Re: Making money from Java

Judson, I love this answer. Comments interspersed below.

Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > "Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>However, there is significant evidence that the earth was created
> >>instantaneously, or nearly so. Have you studied the ubiquitous occurrence
> >>and condition of the Polonium residues in granite, and thought about how
> >>they got there? I find the secular explanations for this extremely
> >>contrived.

There is no evidence beyond the "wisdom" of religious men and their
scriptures to support this line of argument. As to Polonium, I have now
answered you in another posting.

> >
> > I see what kind of a literalist you are now. When the natural world
> > disagrees with the supernatural, find True Believers to explain that
> > scientists are wrong.
> >
> > In that case, there is nothing to be gained by pointing to the real
> > world.
>
> You severely misrepresent the case. It is not the evidence that is the
> issue, it is the (avowedly) humanistic interpretations of the evidence,
> which Christians oppose.
>
> Just consider for a moment. In the Biblical account of Creation, Adam and
> Eve were created as mature humans. The plant and animal life was also
> created in a state that was already self sufficient. To my mind, this seems
> a logical necessity, and consistent, if Biblical Creation is true. Okay, if
> this account is true, then man and his environment were created in a state
> *as if* they had been there for a long time. The one-week-old universe had
> *the appearance of age*. Further, if this account is true, then there would
> be *no basis* on which to form conclusions about processes that may have
> produced those conditions, because they never happened. All such reasoning
> would be fallacious by definition, therefore pointless, useless, and *almost
> certain* to be misleading. This is not a 'trick' to get around scientific
> theories about origins, it is just a simple fact that, if Biblical Creation
> is true, then human theories about origins *cannot* be based on physical
> evidence. Therefore, arguing *against* Creationism with "evidence" that
> couldn't possibly be of any value if Creationism is true, is hardly a
> rational thing, when you have no idea how else life could have originated
> in the first place.

Given your philosophy, I agree.

> The same cannot be said for physical evidence that
> argues *for* Creationism, because God very well may have left evidence to
> tell us that creation could not have happened by accident, or by natural
> processes.

Ah. This is arguing for courts to consider only that evidence
supporting the prosecution and to ignore any opposing evidence. Very
un-American (lets leave Guantanamo out of this).

Why would God leave evidence arguing for creation but not arguing
against creation?
Better, if I were God then I would have ensured that evidence for
either argument did not exist and that would encourage your faith all
the more. I might also have left evidence like fossil dinosaurs bearing
placards with "End nuclear testing now". (homage to Terry Pratchett and
his book "Strata").

> I believe such is the case with the ubiquitous Polonium halos in
> granite appear to be a kind of 'Divine Signature' of instantaneous creation.

Nonsense.

> I believe the same thing about the so-called "Bible Codes". The only thing
> you can deduce from them is that it took God to put them there.

I know that people may find my continually referring to UK tv
documentaries wearing but... I saw a documentary in the last week which
investigated Bible Codes. It also investigated and found codes hidden
in other texts (I think they used Moby ***). So, as a code believer I
presume that when the Jews finish re-arranging the text of the Talmud
and find the true name of God you will be more than happy to see a
rival religion bring about the end of this world?

>
> As I see it, the shoe is entirely on the other foot. Until somebody can
> offer at least a reasonable, testable hypothesis about how dirt can
> spontaneously form itself into a living organism, they're simply wishing in
> the dark.

It has been known, since Elizabethan times, that maggots are
spontaneously generated by decaying flesh and that life, therefore,
comes from death.

> Believing in God and Creation isn't stupid or ignorant; Isaac
> Newton was a Christian, and possibly the greatest intellect in history. We
> know today that life is far more complex than anybody in Newton's day had
> any concept, and no one has a better idea of how life could form from
> lifelessness.

Not true. I could tell you (without referring to seeding from space)
but there is no point. Your mind is closed.

> Yet so many people today are willing to stake their eternal
> destiny on philosophies based on this happening.

Unless an individual is prepared to start at the beginning and work out
the whole universe/life for themselves then they have no option but to
nail their colours to some mast founded on the work of others, eg the
mast of theology or the mast of science. No one has the time to work
out the truth of science for themselves but it only takes one reading
of the Bible/Koran, etc., to know the truth of a particular theology.

> They do so because they've
> been told to believe this, happily following in faith like lemmings, closing
> their minds to any other possibility, all the while criticizing faith in
> God.

Theological masts are, in my experience, populated with closed minds
blindly following or, in some cases, warping their religion to fit
their particular purposes (I'm not referring to you but to those
fundamentalists who use their religions for murder and terrorism).
Science, however, encourages its believers to think for themselves
(although there are some examples where independant thought was
discouraged; the Soviet Union being one example) and to question and
build upon that which has gone before.

In my case, after moving away from religion, I did not become the rabid
non-believer that I am now. I spent many years hedging my bets,
considering other religions, before coming to be an avowed atheist
(last couple of years). I am aware of the ease with which humans can
delude themselves and, therefore, allow for the possibility that I have
erred by turning away from religion and, therefore, I do not force my
atheism down the throats of others, do not condemn them for their
beliefs nor would I wish for the state to forcibly abolish religion. I
do however, enjoy debating religion, hence my participation in this
thread, and I would enjoy most opening your eyes to the truth as I see
it. However, you've already been there and closed your mind.

> I know, I've been there, I used to believe it myself. I was taught the
> same things; my educational background is in the sciences. From the age of
> ten I subscribed to Scientific American, and planned on becoming a
> physicist, until I was derailed by circumstances (happily, as it turned
> out). But thank God, I finally came to realize how foolish humanistic ideas
> of creation are. Today, having been on each side of the issue for decades,
> it is hard for me to believe how gullible I was for so long. But I was. :-)

When I was a child, I believed that each frame of a cowboy film
contained many images. I read a description of how film works and
changed my mind. I realised that eachframe had only one image on it and
that the illusion of motion was conveyed by rapid sequencing of images.
That was until I saw a frame stick halfway down. I realised the error
in my beliefs and reverted to the notion that each frame had multiple
images on it. It took my father years to correct that belief.

.

Quantcast