Life From Dirt?

[gnostic]

Did you figure out that the " idol" worship of ancoent times is indistinguishable from the Christian
version today?

I think of people revering anyone - prophet, messiah, messenger, teacher, savior, etc - anyone considered as “holy”, to be idol worshipping.

While the following are not technically “idol worship“, I think these to be idol worshipping too, eg sacred symbols, holy objects (eg scriptures) or holy places (not just temples & churches, but also sacred mountains, lake, rivers, forests, groves, etc) and astronomical bodies (sun, moon, stars, etc).

 

[Audie]

The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.

Psalm 14, verse 1.

So no actual response to anything I said.
Just a chant.
Almost like mindless.
Possibly just coincidence.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So no actual response to anything I said.
Just a chant.
Almost like mindless.
Possibly just coincidence.

Poetry echoes down the centuries. Some lines cannot be improved on, coming to mind as they do at the appropriate time.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Poetry echoes down the centuries. Some lines cannot be improved on, coming to mind as they do at the appropriate time.

Except it isn't poetry but simply propaganda.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Except it isn't poetry but simply propaganda.

To your ears, perhaps. As with so many things, it's meaning is in the mind of the listener.

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[PureX]

Testable events provide objective evidence.

What events are "testable"? Even a very simple event like flipping a coin has multiple outcomes. And will in fact produce different outcomes every time the event is tested. And the more complex the event, the more different outcomes it will produce. Flip the coin 10 times and record the outcomes. Flip it 10 more times and see if you get the same outcome. You almost certainly won't. Keep flipping it 10 times and see how many times you get a different result. A LOT!

Also, who and how was it decided that the event we need to "test" is about which side of a coin faces up after it has been flipped and landed? Oh, wait, that would be that subjective "I do". Who decides how the coin is being flipped? And how it stops flipping? And how many times it must be flipped and stopped to produce "objective evidence". Oh, wait, that would be that subjective "I do", again. And on and on it goes, with that subjective "I do" determining what the question is, what event exemplifies the question, what the parameters of the event is and how to isolate it from everything leading up to it and following it. And then how to test it, and how to interpret the various results ... You get the idea.

The whole scenario is rife with subjective decision-making from start to finish and yet we're supposed to assume that what results is the "objective truth"?

Not hardly.

 

[Audie]

Poetry echoes down the centuries. Some lines cannot be improved on, coming to mind as they do at the appropriate time.

Sooo

The who believes everything in the Noah's ark
book finds me to be a fool for not taking any of
it seriously.

Unintended humor has an element of almost
like poetic justice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.

Psalm 14, verse 1.

Lucky for us that no atheist makes the mistake of saying that in his heart. The Bible says nothing about a man that has come to the conclusion due to rational thought. So it is at least not wrong here.

 

[Audie]

What events are "testable"? Even a very simple event like flipping a coin has multiple outcomes. And will in fact produce different outcomes every time the event is tested. And the more complex the event, the more different outcomes it will produce. Flip the coin 10 times and record the outcomes. Flip it 10 more times and see if you get the same outcome. You almost certainly won't. Keep flipping it 10 times and see how many times you get a different result. A LOT!

Also, who and how was it decided that the event we need to "test" is about which side of a coin faces up after it has been flipped and landed? Oh, wait, that would be that subjective "I do". Who decides how the coin is being flipped? And how it stops flipping? And how many times it must be flipped and stopped to produce "objective evidence". Oh, wait, that would be that subjective "I do", again. And on and on it goes, with that subjective "I do" determining what the question is, what event exemplifies the question, what the parameters of the event is and how to isolate it from everything leading up to it and following it. And then how to test it, and how to interpret the various results ... You get the idea.

The whole scenario is rife with subjective decision-making from start to finish and yet we're supposed to assume that what results is the "objective truth"?

Not hardly.

Now it's lessons on probability and statistics.

Honestly, people in America.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What events are "testable"? Even a very simple event like flipping a coin has multiple outcomes. And will in fact produce different outcomes every time the event is tested. And the more complex the event, the more different outcomes it will produce. Flip the coin 10 times and record the outcomes. Flip it 10 more times and see if you get the same outcome. You almost certainly won't. Keep flipping it 10 times and see how many times you get a different result. A LOT!

Also, who and how was it decided that the event we need to "test" is about which side of a coin faces up after it has been flipped and landed? Oh, wait, that would be that subjective "I do". Who decides how the coin is being flipped? And how it stops flipping? And how many times it must be flipped and stopped to produce "objective evidence". Oh, wait, that would be that subjective "I do", again. And on and on it goes, with that subjective "I do" determining what the question is, what event exemplifies the question, what the parameters of the event is and how to isolate it from everything leading up to it and following it. And then how to test it, and how to interpret the various results ... You get the idea.

The whole scenario is rife with subjective decision-making from start to finish and yet we're supposed to assume that what results is the "objective truth"?

Not hardly.

All sorts of events are testable. And you demonstrated that you do not even know how they are testable. Yes, coin flips are very close to 50/50 in their results. This can be tested.

Instead of being in denial which puts the burden of proof upon you you should be asking how events are tested.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now it's lessons on probability and statistics.

Honestly, people in America.

It is always easier to "win" an argument by using unreasonable strawman arguments. That tells us more about the person making the argument than anything else.

 

[Audie]

To your ears, perhaps. As with so many things, it's meaning is in the mind of the listener.

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Yup. Choose what you want to "hear".

Zero intellectual integrity in self deception.
Very little intelligence of any sort.

Did you know that?

 

[PureX]

Now it's lessons on probability and statistics.

Probability is an admission of ignorance pretending to be a presumption of knowledge. It's sad that you (and many others here) don't understand this.

 

[PureX]

All sorts of events are testable. And you demonstrated that you do not even know how they are testable. Yes, coin flips are very close to 50/50 in their results. This can be tested.

So, the result is that we don't know the result, and can't predict it.

But you're sliding right on past the real point of my post. And that was that the entire exercise that you claim results in "objective evidence" is rife with subjective decision-making because WE ARE THE SUBJECTS MAKING ALL THE DECISIONS.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, the result is that we don't know the result, and can't predict them, either.

But you're sliding right on past the real point of my post. And that was that the entire exercise that you claim results in "objective evidence" is rife with subjective decision-making because WE ARE THE SUBJECTS MAKING ALL THE DECISIONS.

No, we can predict the results. You even told us what the prediction is. It appears that you are in denial because there are real world results that you do not like. Some events may be 50/50. Some events will have different odds. Those results can be tested and confirmed.

 

[PureX]

No, we can predict the results. You even told us what the prediction is.

You can't flip the coin and predict the result because you will be as likely to be wrong as not. Which is not in any way a prediction. It's just a 50/50 guess. And "predicting" that it will either come up heads or tails is not a prediction, either, it's just the avoidance of prediction. And that's just a simple coin toss, with very minimal options. It gets far less predictable the more complex the "event" outcomes become.

It appears that you are in denial because there are real world results that you do not like. Some events may be 50/50. Some events will have different odds. Those results can be tested and confirmed.

What you keep avoiding is that the WE ARE DOING ALL THE CHOOSING. And that makes the test process and it's results SUBJECTIVE.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yup. Choose what you want to "hear".

Zero intellectual integrity in self deception.
Very little intelligence of any sort.

Did you know that?

Yeah, I’d spotted that tendency. It’s quite easy to see the faults in others, while being oblivious to our own, don’t you find?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't flip the coin and predict the result because you will be as likely to be wrong as not. Which is not in any way a prediction. It's just a 50/50 guess. And "predicting" that it will either come up heads or tails is not a prediction, either, it's just the avoidance of prediction. And that's just a simple coin toss, with very minimal options. It gets far less predictable the more complex the "event" outcomes become.

What you keep avoiding is that the WE ARE DOING ALL THE CHOOSING. And that makes the test process and it's results SUBJECTIVE.

No. You are simply using silly arguments. You want a surety that does not exist in the real world. Some events will not be certain, but the odds of them occurring can still be tested. It can be very important to know the odds of certain events happening. For example in K/Ar dating K40 does not decay to just Ar40. Most of it, 89.3% decays to Ca40. The rest 10.7% decays to Ar40. If we only knew the half life of K40 but did not know those other percentages we could not date using that method. We are choosing what to test for, but that does not make those results subjective. We could not test those amounts and just say: Wow! K40 is radioactive and it decays to Calcium and Argon. Not testing and knowing the amounts would limit its usefulness to us.

I think this may be a case of projection on your part. People that do not know how to test properly often make the problem of assuming that no one knows how to test properly.

 

[Audie]

Yeah, I’d spotted that tendency. It’s quite easy to see the faults in others, while being oblivious to our own, don’t you find?

You identify an example of intellectual dishonesty
on my part, and I will directly set about to improve
myself.

Thats where I am different from such as you,
whose faith requires intellectual dishonesty
of them.

 

[Audie]

Probability is an admission of ignorance pretending to be a presumption of knowledge. It's sad that you (and many others here) don't understand this.

Such an utterly typical creationist.
No hesitation or scruples of any visible sort
about making things up.