So when does the theocracy begin?

• sleeper

  

  jhay78;1221952 wrote:My point was that the evidence for God's existence is more plausible than the evidence for his non-existence. With invisible unicorns, it's the opposite.
  
  
  
  The other difference is one has been observed, the other hasn't. And the formula for macro-evolution is small changes accumulated over billions of years plus insanely random chance occurrences that are akin to dynamiting a pile of millions of letters and having them fall and land perfectly assembled into Shakespeare's Hamlet.
  
  
  
  Plus all the fossils that are everywhere. Oh wait . . .

  God has never been and never will be observed. I don't know what kind of fossil you want to see that would "prove" that "macro" evolution exists. Also, god isn't probable, plausible or any of the shit you can think of.
  
  Simply put, if we observed this so called micro evolution, what do you think happens when micro evolution occurs over a 6 billion years? Your mind is broken; time to grow up.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1221955 wrote:1. You are 100% wrong that "no credible scientist doubts macro evolution", but why should we keep showing you facts when you just jump to strawman conclusions?
  2. If you have no idea why macro and micro evolution exists then maybe you are in the wrong discussion and we should talk about something on a simpler level?

  I have faith, that trumps anything and everything. This is the world you want jmog. A world in which faith can get you everywhere. A world in which your god creates aids and cancer and gives them to children so they can die a shitty death. That is your god; keep on worshipping him.
• sleeper

  

  gut;1221960 wrote:You can't possibly be this dense to miss the point being made. The basic premise, which for some reason appears too complicated for you to grasp, is that evolution from a common source as you claim would yield much more variation between the DNA than observed.
  
  I wasn't saying evolution is random - although I'm not sure why you claim it isn't - and the 50/50 thing was just trying to simplify things but I see now you are trolling yourself after your trolling blew up in your face.

  You can't simplify evolution into 50/50. There is a shit ton of variation, what do you expect, 100 trillion different species? Without extinction, we'd be overrun. Things die, species get pushed out of the natural economy. There's plenty of variation, you are just too dense to see it(ironic, eh?).
• sleeper

  

  I've went a little over the top in some of these posts; my apologies to jmog, jhay, and gut.
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;1221780 wrote:Again, you're using a plum-line for "proven" that would be impotent of even having that discussion. Inasmuch as a person uses that presupposition, you'd be correct. However, the presupposition is just that.
  
  It's no more or less fraud to start with one presupposition as another. If I determine that music is the authoritative study by which we can evaluate what is and is not true, I may have a claim that anyone who bases their views on anything else is a lunatic, but such a claim is only consistent with my own presupposition about music. If I was to ask for proof, I would be asking for musical proof, but if I'm asking for musical proof about something that isn't musical, then I have a self-fulfilling prophecy that nobody will ever prove anything about something that exists outside of music.
  
  To bring this full-circle, it's no different from me asking for scientific proof about something that is, by definition, not observable through science. If it were, it would cease to be what it is.

  What are these things?
• I Wear Pants

  The vast majority of people who understand evolution find it likely to be true.
  
  The vast majority who do not understand it find it unlikely to be true.
  
  Not that something being widely regarded makes it true but I think it's interesting in this case.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1222158 wrote:What are these things?

  Anything that is not part of the natural universe. Even the absurd examples used to try to make a point like the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If they would admittedly be "supernatural," then they exist outside what science can observe by definition.
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;1222171 wrote:Anything that is not part of the natural universe. Even the absurd examples used to try to make a point like the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If they would admittedly be "supernatural," then they exist outside what science can observe by definition.

  Yeah, there's absolutely no indication that anything "supernatural" exists though.
• gut

  sleeper;1221969 wrote:There's plenty of variation, you are just too dense to see it(ironic, eh?).

  LMAO, the argument about lack of variation is one YOU made in support of evolution. So you now agree with me that lack of variation DOESN"T favor the evolution theory and you are backpedalling.. Now back to the trolling board for you to come up with a logical argument.
  
  Let me put it this way - sufficient variation, or lack of variation, don't conclusively favor one theory over another. It's specious reasoning anyway you want to cut it.
• sleeper

  

  gut;1222284 wrote:LMAO, the argument about lack of variation is one YOU made in support of evolution. So you now agree with me that lack of variation DOESN"T favor the evolution theory and you are backpedalling.. Now back to the trolling board for you to come up with a logical argument.
  
  Let me put it this way - sufficient variation, or lack of variation, don't conclusively favor one theory over another. It's specious reasoning anyway you want to cut it.

  I find the magnitude of variation irrelevant. It's too subjective of a statement and I'm surprised someone with your background would even try to model what sufficient or insufficient variation equals. Simple enough?
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1222185 wrote:Yeah, there's absolutely no indication that anything "supernatural" exists though.

  Based on what? Science? Again, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;1222420 wrote:Based on what? Science? Again, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  What in the hell do you want me to base it on? Seriously, what intelligent metric are you using to determine that there are "supernatural" beings/things/forces/whatever?
• jhay78

  

  I Wear Pants;1222495 wrote:What in the hell do you want me to base it on? Seriously, what intelligent metric are you using to determine that there are "supernatural" beings/things/forces/whatever?

  Historical testimony of eyewitnesses to miracles, fulfilled prophecy, resurrection of Christ from the dead, etc. At least those are the claims of the Christian faith, which stakes its entire credibility on whether or not those things have happened (especially the last one). I don't know of another religious tradition that depends so fully on events in history.
  
  It's no different than any other historical claim or piece of information. No one can ever "prove" that George Washington lived, served as president, etc, yet because of numerous reliable historical sources, we can be reasonably certain about his life and times.
  
  Now you can say all those things are mythological and Christ never rose from the dead, etc. But the earliest disciples were put to death for their faith when they could've easily recanted and said, "Nevermind, it was all a hoax." That fact, along with the legions of early reliable NT manuscripts (including 4 different gospel writers), would be considered historical evidence at least worth looking into.
  
  BTW, the NT records several instances of persons who witnessed Christ's miracles, and yet, because of the seriousness of his claims, were not interested in what he had to offer. In other words, if what he said was true, and if he really was the Son of God, they would have to repent and acknowledge their sinfulness before God. And many said no thanks, in spite of witnessing supernatural events firsthand. So in the end I think all the evidence in the world will not be enough for some people.
• I Wear Pants

  jhay78;1222697 wrote:Historical testimony of eyewitnesses to miracles, fulfilled prophecy, resurrection of Christ from the dead, etc. At least those are the claims of the Christian faith, which stakes its entire credibility on whether or not those things have happened (especially the last one). I don't know of another religious tradition that depends so fully on events in history.
  
  It's no different than any other historical claim or piece of information. No one can ever "prove" that George Washington lived, served as president, etc, yet because of numerous reliable historical sources, we can be reasonably certain about his life and times.
  
  Now you can say all those things are mythological and Christ never rose from the dead, etc. But the earliest disciples were put to death for their faith when they could've easily recanted and said, "Nevermind, it was all a hoax." That fact, along with the legions of early reliable NT manuscripts (including 4 different gospel writers), would be considered historical evidence at least worth looking into.
  
  BTW, the NT records several instances of persons who witnessed Christ's miracles, and yet, because of the seriousness of his claims, were not interested in what he had to offer. In other words, if what he said was true, and if he really was the Son of God, they would have to repent and acknowledge their sinfulness before God. And many said no thanks, in spite of witnessing supernatural events firsthand. So in the end I think all the evidence in the world will not be enough for some people.

  Bullshit.
  
  Your George Washington can't be proven to have lived example is absolutely insane. You can't seriously see them as the same thing and be a functioning adult.
  
  As for your argument here:
  
  "Now you can say all those things are mythological and Christ never rose from the dead, etc. But the earliest disciples were put to death for their faith when they could've easily recanted and said, "Nevermind, it was all a hoax." That fact, along with the legions of early reliable NT manuscripts (including 4 different gospel writers), would be considered historical evidence at least worth looking into."
  
  Same thing applies to any religion that has had people die for it (see also: nearly all of them). Doesn't make them anymore true.
• jmog

  IWP, look again, he didn't say it proved it to be true (those willing to die for what they saw) he said it makes it historical evidence WORTH LOOKING INTO.
  
  Read his post again .
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1222495 wrote:What in the hell do you want me to base it on? Seriously, what intelligent metric are you using to determine that there are "supernatural" beings/things/forces/whatever?

  Philosophical structures. Historical accounts (whether or not the historians subsequently altered their lives as a result). Neither of those are scientific, but both lean on either investigatory study or logic and reason. I would suggest that they are intelligent metrics.
  
  Ultimately, while it is logically fallacious to use in discussion with another person, I have no problem with even personal anecdotes being used by the person who experienced them to influence his or her own worldview. If I had coffee with Jesus himself (technically an empirical encounter), but such a thing is by definition a supernatural experience, I may still believe in his existence, though I should not attempt to persuade others using that experience, because the anecdote is unique to me, and it cannot necessarily be replicated at will. Still, I find it logically absurd to automatically discredit my own experience simply because others have not had the same.
  

  I Wear Pants;1222703 wrote:Your George Washington can't be proven to have lived example is absolutely insane. You can't seriously see them as the same thing and be a functioning adult.

  Technically, he's correct. Technically. I'm not sure I would have used that example. We have historical documentation of George Washington from eye-witness accounts. Virtually all of them from people who seem to have a positive view of George Washington (they were "in his corner" to some degree). The same is said of Jesus.
  
  The only difference is the timing of eyewitness accounts. As the West had moved to a very "just the facts, ma'am" style of documentation, the accounts we have were essentially written as everything played out with Washington, whereas the ones we actually have of Jesus are between two and three decades removed.
  
  However, assuming that the copies we have are the first editions (unlikely), there still would have been PLENTY of eye-witnesses still alive in Coele-Syria who would have been hostile toward what appeared to be a new sect of Judaism ... namely the Romans, the Orthodox Jews, and the other Jewish sects (the Zealots, the Sadducees). It would have been very easy to squash any such rumors had they been false.
  

  I Wear Pants;1222495 wrote:As for your argument here:
  
  "Now you can say all those things are mythological and Christ never rose from the dead, etc. But the earliest disciples were put to death for their faith when they could've easily recanted and said, "Nevermind, it was all a hoax." That fact, along with the legions of early reliable NT manuscripts (including 4 different gospel writers), would be considered historical evidence at least worth looking into."
  
  Same thing applies to any religion that has had people die for it (see also: nearly all of them). Doesn't make them anymore true.

  Ah, but there is a difference. The people he is referencing would have actually known whether or not what they were dying for is true. Death for believing something to be true and death for knowing (even empirically) something to be true are, I would contest, not the same.
  
  We're talking about people who based their belief system on empirical encounters. If they were threatened with death for something they knew to be false, then they wouldn't have been dying for believing it was true. At worst, they would have been dying to protect a hoax that hadn't much caught on yet (thus seemingly a failed hoax for them).
  
  If I watched a man parachute from the sky with my own eyes, and someone threatened me with death if I couldn't honestly claim the opposite, I would either have to lie or die. No trust involved, because I'd seen ... with my own eyes ... what happened. They didn't "die on faith" (for lack of a better term). They died for something they would have known for a fact was false if it had been so.
• Sage

  

  wait ppl actually think we're in danger of becoming a theocracy? outside of texas, where is this going on?
• O-Trap

  

  Sage;1222758 wrote:wait ppl actually think we're in danger of becoming a theocracy? outside of texas, where is this going on?

  Actually, there have been some recent events in North Carolina that have made me SMH. Here's an example:
  
  http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sea-level-20120624,0,3935676.story
• I Wear Pants

  Philosophical structures. Historical accounts (whether or not the historians subsequently altered their lives as a result). Neither of those are scientific, but both lean on either investigatory study or logic and reason. I would suggest that they are intelligent metrics.

  Historical accounts can be studied scientifically to determine whether they happened or were likely to have happened. We can study these using logic and reason (which are what science is built upon).
  
  You'll have to rephrase "philosophical strictures" because I'm unsure what you mean by that so I can't really reply one way or the other yet.
  

  Ah, but there is a difference. The people he is referencing would have actually known whether or not what they were dying for is true. Death for believing something to be true and death for knowing (even empirically) something to be true are, I would contest, not the same.
  
  We're talking about people who based their belief system on empirical encounters. If they were threatened with death for something they knew to be false, then they wouldn't have been dying for believing it was true. At worst, they would have been dying to protect a hoax that hadn't much caught on yet (thus seemingly a failed hoax for them).
  
  If I watched a man parachute from the sky with my own eyes, and someone threatened me with death if I couldn't honestly claim the opposite, I would either have to lie or die. No trust involved, because I'd seen ... with my own eyes ... what happened. They didn't "die on faith" (for lack of a better term). They died for something they would have known for a fact was false if it had been so.

  This surmises that bronze aged people couldn't have possibly been mistaken about magic occurring and that the people actually did exist during the time they're claimed to in the Bible/other texts with relation to the other characters involved. People in Salem knew they were killing witches, they knew that. They saw them commit acts of witchcraft. They were wrong, why can't these other people be wrong as well when so many other parts of the same collection of writings is outright incorrect or otherwise abhorrent?
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1222793 wrote:... People in Salem knew they were killing witches, they knew that. They saw them commit acts of witchcraft. They were wrong, why can't these other people be wrong as well when so many other parts of the same collection of writings is outright incorrect or otherwise abhorrent?

  They can be wrong but as pointed out earlier they are worth investigating further and continuously until certainty is available to those whom are researching.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1222796 wrote:They can be wrong but as pointed out earlier they are worth investigating further and continuously until certainty is available to those whom are researching.

  We are certain that virgin births do not occur. That one does not simply multiply fish and bread, that water does not in fact get turned into wine as a party trick, and despite popular culture the last forty years or so people do not rise from the dead.
  
  Who has not investigated it? Seriously, and how are we to investigate it if scientific means are thrown out the door? If we can't use logic and reason to determine if fantastic claims are likely to have happened what are we to use?
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1222799 wrote:We are certain that virgin births do not occur. That one does not simply multiply fish and bread, that water does not in fact get turned into wine as a party trick, and despite popular culture the last forty years or so people do not rise from the dead.
  
  Who has not investigated it? Seriously, and how are we to investigate it if scientific means are thrown out the door? If we can't use logic and reason to determine if fantastic claims are likely to have happened what are we to use?

  
  I don't know who has not investigated it. How and what to use are certainly questions that can being the process. Keep working if it's truly and interest in identifying.
• BoatShoes

  I apologize for having contributed to turning this thread into an ID/Evolution debate as these are epic wastes of time See: The denial of macroevolution due to a failure to grasp mendelian genetics; denial of the usefulness of the Miller-Urey experiments and the thousands of subsequent research and variations; random inductive arguments that if naturalistic evolution were true it must be the case that there would be more biodiversity etc.
  
  Back to the OP I do find it a bit funny that the state representative is upset that Muslims are using gubmint programs. What is it conservatives always say about liberal programs; They always have the unintended result :laugh: In this case, I suppose it is educating Islamic Terrorists who hate 'Merica with taxpayer dollars!
• BoatShoes

  O-Trap;1222752 wrote:Philosophical structures. Historical accounts (whether or not the historians subsequently altered their lives as a result). Neither of those are scientific, but both lean on either investigatory study or logic and reason. I would suggest that they are intelligent metrics.
  
  Ultimately, while it is logically fallacious to use in discussion with another person, I have no problem with even personal anecdotes being used by the person who experienced them to influence his or her own worldview. If I had coffee with Jesus himself (technically an empirical encounter), but such a thing is by definition a supernatural experience, I may still believe in his existence, though I should not attempt to persuade others using that experience, because the anecdote is unique to me, and it cannot necessarily be replicated at will. Still, I find it logically absurd to automatically discredit my own experience simply because others have not had the same.
  
  
  
  Technically, he's correct. Technically. I'm not sure I would have used that example. We have historical documentation of George Washington from eye-witness accounts. Virtually all of them from people who seem to have a positive view of George Washington (they were "in his corner" to some degree). The same is said of Jesus.
  
  The only difference is the timing of eyewitness accounts. As the West had moved to a very "just the facts, ma'am" style of documentation, the accounts we have were essentially written as everything played out with Washington, whereas the ones we actually have of Jesus are between two and three decades removed.
  
  However, assuming that the copies we have are the first editions (unlikely), there still would have been PLENTY of eye-witnesses still alive in Coele-Syria who would have been hostile toward what appeared to be a new sect of Judaism ... namely the Romans, the Orthodox Jews, and the other Jewish sects (the Zealots, the Sadducees). It would have been very easy to squash any such rumors had they been false.
  
  
  
  Ah, but there is a difference. The people he is referencing would have actually known whether or not what they were dying for is true. Death for believing something to be true and death for knowing (even empirically) something to be true are, I would contest, not the same.
  
  We're talking about people who based their belief system on empirical encounters. If they were threatened with death for something they knew to be false, then they wouldn't have been dying for believing it was true. At worst, they would have been dying to protect a hoax that hadn't much caught on yet (thus seemingly a failed hoax for them).
  
  If I watched a man parachute from the sky with my own eyes, and someone threatened me with death if I couldn't honestly claim the opposite, I would either have to lie or die. No trust involved, because I'd seen ... with my own eyes ... what happened. They didn't "die on faith" (for lack of a better term). They died for something they would have known for a fact was false if it had been so.

  Even if it sounds absurd that a person would die for a lie or a hoax or that they insane and yet somehow able to make rational arguments and evangelize coherently; both of those explanations are much more reasonable to believe than that an infinitely powerful God came to Earth through a virgin birth while simultaneously existing as the Father of that child and a separate and distinct Holy Spirit only to have that Child grow up to be crucified so as to absolve all human kind from their deserved punishment in Hell if they happen to believe those events actually happened.
  
  It's always more reasonable to believe implausible natural explanations than even more implausible supernatural ones.
  
  I mean, if the Christian story is true, sincere Muslims die for a hoax and a lie all of the time and many, many people did who actually saw Muhammad actually conquer cities, etc.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1222793 wrote:Historical accounts can be studied scientifically to determine whether they happened or were likely to have happened. We can study these using logic and reason (which are what science is built upon).

  SOME historical accounts can be studied scientifically, and usually only in part, as time and conditions often ruin what would otherwise be studied through scientific observation. However, an account itself can only be studied to the degree that we have physical remnants from the event which can be observed and studied. Beyond that, science cannot study it.
  
  And logic and reason are indeed foundational to science, but science is not foundational to logic and reason. We use logical laws and philosophical constructs specific to the sensate observation of data, but it is not limited to just the observation of data.
  

  I Wear Pants;1222793 wrote: You'll have to rephrase "philosophical strictures" because I'm unsure what you mean by that so I can't really reply one way or the other yet.

  "Structures." Sorry. I was on my phone.
  
  By that, I meant ideas on non-physical things ("truth" for example) that have at least some reason for existing in the first place (a potential origin of belief) that build upon one another.
  
  I suppose you could look at it as complex syllogisms.
  

  I Wear Pants;1222793 wrote:This surmises that bronze aged people couldn't have possibly been mistaken about magic occurring and that the people actually did exist during the time they're claimed to in the Bible/other texts with relation to the other characters involved.

  Oh it allows that they could have possibly been mistaken. Just that their mistake would have been despite empirical observations and eyewitness accounts. It also sheds considerable doubt on the notion that it was based on some faulty notion of "faith" or blind belief.
  

  I Wear Pants;1222793 wrote:People in Salem knew they were killing witches, they knew that. They saw them commit acts of witchcraft. They were wrong ...

  Science cannot speak to whether they were or were not doing something supernatural or not, because science isn't equipped to handle anything outside the natural. As such, asserting that they "were" wrong cannot be based on anything scientific, but on something else.
  
  I personally think the people of Salem were incorrect. We cannot, however, say that they "knew" they were killing witches. It's entirely possible that they were doing such things with the knowledge that they weren't killing witches. In light of the social climate, it certainly would make sense that they'd have a motive to conjure such accusations up. Moreover, since there is no known example of the truth (regardless of what it is) being a more favorable position than a possible lie, we have no idea how genuine any of the belief was.
  
  I personally think they were wrong, and perhaps a sort of mob mentality did take over once the ball got rolling, but I honestly don't believe they thought they saw witchcraft at all. I think it was social positioning as much as anything, particularly given the almost sub-cultural social incest of the area.
  

  I Wear Pants;1222793 wrote:... why can't these other people be wrong as well when so many other parts of the same collection of writings is outright incorrect or otherwise abhorrent?

  It's not at all impossible. Given the dynamism of the population at the time, as well as the Greek philosophies emphasizing logic continually permeating the social climate throughout the Roman Empire, it seems unlikely to me that such writings weren't out-rightly rejected if untrue. The fact that there was so little cultural exclusivity among the eye-witness populations (Romans, Arabs, a slew of Jewish sects, etc.) AND that the message would have been so opposite the core beliefs of these other peoples, it seems that they would have easily had both a motive and an opportunity to discredit the texts. Those in Salem would have had no motive at all.