Science! Ask you question here. Biscuits NOT included and answers not guaranteed.

[-0-] · 20-11-2013 03:42AM

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Sarky wrote: »

I suppose I have been rather impatient and contemptuous of creationism lately, haven't I? Well, more than usual. Look, I've obviously caused you a headache, sorry about that. I'll bow out now for good if you like, since I just can't seem to muster the enthusiasm for a big bumper post of biology of late.

You shouldn't have to. It's been done ad nauseum and will make little difference and it will disappear into the boards.ie database never to be referenced or used again.

Discourse with JC is a waste of time. I would prefer if we just had Q&A sessions with oldrnwisr and banished JC to the crap pile. As has been said the only reason he's allowed to frolic here is because of the usefulness of the responses to his insane creationist copy-pasta nonsense.

Perhaps I'm too cranky in my old age.

Turtwig · 20-11-2013 03:54AM

[-0-] wrote: »

This was JC's first post on our beloved boards.ie:

I would say it has gone down hill ever since, but he started at the bottom of the hill, started digging, and he's now after popping out in Australia.

Earth's surface diameter is about 10,000 km.
J C has 10 years to reach Australia. So he must dig about 1,000 km a year. Assuming a minimum of six hours for sleep eating, drinking and toilet duties (and because it keeps the fractions nice), J C would need to dig over 150 metres every hour. GO J C!

[-0-] · 20-11-2013 04:14AM

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Jernal wrote: »

Earth's surface diameter is about 10,000 km.
J C has 10 years to reach Australia. So he must dig about 1,000 km a year. Assuming a minimum of six hours for sleep eating, drinking and toilet duties (and because it keeps the fractions nice), J C would need to dig over 150 metres every hour. GO J C!

Hahahahaha. Well take out the crayolas and colour me tickled pink.

nagirrac · 20-11-2013 06:26AM

What on the surface is humorous but on a deeper level sad about this thread is that both the religious posts and the majority of the irreligious posts suffer from the same lack of contextual understanding of pre modern texts such as the bible. Reading and interpreting the bible literally is largely a recent phenomena, and for some strange reason those that are most passionate about their religious belief or lack of belief fall into the same metaphysical trap.

In the ancient world of Mesopotamia and later in Greece, there were two ways of approaching truth, Plato's logos and mythos. Logos was based on external observation and had to be consistent with the outside world, while mythos tried to make sense of the internal world or the human condition. The two were always kept separate and mythos could not be interpreted in terms of objective reality but was an attempt to find meaning to existence.

As to the common question of which parts of the bible or any ancient mythology should be read literally and which parts read metaphorically, I would say the sophisticated answer is that all should be regarded as mythos. Not the modern meaning of myth which means untrue, but the search for meaning and values in society, like any human society in history, struggling with the paradoxes of the human condition. Undoubtedly there were floods in Mesopotamia in ancient history, and likely there was one mega flood which led to the bible flood myth, but the mythos is not the truth of the flood story, it is the search for meaning in why a God would send a flood, or a plague, or a war, or whatever.

Modern societies are shaped by the huge advancements in logos since the scientific revolution (with mixed results for humanity) and mythos has not just been discredited but regarded as ancient logos, something ancient philosophers would scoff at. Regarding mythos as logos leads not just to bad science from creationists but more tragically also bad religion. Life is filled with joys and sorrows, happiness and despair, but when we are faced with tragedy and grief, reason and science have absolutely nothing to offer. The only solace from despair humans have found in history is in mythos, in the rituals and beliefs of religion.

For anyone interested in exploring these themes further I would recommend the writings of Karen Armstrong, despised equally by fundamentalist Christians and New Atheists so a perfect antidote for this thread

bumper234 · 20-11-2013 07:47AM

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

J C wrote: »

Some psychopaths have lived their lives by trying to 'help' NS by killing people ... whereas I have never heard any of them talking about 'helping' gravity to do anything.

Ah cool so now you finally agree that your "God" is a psychopath because that's pretty much exactly what he did right? He decided to help natural selection along by murdering all of those he deemed unfit to live just like Klebold/Harris and just like Hitler and his final solution.

Geomy · 20-11-2013 08:54AM

I see JC is getting it left right and centre, I just think he's a wind up merchant and he's getting a good laugh out of all this.
Lol and the fact that some think he's bonkers and still indulge in the mess is even more funnier. ...

bumper234 · 20-11-2013 08:58AM

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Geomy wrote: »

I see JC is getting it left right and centre, I just think he's a wind up merchant and he's getting a good laugh out of all this.
Lol and the fact that some think he's bonkers and still indulge in the mess is even more funnier. ...

Well then he should be applauded for being the most consistent and dedicated "wind up merchant" ever.:rolleyes:

J C
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,604

Geomy · 20-11-2013 09:07AM

bumper234 wrote: »

Well then he should be applauded for being the most consistent and dedicated "wind up merchant" ever.:rolleyes:

J C
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,604

..... the most checked out profile on board's.....

bumper234 · 20-11-2013 09:15AM

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Geomy wrote: »

..... the most checked out profile on board's.....

I don't have access to those stats so i cannot confirm nor deny that.

MrPudding · 20-11-2013 09:48AM

OMG! Spoiler!

Terrlock wrote: »

... and God cannot look upon someone with sin.

QUOTE]Why?

MrP

Delirium · 20-11-2013 09:52AM

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

@JC Why did God drown all the people of the world when it only seems to be a small section of the Middle-East that is ever mentioned for being wicked?

All the other regions of the world don't even get a mention they were so below the radar in terms of sinning.

Bannasidhe · 20-11-2013 11:32AM

J C wrote: »

He won't slaughter us ... but Mankind does a horrific amount of slaughtering itself.

Love is the only antidote to evil.

Would that be the same Mankind that God made in his image?

Geomy · 20-11-2013 11:38AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Would that be the same Mankind that God made in his image?

Sure didn't God give us free will...

An Orca Killer Whale...but some people got the translation wrong, if you watch the Movie Free Willy 7 times on a Friday with 2.5 inches of snow on the ground you'll receive salvation. ...

Sonics2k · 20-11-2013 11:39AM

J C wrote: »

He won't slaughter us ... but Mankind does a horrific amount of slaughtering itself.

Love is the only antidote to evil.

What about those Egyptian babies and first born's he slaughtered? Y'know, the ones who couldn't have possibly done anything wrong.

Oh wait, he didn't even have the testicular fortitude to do that himself, did he.

Brian Shanahan · 20-11-2013 11:41AM

J C wrote: »

... another unfounded personal slur ... based on no evidence whatsoever.

And this from someone who has blamed evolutionary theory (supposedly it causes lack of morals) for the Columbine School Massacre. I don't think there is any description I could give you that would slur you as bad as the words you speak.

I disagree with Phelps and all that he stands for ... and I have repeatedly made my position clear on this issue.

I know you do, he's too liberal for you, too wishy washy and compassionate.

pauldla · 20-11-2013 11:42AM

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Sonics2k wrote: »

What about those Egyptian babies and first born's he slaughtered? Y'know, the ones who couldn't have possibly done anything wrong.

Oh wait, he didn't even have the testicular fortitude to do that himself, did he.

When we act on His behalf, He is with us always.

Or something like that. :pac:

Brian Shanahan · 20-11-2013 11:50AM

Sarky wrote: »

Hey, it's hardly my fault oldrnwisr was busy with something else today.

Nor is it your fault that this site lets JC use the long rope he has purchased to hang himself (metaphorically, because I know JC will try to claim that I am trying to compel him to commit suicide), by airing his views in public.

gaynorvader · 20-11-2013 11:53AM

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Terrlock wrote: »

Actually i'd be very interested in any theory that can explain how information was first created.

One theory is that after a few billion years, it kinda happened by accident, evolution was a good way of propagating, so things that had the capacity to do so, did: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/09/life-began-at-the-molecule-level-new-theories-on-the-origins-of-life-on-earth-other-planets.html

Another is the much argued about abiogenesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Terrlock wrote: »

more then 4.54 billion years old.

You know that means that you're not a creationist? Creationists believe the earth is 6,000 years old. I think you'll attract a lot more ire from saying that than from saying that you believe in the creation story. Personally, I think it's easily possible that the universe was created by something intelligent. I doubt it's anything humanity has imagined and I doubt it cares what happens in the universe, but it's as plausible as anything else. Having said that, I also think it's possible for the universe to just sort of happen. Asking how something can come from nothing is a question that leads nowhere, because at some point you're going to run out of places for things to come from. Usually, with religious people it stops at god and they say something along the lines of "god always existed.". Why can't the same be said for the universe though? Or at least what existed before the big bang.

robindch · 20-11-2013 12:12PM

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

gaynorvader wrote: »

You know that means that you're not a creationist? Creationists believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

Not totally accurate.

Most creationists fall into one science-denying camp or another - "Young-Earth creationists" (YEC) believe that the universe is something between 6000 and 10,000 years old. Old-Earth creationists (OEC) accept the scientific consensus on the age of the universe, but disagree with the scientific consensus on how life arose (either how it got started, or how separate species formed, or both). The noisiest of the anti-science brigade are the YEC crew, since the main organizations promoting creationism are YEC, though they may constitute an absolute minority of religious believers.

Cabaal · 20-11-2013 12:13PM

OMG! Spoiler!

Terrlock referenced how much he/she loves the book of Job,

Its good reading, especially where it says God has more then one son

1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Then there's this great bit where god plays a game with the devil and either kills or knowingly allows the devil to kill people, animals etc, then the dumb **** jobs blames the devil and not god (go figure)

Full list of god being a total ****ing dick include

God makes a bet with his son, Satan. God tells Satan to do nasty things to Job to see if he can get him to curse God to his face. 1:6-12

God gives Satan power over all that Job possesses. 1:12

To start off God and Satan's gruesome game, Job's slaves and animals are burned to death or killed with swords. Then Job's children are killed in a windstorm while partying. 1:13-19

God kills (or allows Satan to kill) Job's children, but Job doesn't "foolishly" blame God. Since God was responsible, why would it be foolish to blame God? 1:20-22

God and Satan play a little game with Job. God allows Satan to torment Job, just to see how he will react. 2:3-6

"So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown." 2:7

"What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" 2:10

Because of God's cruel wager with Satan, Job curses the day he was born. 3:2-3, 11

"The arrows of the Almighty are within me ... the terrors of God do set themselves in array against me." 6:4

"Thou scarest me with dreams, and terrifiest me through visions" 7:14

Does God pervert Justice? Well, if you believe the Bible he sure as hell does! 8:3

God multiplies wounds without cause, destroys the perfect along with the wicked, laughs at the trial of the innocent, and hides the truth from judges. 9:17, 22-24

"Is it good unto thee that thou shouldest oppress, that thou shouldest despise the work of thine hands?" 10:3

Speaking of God, Job says: "He teareth me in his wrath, who hateth me: he gnasheth upon me with his teeth." 16:9

"All the evil that the LORD had brought upon him"
All of Job's troubles were brought on by God. 42:11

After God and Satan get done tormenting Job, God gave Job even more stuff than he had before, including children. God gave Job another set of 10 kids, with even prettier daughters! 42:13-15

smcgiff · 20-11-2013 12:49PM

Cabaal wrote: »

After God and Satan get done tormenting Job, God gave Job even more stuff than he had before, including children. God gave Job another set of 10 kids, with even prettier daughters! 42:13-15

You can kind of see the depraved logic employed here by the writers of the bible. But, they'd have to be, more than likely, psychopaths themselves to come up with this.

How anyone can read the bible, believe it and possess the necessary motor functions to type on a keyboard is a mystery.

token56 · 20-11-2013 12:53PM

I miss JC's overzealous use of emoticons.

:rolleyes::eek::eek::cool:

Whatever happened JC, why did you change your ways?

gaynorvader · 20-11-2013 01:07PM

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

robindch wrote: »

Not totally accurate.

Most creationists fall into one science-denying camp or another - "Young-Earth creationists" (YEC) believe that the universe is something between 6000 and 10,000 years old. Old-Earth creationists (OEC) accept the scientific consensus on the age of the universe, but disagree with the scientific consensus on how life arose (either how it got started, or how separate species formed, or both). The noisiest of the anti-science brigade are the YEC crew, since the main organizations promoting creationism are YEC, though they may constitute an absolute minority of religious believers.

In that case, I apologise Terrlock for my ignorance.

Terrlock · 20-11-2013 01:23PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Terrlock referenced how much he/she loves the book of Job,

Its good reading, especially where it says God has more then one son

Then there's this great bit where god plays a game with the devil and either kills or knowingly allows the devil to kill people, animals etc, then the dumb **** jobs blames the devil and not god (go figure)

Full list of god being a total ****ing dick include

The book of Job is a Poem and contains so many answers to difficult questions.

The Book of Job and the Problem of Evil

The problem of evil is if God is all good and God is all powerful, why is the world full of evil? Why is their pain and suffering in a world created and ruled by a loving and good God? No single theological problem has occupied more intellectual energy, time, and ink than this one.

moralism and cynicism

When suffering hits there are two basic ways that people respond. The more religious person says “Why is God punishing me? What am I doing wrong? Maybe I should have prayed more. Maybe if I just had a little more faith.”

This response is essentially moralism. In order to avoid suffering I must be more diligent, more holy, more worthy of God’s protection.

The other approach to suffering is not moralism, but cynicism. Whereas religious people tend to see suffering as a punishment from God, secular people tend to see suffering as proof that there is no God. Or if there is a God he is either incompetent or indifferent.

Moralism is based on the idea that God is actively causing all pain and suffering in the world as a part of his purposes and his glory. Cynicism is based on the idea that nobody is in charge. Life is random. It is all a matter of chance. There is no one good and powerful God in charge.

The book of Job was written to tell us that both of those approaches are absolutely wrong.

the book of Job

There is no book of the Bible (no piece of literature) that addresses the question of suffering with the intellectual and philosophical integrity and with the emotional and dramatic realism as the book of Job.

The book of Job is an epic poem. It consists of, first of all, a dialogue between God and Satan, then a long dialogue between Job and his friends and then a climactic dialogue between God and Job.

In the prologue, Satan (the adversary) randomly appears at a heavenly council meeting with a challenge - “Does Job fear God for nothing?”. Satan’s charge against God is that he is running a Machiavellian universe. God is a manipulative deity who only blesses those who worship Him and who withholds blessings from those who don’t.

Are human beings really free? Is there such a thing as free will?

The charge in the prologue is a literary device and, in the context of this epic poem, can only be answered one way. If God were to destroy Satan, it would prove Satan’s point. If God simply dismisses Satan, it would prove Satan’s point. The only way the challenge can be answered is for it to be put to the test - and that’s where Job comes in.

The central point of the prologue is that arbitrary things happen behind the scenes that affect us, about which we know nothing. There was a random event that happened in the heavenly realms, and Job gets caught up in the middle of this, and all that he goes through is a result of this. Job never learns about this and that is part of the essential point of the book.

Throughout the book Job’s friends take a moralistic approach to Job’s suffering. They believe God is behind everything that is happening to Job and he has a reason for bringing on all of the afflictions he is bringing. Job takes on an increasingly cynical approach. He still believes God is behind everything that is happening to him, but he has no reason for it. It is all arbitrary and God is indifferent to it.

But when God shows up He gives us an alternative to both of these. It goes beyond both moralism and cynicism. God says two things that, on the surface, don’t seem to make much sense. First, God talks about the unfathomable vastness and complexity of creation - “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.” Then God talks about forces of evil within the universe (Behemoth and Leviathon) as a way of portraying that there is a whole lot going on in the universe that we don’t know about.

The point of the book of Job is that the mystery of evil is a mystery about the unfathomably complex, war-torn creation. It is not a mystery, first and foremost about God but a mystery about creation. A creation that has been seized by war.

free will

Every aspect of creation that does not reflect God’s loving character ultimately comes from some will other than God.

God gave humans and angels free will so that we could truly worship and love Him, but what we do with this free will is up to us. If I genuinely have free will, than I can choose to align myself with God’s will or go against it. God has the power to stop me – but if he always prevented free wills from doing the evil they are capable of than he has not really given us free will and therefore genuine love is impossible.

We are all free to make decisions and these decisions have ripple effects on the rest of creation. Today we are experiencing the sum total of the ripple effects of every decision made in humanity.

Adam went one way and we’re still under the ripple effects. Lucifer went one way and we’re still under the ripple effects. Your parents went one way we’re still under the ripple effects.

The world is interdependent. Everything affects everything else. So the mystery of evil has to do with all of the free decisions of both human and angelic beings.

You are free. You are responsible. Your choices matter. And yet...

God’s sovereignty

Paul says in Romans 8v28-39 we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose

Every single thing that happens as a result of those choices, God is working out for our good. It’s not that God foresees everything you are going to do. But what you do, the ripples you make, God works together into the plan He wants and the course He wants history to take.

Even though God does not cause all things, He can work in and through all things, and He is able to bring good out of it. He is infinitely intelligent. He has prepared a response.

On the one hand your choices belong to you. They are yours. You are free and you are responsible. And yet, in the end, the result will be exactly what God wants.

God is fixing everything, all of creation, into the way He wants it to be. But He doesn’t do that despite our choices, but through them. Our choices become a part of his plan.

risk vs. reward

Why did God give us free will? Why take the risk? Why, when we screwed up in the Garden and walked away from Him did he not just end it all?

The answer is simple. Love.

At the center of the universe is an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, God who is head over heals in love with you.

And so despite all of our choices and despite all of the opposition and despite all of the havoc we have wreaked upon His creation God is determined to restore us. He is determined to love us

smcgiff · 20-11-2013 01:26PM

Terrlock wrote: »

The book of Job is a Poem and contains so many answers to difficult questions.

Yes, it must come with some difficulty to realise that the answer is ... God's a total Dick.

Sarky · 20-11-2013 02:23PM

OMG! Spoiler!

"Determined to love us" is more than a little creepy stalker rapey.

Bannasidhe · 20-11-2013 02:41PM

Sarky wrote: »

"Determined to love us" is more than a little creepy stalker rapey.

Hmmm - remind me - did God ask Mary if she wanted to be his baby mammy or was she just told she was going to be his baby mammy by one of God's minions?

[-0-] · 20-11-2013 03:05PM

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hmmm - remind me - did God ask Mary if she wanted to be his baby mammy or was she just told she was going to be his baby mammy by one of God's minions?

Neither. It never happened.

Bannasidhe · 20-11-2013 03:09PM

[-0-] wrote: »

Neither. It never happened.

Jeeze...flipping pedants :rolleyes:.

Ok so smarty pants - I shall rephrase:

In the Story Book which states it is the word of God did God ask Mary if she wanted to be his baby mammy or was she just told she was going to be his baby mammy by one of God's minions?

druss · 20-11-2013 03:17PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Jeeze...flipping pedants :rolleyes:.

Ok so smarty pants - I shall rephrase:

In the Story Book which states it is the word of God did God ask Mary if she wanted to be his baby mammy or was she just told she was going to be his baby mammy by one of God's minions?

Matthew
1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

???

Luke1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
1:29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

This is like the teenage disco "my friend fancies you" machinations.

Science! Ask you question here. Biscuits NOT included and answers not guaranteed.

Comments