O,wow! Four years early!!!
OReal-Life Hoverboard [Video]
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P
Guys,
I also have a favour to ask. . I am having a prolonged debate with someone who was banned from DC a year or so ago called Marcus McElhaney.
Johnny, Johnny. I wasn't banned from DC. I left when GearHedED admitted to being a pig and not worth talking to because I'd be casting my pearls before swine. Not worth the time. Vocal people at DC are only interested in pontificating about how much they hate Christianity and not really interested in discussion. Don't bother them with the facts, they're "minds" are already made up. Just like John Loftus. Since then I haven't made a single comment on the DC blog. But I have made the comments I wanted to make here.
He critiqued a post of mine that John Loftus put up on DC. He is an Original Sin nutjob. He infuriates the hell out of me like some annoying mosquito.
That's because Johnnny P can't mount a decent argument as to why there the Bible is wrong about our state of sin and depravity.
Can you, if you have a spare hour, check out the arguments and see if I am right in what I say (I am sure I am) and post a few comments to him.
Let me help, Johnny P. Yes, you are wrong.
What really pisses me off with people like him is that you present deal-clinching arguments, they answer crappy ad hoc desperate ones, and then claim they are on the intellectual high ground.
If my responses are so ad hoc and desperate, why does Johnny P need help?
I can't overestimate how much of a tool this man is.
http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com...
http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com...
http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com...
http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com...
http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com...
http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com...
Yes, please visit my blog and drive up the hits and read my arguments. Why, that's the last thing I want. Muhaaaaaa!
I basically would like some justification of my arguments since either:
1) he is actually right, and the universe is screwed and irrational
So, the world is perfect and there is no evil. Right. If so then why complain about evil and suffering? Who cares if earthquakes flatten people and people oppress, kill, and persecute others with impunity?
2) he genuinely is wrong, and it makes me want to cry that people exist who will go to any lengths to believe what is clearly mental, and use truly bad arguments to back it up.
Sorry, I admit this is off topic, although it is directly relevant to DC.
Off Topic? Hmmm. I think calling attention to a failed attempt to Debunk Christianity is extremely relevant.
The original post is at:
Is this the Best Possible World and does God have Free Will? Hmmmm. I wonder why he didn't reference in his plea? oh well. And in case anyone is thinking I made this up to make poor JohnnyP look bad look at the comments from JohnnyP at: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/10/richard-dawkins-explains-why-he-refuses.html
FacePalm of th Day #138a - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 8
I had written:
That was what I wanted to know....clearly and unambiguously when I asked you what you meant by perfect. This is different that whatever you had been saying. Finally! Was that really so hard?
Great example to show you haven’t got a clue what you talk about.
Johnny responds:
‘Finally?’ This is EXACTLY the same point I made in the second post.
I disagree. Where?
I wrote:
However I disagree. They are not the same because you are arguing using the existence of evil. There was no evil when the world Universe was first created.
God knew this eventuality and factored into his design (plate tectonics as you argued didn’t kill or cause suffering UNTIL the fall) and it is an ingredient in the perfect choice of the outcome. You contradict yourself ALL OVER the place.
Nope. It's not a contradiction that God would allow Adam and Eve to sin, although he knew they were going to sin, because God has a purpose in allowing or decreeing all that happens. Unless everything has happened as it has you wouldn't be the same person you are now - or even exist. God has reasons and purposes for this and is not beholden to us if we don't like the choices He has made. All you keep saying is that you don't like this answer but you have never said why it's wrong or untenable. Next time you make your own reality you can do it the way you like....oh yeah, you can't do that. Bummer.
“It's like trying to calculate moving objects with special relativity with nothing in the scenario moving faster that a few hundred miles and hour. Because there is no difference in the observed outcome, your logic would assume that it's all the same. It's not. Nice attempted dodge but you'll have to do better than that.”
What the frick are you banging on about? Trying to accuse me of dodging when ALL YOU do is dodge left, right and centre and give me this nonsensical tripe.
Since you know beans about Physics, let's try this again (forgot who I was writing to). Understand this. Because Lorentz Contraction and Time Dilation are negligible at speeds much less then the speed of light (our day-to-day experiences), you cannot conclude that it's the same when traveling at speeds close to the speed of light. Which is like what you have done conflating a world perfect now as the same as having perfect parameters at its creation. They are not the same.
“I have never argued that God is not perfect.”
Talk about ‘finally’! So now we can move away from all this other shite about what perfect means to me.
No, because you try to argue that the universe's perfection follows from God's perfection. and you said:
1) he [me] is actually right, and the universe is screwed and irrational
2) he [me] genuinely is wrong,...
As you have now firmly accepted Premise 1, then you realise that the argument has nothing to do with what my idea of perfect is. I reject God, and I can reject perfect, too, for all it matters.
I'm unclear as to whether or not you think that this universe is perfect as it is or not. Oh, and do I keep you awake at night, because you think I might be right?
“What I've said several times and you seem to ignore it is that the Christian Worldview is that the Universe is not perfect in its current state.”
Jesus. Look, I’ve been through this, if you haven’t followed yet, then you never will.
I think you're still confused. Not hopelessly, God could still yet have mercy on you. Originally you said:
However, the main point to be made here is as follows. It seems, then, that if God is to keep his omnibenevolent characteristic, then this world must be the maximally perfect and loving world that there can be. If God is perfect, then this must be his most perfect creation. A perfect God could not create something that fell short of perfection, and an all-loving God could not create something that did not fulfill the criterion of being the most-loving creation.
I'm saying that the world is not perfect and won't be until God fixes it. The contention is not that God allows evils and could stop it if he wanted to. It's not that tsunamis and earthquakes are or are not part of the plan. We agree that according the Christian Worldview this is true. However you just abjectly and emotionally blather on about this not making sense without talking about why other than you don't like it.
“My point from the beginning is that the world is not perfect....therefore your conclusions fail.
Johnny P said:
Now, I have established that that initial creation was perfect. But God’s infallible foreknowledge is ‘perfect’ too. So either way, the design permits, and the designer knows, of the outcomes. Thus the designer, since he could have done otherwise, and could have had any other outcome, chose this one.
I responded
Yeah, so? “
What do you mean, yeah, so? That point is entirely the point that invalidates your previous opinion. Please do some thinking. You are making me do all the thinking for you! Get a grip.
We do keep going in circles. Because all the premises discussed does not mean Christianity is wrong. Only you don't like it. I don't like having to stop at red lights when I drive, but I got to do it anyway.
You originally wrote:
If this is where logic takes a Christian, then they can keep their God in all his maximal perfection. And while they’re at it, they can package up all the pain and suffering and send it return post to the pearly gates. Not needed here, thanks.
In other words, you are saying that if it takes evil and suffering for God to fulfill His ultimate plans for all that exists, you don't want any part of it. So I say again, "So what?" You've just offered your opinion pointing out your outright rebellion. I was hoping for me. Why is the Christian Worldview wrong? Why can't God do what he wants to do,when he wants to do it, how he wants to do it, and for whatever reason He chooses? You offer no reason.
Johnnny P, wrote
“Therefore, God’s perfect choice, since he cannot choose imperfectly, was a choice of bringing in this ‘imperfect world, as you choose to see it. Unless this is THE ONLY possible outcome. In which it is a necessary outcome, given creation. Nobody believes this, so we will return to the former point.
I had responded
This is where you introduce a lot of ambiguity. You claim that you don't have to explain how or why you have chosen to see it but you seem to claim that this is not the only possible outcome and that's fine, but how do you evaluate the Christian perspective when you haven't explain why either of these possibilities are wrong.”
You literally make no sense and don’t seem to understand my arguments, This is probably why you get your knickers in a twist, since you struggle to follow simple arguments.
Oh, give me an argument to understand.
Johnny P wrote
“So either this is a perfect universe straight out, or it is a perfect set of parameters which brought about an imperfect world, which was perfect by outcome and choice anyway. Thus it is still a perfect world in one way or another.
That depends on what you call "perfect". And I'm not buying your non-definition. You have given me no reason to. I'm not just going to to take your word for it.”
Er? Let’s go back to the beginning of this conversation when you chose to agree that God was perfect and everything he does is flawless. Then re-read what I said. You really are appearing dim here. Maybe you are trying to bore me into submission.
Um no. Like I said you are not completely wrong. Just mostly wrong;
Now, this is where you prove incontrovertibly that you haven’t a clue what you’re on about.
I had written.
“So you don't see the inconsistency in claiming to see credentials and peer-reviewed articles from a scientist who accepts Adam & Eve as real people but not willing to back up your own authority the same way?”
Back up my authority? What the shagging hell are you on about? I claim NO AUTHORITY. I am not analysing, hypothesising, interpreting data etc.
So why did you write Debunking Christianity: Is this the Best Possible World and does God have Free Will? I thought you were claiming that based on the existence of evil and suffering and free will, what Christians believe about God is wrong. Bold claim. Which you still haven't demonstrated. The best you've given so far is:
If this is where logic takes a Christian, then they can keep their God in all his maximal perfection. And while they’re at it, they can package up all the pain and suffering and send it return post to the pearly gates. Not needed here, thanks.
So you must be trying to appeal to your own authority given further argument.
I put out a logical argument in two parts. There is no authority. The work is self-evident from the semantics of the words! Ooh, let’s think, was the Epicurean Paradox peer-reviewed before being accepted? Ooh, was the Euthyphro Dilemma peer-reviewed? Get another grip.
So you have nothing to back up your conclusions. Thanks for admitting it.
I wrote
“The smoke screen is yours. The immaturity is yours. You actually seem to have the arrogance to just assume that I have to just accept all of your premises and conclusion.”
Er? What? Point out the logical flaws, which you have singularly failed to do, and stop putting up your own smokescreens. You want peer-review to accept a premise of an argument? Are you telling me you can’t appraise a logical argument which is not peer-reviewed? Philosophy is not a peer-reviewed discipline! Science and medicine etc. Let’s think,was Calvin peer-reviewed? NT Wright? Augustine of Hippo? Thomas Aquinas? The Bible? Please tell me they were, otherwise your whining has absolutely no basis whatsoever. I’ll save you the effort. They weren’t, and your whining has no basis whatsoever.
I gave you the logical flaw: This isn't a perfect world. If Philosophy is not a peer-reviewed discipline then why are there peer-reviewed journals in Philosophy like this one? Hmmm....curious.
I said
“I want to see if you really have a background in the fields you say you know something about. Your logic is self-evidently wrong because your presuppositions and understanding of the Christian Worldview are flawed. It's only fair since you would want the same of a scientist who believes Genesis is true.”
No. You don’t understand peer-review and why it is necessary. You really don’t. Go and research it.
I never said that peer-review was not important or necessary. You said that it wasn't needed in Philosophy.
Do you see me asking for your qualifications?
No. You are perfectly happy assuming I have none.
Do you see me demanding a theology degree for your comments on the bible?
No, but I've got credentials regardless. And given your inability to respond to the Bible, it makes sense you wouldn't.
Have you got these at university level? Who fucking cares? Get over it! Peer review is not relevant for a logical argument no longer than 20 lines long. Logic is binary, dimwit, and it doesn’t need peer review.
You mean even flawed logic such as yours?
I wrote:
“Qualifications you have not stated. Books you have not given the reference for or links to. The name of this Philosophy group? You haven't even used your full name. This might as well be anonymous. If none of this makes a difference than why would a peer-reviewed article, book, or Journal? Answer that, and I will give you the references. Otherwise, I'd be wasting my valuable time.”
Look, if you want to get off your arse and find out who I am, then it’s easy enough. This endeavour on my part just simply shows how clueless you are. What I have said is not affected in the slightest by where my degrees or whatever are from. If I thought it was important, I would ask you the same questions. People wouldn’t debate online about anything without faxing university qualifications to each other. That’s juvenile.
You claimed to have an authority that you won't substantiate. Given I can't tell from your writing, I thought I've give you the benefit of the doubt and just ask instead of just assuming you have lied about books you have written or philosophy groups you say you founded.
However, If I claim that there is scientific evidence for a presupposed claim that humanity evolved from Adam and Eve in an anachronistic setting with animals that popped into existence from nowhere and that this happened at such and such a time AND I claim this scientific, THEN IT MUST ADHERE TO SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGICAL RIGOUR.
I agree! But if you say the hristian Worldview is wrong then you ought to be able to back it up rigorously too. As I said, put your evidence on the table and I'll put mine out there too. Fair is fair.
ARE YOU TOO SCARED TO ADMIT THIS? A logical argument is self-evident. It has about 10 lines in my case. A claim like that above, which goes against mainstream scientific academia, requires, in order to be called science, to undergo the rigmarole of scientific methodology. If you can’t see the difference then there’s no hope for you. And refusing to give me your sources for a scientific claim that underlies your entire belief system is juvenile and has nothing to do with where, what, how and who about my qualifications. I am critiquing an affirmative claim of Christians. Christians believe that God is perfect irrespective over whether one of my qualifications was from Bath or Newcastle. Deal with it, and stop clutching at straws.
I see no reason why I can't ask about your qualifications because that seems all you are given to back up your premises and conclusion. I told you that I reject the point you made about this world being perfect, and your attempted dodge to say that being perfect in the beginning is the same as being perfect now. So now all you have left is your credentials.
When interpreting empirical data using techniques and methodology necessary for the field in presenting or disproving a hypothesis on the dating of fossil remains for early man? Well, then I would need peer-reviewed scientific analysis. I gave a philosophical argument.
Well I guess I'm just more rigorous than you. Sorry, I went to Berkeley.
I wrote:
“So Philosophy gets you a "get-out-of-proof-free" card?”
It’s not an interpretation of empirical data, you eejit.
Yours is an example of wrong interpretation of empirical data.
I wrote
“Who knew? I thought anyone interested in truth evaluates everything and not just at face value. I'm just supposed to have blind faith that you know what you are talking about?”
No, judge the words, not the person behind the words. You are trying to apply the methodology of cheese to the idea of chalk.
You've given no argument other than you reject Christianity because you don't like it.
I wrote:
“For the times and places in which they lived they had equivalent university qualification. On top of that their work proves their qualification. You however have provided nothing. Of course you claim it's not relevant to this discipline. How....convenient. Glad I went into Engineering, Physics, and Information Technology. instead Sheesh!
No medal. I got degrees. But you right it's not relevant to whether or not you are right. But I wanna know what your point is other than you don't like Christianity.
This is genius:
“Let us see what you have done:
1) accepted that the earth is 4.5 billion years old
2) claimed that Adam and Eve were the first humans
3) claimed the historical verisimilitude of the Fall
4) Claimed plate tectonics either did not exist or did not kill anything before the Fall
5) Denied cherry-picking your science
Yup, where's your rebuttal other than ad hominem rhetoric?”
Ha ha, I have represented your arguments entirely, and you claim it is ad hom, which it isn’t. I have ad hommed, but not here. You are so out of your depth it’s embarrassing.
I didn't say you did. Here you offered no rebuttal at all. I'm referring to the entirety of this discussion all 9 posts.
“[Jerry Coyne, evolutionary biologist quote].
Dude, I know that's what some scientists are saying now. How is being skeptical of that "Cherry Picking"?”
Being sceptical is fine if you provide reasons for it. Which you haven’t and refuse to do until I tell you where I went to uni.
No. I asked for your qualifications because you said you want to see the qualifications of a scientist that accepts Genesis and then proceeded to call such a person derogatory names. I know you're too chicken to give up your anonymity, but I think it says a lot when you would use such language of others while not providing the same information.
I wrote:
“You say you are a scholar, but you would just toss a reference like that without a link or a footnote? Some proof that you didn't just write it?”
Er, google the firt line and add Jerry Coyne. Internet’s amazing, you know.
I'm familiar with Coyne. I'm not impressed.
I said
You say you teach students and imply that it's at a university, would you accept that from a student?
I don’t teach at a uni. I never, ever implied that. I can’t be arsed to think about anything else you have said.
Why did you write in the comments?
I teach plate tectonics (albeit to a basic level), so I have a fair grasp, thank you very much.
http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/10/facepalm-of-th-day-134-responding-to.html
Musta been grade school. Poor children.
You are remarkably naïve and poor at arguing. Please don’t post a response to this, but if you do, I will not read it or respond. You, sir, are a lost cause.
You don't need to respond since you've asked your peers for help over at Debunking Christianity. I still have hope for you, God can fix anything.
Go and learn about peer review, about plausibility, about judging science, about logic, about arguing from evidence rather than from presupposition and then desperately looking for any evidence which might support it. Maybe in a few years we can have this discussion again.
LOL. Given that have not bothered to show why evil and suffering invalidates Christianity other than the fact that you don't like it, maybe you should heed your own advice.
Oh, and stop putting immature pictures and video on your blogs. Not only do they make your site clunk about, but it just looks like you are hiding behind ad hom. Makes you less professional than you already are.
I like a little humor now and then. I'm amazed that would think that a "facepalm" is ad hominem but think that profanity is some how more professional. Really sad. The facepalms are about your non-arguments not about you personally because I don't know anything about you.
What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of th Day #138 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 7
FacePalm of th Day #138 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 7
“I'm not asking you establish your beliefs. I'm asking you to define your terms. God is perfect. This world isn't perfect. Theists do not claim that the world is perfect.”
For crying out loud, for the umpteenth time…
Here is a shock and surprise: You more clearly defined what you were talking about.
All you need to do is answer this:
1. Is God perfect?
If yes,
Well since you refuse to define "Perfect" I will Perfect = flawless, infalliable, no improvement needed. And Yes, that begins to describe God.
2. Can God do anything imperfectly?
If yes, you invalidate 1.
If no,
God can't do anything imperfectly.
3. Did God create the universe?
If yes,
Yes, God created all of reality and is in control of everything.
4. Did God create the universe perfectly?
What you seem to be saying is that God created a perfect world but humans imperfected it (with the Fall) or something similar. I have said several times, to which you have not satisfactorily answered
If God created the universe perfectly and new, infallibly in advance, that humans would imperfect his world AND he chose to create this world and those humans OVER AND ABOVE any other world with any other outcome (since he knows all counterfactuals, being omniscient)
I've never denied that was my view. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it false.
THEN:
It follows that creating a perfect world and creating an originally perfect world (what I called the perfect parameters) are in effect synonymous. So you can bang on about me not defining perfect.
That was what I wanted to know....clearly and unambiguously when I asked you what you meant by perfect. This is different that whatever you had been saying. Finally! Was that really so hard? However I disagree. They are not the same because you are arguing using the existence of evil. There was no evil when the world Universe was first created. It's like trying to calculate moving objects with special relativity with nothing in the scenario moving faster that a few hundred miles and hour. Because there is no difference in the observed outcome, your logic would assume that it's all the same. It's not. Nice attempted dodge but you'll have to do better than that.
Whatever, I DO NOT ASSERT GOD OR PERFECT. But all Christians do. You give me ONE Christian who asserts God is imperfect. So, as a generalisation, Christians believe God is perfect. T
I don't think that was ever a bone of contention. I have never argued that God is not perfect. What I've said several times and you seem to ignore it is that the Christian Worldview is that the Universe is not perfect in its current state. .
That is an establishment of premise 1 that does not require me to justify either the meaning of God or the meaning of perfect. I do not hold a belief on either. I am not advancing the idea that God is perfect. You, on the other hand, might well need to argue over it, but suffice to say, you all believe it.
I never said that all of your premise are wrong. You keep seeming to think that I am trying to argue that God is not perfect. I AM NOT!!! My point from the beginning is that the world is not perfect....therefore your conclusions fail.
Now, I have established that that initial creation was perfect. But God’s infallible foreknowledge is ‘perfect’ too. So either way, the design permits, and the designer knows, of the outcomes. Thus the designer, since he could have done otherwise, and could have had any other outcome, chose this one.
Yeah, so?
Therefore, God’s perfect choice, since he cannot choose imperfectly, was a choice of bringing in this ‘imperfect world, as you choose to see it. Unless this is THE ONLY possible outcome. In which it is a necessary outcome, given creation. Obody believes this, so we will return to the former point.
This is where you introduce a lot of ambiguity. You claim that you don't have to explain how or why you have chosen to see it but you seem to claim that this is not the only possible outcome and that's fine, but how do you evaluate the Christian perspective when you haven't explain why either of these possibilities are wrong.
So either this is a perfect universe straight out, or it is a perfect set of parameters which brought about an imperfect world, which was perfect by outcome and choice anyway. Thus it is still a perfect world in one way or another.
That depends on what you call "perfect". And I'm not buying your non-definition. You have given me no reason to. I'm not just going to to take your word for it.
So on and so forth.
Yes, your point being?
But, do you know what, I couldn’t give a toss whether you understand this, admit to it or whatever.
And that's why you just keep writing more and more comments longer that the drivel you originally wrote. Yup, you don't care at all.
What really pisses me off is these sort of sentences:
“From the Bible, it's totally consistent to assume that there was no death before the Fall.”
“As for when humanity (what was here and what wasn't) first appeared and the age of the earth, I think that any conclusion you draw is still open. All I'm sure of is that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.”
I then said this:
“Tell me one scientist, peer-reviewed and published in the relevant fields, who believes (based on empirical evidence) that Adam and Eve were the first humans and that humanity was derived from them, denying evolution, genetic ancestry, anthropology, palaeontology and so on. You have sunk to new lows.
OK, imagine you dug up a couple of crackpots. Should I believe, if I am not an expert in the field, the theories of ‘scientists’ that would account for a statistical null in the relevant field? You have a bizarre and rather cherry-picking take on epistemology and plausibility.”
To which you said:
“I'd think you would have to prove that they were wrong before dismissing them....that is if you were honest.”
And
“You provide your credentials, degrees, and where you went to school and I'll give you "one scientist, peer-reviewed and published in the relevant fields, who believes (based on empirical evidence) that Adam and Eve were the first humans and that humanity was derived from them". Show me yours, I'll show you mine.”
And that last quote did it for me. It confirmed why I never want to speak to you again. What twat says that? This is an logical argument. It is about self-evident content. I do not need to give you peer-reviewed anything with regards to a logical argument. This is a terrible smokescreen, like a child on the playground, “I won’t do this if you do that!” Come on, how old are you?
So you don't see the inconsistency in claiming to see credentials and peer-reviewed articles from a scientist who accepts Adam & Eve as real people but not willing to back up your own authority the same way? The smoke screen is yours. The immaturity is yours. You actually seem to have the arrogance to just assume that I have to just accept all of your premises and conclusion. I want to see if you really have a background in the fields you say you know something about. Your logic is self-evidently wrong because your presuppositions and understanding of the Christian Worldview are flawed. It's only fair since you would want the same of a scientist who believes Genesis is true. .
Do you know what, I would love not to have any qualifications, not to have written books, do what I do, have the job I have, be a founder member of a philosophy group etc etc etc. I would love to be completely qualificationless. Why? To show you that it makes fuck all difference to the argument I make.
Qualifications you have not stated. Books you have not given the reference for or links to. The name of this Philosophy group? You haven't even used your full name. This might as well be anonymous. If none of this makes a difference than why would a peer-reviewed article, book, or Journal? Answer that, and I will give you the references. Otherwise, I'd be wasting my valuable time.
When interpreting empirical data using techniques and methodology necessary for the field in presenting or disproving a hypothesis on the dating of fossil remains for early man? Well, then I would need peer-reviewed scientific analysis. I gave a philosophical argument.
So Philosophy gets you a "get-out-of-proof-free" card? Who knew? I thought anyone interested in truth evaluates everything and not just at face value. I'm just supposed to have blind faith that you know what you are talking about? I don't think so.
Hey Socrates? Hey Aristotle? Hey Augustine? Hey Calvin? What were your university qualifications? Was your work peer-reviewed? Well then you are not entitled to put forward a philosophical argument or discourse!!! What do you mean, it’s irrelevant to this discipline? Oh, of course…
For the times and places in which they lived they had equivalent university qualification. On top of that their work proves their qualification. You however have provided nothing. Of course you claim it's not relevant to this discipline. How....convenient. Glad I went into Engineering, Physics, and Information Technology. instead Sheesh!
Let us see what you have done:
1) accepted that the earth is 4.5 billion years old
2) claimed that Adam and Eve were the first humans
3) claimed the historical verisimilitude of the Fall
4) Claimed plate tectonics either did not exist or did not kill anything before the Fall
5) Denied cherry-picking your science
Yup, where's your rebuttal other than ad hominem rhetoric?
6) When asked to show proof for scientists and evidence that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, rather than providing it, you demand I show you my qualifications which are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand. For example, I couldn’t give two shits what your qualifications are since they are irrelevant. If you were entirely confident with this evidence, you would be more than happy to show it, even though it represents a statistical null proportion of scientists in the relevant field.
See above.
Let peer-reviewed evolutionary biologist explain a little, just on the topic of genetics:
“Unfortunately, the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals.
Further, looking at different genes, we find that they trace back to different times in our past. Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years. This shows not only that any “Adam” and “Eve” (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.
These are the scientific facts. And, unlike the case of Jesus’s virgin birth and resurrection, we can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty.”
Dude, I know that's what some scientists are saying now. How is being skeptical of that "Cherry Picking"? You say you are a scholar, but you would just toss a reference like that without a link or a footnote? Some proof that you didn't just write it? You say you teach students and imply that it's at a university, would you accept that from a student? Just asking. I'm not arguing against the evidence. I'm just skeptical of the conclusion. I think that one day science will catch up with the Bible. I can see this is how you work: sneak in all kinds of conclusions like rejecting the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, while pretending that we have all the evidence to come to the conclusion you have already presupposed.
I won’t bother introducing all the other disciplines. As Christianity Today states:#
“the emerging science could be seen to challenge not only what Genesis records about the creation of humanity but the species’s unique status as bearing the “image of God,” Christian doctrine on original sin and the Fall, the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, and, perhaps most significantly, Paul’s teaching that links the historical Adam with redemption through Christ (Rom.5:12-19; 1 Cor.15:20-23; and his speech in Acts 17.”
The problem is, YOU, like Pastor Tim Keller, HAVE to believe in them, otherwise good ole Paul had it all wrong!
The problem is YOU and other atheist HAVE to disbelieve in them to continue in you rebellion against God and persist in your Godlessness. You haven't demonstrated anything.
“[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the biblical authority. . If Adam doesn’t exist, Paul’s whole argument—that both sin and grace work “covenantally’—falls apart. You can’t say that Paul was a ‘man of his time’ but we can accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you don’t believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul’s teaching.”
If you don't believe, you have thrown out the entire Bible.
People like Harrell realise that science disproves Adam and Eve from all sorts of angles, so they shoehorn in an ad hoc argument:
Harrell might. But I don't. And I disagree that science disprove Adam and Eve but it does help our interpretation. For example, the Bible does not say that the earth is only 6000 years old. People assume that.
Harrell: “God created [Adam & Eve] supernaturally, midstream in evolution’s flow. To create in such a way would require that God also put in place a DNA history, since human origins genetically trace back to earlier, common ancestors.”
Oh yeah, right.
I don't buy it either. But accepting it or rejecting it, doesn't make you a Christian. In short, You've added nothing, but you also haven't rebutted or defending anything as usual.
Of course, you entirely have to disown evolution too, since all the animals poofed into existence in the Garden of Eden. Oh yeah, right.
There are a lot of scientists who would not agree that Darwinian Evolution is the best explanation even if you and Harrell does. And not all of them are Christians. David Berlinski comes to mind. In short, basing your rejection of God and the Bible and using the theory of Evolution as a reason why is pretty silly.
This might interest you (it seems BioLogos are prepared to accept A and E as untenable). http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/
Nice to see that you you know how to post a link when you want to. Thing is just because some Christians have chosen to change their view of Biblical authority and their doctrines in light of Darwinian evolution does not mean I should. I won't go as far as not calling them Christians because what you believe about human origins does not mean that you don't love and accept Jesus Christ and it's possible that human being to believe contradictory things at the same time. Science will one day catch up with the Bible in terms of our understanding of human origins as it has in several other field. .
What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of th Day #137 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 6
