There are no absolute logical principles <---- including that one. This is simply another way of describing the problem of induction and under determination. Like so many philosophical arguments you have attacked my position based upon the language it was described in and not due to its underlying thought process. This has resulted in a fallacy. Language merely conveys knowledge, it does not in an of itself contain it (and excellent example incidentally of what I was talking about).

Your argument eats itself. If there aren't any absolute laws of logic (including that one), then there are no rules period, and thus no logic. If there is no such thing as logic then I could say "The cucumber faints west in the umbrage" and it would be an entirely valid response to anything you say. Yet you continue to make absolute statements like:

"All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction."

"This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications"

"you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective"

The sea cucumber faints west in the umbrage, my friend.

All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction. This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications, and furthermore that they never encompass all possible variables/possibilities. To put it another way, you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective (i.e. all of time and space for the thing in question). Thus there may always exist an example that could falsify your assumption. e.g. if I inducted that all swans are white because I had only ever seen white swans I would ultimately be incorrect as black swans can be observed to exist. Unless you can verify the entirety of existence across time there might always exist and experience/example to falsify any objective assertion. (you could be a brain in a jar, you can't prove 100% that your not)

No, I can't 100 percent prove I am not actually a circus peanut dreaming I'm a man, but it doesn't matter what I can prove to you. What matters is what is true. You have absolute freedom to live in total denial of reality if you want to, but reality isn't what we dictate it is. Just because you have no way of figuring it out doesn't mean no one does. The one who does have it figured out is God, because He created it. Because He is God He can make us absolutely certain of who He is and what He wants from us, transcending all physical or mental rationale.

^ Pardon me? Did you even read what I wrote by way of explanation for that? What part of "everything is permitted" even remotely precludes me (or anyone) from anything, let alone arguing against Christianity?!?!?

If everything is permitted then it is equally valid not to permit, which means you have no argument. Your way isn't better than any other way according to your logic so all that you can argue is that you prefer it.

What I felt I'd explained fairly clearly was the idea that the only demonstrable moral authority was yourself, or to put it another way that there are no moral authorities to be found anywhere else but within peoples minds.
Even if God himself speaks to you directly, that is an experience reducible only to the mind because ALL EXPERIENCES WITHIN HUMAN CONCEPTION OCCUR IN or at best VIA THE MIND!

I can't prove God exists to you, but He can. God isn't hiding from you; He has been knocking on your door your entire life. It's your choice whether you want to open the door, but you are going to meet Him one day regardless of what you choose.

Nothing has ever happened to any human being anywhere that was not experienced entirely in the mind (notice I didn't say "brain" ). When you see a chair you don't see the photons of light hitting your retina, you see something your mind made up to be representative (at best) of whatever phenomenon your eyes detected.

With that in mind (<- mind lol), "everything is permitted". The universe will continue on, unmoved by our moralities (or lack of). Only other humans will cry or rejoice at your actions and only within the sovereignty of your own mind will you find an irrefutable and absolute moral judge...

I was created before I had a mind. The Universe has a beginning, it was created, and the Creator is the judge.

Apart from all the same major dates for festivals and holy days (25th dec etc.),

The Catholics borrowed those from the Pagans..you won't find those in the bible.

the entire symbology of dieing on a cross for three days then being resurrected, the "last supper" with 12 disciples, 3 wise men from the east bearing gifts. etc. etc.

Sources?

I'd have more time for the Christian counter argument that the Mithraists stole this stuff from them if the same themes, dates and symoblogy didn't pop up in ancient cultures going back a few 1000 years over and over and over. The list of Messianic figures with the above characteristics in western folklore & myth is so long its almost a joke! & naturally is no co-incidence as they are describing the movement of the heavens (specifically the sun) by way of allegory. Speaking of which..

Let's see some sources..

But then the Catholic Church did it level best to suppress and destroy any trace of Gnosticism through the ages so its no surprise to me that you're not entirely familiar with it. (most people haven't even heard of it and those that do tend to be under the misapprehension that its a Christian thing (again understandable under the circumstances))

I know exactly what it is and I am very familar with it.

I'll come with you a little on that one. Before Rex Mundi (Jehova) showed up to fk everything up for them the Kabbalistic (and essentially Pagan) Jews possessed great wisdom and insight. Naturally not all of this was lost! (though after Solomon passed it would appear a regrettably large amount was)

Abraham is the father of the Jewish people and he worshiped the LORD.

I'm not sure I even want to grace that with a response. How could you possibly know what came from the mouth of God to a man 2000 years ago? If you say "because it says in the bible" please don't expect a sensible reply (I'm happy to fight non-sense with none-sense)

Because I know Him personally and His Spirit lives within me.

^This one amused be greatly. I would say Buddhism & Zoroastranism were clearly superior for exactly that reason but that's not what I think you were alluding to? I assume you were suggesting that certain parts of the whole Jesus shebang could only have come from Jesus/God/Holy spirit because he made himself the centre of attention?

To be a Christian is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Therefore there is no Christianity without Him. He is the only way to know God:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

He wasn't pointing to Himself, He was pointing to God.

This is why I make a very distinct separation between the "Jesus" and the "Christ". Christ (or anointed one) goes back at least to Egypt. Horus is clearly "Christ" by basically any sensible measure I can think of, and by "Christ" I mean the "Sun of God" i.e. the freaking Sun.

This also forms the basis for an "as above so below" parable/allegory for the spiritual journey to enlightenment. You can find your way to heaven and God via the "Sun of God's" wisdom. No Miracle performing hippie Jew's were required before and I fail to see how sprouting the same fundamental idea just with a figurehead for a disenfranchised Jewish noble family anchored to everything helps?

You do realize that the word son and the word sun, in hebrew or in egyptian, aren't even remotely similar don't you? The word Christ does mean the anointed one, that is what the Messiah is. Jesus *is* the Christ. In regards to Horus being Christ, and a lot of other things you said, please take a look at this:

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/#horus

Are there some pearl's of Jesus's wisdom I missed? Thus far I have yet to come across anything that didn't strike me as either a rewording of things wise men had preached for 1000's of years previously, or a power play by an unscrupulous or deluded individual.

Read the gospel of John and pray to God and ask Him to help you understand it.

I happen to know its hotly contested even to this day but lets for the sake of this just take it as a given. When I said "at best a fabrication" it was because I consider the historical figure to be an impostor and a fraud. If anyone was a "true" messiah then John the Baptist and moreover Simon Magus are far better contenders but then that's a colossal can of worms I'm not sure I can be bothered to open at the moment.

John the baptist said he wasn't the Messiah and Simon was outdone by Philip.

I'll just say in summary that I am of the opinion that Mr. Ben Yosef and his crew were plotting to return the house of David to power but largely failed in the end as the Roman establishment usurped most of the legacy they tried to create (though not entirely).

The missing part of this theory is the explanation for the empty tomb.

Either way they worshiped and championed a being (Psychological archetype) which I feel I have little choice but to call Satan i.e. the God of Abraham. This alone is a pretty major indictment for me and any historic figure that puts said "being" at the center of their belief system will garner my suspicion.

How can the God that appeared to Abraham be anything but malevolent if the accounts in the Torah and Quran are accurate?

The quran isn't accurate, but if you read the Old Testament without humanistic glasses on, you'll find it was the humans who were malevolent and God was who long suffering with them.

@ shinyblurry

This had already turned into an essay and I didn't want to take up even more room by quoting you verbatim so I've tried to break it down to save space.



1. "Except that?"

There are no absolute logical principles <---- including that one.
This is simply another way of describing the problem of induction and under determination. Like so many philosophical arguments you have attacked my position based upon the language it was described in and not due to its underlying thought process. This has resulted in a fallacy. Language merely conveys knowledge, it does not in an of itself contain it (and excellent example incidentally of what I was talking about).

2. "Is that absolutely true?"

All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction. This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications, and furthermore that they never encompass all possible variables/possibilities. To put it another way, you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective (i.e. all of time and space for the thing in question). Thus there may always exist an example that could falsify your assumption. e.g. if I inducted that all swans are white because I had only ever seen white swans I would ultimately be incorrect as black swans can be observed to exist. Unless you can verify the entirety of existence across time there might always exist and experience/example to falsify any objective assertion. (you could be a brain in a jar, you can't prove 100% that your not)


3. "Including not permitting..which means you have no further argument against Christianity."

^ Pardon me? Did you even read what I wrote by way of explanation for that? What part of "everything is permitted" even remotely precludes me (or anyone) from anything, let alone arguing against Christianity?!?!?

What I felt I'd explained fairly clearly was the idea that the only demonstrable moral authority was yourself, or to put it another way that there are no moral authorities to be found anywhere else but within peoples minds.
Even if God himself speaks to you directly, that is an experience reducible only to the mind because ALL EXPERIENCES WITHIN HUMAN CONCEPTION OCCUR IN or at best VIA THE MIND!

Nothing has ever happened to any human being anywhere that was not experienced entirely in the mind (notice I didn't say "brain" ). When you see a chair you don't see the photons of light hitting your retina, you see something your mind made up to be representative (at best) of whatever phenomenon your eyes detected.

With that in mind (<- mind lol), "everything is permitted". The universe will continue on, unmoved by our moralities (or lack of). Only other humans will cry or rejoice at your actions and only within the sovereignty of your own mind will you find an irrefutable and absolute moral judge...

As for the other bits

A. "The earliest records of Mithraism bear no similarity to Christianity at all....."

Apart from all the same major dates for festivals and holy days (25th dec etc.), the entire symbology of dieing on a cross for three days then being resurrected, the "last supper" with 12 disciples, 3 wise men from the east bearing gifts. etc. etc.

I'd have more time for the Christian counter argument that the Mithraists stole this stuff from them if the same themes, dates and symoblogy didn't pop up in ancient cultures going back a few 1000 years over and over and over. The list of Messianic figures with the above characteristics in western folklore & myth is so long its almost a joke! & naturally is no co-incidence as they are describing the movement of the heavens (specifically the sun) by way of allegory. Speaking of which............

Pagan & Gnostic traditions are deeply intertwined to the point where one could consider many examples to be one and the same. Mithraism would be one such example. Pagan just means many Gods/worship of nature & archetypes in the human psyche. Mithraism fulfils this definition but it also fulfils the Gnostic one i.e. it teaches that one finds god of and within oneself, not as an external force, or indeed a force which is separate from oneself.

But then the Catholic Church did it level best to suppress and destroy any trace of Gnosticism through the ages so its no surprise to me that you're not entirely familiar with it. (most people haven't even heard of it and those that do tend to be under the misapprehension that its a Christian thing (again understandable under the circumstances))


B. "Actually, they came from a progressive revelation of Judiasm which preceeded all of that."

I'll come with you a little on that one. Before Rex Mundi (Jehova) showed up to fk everything up for them the Kabbalistic (and essentially Pagan) Jews possessed great wisdom and insight. Naturally not all of this was lost! (though after Solomon passed it would appear a regrettably large amount was)


C. "What Jesus did not teach that came from Judiasm was wholly His and entirely unique, and they came from the mouth of God Himself."


I'm not sure I even want to grace that with a response. How could you possibly know what came from the mouth of God to a man 2000 years ago? If you say "because it says in the bible" please don't expect a sensible reply (I'm happy to fight non-sense with none-sense)


D. "The difference is Jesus Himself. You could take buddha out of buddhism, or zoroaster out of zoroastrianism and you would still have something. Without Jesus there is no Christianity."

^This one amused be greatly. I would say Buddhism & Zoroastranism were clearly superior for exactly that reason but that's not what I think you were alluding to? I assume you were suggesting that certain parts of the whole Jesus shebang could only have come from Jesus/God/Holy spirit because he made himself the centre of attention?
This is why I make a very distinct separation between the "Jesus" and the "Christ". Christ (or anointed one) goes back at least to Egypt. Horus is clearly "Christ" by basically any sensible measure I can think of, and by "Christ" I mean the "Sun of God" i.e. the freaking Sun.
This also forms the basis for an "as above so below" parable/allegory for the spiritual journey to enlightenment. You can find your way to heaven and God via the "Sun of God's" wisdom. No Miracle performing hippie Jew's were required before and I fail to see how sprouting the same fundamental idea just with a figurehead for a disenfranchised Jewish noble family anchored to everything helps?

Are there some pearl's of Jesus's wisdom I missed? Thus far I have yet to come across anything that didn't strike me as either a rewording of things wise men had preached for 1000's of years previously, or a power play by an unscrupulous or deluded individual.


E. "The Jesus myth theory isn't taken seriously by even skeptical bible scholars. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for Alexander the Great."

I happen to know its hotly contested even to this day but lets for the sake of this just take it as a given. When I said "at best a fabrication" it was because I consider the historical figure to be an impostor and a fraud. If anyone was a "true" messiah then John the Baptist and moreover Simon Magus are far better contenders but then that's a colossal can of worms I'm not sure I can be bothered to open at the moment. I'll just say in summary that I am of the opinion that Mr. Ben Yosef and his crew were plotting to return the house of David to power but largely failed in the end as the Roman establishment usurped most of the legacy they tried to create (though not entirely).
Either way they worshiped and championed a being (Psychological archetype) which I feel I have little choice but to call Satan i.e. the God of Abraham. This alone is a pretty major indictment for me and any historic figure that puts said "being" at the center of their belief system will garner my suspicion.

How can the God that appeared to Abraham be anything but malevolent if the accounts in the Torah and Quran are accurate?

(I hope that made sense towards the end, getting very late & tired here...)

a guy dupes a bunch of people and gets away? sounds like allegory to something pretty obvious to me... religion? politics? maybe its just an animated film...

in case you missed it the point was Buyer Beware, pretty simple. Even the seller himself was an illusion...

The "Mark of the Beast" may very well be an allusion to humanity's addiction to the machine, to material gain. The Whore Babylon, the system that feeds upon resources and in doing so, consumes itself. The same whore which deludes and seduces humans to blindly follow a system which may inevitably wipe out the species.

Some scholars believe the allegory refers to the Roman Empire ,or a similar one.... the NOW-

Personally, I can't wait for some bio-mods, heads-up display retinas, all of it. Plug me into Babylon, baby!!

I find the show uneven. Sometimes it's very compelling; sometimes its just boring. I like the characters, but I don't always find the writing believable, which takes away from my connection to the characters. I dislike that so much of the show is devoted to characters arguing about what to do next. It just feels to me like they are wasting time with cheap dialog so they don't have to spend a lot of money on more elaborate zombie scenes. I also hate how they so often introduce an arbitrary problem to solve that has little or nothing to do with the overall plot.

I'm not sure if the narrative is tighter in the graphic novel or not, since I haven't read it.

I wouldn't have saved Randall in the first place. Why risk your brains trying to save someone who was trying to kill you in the face of a huge swarm of zombies? If they went through all the trouble of saving him, they should probably not execute him. Had they not tortured him, they might have been able to let him go without worry or even let him become part of the group, but now that he has been brutalized, he is likely to seek revenge when given the opportunity. It's probably an allegory for Abu Grabe. I say they drive him back to the school bus and give him a fighting chance. All alone, he'd probably not survive anyway, but he'd be left in far better shape than he was when they found him.

As for Dale, it seemed like a terribly unsatisfying way to kill off a major character. He's just randomly walking in the woods at night by himself and gets killed by a zombie. Weak. Dale was the voice of humanity and reason, so why not let him die doing something selfless. Take a lesson from Game of Thrones: when you are going to unexpectedly kill off major characters, milk it! I guess the point is that if the kid had not antagonized the zombie, or alternately shot the zombie, that Dale would still be alive - which is analogous to the Randall situation.

I'd love to see the characters abandon the farm. The story would be a lot more interesting if they were on the move, exploring the ruins of society, encountering different people and different conflicts along the way.

I predict that Daryl's handless brother will be a member of Randall's group.

Tolkien hated allegory.

Edit: Err, I should say he had an emphatic dislike for it, as far as his own writing was concerned.

This is a surprisingly deep allegory of the Lost story, Ceiling cat just created Basement cat, like Jacob created the black smoke.

I find the directors use of low-tech camera work very compelling and rate it 8 thumbs up.

It's good sci-fi. Follows a serialized format with a story arch lasting the season. The allegories are really good (Iraq war, Terrorism) which I think was season 3.. and of course everyones favourite Cylon who you want to frak (sorry, nerdy BG joke).

The problem with the show for me, is that they didn't know where they were going with the stories. Running into the same problem that 'Lost' did with many loose threads, making season 4 (the final series) the worst by far, ending with an un satisfying conclusion. There were also some heavy religious beats throughout the series which I didn't care for.

But the video is accurate, at the end of every episode "Awww you can't leave my hanging on that, let's watch the next one".>> ^zombieater:

So is it good?

Ouch. This one is really not substantially different -- even the allegory thing was going on with the shorter one, in the title and the description....

I feel your pain. I won't dupe it, but I'll bet someone else will....

Was about to say the same thing.

There I was thinking it was a rather unsubtle allegory for the outcomes of the industrial revolution and mass production mixed with the abstract and inhuman nature of corporatism...

Then the machine made man?

/me scratches head

The "anonymous" suggestion is a fair point. But that's the way that people donate to charity these days. Are you two prepared to say that about everyone else who donates and wants to see their name on the list? That everyone who doesn't donate anonymously is doing it for political reasons? I could understand how someone who donated, even if they didn't think about their name in print, would be upset if they got a call that said, "Sorry, but because of your beliefs, we can't put you on a pedestal like we do with every single other donor that contributes."

Well, the reason the FBB was donating was to be listed as one of the teams on the "relay for life" program. That's what they were turned down for. Not only that, but they used to whole thing to garner publicity. So I am not feeling too much sympathy for them at this point.

I agree that the reason many people/organizations who donate large amounts of money is specifically to get on those lists. So yes, I am prepared to say that many on those lists are doing so for political reasons. Perhaps not all of them, but I would say probably the majority.

We may live in a society where those with religious beliefs might feel that things are going downhill. But by and large, the majority of America is still very uncomfortable with Atheism. Something like 70% of Americans believe that Christ is the savior in one way or another. And most of the rest are still religious. So I think it's understandable that atheists feel the need to stick up for themselves. Especially in situations like this, where they can show that they still care for their fellow human beings, regardless of anyone's beliefs.

Well, I think the problem that most believers have is that the stated goal of many atheists and atheists organizations is to remove religion from the public sphere or irradicate it entirely. The mouthpieces for the New Atheism say in no uncertain terms that people who have faith are pinheads and that religion is the worst thing to ever happen. It's certainly not a live and let live kind of attitude that is being promoted as representing atheism.

Shiny! What a coincidence that I am just recently becoming acquainted with the first few verses of Matthew!

Ahh, but I don't believe in coincidence.

Someone was passing around a picture of this giant mega-church the other day that was all sparkles and spot-lights and looked like the bridge to the Starship Enterprise. Anyway, I found this reference to Matthew 6:6 and was very surprised by the fact that people don't seem to recognize it in their lives.

Yes, and sadly, that is just scratching the surface. The bible for many seems to be book of allegory, filled with mere suggestions on how to live our lives, rather than the direct commands of God. That's why you'll find Christians in bars, Christians smoking weed, and Christians cheating on their taxes. More than that, false doctrine has invaded the church. A very popular one right now is the "Health, wealth and prosperity" gospel, which teaches that God only wants you to be rich, and people who are poor and suffering just don't have enough faith.

Now, I understand that proselytizing and praying are two different things. So I'm not telling you to shut up. But the idea that praying should be done in secret, according to the bible, is something that I find remarkable given the televangelist America that we live in. And obviously, if people truly cared, they would apply that same idea to charity as well. Unfortunately, as QM said above, everything seems to be political, even praying.

That is the thing, that it is all being done for show. It is not about salvation, or sanctification; it is about sterling and silver. This is what is truly harmful, that the public face of Christianity is so far astray from the true teachings of the bible. Light years away from it in fact. The airwaves are saturated with false teachers, who proclaim that God is the great ATM in the sky, and if you only send in some money He'll give you the pin number. They are wolves in sheeps clothing, preaching a man-centered doctrine, to tickle the itching ears of people who seek out teachers who will tell them what they want to hear. "No, you don't need to change! God loves you the way you are!" The bible is not so kind to such people:

Galatians 1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite version/translation of the bible? Because even simple things like the verses we're discussing seem to be changed around quite a bit. I especially love the ones that read Matthew 6:6 as: "Go into your closet to pray."

haha, yes..some of these translations are very poor/strange. I prefer the ESV, it is probably the best modern literal translation. The KJV can be a good supplement, because although it used less accurate manuscripts, its archaic language preserved some of the meaning that the more modern translations may have glossed over. bible.cc is a good site for comparing verses. Here's a good sermon on Matthew 6:5-6

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=813081634369


>> ^Ryjkyj:
The "anonymous" suggestion is a fair point. But that's the way that people donate to charity these days. Are you two prepared to say that about everyone else who donates and wants to see their name on the list? That everyone who doesn't donate anonymously is doing it for political reasons? I could understand how someone who donated, even if they didn't think about their name in print, would be upset if they got a call that said, "Sorry, but because of your beliefs, we can't put you on a pedestal like we do with every single other donor that contributes."
We may live in a society where those with religious beliefs might feel that things are going downhill. But by and large, the majority of America is still very uncomfortable with Atheism. Something like 70% of Americans believe that Christ is the savior in one way or another. And most of the rest are still religious. So I think it's understandable that atheists feel the need to stick up for themselves. Especially in situations like this, where they can show that they still care for their fellow human beings, regardless of anyone's beliefs.
>> ^quantumushroom:
I don't pretend to know the atheists' true motives, but everything is political. Everything. This arrangement sucks and I wish it were not so, but it is. An anonymous donation would've been more apropos if the highest goal was really helping the charity versus branding positive atheism.
As we both know, that doesn't hold true online. Why, we may be the only two peeps online now who even admit to not having all the answers!

Shiny! What a coincidence that I am just recently becoming acquainted with the first few verses of Matthew!
Someone was passing around a picture of this giant mega-church the other day that was all sparkles and spot-lights and looked like the bridge to the Starship Enterprise. Anyway, I found this reference to Matthew 6:6 and was very surprised by the fact that people don't seem to recognize it in their lives.
Now, I understand that proselytizing and praying are two different things. So I'm not telling you to shut up. But the idea that praying should be done in secret, according to the bible, is something that I find remarkable given the televangelist America that we live in. And obviously, if people truly cared, they would apply that same idea to charity as well. Unfortunately, as QM said above, everything seems to be political, even praying.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite version/translation of the bible? Because even simple things like the verses we're discussing seem to be changed around quite a bit. I especially love the ones that read Matthew 6:6 as: "Go into your closet to pray." <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smileopen.gif">
>> ^shinyblurry:
If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people. Reminds me of this verse:
Matthew 6:2-3
Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

[redacted]

@Mcboinkens:

There is a very important fact underlying this entire argument about Venus that you seem to be missing. Mentioning a bright point of light in a Bible verse is not the same thing as mentioning a planet in a Bible verse.

I acknowledged that I misunderstood your original point here and here so I don't know why you are restating it as if it's something new. I made a mistake; let's move on.

The Peter verse is not mentioning anything other than a bright source rising in your heart. Not at all a reference to even anything astronomical, so that's not worth mentioning anymore. The Isaiah passage could be referring to anything in the sky, or even anything at all quite frankly. It could be talking about the moon, or the sun, or any other star, or planet they thought was a star.

Why would they say "lucifer" then? It sounds like you think it was a generic term for any bright object and I have not seen evidence supporting that. If there is some, show me.

Furthermore, that metaphor is complete trash, because if it was referring to Venus, it would be completely wrong, as Venus travels across the entire sky, just like any other planet. There are nights where Venus is very high into the sky, so I don't even know what you are talking about.

Generally Venus is only visible near the horizon as it gets washed out by the sun. The allegory of the King is that he tried to position himself above God and failed. During Venus's Morning Star phase, it rises ahead of the sun only to vanish in the daylight. It could also be that, as an inferior planet, Venus appears to get ahead of and then fall behind the other stars. Neither is a bad metaphor for what happened to the King, though I like the former explanation better than the latter.

There is no use arguing about it though, the Bible is written and won't change.

Of course it will. It has changed dozens of times. With each new edition it is "translated" to more closely represent the story the translators wish it was. That's how "Lucifer" became an alias for Satan in the first place. Will it ever tell us things we don't already know? Of course not.

For whatever it's worth, I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing.

"Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?"

No, I don't. That's the whole point..they're all dogs, there is no difference in kind. Do it for 500 or 500 million, you'll have the same result..dogs.

"When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?"

Yes, this was a dumb question. Every species we observe is completely fully formed, showed up suddenly in the fossil record with no ancestors. If evolution were true, we would see species in transition from one kind to another today, which we don't. We would find ancestors in the fossil record which showed the tranistions. We don't. If evolution ever happened, it is not observable today anywhere, especially the fossil record.

"If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!"

The "advantage" is only good for the circumstance, and when the circumstance is gone, the population returns to normal. For instance, when bacteria produce this mutation for resistance, it always makes them less effecient..it always at the sacrifice of something else. There was nothing added and nothing new created..things only got shuffled around. These mutations don't ever survive in the wild.

"It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!"

that's the magic part..it doesn't ever happen.



>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Species always produce according to their kind. Dogs don't ever produce non-dogs. What you're talking about is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is completely different. That's the theory of mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species..problem is it has never been observed. Not only has nothing ever been found in the fossil record to prove this, the theory itself doesn't work. It has never been once demonstrated that a mutation produced anything useful or added information to a genome..mutations actually destroy information..and if you want to use the bacteria example, the reason bacteria become resistant is not because they evolved a defense..but rather lost the information that the drug used to bind to it..basically, its like the drug is hand cuffing everyone but cant handcuff the one with no arms. That isnt an advatange..when you put the bacteria into the general population they fare worse than before. It's pure metaphysics..and it all goes back to the source of the lie, which is abiogenesis..life from non-life. This basically states that we evolved from rocks..I think that takes a fair amount of faith..a lot more than I have.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
The proof isn't in the fossil record, because fossils are extremely rare. The proof is in your genetics.
If species don't evolve, how do you explain the massive, rapid, observable evolution in dogs over just the last 500 years?


Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?
Now, I'm going to ask what may seem to you like a really dumb question: When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?
It's really admirable that you read Reverend Billy's latest cut-and-paste pamphlet on the nature of mutation and why it means you should kill people for eating shellfish. But your knowledge of the science is, I think, a little lacking as far as giving you the ability to disprove the conclusions of hundreds of thousands of researchers who base their opinion on actual observation. Mutations don't just "destroy information" in the genome. There are all sorts of ways that mutations can form new information in a sequence of DNA. But either way it's a moot point, because you still don't understand the nature of natural selection.
If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!
If you doubt that, why don't you try reading an actual book on the subject? (note: I'm talking about a book that actually includes words like: mutation, DNA and sequence. Not a book that you interpret through allegory as being about the subject)
Now, this is the part where you call me out as being angry/abusive. Please note that I'm using the exact same tone of language here as Pastor nitwit uses in that god awful series of videos that you asked me to watch. (note all the explanation points!!!!)

>> ^shinyblurry:

Species always produce according to their kind. Dogs don't ever produce non-dogs. What you're talking about is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is completely different. That's the theory of mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species..problem is it has never been observed. Not only has nothing ever been found in the fossil record to prove this, the theory itself doesn't work. It has never been once demonstrated that a mutation produced anything useful or added information to a genome..mutations actually destroy information..and if you want to use the bacteria example, the reason bacteria become resistant is not because they evolved a defense..but rather lost the information that the drug used to bind to it..basically, its like the drug is hand cuffing everyone but cant handcuff the one with no arms. That isnt an advatange..when you put the bacteria into the general population they fare worse than before. It's pure metaphysics..and it all goes back to the source of the lie, which is abiogenesis..life from non-life. This basically states that we evolved from rocks..I think that takes a fair amount of faith..a lot more than I have.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
The proof isn't in the fossil record, because fossils are extremely rare. The proof is in your genetics.
If species don't evolve, how do you explain the massive, rapid, observable evolution in dogs over just the last 500 years?



Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?

Now, I'm going to ask what may seem to you like a really dumb question: When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?

It's really admirable that you read Reverend Billy's latest cut-and-paste pamphlet on the nature of mutation and why it means you should kill people for eating shellfish. But your knowledge of the science is, I think, a little lacking as far as giving you the ability to disprove the conclusions of hundreds of thousands of researchers who base their opinion on actual observation. Mutations don't just "destroy information" in the genome. There are all sorts of ways that mutations can form new information in a sequence of DNA. But either way it's a moot point, because you still don't understand the nature of natural selection.

If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!

If you doubt that, why don't you try reading an actual book on the subject? (note: I'm talking about a book that actually includes words like: mutation, DNA and sequence. Not a book that you interpret through allegory as being about the subject)

Now, this is the part where you call me out as being angry/abusive. Please note that I'm using the exact same tone of language here as Pastor nitwit uses in that god awful series of videos that you asked me to watch. (note all the explanation points!!!!)