[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

Heck, there are several guys in GTPI that could do it better then I can, but I'm giving it a shot.

I do appreciate the vote of confidence.

You're doing better than average. Tell him what happens in the end when people don't follow instructions.

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

You're doing better than average. Tell him what happens in the end when people don't follow instructions.

I'd rather get there by only asking questions, and not making any statements.

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I think Ben Stein is an awesome economist. Honestly, I don't know much about him other than that. Except in his role in Ferris Bueller's Day Off..... My first date with Ms. Cavalry Doc, but that's a whole different story.



The first KNOWN life is what we are looking for. The first one with knowledge of itself, regardless of location.

No, even if it didn't happen on Earth first.... I cannot tell you if it happened on it's own by accident, and was brought here by an intelligence, which happened by chance somewhere else. I cannot tell you how old the earth is, or how old life is in the universe. Assuming it all started and ended here is about as infantile as assuming the universe revolved around the earth. A lot of the earth-centric atheist beliefs that are common probably need to be rethought. Which kind of makes the old vs new earth argument a little lame. It's as old as it is.

I'm not completely sure how to respond. I'm not sure if we disagree here.


I think it likely that life started on earth on it's own.
I think it likely that there is other life out there.
I think it likely that if any sign of life is found in our solar system, that it is contamination and we are related.
I think it likely that there is life farther away that is not related, and also started on it's own.

I am interested in the beginning of life that we are related to. When it changed from chemistry to biology.



edit

...
A lot of the earth-centric atheist beliefs that are common probably need to be rethought.
...

Can you explain what you mean here? This is not a point I want to argue with you, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the word atheist. There are no atheist beliefs. It is a lack of belief. Anyway, what earth centric beliefs do you think atheists have, in general?

[G26S239]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I think Ben Stein is an awesome economist. Honestly, I don't know much about him other than that. Except in his role in Ferris Bueller's Day Off..... My first date with Ms. Cavalry Doc, but that's a whole different story.



The first KNOWN life is what we are looking for. The first one with knowledge of itself, regardless of location.

No, even if it didn't happen on Earth first.... I cannot tell you if it happened on it's own by accident, and was brought here by an intelligence, which happened by chance somewhere else. I cannot tell you how old the earth is, or how old life is in the universe. Assuming it all started and ended here is about as infantile as assuming the universe revolved around the earth. A lot of the earth-centric atheist beliefs that are common probably need to be rethought. Which kind of makes the old vs new earth argument a little lame. It's as old as it is.

So earth centric atheist beliefs are common?

1) Please define earth centric atheism in comparison to non earth centric atheism.

2) After you do that please explain how you have arrived at the conclusion that earth centric atheism is common in comparison to non earth centric atheism.

3) Please explain why you believe that curiosity about the age of the earth to be lame? Personally I believe that geology, paleontology and other science disciplines that calculate and/or use such information are valid and reasonable courses of study.

If you want me to rethink my atheist point of view, which I have never defined as earth centric or universe wide, you will have to give me a good reason. Offhand an agnostic defining an atheist's POV as needing to be rethought seems about as obnoxious to me as busybody G36 desiring to define for christians why they should not get tattoos because he is a disapproving judgmental busybody.

[Cavalry Doc]

No offense meant. But a lot of the arguments I've seen here tend to revolve around the age of the earth, the fact that Jonah was not swallowed by a whale, the ark is not supported by genetic or fossil records.

So? None of that proves there was not a deity.

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

No offense meant. But a lot of the arguments I've seen here tend to revolve around the age of the earth, the fact that Jonah was not swallowed by a whale, the ark is not supported by genetic or fossil records.

So? None of that proves there was not a deity.

I don't know of anyone claiming it does.

What it can do is prove the Bible is not infallible.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

No offense meant. But a lot of the arguments I've seen here tend to revolve around the age of the earth, the fact that Jonah was not swallowed by a whale, the ark is not supported by genetic or fossil records.

So? None of that proves there was not a deity.

What would prove that there was not, or is not or never has been, a deity to your satisfaction?

[NMG26]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

No offense meant. But a lot of the arguments I've seen here tend to revolve around the age of the earth, the fact that Jonah was not swallowed by a whale, the ark is not supported by genetic or fossil records.

So? None of that proves there was not a deity.

Debunking the Bible is not debunking theism.




.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

And when they keep practicing medicine and don't pay the fine?


I'm sure you see where I'm going.

From that point they couldn't practice medicine legally without breaking existing laws. It would be no different if I decided tomorrow to start practicing medicine. I'm not an attorney but I'm sure there are already laws that deal with individuals who practice medicine without a license.

As far as the fine... you freeze their accounts and shut down their credit. You seize accounts, investments and property until the debt is satisfied. You garnish any reportable wages. You turn them into an under the table day laborer until they make good on their penalty.

Do you think anyone that wants too should be allowed to practice medicine? License or not?

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

I want to know about the first life. Not just the first life on earth. If an older form of life started us, which is possible, it still doesn't answer the question if life started on it's own.

It's possible that that missing element road in on a comet. Earth went through a period called the Heavy Bombardment if I'm not mistaken. When it was pelted with objects from space. Including a large one that later formed the moon. It's possible that any of that could have contained the missing key to life or early life itself. So that leaves us wondering where we came from if we didn't originate here.

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

...
Do you think anyone that wants too should be allowed to practice medicine? License or not?

I do, but that is completely unrelated to what I'm trying to show you.

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

From that point they couldn't practice medicine legally without breaking existing laws. It would be no different if I decided tomorrow to start practicing medicine. I'm not an attorney but I'm sure there are already laws that deal with individuals who practice medicine without a license.

As far as the fine... you freeze their accounts and shut down their credit. You seize accounts, investments and property until the debt is satisfied. You garnish any reportable wages. You turn them into an under the table day laborer until they make good on their penalty.
...

What if they practice medicine out of their house for cash only. They display the license that you have revoked, because they still have the piece of paper. They pay all taxes owed, but are extremely careful not to pay any extra so you can't get the money that way. They withdrew all their money before you froze their accounts, have cash on hand and do not need to borrow any. What do you do next?

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

I agree about the ignoring him. I will let my shame and sadness for him be my ignore list from now on. Ready? 1,2,3, Go!

Did you see what happened? A couple obvious pathetic troll posts to suck you back in. So sad.

[G26S239]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

No offense meant. But a lot of the arguments I've seen here tend to revolve around the age of the earth, the fact that Jonah was not swallowed by a whale, the ark is not supported by genetic or fossil records.

So? None of that proves there was not a deity.

A deity does not need to be disproven to be disbelieved. In fact if someone wants me to believe there is such a thing as a deity empirical evidence would go much further with me than a tale of a donkey communicating using human language.

A belief system is only as credible as the suppositions and assumptions that it is based on. Therefore the individual component stories that together with other stories are the bible SHOULD be open to examination and comparison to observed reality to determine how much credibility such stories should have attached to them IMO. If you believe otherwise please state why.

Jonah being swallowed by a huge fish and living inside it for 3 days does not sound credible to me. The fact that I do not find it credible makes it a realistic point of discussion in disputing a bible believer's version of history. Again, if you believe otherwise please state why.


You may consider the 6 day creation +66 generations from Adam to Jesus + an intervening ~ 2000 years to provide a reasonable SWAG* about the age of the earth but I do not. Why should I disregard apparent discrepancies in Biblical accounts that point to a young earth that clash with conclusions of geological and paleontological research? Do you believe that such claims should be considered off limits to critical examination?

I actually use such claims to determine how much weight to attach to other claims made in the same body of literature as well as figuring the likely hood of other such claims like Noah living to be 804 years against known documentation of the age of long lived (116 years recently) humans.

I don't find such claims credible. If you do than please explain why 969 years for Methuselah's age sounds like a reasonably credible claim to you. Because if that claim is not credible to you than why would it not cause you to reconsider the veracity of the rest of that body of literature?

It is not just the Bible either. The creation accounts of the Enumu Elish and Hindu mythology are equally unlikely.

*Scientific Wild Ass Guess G36. More useless military jargo.

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

Did you see what happened? A couple obvious pathetic troll posts to suck you back in. So sad.

Nope. I didn't see nothin'.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

Nope. I didn't see nothin'.

[Woofie]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

And when they keep practicing medicine and don't pay the fine?


I'm sure you see where I'm going.

By Golly, do you mean to say that all laws ultimately result in compliance or death?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

I don't know of anyone claiming it does.

What it can do is prove the Bible is not infallible.

Neither are many scholarly texts. Have you read a high school history or government book recently. Talk about slanted.

One thing I'm pretty sure if is that humans have a very hard time reaching perfection.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by NMG26

Debunking the Bible is not debunking theism.




.

More accurately, finding even quite a few innacuracies in a text that was compiled by many men doesn't even prove the Christian god does not exist, let alone rule out theism.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by G26S239

A deity does not need to be disproven to be disbelieved. In fact if someone wants me to believe there is such a thing as a deity empirical evidence would go much further with me than a tale of a donkey communicating using human language.

A belief system is only as credible as the suppositions and assumptions that it is based on. Therefore the individual component stories that together with other stories are the bible SHOULD be open to examination and comparison to observed reality to determine how much credibility such stories should have attached to them IMO. If you believe otherwise please state why.

Jonah being swallowed by a huge fish and living inside it for 3 days does not sound credible to me. The fact that I do not find it credible makes it a realistic point of discussion in disputing a bible believer's version of history. Again, if you believe otherwise please state why.


You may consider the 6 day creation +66 generations from Adam to Jesus + an intervening ~ 2000 years to provide a reasonable SWAG* about the age of the earth but I do not. Why should I disregard apparent discrepancies in Biblical accounts that point to a young earth that clash with conclusions of geological and paleontological research? Do you believe that such claims should be considered off limits to critical examination?

I actually use such claims to determine how much weight to attach to other claims made in the same body of literature as well as figuring the likely hood of other such claims like Noah living to be 804 years against known documentation of the age of long lived (116 years recently) humans.

I don't find such claims credible. If you do than please explain why 969 years for Methuselah's age sounds like a reasonably credible claim to you. Because if that claim is not credible to you than why would it not cause you to reconsider the veracity of the rest of that body of literature?

It is not just the Bible either. The creation accounts of the Enumu Elish and Hindu mythology are equally unlikely.

*Scientific Wild Ass Guess G36. More useless military jargo.

Let's not get hung up on this, but "disbelief" is a conscious act, while lacking belief is not.

Back to the point. Have you noticed how often people use analogies, metaphors and stories (real, hypothetical and fictional) to get a point across or to teach a lesson. I've never looked at any old texts and expected them to be completely accurate. Not to mention that word of mouth generational story telling and translation issues were bound to change things over time. Even people that speak the same language from the same area have miscommunication. Add a little distance and it can even get funny. If a British lady asks you to come by her hotel room in the morning to knock her up, it might not mean what you first might think.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

Quit trolling the poor fellow. I was saying buh bye to him, you're trying to get him to break his word.

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Neither are many scholarly texts. Have you read a high school history or government book recently. Talk about slanted.

One thing I'm pretty sure if is that humans have a very hard time reaching perfection.

Many theists claim the Bible is the infallible word of God. If the bible isn't infallible, that calls into question any assertions based on it, in the same way inaccuracies in a history book render the whole suspect.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by ksg0245

Many theists claim the Bible is the infallible word of God. If the bible isn't infallible, that calls into question any assertions based on it, in the same way inaccuracies in a history book render the whole suspect.

I'm guessing you meant Christian's and Jews? Not just theists.

Obvious political leanings and bias in a history book discussing the civil rights movement doesn't mean that there weren't any people here during that time period.

Just my own suspicion here, but claiming infallibility is only useful in controlling others. It doesn't take long in life to realize the problems with man made documents. Name any revered text or document, and you will find imperfections. Even the Constitution is flawed. There are misspelled words and a couple bad ideas. I see the same thing in people claiming that the founding fathers spoke with one voice.

But flaws in a story, and understanding the human penchant for using analogies, metaphors, and difficulties in telling a story over many generations.... It's a wash. Animal farm is a work of fiction, but there are some very good lessons held within.

So, if someone told me that the bible was a perfect text, and is meant to be followed to the letter and taken literally, I'm going to find myself wondering how much they question things. Same goes for a torah, quran, or any of L. Ron Hubbard's books. As a liberty issue, I don't think I have a responsibility to dissuade them from believing it's perfect, as long as they aren't planning on hurting anyone because of it. Those guys, you have to handle a little differently. But even that's not my job, not anymore any way.

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Neither are many scholarly texts. Have you read a high school history or government book recently. Talk about slanted.

One thing I'm pretty sure if is that humans have a very hard time reaching perfection.

Yeah but they don't claim to be the perfect word of an infallible being.

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Woofie

By Golly, do you mean to say that all laws ultimately result in compliance or death?

You gave away the ending. Not sure it matters though, he either missed post 211, or just stopped responding when he seen where it was going.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

Yeah but they don't claim to be the perfect word of an infallible being.

I'm thinking we are in agreement in the validity of that claim. People get stuff wrong. But even though the bible is flawed, is it still possible the christian god exists, but has been poorly described by man?