Okay, prove it. I think that if you remain intellectually honest, you'll find it's a much, much harder task then you think.
The bible has a genology of Jesus all the way back to Adam. If you add up the ages of everyone listed in the genology and subtract that number from the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived, one gets an age for the earth of less than 6000 years. Geology, cosmology, chemsitry, and nuclear physics shows this to be false.
The bible states that the Sun stopped in the sky. There is no other record of this event anywhere else in history. And, as has been demostrated, the Earth goes around the Sun, not the other way around.
There you go. Two instances where the bible is demonstrably false.
Sorry, I just can't understand what you're saying here. It seems like a complete non sequitur.
You can't understand because you are stupid. Do you remember a statement you made concerning "But if Jesus really did live, die, and live again, that's a pretty strong piece of evidence..."? Well, first we would have to accept that did happen and as there is no evidence of it happening, then it is not evidence of anything at all. It is, however, evidence of argument from belief. Now, would you care to stick to the facts or do you insist on bringing up fictional events that have no evidence.
As an example of other classes of propositions that you might want to consider as possible evidence, consider historical evidence. I think if we categorically refuse to admit it, then we come to some problematic results. For instance, we'd be unable to admit that George Washington was probably the first U.S. president.
This is a great example of both a false analogy and genetic fallacy. There is no credible evidence that Jesus as described in the bible existed, while there there is volumes of evidence that George Washington existed. Therefore the analogy is false. The genetic fallacy comes in when you assert that a fictional character is real.
I guess what I'm doing is challenging you to carefully think about how you decide to admit something as evidence (even provisionally) worth considering, vs. ruling it out before carefully considering it.
One example of the kind of evidence that I'm talking about is the apparent fact that Christianity spread very rapidly throughout the Roman empire very shortly after Jesus is reported to have died.
Argument ad populum. Something being popular doesn't not make it true. Just like the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe was false even though most of the world believed it.
Or the historical records that 11 of the 12 apostles (the guys that spent a lot of time with Jesus) were executed for not recanting their belief that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Because people generally aren't willing to die to uphold claims they belief are false, that strikes me as a piece of evidence that needs consideration.
Please show the historical records of those apostles. False dilemma: Any or all of the "apostles" could have been "true believers" just like the many other cult members are true believers in things that are patently false and are willing to die for those things. See Heaven's Gate, the Branch Davidians belief that David Koresh was the second coming of Jesus, etc
I'm just trying to give examples of historical evidence that's worth considering but which may not fit your current mold about what makes good evidence.
In other words Argument from half-truth. You want to change the definition of what makes "good evidence" to allow false premises to support your arguments.
if you hold that only scientifically verifiable beliefs are the beliefs worth accepting as true, then you're dogmatically holding a self-contradictory position. At the very l
In other words, you can't provide any proof for a creator at all, period. You also thin
I think you're assuming that the only things we can reasonably believe are those things that can be proven by the scientific method.
The only things we can reasonably believe are things that are concrete fact or thing that are based on concrete fact and proven by the scientific method. Everything else is at best questionable and at worst pure drivel.
But if Jesus really did live, die, and live again, that's a pretty strong piece of evidence for the veracity of Christianity, and maybe in turn for some version of Creationism.
A supposition is not evidence, therefore this is not evidence. There may have been an historic person name Jesus, born to a Joseph and Mary, but there is no evidence of anyone "living again". Here, let me make it clear for you
If people could breath water, that would be pretty strong evidence that people can't drown.That makes as much sense as what you said.
There is nothing to suggest a creator except some old books that are demonstrably false and yet you state your belief in a creator is some how equal to what science shows? That is the corollary to Argument from Ignorance, also known as Argument from Personal Belief.
Everything you and your creationist friends say falls into one of the following fallacies:
Argument from Ignorance
Argument ad populum
Argument from laziness
Argument from half-truth
Argument by selective observation
Burden of proof
Genetic fallacy
Circular Reasoning
Not quite sure what you mean by "proven false".
The bible is demonstrably false. The main document upon which your belief is based is demonstrably false.
Provide any evidence that points to a creator that is not also explained better and with more evidence by evolution. Provide any evidence that points to a creator and away from evolution.
Every single creationist I have met or interacted with started with the conclusion "There is a creator." and worked backwards from there ignoring evidence to the contrary, ignoring evidence that their creation myth is wrong, ignoring anything and everything that did not fit their conclusion. Many have gone so far as to lie about the facts and redefine words such as "science" and "theory" to bolster their claims.
You say "the evidence can be murky", but I say that your "murky" evidence is not evidence for your argument.
You can say that the statement "is only true of a subset of those who call themselves Creationists", but you would be wrong. One can not be pro-science and believe that there is a creator for whom there is no evidence and that the only record of whom is proven false by science. Either one accepts the conclusions of science or one believes in stories that directly contradict the evidence and conclusions of science.
You can't have it both ways. You can't believe in something that has no evidence for and mounds of evidence against and say you are not anti-science.
There are a lot of different forms of Creationism, and they're not all as anti-scientific as you're probably thinking.
Any form of creationism is unscientific specifically because there is no evidence for a creator.
Creationists start with a conclusion and then cherry-pick facts to try to support their conclusion. But, the one fact they can never overcome and always avoid is the lack of evidence for a creator.
As creationist wish to suppress the true science and impose their beliefs as being science based, they are by definition anti-science. The day creationists can provide some evidence of a creator is the day they can claim to be based in science.
Cruise ships are flagged under a country, generally a country that has a Navy and has a mutual defense treaty with local governments, i.e. the U.S.. Cruise ships mainly carry passengers from major sea faring powers. Cruise ships tend to travel in waters that are under the protection of some naval force such as the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coastguard, etc.
Pirates don't hit cruise ships because the return is too low and the risk too high. They may get away with a few tens of thousands in money, jewels, etc. but they will become prime targets of the U.S., Canada, Norway, Brittan, China, etc.
That is why pirates hit cargo ships with millions of dollars worth of goods and a small crew. Even if they kill the whole crew, there will be little outcry, as has been demonstrated and they make a huge profit.
How reliable should a test have to be, when eyewitnesses are notoriously fallible?
"Scientifically rigous" reliable if that test is to be taken over eyewitness testimony. And, that is what actually happens. If a witness looks at a defendant says "That guy did it." and a fingerprint examiner says "No, he didn't" and a DNA expert says "No, he didn't", the defendant is not going to trial. Evidence and test results are hard facts and is acknowledged as being more reliable than witness testimony. The tests must be scientifically rigorous or they are only as good as the memory of eyewitnesses.
Don't be silly. We can't even support the creation of our own political action group. A guy tried, even got the start of it posted here on/. and he also posted the update that he was closing it down for lack of support.
Everyone here was too busy bitching about things to actually support the guy actually trying to change things.
Ok, flaimbait boy, you get your wish. I never hacked into anything without permission. Ever. What this jackass did was not white hat, it isn't even grey hat.
I am glad to know you would be perfectly ok if someone broke into your house, wrote down a bunch of personal information about you (like say your SSN, bank account numbers, the contents of your porn drawer), and then mailed you and 35 other people saying how he did it and what info he took. Especially if he is teaching himself to be a locksmith or learning to be an alarm installer.
One must first have show reason to be able to lapse in reason.
Did you even read the SUMMARY? I quote: "And these cops would take over the RIAA's War on Sharing by filing civil lawsuits"
What is new about that? Please go look up the civil rights division of the Department of Justice.
About ten years ago I had a Quake site called the Springfield Fragfest. I researched all the cheats, console commands, and server commands, tested them, and wrote descriptions and explanations; my own words. I believe at the time it was the most plagairized piece of work on the internet. As it stands now, the only authorized copy is at archive.org's wayback machine, but Google says there are still quite a few out there (the first two hits are illegal copies).
Your own nation was formed via the violent overthrow of a government, and it guarantees you the right to do the same if your government becomes oppressive. You are ignorant of history and U.S. law.
Crime fighters fight crime. Fire fighters fight fires. What do freedom fighters fight? Wasn't Che Guerra a "freedom fighter", along with Castro?
Hi there. Let me introduce you to the Depart of Justice Civil Rights Division, which pursues civil matters on the behalf of private entities. Please check out the penalties that can be assessed in a DoJ civil rights lawsuit.
Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can file lawsuits on behalf of corporations?
Congress is not filing lawsuits.
If my copyrights are violated, will they sue on my behalf?
No, because they are not filing lawsuits. Copyrights are rights granted by law, just like a number of other rights including civil rights. If someone violates your civil rights, the Department of Justice can and will sue on your behalf.
And note that every slashdot comment is copyrighted by its poster. If this becomes law, we slashdotters should flood the government with infringement suits.
Who has violated your copyright? Explain in detail.
You don't want the RIAA to be able to hire or use MediaSentry to protect their copyrights and you don't want the government to protect anyone's copyrights.
Basically, you want to be able to violate other people's rights(yes, copyrights are in fact rights, granted by law), while simultaneously preventing them from protecting their rights and preventing the government from protecting their rights. All in the name of your non-existent right to "share" files.
You are suggesting that someone apologize for exercising his free speech rights in a post that claims everyone should have unlimited free speech rights.
Slashdot Mirror
The bible has a genology of Jesus all the way back to Adam. If you add up the ages of everyone listed in the genology and subtract that number from the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived, one gets an age for the earth of less than 6000 years. Geology, cosmology, chemsitry, and nuclear physics shows this to be false.
The bible states that the Sun stopped in the sky. There is no other record of this event anywhere else in history. And, as has been demostrated, the Earth goes around the Sun, not the other way around.
There you go. Two instances where the bible is demonstrably false.
You can't understand because you are stupid. Do you remember a statement you made concerning "But if Jesus really did live, die, and live again, that's a pretty strong piece of evidence..."? Well, first we would have to accept that did happen and as there is no evidence of it happening, then it is not evidence of anything at all. It is, however, evidence of argument from belief. Now, would you care to stick to the facts or do you insist on bringing up fictional events that have no evidence.
This is a great example of both a false analogy and genetic fallacy. There is no credible evidence that Jesus as described in the bible existed, while there there is volumes of evidence that George Washington existed. Therefore the analogy is false. The genetic fallacy comes in when you assert that a fictional character is real.
Argument ad populum. Something being popular doesn't not make it true. Just like the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe was false even though most of the world believed it.
Please show the historical records of those apostles. False dilemma: Any or all of the "apostles" could have been "true believers" just like the many other cult members are true believers in things that are patently false and are willing to die for those things. See Heaven's Gate, the Branch Davidians belief that David Koresh was the second coming of Jesus, etc
In other words Argument from half-truth. You want to change the definition of what makes "good evidence" to allow false premises to support your arguments.
In other words, you can't provide any proof for a creator at all, period. You also thin
The only things we can reasonably believe are things that are concrete fact or thing that are based on concrete fact and proven by the scientific method. Everything else is at best questionable and at worst pure drivel.
A supposition is not evidence, therefore this is not evidence. There may have been an historic person name Jesus, born to a Joseph and Mary, but there is no evidence of anyone "living again". Here, let me make it clear for you
Provide any evidence that points to a creator that is not also explained better and with more evidence by evolution.
Provide any evidence that points to a creator and away from evolution.
Every single creationist I have met or interacted with started with the conclusion "There is a creator." and worked backwards from there ignoring evidence to the contrary, ignoring evidence that their creation myth is wrong, ignoring anything and everything that did not fit their conclusion. Many have gone so far as to lie about the facts and redefine words such as "science" and "theory" to bolster their claims.
You say "the evidence can be murky", but I say that your "murky" evidence is not evidence for your argument.
You can say that the statement "is only true of a subset of those who call themselves Creationists", but you would be wrong. One can not be pro-science and believe that there is a creator for whom there is no evidence and that the only record of whom is proven false by science. Either one accepts the conclusions of science or one believes in stories that directly contradict the evidence and conclusions of science.
You can't have it both ways. You can't believe in something that has no evidence for and mounds of evidence against and say you are not anti-science.
Any form of creationism is unscientific specifically because there is no evidence for a creator.
Creationists start with a conclusion and then cherry-pick facts to try to support their conclusion. But, the one fact they can never overcome and always avoid is the lack of evidence for a creator.
As creationist wish to suppress the true science and impose their beliefs as being science based, they are by definition anti-science. The day creationists can provide some evidence of a creator is the day they can claim to be based in science.
Why bother with a torpedo when an accidental collision would probably suffice?
And, seeing as barges don't have engines, cutting the anchor lines would do wonders.
Cruise ships are flagged under a country, generally a country that has a Navy and has a mutual defense treaty with local governments, i.e. the U.S..
Cruise ships mainly carry passengers from major sea faring powers.
Cruise ships tend to travel in waters that are under the protection of some naval force such as the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coastguard, etc.
Pirates don't hit cruise ships because the return is too low and the risk too high. They may get away with a few tens of thousands in money, jewels, etc. but they will become prime targets of the U.S., Canada, Norway, Brittan, China, etc.
That is why pirates hit cargo ships with millions of dollars worth of goods and a small crew. Even if they kill the whole crew, there will be little outcry, as has been demonstrated and they make a huge profit.
No, it determines if she weighs the same as a duck.
"Scientifically rigous" reliable if that test is to be taken over eyewitness testimony. And, that is what actually happens. If a witness looks at a defendant says "That guy did it." and a fingerprint examiner says "No, he didn't" and a DNA expert says "No, he didn't", the defendant is not going to trial. Evidence and test results are hard facts and is acknowledged as being more reliable than witness testimony. The tests must be scientifically rigorous or they are only as good as the memory of eyewitnesses.
Don't be silly. We can't even support the creation of our own political action group. A guy tried, even got the start of it posted here on /. and he also posted the update that he was closing it down for lack of support.
Everyone here was too busy bitching about things to actually support the guy actually trying to change things.
And, what should Google have done with Chrome?
The question is whether you will use Chrome considering how much more information Chrome "phones home"
Right up to when they bust you and take your house, car, etc
Ok, flaimbait boy, you get your wish. I never hacked into anything without permission. Ever. What this jackass did was not white hat, it isn't even grey hat.
I am glad to know you would be perfectly ok if someone broke into your house, wrote down a bunch of personal information about you (like say your SSN, bank account numbers, the contents of your porn drawer), and then mailed you and 35 other people saying how he did it and what info he took. Especially if he is teaching himself to be a locksmith or learning to be an alarm installer.
One must first have show reason to be able to lapse in reason.
The only moron in this conversation is you.
If they were in fact natural rights, it would not have been necessary to enshrine them in law.
Your second and third sentences are irrelevant as one of the first 10 amendments spells out exactly that.
What is new about that? Please go look up the civil rights division of the Department of Justice.
So get to suing or STFU.
Hi there. Let me introduce you to the Depart of Justice Civil Rights Division, which pursues civil matters on the behalf of private entities. Please check out the penalties that can be assessed in a DoJ civil rights lawsuit.
Oh? Then civil rights, which are granted by law, are not rights, they are privileges and can be revoked by Congress at any time.
Should the DOJ be pursuing civil matters on the behalf of private individuals?
Aww, look, the little copyright violators don't like the truth.
Congress is not filing lawsuits.
I invoke Godwin's Law. you loose.
You don't want the RIAA to be able to hire or use MediaSentry to protect their copyrights and you don't want the government to protect anyone's copyrights.
Basically, you want to be able to violate other people's rights(yes, copyrights are in fact rights, granted by law), while simultaneously preventing them from protecting their rights and preventing the government from protecting their rights. All in the name of your non-existent right to "share" files.
Congratulations, you are hypocrites.
Hey, look, yet another biased ignorant post submitted by "I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property" and posted by kdawson.
What a surprise.
You are suggesting that someone apologize for exercising his free speech rights in a post that claims everyone should have unlimited free speech rights.
Can you say irony?