Skeptic's Challenge

[funinspace]

Saying that the military, not science, developed the internet is a lot like saying that Engineers did not build the Golden Gate Bridge, instead it was Welders.

How did you know that Hoyt Welders built the Golden Gate

 

[DLH]

I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.

It means he's not taking the discussion seriously. Which is fair enough, i guess, as people stop taking him seriously...

You didn't get that? I'm reflecting the average atheist. Uninformed about the Bible and thinking it is stupid they spout off stupid shit and when they are corrected they ignore it because they think the Bible is stupid anyway and they keep on doing it. Its odd that you didn't get that. You know, that something other than what you think is important would be important to someone else even if you might not think so. That maybe seeing that something in yourself would allow you to see it in someone else instead of creating this wall of derision.

The discussion I don't take seriously? The discussion is always the same no matter what the topic. God bad, science wonderful, no room for 2.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It means he's not taking the discussion seriously. Which is fair enough, i guess, as people stop taking him seriously...

You didn't get that? I'm reflecting the average atheist.

Or, you're trying to reflect a strawman view of atheists that you'll claim is our 'average.'

But i question your ability to determine an 'average.' You're far too angry, and you think that science is in competition with the military industrial complex. So any of your assumptions have to be taken with a salt lick.

Uninformed about the Bible and thinking it is stupid they spout off stupid shit and when they are corrected they ignore it because they think the Bible is stupid anyway and they keep on doing it.

Okay.
And you don't double down on your anger in the face of correcting responses because....?

Its odd that you didn't get that. You know, that something other than what you think is important would be important to someone else even if you might not think so. That maybe seeing that something in yourself would allow you to see it in someone else instead of creating this wall of derision.

So, the fact that i didn't intuit that you're acting like an ATHEIST asshole, instead of just being an asshole, is a sign of my failure to think outside the box.

Okay.

The discussion I don't take seriously? The discussion is always the same no matter what the topic. God bad, science wonderful, no room for 2.

But you don't know what 'science' is, so how can you criticize its use in anyone else's conversational contributions?

 

[dystopian]

It means he's not taking the discussion seriously. Which is fair enough, i guess, as people stop taking him seriously...

You didn't get that? I'm reflecting the average atheist. Uninformed about the Bible and thinking it is stupid they spout off stupid shit and when they are corrected they ignore it because they think the Bible is stupid anyway and they keep on doing it. Its odd that you didn't get that.

Why would it be odd that we didn't get that? After all, it isn't the atheists in this thread that have proven themselves uninformed about the bible. You've *tried* to "correct" some of what we've said, but then when those "corrections" themselves get corrected, it's *you* who ignores it. I note, for instance, that you have failed to provide any rebuttal to my post wherein I take apart your claims about Quirinius for instance.

 

[DLH]

You didn't get that? I'm reflecting the average atheist. Uninformed about the Bible and thinking it is stupid they spout off stupid shit and when they are corrected they ignore it because they think the Bible is stupid anyway and they keep on doing it. Its odd that you didn't get that.

Why would it be odd that we didn't get that? After all, it isn't the atheists in this thread that have proven themselves uninformed about the bible. You've *tried* to "correct" some of what we've said, but then when those "corrections" themselves get corrected, it's *you* who ignores it. I note, for instance, that you have failed to provide any rebuttal to my post wherein I take apart your claims about Quirinius for instance.

Is that the one where you gave a link to a lengthy manuscript and I asked you to paste the relative portion? Which I don't think you have done.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Do you have an answer for how it is that the plants managed to survive for millions of years without sunlight?

 

[DLH]

Do you have an answer for how it is that the plants managed to survive for millions of years without sunlight?

Yes. They didn't. The sun had been created and complete at Genesis 1:1. I've explained that. See Genesis 1

 

[dystopian]

The funny thing about the whole PC side show, is that the TRS-80 and the PET 2001 were launched along with the Apple I/II as part of what was later labeled the '1977 Trinity'. Never mind that in those early years the Trash-80 greatly outsold the Apple. And the PC was an evolution of incremental computer technological innovations, miniaturizations, and cost reductions over several decades, not an "invention" by someone.

It kind of depends on how you define 'PC'. The traditional definition would be a computer meant to be bought and used by individuals. In that case, the 1964 Programma 101 was without doubt the first commercial PC. Of course, that wouldn't have been the first Personal Computer perse; that would likely be a title to go to the 1950 SIMON. But the SIMON was primitive even for the day and really only available to people who could build them themselves. There's a bunch of other personal computers that predate the systems you mentioned, of course. The first one that really resembled modern computers was the CTC Datapoint 2200, released in 1970.

Interestingly, the Datapoint 2200 was originally intended to have an 8bit microprocessor for its cpu built by Intel, but CTC ran out of money and was forced to use a more conventional design instead. This left Intel with the chip design; the 8008. This chip, of course, became the father of their next generation chipsets... which we now know as the birth of the x86 architecture which is found in all modern personal computers (including those built by Apple nowadays).

 

[DLH]

But you don't know what 'science' is, so how can you criticize its use in anyone else's conversational contributions?

Exactly. You see it correctly from your position, but you don't see it correctly from mine.

 

[dystopian]

Why would it be odd that we didn't get that? After all, it isn't the atheists in this thread that have proven themselves uninformed about the bible. You've *tried* to "correct" some of what we've said, but then when those "corrections" themselves get corrected, it's *you* who ignores it. I note, for instance, that you have failed to provide any rebuttal to my post wherein I take apart your claims about Quirinius for instance.

Is that the one where you gave a link to a lengthy manuscript and I asked you to paste the relative portion? Which I don't think you have done.

No, it's the one where you gave us some bullshit about a stone inscription "proving beyond doubt" that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice... even though the stone inscription in question doesn't fucking mention Quirinius and doesn't link to him in any way. And yes, I did give you what the inscription actually says.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But you don't know what 'science' is, so how can you criticize its use in anyone else's conversational contributions?

Exactly. You see it correctly from your position, but you don't see it correctly from mine.

But your view isn't correct. Why would anyone even TRY to see it if you're just throwing out bullshit?


We get believers in here on a regular basis, all intending to correct our view of God, the Books, Christainity, Jesus, science, evolution, atheism, and so on. They assert a whole bunch of shit and act terribly superior and they throw out a lot of things that are clearly worthless as sound bites.

So ifyou claim to have the hot skinny on atheism, science, and god, and you clearly know fuck all about science and atheism, what would be the point of my even attempting to understand your view on your god? You're not batting a thousand, here, but claiming superiority, and blaming me for not accepting your assertions at face value.

 

[DLH]

But your view isn't correct. Why would anyone even TRY to see it if you're just throwing out bullshit?

You still don't see. That is exactly the point. You are repulsed by people like me, who "Think like an online apologist" the same as I'm repulsed by people like you, who "Think like an online apologist." It just happens we are on different sides. You don't want me to propagate my ignorance of science and I don't want you (a collective you, meaning atheists, or as I prefer to call them, skeptical) to propagate your ignorance of the Bible. It's as simple as that.

We get believers in here on a regular basis, all intending to correct our view of God, the Books, Christainity, Jesus, science, evolution, atheism, and so on. They assert a whole bunch of shit and act terribly superior and they throw out a lot of things that are clearly worthless as sound bites.

We have all been there. Two sides of the fence, it doesn't take a genius to hear the racket coming from over the other side.

So if you claim to have the hot skinny on atheism, science, and god, and you clearly know fuck all about science and atheism, what would be the point of my even attempting to understand your view on your god? You're not batting a thousand, here, but claiming superiority, and blaming me for not accepting your assertions at face value.

No one would ever be allowed to bat, buddy. There is no real discussion. It isn't that you provide rebuttal, its that you don't.

 

[dystopian]

You still don't see. That is exactly the point. You are repulsed by people like me, who "Think like an online apologist" the same as I'm repulsed by people like you, who "Think like an online apologist." It just happens we are on different sides. You don't want me to propagate my ignorance of science and I don't want you (a collective you, meaning atheists, or as I prefer to call them, skeptical) to propagate your ignorance of the Bible. It's as simple as that.

Which might halfway approach a decent position if not for the fact that;

A) the atheists (Keith&co among them, I'm sure) here have demonstrated they are very much *not* ignorant about the bible, they just disagree with your interpretations of it and the half-assed arguments you presume take care of the problems with the bible.

and B), Science and the bible were somehow on equal footing in terms of their value to the human race. In reality, the bible is just another book; a fiction masquerading as some universal truth but which has given us nothing. Whereas science, well, science has given us just about everything. It's hard to see how the bible can stand toe-to-toe with a discipline that's given us everything from computers to men on the moon and cures for a thousand different diseases.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You still don't see. That is exactly the point. You are repulsed by people like me, who "Think like an online apologist" the same as I'm repulsed by people like you, who "Think like an online apologist."

Repulsed is your word. Not mine. Doesn't describe me.

It just happens we are on different sides. You don't want me to propagate my ignorance of science and I don't want you (a collective you, meaning atheists, or as I prefer to call them, skeptical) to propagate your ignorance of the Bible. It's as simple as that.

Then maybe your attempts to correct our ignorance should not just be baseless assertions and insults, what?
It's not that you THINK like any other OA, it's that all you offer is arrogance and 'it's so because i say it's so.'
No reason to pick or accept your assertions as having more weight than anyone else's.

We get believers in here on a regular basis, all intending to correct our view of God, the Books, Christainity, Jesus, science, evolution, atheism, and so on. They assert a whole bunch of shit and act terribly superior and they throw out a lot of things that are clearly worthless as sound bites.

We have all been there. Two sides of the fence, it doesn't take a genius to hear the racket coming from over the other side.

THen why do you hew to the same model?

So if you claim to have the hot skinny on atheism, science, and god, and you clearly know fuck all about science and atheism, what would be the point of my even attempting to understand your view on your god? You're not batting a thousand, here, but claiming superiority, and blaming me for not accepting your assertions at face value.

No one would ever be allowed to bat, buddy. There is no real discussion. It isn't that you provide rebuttal, its that you don't.

Don't need to rebut anything that's indistinguishable from the shit that the guy on the corner of 4th and Levant shouts into the traffic.

 

[funinspace]

The funny thing about the whole PC side show, is that the TRS-80 and the PET 2001 were launched along with the Apple I/II as part of what was later labeled the '1977 Trinity'. Never mind that in those early years the Trash-80 greatly outsold the Apple. And the PC was an evolution of incremental computer technological innovations, miniaturizations, and cost reductions over several decades, not an "invention" by someone.

It kind of depends on how you define 'PC'. The traditional definition would be a computer meant to be bought and used by individuals. In that case, the 1964 Programma 101 was without doubt the first commercial PC. Of course, that wouldn't have been the first Personal Computer perse; that would likely be a title to go to the 1950 SIMON. But the SIMON was primitive even for the day and really only available to people who could build them themselves. There's a bunch of other personal computers that predate the systems you mentioned, of course. The first one that really resembled modern computers was the CTC Datapoint 2200, released in 1970.

Interestingly, the Datapoint 2200 was originally intended to have an 8bit microprocessor for its cpu built by Intel, but CTC ran out of money and was forced to use a more conventional design instead. This left Intel with the chip design; the 8008. This chip, of course, became the father of their next generation chipsets... which we now know as the birth of the x86 architecture which is found in all modern personal computers (including those built by Apple nowadays).

My PC comments were in reaction to this silly statement, which was hinting about the Apple I/II: "The personal computer was invented by two college dropouts in one of their parent's garage,"

 

[Keith&Co.]

But you don't know what 'science' is, so how can you criticize its use in anyone else's conversational contributions?

Exactly. You see it correctly from your position, but you don't see it correctly from mine.

And, point of order, you're here, you say, to explain the Books to us.
As i pointed out, i'm an atheist. I don't believe there's any god.
So until that changes, then i don't believe that any gods have communicated to us.
And i don't believe that we have any record, perfect or imperfect, of that communication.

So i don't see how seeing the Books 'correctly' from your point of view, matters a whit.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Do you have an answer for how it is that the plants managed to survive for millions of years without sunlight?

Yes. They didn't. The sun had been created and complete at Genesis 1:1. I've explained that. See Genesis 1

But you specifically said that the sunlight couldn't penetrate the cosmic dust cloud. That's what the whole thing about God letting the light through later on was about.

 

[dystopian]

It kind of depends on how you define 'PC'. The traditional definition would be a computer meant to be bought and used by individuals. In that case, the 1964 Programma 101 was without doubt the first commercial PC. Of course, that wouldn't have been the first Personal Computer perse; that would likely be a title to go to the 1950 SIMON. But the SIMON was primitive even for the day and really only available to people who could build them themselves. There's a bunch of other personal computers that predate the systems you mentioned, of course. The first one that really resembled modern computers was the CTC Datapoint 2200, released in 1970.

Interestingly, the Datapoint 2200 was originally intended to have an 8bit microprocessor for its cpu built by Intel, but CTC ran out of money and was forced to use a more conventional design instead. This left Intel with the chip design; the 8008. This chip, of course, became the father of their next generation chipsets... which we now know as the birth of the x86 architecture which is found in all modern personal computers (including those built by Apple nowadays).

My PC comments were in reaction to this silly statement, which was hinting about the Apple I/II: "The personal computer was invented by two college dropouts in one of their parent's garage,"

I figured as much.

That should not stand in the way of further learnings though!

 

[Malintent]

Many theologists have used the genealogy between Adam and Christ, given in various Scripture to determine the Earth is somewhere between 5 and 7 thousand years old. Is this accurate?

I'm not familiar with such an endeavor but I don't see how it could possibly determine the age of the Earth. From Genesis 5:1-29; 7:6 you can go from Adam's creation to the flood being 1,656 years. From Adam's creation in 4026 B.C.E. to the present as 6, 040 years but how could you possibly expect to extrapolate a period prior to that from the latter period?

Are you fucking serious? You are not aware of the work done by Ussher? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

Hysterical. I am a math master. I can solve any equation.. there are no 'problems' in math that I cannot explain the solution to. But what are all those 'X's and Y's you people keep putting with the numbers???? oh.. and you can't divide 1 by 2.. they are totally different numbers all together!

 

[KeepTalking]

Hi DLH, I know your busy and all with other conversations, but when you get a chance do you mind replying to my post HERE? it's probably not as important as arguing over who can act worse in internet discussions, theists or atheists, but it is at least on topic. I will only have a few hours before I will be incommunicado for the better part of the weekend, so if you can't get to it by then, take your time.