Hakluyt's Voyages.......

[Hakluyt]

........just in case anyone fancies continuing them.

We were, I think, discussing the issue around dating dinosaur bones........among other things.

I'm here!

My last message failed but I had attached this

www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/?no-ist
and I know she doesn't want the discovery hijacked but soft tissue COULD be C14 dated but they refuse to do it.What do they have to lose you have to ask yourself.I don't know why all the conspiracy theories have to belong to the creationists!
creationtoday.org/refusing-to-c-14-test-dinosaur-soft-tissue/ Please listen to the phone conversation.I find it so bizarre.Why not do the test,prove there is no carbon and tell the creationists to go away.
This is why it all depends on your world view.In our previous thread,someone said 'of course you wouldn't carbon date a million year old bone.' Can you see what is annoying about that for me?
Find the bone,if not completely fossilised carbon date it,if no carbon move onto the next method. NOT
Find the bone,oh it's a dinosaur...no point carbon dating as that only works for things 50-1000 years old.
Scientists can lose their jobs for even suggesting alternative views!
www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/scientist-dismissed-after-soft-tissue-found-dinosaur-fossil-001906

Am reading those now, vdbfamily. It looks like that guy was fired for running off to tell people he'd found proof of creationism. If so it wasn't very professional. Compare that to the scientist who said “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” because that's what you are supposed to do - look for proof for and against.

Oh I see that Mary Schweitzer is a Christian too and has worked out why they don't prove creationism.

"No time to catch up yet, but you are using your 2 alternatives to explain why you are religious."

No, I am using my two alternatives to explain why atheists do not have the monopoly on - or even a command of - logical and rational thought.

This has been proved over and over again by the complete and utter failure to understand that there either is, or is not, something eternal. We get statements like 'we don't know if there's something else' (like what, for the millionth time) and 'I'm not interested' (really? you haven't thought about it? so why are you here arguing for atheism, when you know that a central core of religious belief lies in the origins of life and consciousness?)

They do not engender respect in the atheist stance.

This argument, of the basic duality, is not an ingenious argument but it is entirely valid. If you want respect for the atheist stance as a rational, logical stance, you need to challenge it with more than 'obviously flawed', 'untrue' or 'but that doesn't prove the existence of God'.

As to the latter - no one says it does. I have never said it does. But it shows the logical likelihood of eternality, which is a question that should trouble atheists - or even simply interest them - if they want to argue their case. And I do assume that's why most people would be on a thread like this.

"You need to admit - at least to yourself - that the one doesn't support the other"

this makes no sense at all

"and that you that were just wildly guessing when you decided the biblical god was real."

for the removal of all doubt, I will repeat what I said earlier. I don't guess - I choose. The existence of something coming from nothing is just as impossible as the existence of God. I've gone with something eternal. And out of all the myriad choices that opens up to me, I've gone with God. That's my choice. It's not an automatic consequence of believing that something is eternal. Therein lies the joy - for me - the fact that I don't have to, and I have. It's is most definitely not an argument for someone else believing in God.

Quite frankly, if you can be argued into believing in the existence of God, there's little point.

Hakluyt, as this is your thread, and because people feeling bullied and upset bothers you, perhaps you could tell your fellow atheists not to bring their insults and accusations of sock-puppetry on to this one.

"frustrated is frustrated because whilst you all constantly rebuff his 'binary' claims,none of you can come up with an alternative to the suggestion that the universe was always there or it appeared from nothing"

Cotedazur: "That would be because we are not in the business of making unsubstantiated claims. Frustrated can humiliate himself by claiming to have unlocked the secrets of the universe by insisting on a silly binary solution, but many adults of us would rather not."

This, for example, is terribly rude. I don't know why people feel the need.
It is not because you are not in the business of making unsubstantiated claims. It is because there is no third option. There is no half way house with existence. Something exists or it does not. There is no half way house with eternality: something is eternal or it is not. It does not depend on the physical laws of this universe. It is a mathematical truth.

The extension of this apparent thought process is that mathematical law does not extend beyond the physical laws of this universe. That in some 'time' or 'place' or 'dimension' that we know and understand little of, one plus one does not equal two.

If that is your argument, make it. Show some evidence for it. Not proof - just make a case. Can you do that? Have you ever seen that? Can you bring it here?

I do not claim to have unlocked the secrets of the universe. I never have. It is not difficult for anyone to say that zero plus zero does not equal one. But that simple statement has enormous implications for belief, atheism and religion.

It is not a 'silly binary solution' - what a bizarre statement. It is not a solution to anything. There is, or there is not, something eternal. Not a solution. A fact.

so why are you here arguing for atheism

Since you ask, for many reasons which include the fact that religion often leads to abuse of women, children, unbelievers etc. It's a very down to earth objection. It doesn't require knowing how the universe started.

This might surprise you. If the god of the bible showed up and demonstrated that he existed I'd still be anti-religion. I've basically read his facebook page (the bible) and I'm disgusted.

vdbfamily I listened to the telephone call. I almost wish they'd just test it, but you know that wouldn't be the end of it anyway. The creationists would just say they switched samples or something. Look at the comments on that site. Some guy seems to think that we're claiming we had sex with monkeys.

Btw I looked up what happens when you test something really old and if I understood it right you just get an unreliable result, not an exact cut-off.

Oh and vdbfamily, do you actually believe in a young earth creation yourself? I probably should know, but names blur together after a while and I might get two posters mixed up.

Badkonlybriefly: It doesn't surprise me. It shows what I didn't want to assume: that some atheists do not have a logical and rational objection, they just dislike religion.

Can I ask you something. When you write something, and I show it to be ill-thought out, why don't you respond to my argument? Why Do you make a different argument instead? Does it mean you accept that your post was ill-thought out?

I'll let you know.

But you don't come back to stuff. You just go off on a different track.

I mean I'll let you know if you ever show anything to be ill-thought out.

It was a long thread. Did you ever explain why you chose to believe in tbe biblical god as opposed to the infinite number of other stories you could have gone with?

But I have rebutted your points. Don't you want to rebut them back? Can we focus on one thing right now? I'll respond to your question if you answer my rebuttals.

Don't forget, many, many of my questions have gone unanswered, including by you, so I'm not running away. I'll definitely answer, but let's see if we can stay on track.

I mean, in the post on this thread. My first post on this thread was a response to one of your posts. I responded point by point. By not arguing your case, that would normally mean you accept my rebuttals.

I wonder if I totally win.

Bless

No- I suspect many feel they are hitting their head against a brick wall.

By not arguing your case, that would normally mean you accept my rebuttals.

If that's one of your rules then feel free to declare yourself the winner. Get a sheet of paper and write on it "I won!!!!"

Meanwhile you seem to have admitted that you just picked one story at random and decided to believe it. Yet you still want to be seen as a clear thinker.

Is someone who chose to believe in Allah or Rumpelstiltskin just as right as you are?

Go on. Respond to the rebuttals. Respond to the argument. Gwan. Gwan. You're obviously reading.

Unless you can't?

By the way BadkonlyBriefly: not my rules: the normal conventions of discussion and debate. Of course you don't have to follow them, but I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to if you have a good case.

Cote: there's a detailed rebuttal of one of your posts there too. Can you challenge it?

You haven't answered most of what I said in a 1,000 post thread but now declare yourself the undisputed victor because you weren't shown the attention you deserve on a 17-post new thread?

Let's talk about your logical universe, as I tried to in the last thread but you never answered:

Speed of light is constant for every observer. Is it logical that however fast you travel, you will always see light to be going at the same speed?

Think of the double-slit experiment that shows light behaves as a wave. Is it logical that you still get the wave pattern when one photon is sent out, meaning it goes through both slits at the same time?

I really liked 'Bless' :)

It was cute the way he said "I totally win".

Totally, no less

Aww, I just saw the post where he goes "Respond to me. Gwan. Gwan."

I think we should keep him

Is this some sort of philosophe's fight club?