's only the probability of life elsewhere that's in dispute, not the possibility. There still is no evidence of any kind for the possibility of a supernatural entity, be it a personal god or a "non-specific and ethereal Formless and Nameless Cosmic Creative Intelligence". And without evidence of that possibility, why should we automatically assume it's probable, or even possible?

Posted on February 12 at 11:59 a.m.
On Jack and Lynny Huston: Pray for Jerusalem

kielbasa- You can toss out ideas all day about the cause of human consciousness (which is really what split us off the evolutionary branch from which modern apes descended)... from alien monoliths (per the classic sci-fi novel, Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey") to the souls of aliens blown up by the galactic lord Xenu (per L. Ron Hubbard), from a universal field of intelligence (per Deepak Chopra) to free will as a gift from a personal god (per most religions). I can guess that it was really an Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves) who taught early hominids to harness fire, or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster stretched forth a noodly appendage and made us self-aware. But really, the only testable idea is the theory of consciousness being an emergent property of the complex interactions of neurons (per most neurologists). The fact of the matter is, we really don't know why we're conscious, or how we got this way, but science offers us the best hope of finding out. There's no evidence pointing in any other direction, despite all the imaginary ways we can come up with. Scientists aren't narrow-minded in doubting a deity's interference in evolution, when there's no reason to pursue the inquiry.

As for why I don't believe the Bible... have you actually read it? Cover to cover? I have. I don't believe it for a lot of reasons... but instead, why do *you* believe it's true, and not any number of other mutually exclusive "holy" texts? Why is the Bible true, but not the Koran? Or the Venas and Upashinads of Hinduism, which are even older than the Hebrew Torah? Why isn't the Buddhavacana true? They can't all be true, because they all declare they're the only true text. And that's only a few of the holy texts still in use... there are any number of old texts for dead religions that no one credits anymore. Why aren't any of them true? You begin to see my point? If all of them claim to be true, and all of them claim every other one is false, logic dictates they're most likely all false (especially as there's no convincing argument that any of them are true). In most cases, it's only the ideological background of a person that determines his/her religion. Basically, you believe what your parents tell you is true, but that's an appeal to authority, and is a logical fallacy.

Posted on February 10 at 2:23 p.m.
On Jack and Lynny Huston: Pray for Jerusalem

freshair- You want to trade Einstein quotes? Try these:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"[The sense of] a spirit manifest in the laws of the Universe... does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image--a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being."

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. If people are good only because they fear punishment and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure of the former."

When asked if religion promotes peace: "It has not done so up to now."