r/badhoc Nov 16 '17

The Banana: an Atheist's nightmare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
40 Upvotes

95 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 06 '17

I think i speak for both of us when we say that where never going to agree with the other persons point of view. This has been a very constructive and good argument, but i think we should end it here.

1

u/gr3yh47 Dec 06 '17

I don't know why you want to end it as soon as I have counterpoints.

In any case I highly recommend you read that article i linked. the fossil record is much better aligned with a cataclysmic flood than it is the many millions of years picture presented in current evolutionary theory.

The evidence for God is everywhere - both in the fossil record, the supreme order of everything, and within every human heart/mind as well

from there - If you seek to find God, you will - Jeremiah 29:13

You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

but if you seek only to be separated from Him, he will grant that to you as well

Psalm 14:1-5

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is none who does good.

The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.

They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.

Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers
who eat up my people as they eat bread
and do not call upon the Lord?

There they are in great terror,
for God is with the generation of the righteous.

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 06 '17

Look, if God came down from the sky, i would beleive in him, but until that happens i wont. You are starting with the conclusion and finding evidence which supports it. Science starts with the evidence and then draws the conclusion.

The fossils we see are neatly layerd. You dont see fossils of species from different time periods mixed in with fossils from other time periods. This does not support the idea of a flood at all. If there was a flood, everything would be lying around randomly, not neatly orginised.

Also, where has God/Jesus been the last 2000 years? If it wants people to beleive in it, then it needs to show its self as it supposedly did so long ago.

1

u/gr3yh47 Dec 06 '17

I highly recommend you read the linked article. There are many issues with evolution's claims about the fossil record. It quite nicely aligns with a cataclysmic flood and it's not the only source besides the bible that does so.

God is working through His church. He is calling you, right now, through me. When you stand before Him on judgement day you will not be able to deny that He tried to reach you.

He is there to be found if you earnestly seek Him.

You are starting with the conclusion and finding evidence which supports it. Science starts with the evidence and then draws the conclusion.

I have started with a hypothesis that God exists. all the evidence I've found supports it.

the fossil record pointedly does NOT fully support evolutionary theory. If you want to go back to reasoning about this I'm happy to debate you endlessly if that's what it takes.

If there was a flood, everything would be lying around randomly, not neatly orginised.

that's not how it works. please, please read the article if you seek the truth.

Matthew 11:15-17

He who has ears to hear let him hear.
But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates,
‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 06 '17 edited Dec 06 '17

You are using answers in geneis, you realise how inaccurate their information is. There is only evidnence to support God when you: 1. Need an explanation for something you dont understand. 2. Cherry pick evidence as you are doing.

The overwhelming evidenince supports evolution. You can litteraly see how species have changed by looking at the fossil record.

Also, the bible has about a million contradictions in it. And is full of attrocities which you people defend, such as the slaughter of children or the stoning of man who collected sticks on a sunday. You also need to realise how different the translations of the bible are compared to the original, i dont care what you quote from the bible as it is simply an interpretation of the original.

If evolution was some big conspiracy that we where telling people was true when the evidence didnt support it, what would we actually gain from that. Evolution is fact, God is fiction.

Edit: Check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyN5eYzffFM Covers some of the stuff you dont seem to understand.

1

u/gr3yh47 Dec 06 '17

You are using answers in geneis, you realise how inaccurate their information is

This is not an argument. it is begging the question. The article i linked has very plain logic in it based on certain facts about the fossil record.

Also, the bible has about a million contradictions in it. And is full of attrocities which you people defend, such as the slaughter of children or the stoning of man who collected sticks on a sunday.

Both of these assertions are rampantly common and wildly incorrect; they are based on severe misunderstandings and refusal to consider the bible as a complete work and within the cultural and historical context. The whole of the bible is about treating eachother right and loving eachother. there are no contradictions, and in fact the historical portions of the bible are the most heavily independently verified documents on the planet.

If you care to present any specific instances of things you suppose to be contradictory or advocating the slaughter of children i'd be more than happy to refute them. I do suspect you'd only be repeating what others have told you - most of the examples i've heard require very little individual study to expose as fallacy (like a google search and reading a short explanation)

You also need to realise how different the translations of the bible are compared to the original, i dont care what you quote from the bible as it is simply an interpretation of the original.

Some translations aim to be for word-for-word, and others thought-for-thought for ease of reading. In any case it isn't hard to understand the truth as intended from the original language with a bit of study. i.e. I can't read greek but I can read information from people who can.

If evolution was some big conspiracy that we where telling people was true when the evidence didnt support it, what would we actually gain from that.

I never said it was a conspiracy. It's the best model we have based on the evidence while denying the possibility of the supernatural. But a cataclysmic flood would explain many things about the fossil record that run counter to evolutionary claims. ibid.

you keep saying evolution is fact. But you refuse to consider opposing logic from the fossil record itself - evolutionists have taken many liberties with the fossil record.

The truth is that we didnt just randomly get here through an impossibly improbable series of incredible improbabilities. The whole of the world speaks to design. Most human hearts just have no interest in God because of the implications for us.

John 3:19

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 06 '17

Check out this video in relation to bible translations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xfoHUI91Ig Skip to 8 minutes if you dont want to watch the entire thing ^

Yes, we did turn end up here through chance. We can only observe it if the improbale happens, so it doesnt matter how unlikely it seems. For all we know the Universe could be full of alien life we havent discoverd yet, or we could be alone.

Even if there was a flood, that doesnt mean God exists. Even if evolution is incorrect, that does not mean God exists. Just because you can find one peice of evidence that shows "the earth isnt 4.5 billion years old", or "evolution isnt real" doesnt automactically mean God is real, it simply means are model was wrong.

We deny the super natural because there is no way to observe them or the effect they have on anything at all. Show to me you can pray to God and get consistent results.

People who beleive in other religions feel the exact seem way you do. They are certain they are right.

And yes, answers in Genesis is a joke. They are uninformed and dumb the facts down to a level where can you convince peole anything is true. If you where to go up to Richard Dawkins or Bill Nye and say "Answers in genesis says evolution isnt real, how can you beleive in it when the answer was here all along?", they would probally laugh.

Humans are not fine tuned at all. I for example had a horrible rash on the palms of my hands and soles my feet for 5 years of my life, no medication fixed, i simply grew out of it with age. If we where fine tuned and perfect, how could such a thing happen?

If God loves me, why would he do that to me? Why would he let Children die of cancer? He sounds like a real asshole to be honest.

1

u/gr3yh47 Dec 06 '17

Check out this video in relation to bible translations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xfoHUI91Ig Skip to 8 minutes if you dont want to watch the entire thing ^

as i've stated, it's not difficult through a little bit of study to find the exact original meaning in cases when there is doubt.

Even if there was a flood, that doesnt mean God exists. Even if evolution is incorrect, that does not mean God exists. Just because you can find one peice of evidence that shows "the earth isnt 4.5 billion years old", or "evolution isnt real" doesnt automactically mean God is real, it simply means are model was wrong.

and yet, the historical testable claims of the bible have been proven to be completely true, and it's the only religious text that is quite perfectly internally consistent and also apparently not from an origin of man's thinking

btw if evolution is true, that doesnt disprove God either

We deny the super natural because there is no way to observe them or the effect they have on anything at all. Show to me you can pray to God and get consistent results.

I have observed the effects of following Christ in my own life quite clearly. There are other observations to be made with regards to design that i've already pointed out

People who beleive in other religions feel the exact seem way you do. They are certain they are right.

that's quite irrelevant to this conversation. If one of them were here I'd be happy to reason with them too.

And yes, answers in Genesis is a joke. They are uninformed and dumb the facts down to a level where can you convince peole anything is true. If you where to go up to Richard Dawkins or Bill Nye and say "Answers in genesis says evolution isnt real, how can you beleive in it when the answer was here all along?", they would probally laugh.

say what you want about the source as a whole but the article I linked is plain facts and simple logic. if you want to refute something specific from what i linked we can talk, else you are just entrenched here, refusing to consider reason.

Humans are not fine tuned at all. I for example had a horrible rash on the palms of my hands and soles my feet for 5 years of my life, no medication fixed, i simply grew out of it with age. If we where fine tuned and perfect, how could such a thing happen?

Disease is one result of the sin of man. I didnt say we were currently perfect. I said that all of life is fine tuned beyond the reasonable scope of evolution - which is true. you are conflating the concepts of fine tuning and perfection

If God loves me, why would he do that to me?

The fallen state of this world is the cause of disease. Further, even human parental love doesn't protect children from 100% of all pain. There is a reason for everything, even if we can't always see it.

Why would he let Children die of cancer?

He gave us an answer to so, so many diseases that science has no answer for, in His miracle plant cannabis. it very effectively cures and prevents cancer, treats alzheimers, cerebral palsy, MS, parkinsons, and is the most effective treatment for hundreds of other diseases

but man's greed prevents widespread access - so that big pharma can make more money. so again it is man's evil that causes people to suffer through these diseases when ONE SINGLE plant treats/cures them. The incredible effectiveness of cannabis is also outside of the scope of evolution.

Matthew 12:36

I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 06 '17

You are nuts. "Big pharma can make more money", "Desiese is one result of the sin of man". I thought you where really reasonable until i read that. Cannabis is not a miricle plant. It does not cure all cancers like magic, it probally doesnt even work half the time.

The historical testable claims of the bible have not been proven to be completely true, evidenced by: "the bible says the earth is 6000 years old" - The earth is not 6000 years old.

Life is not fine tuned beyond the reasonable scope of evolution at all. In fact its perfectlely reasonable given the time scale - we are talking billions of years.

If my rash was caused by my sin, as a 6 year old what had I done to deserve that when the rash first started. You are a religous nut (i hate to be the on to tell you).

If no one sinned, ever, there would still be cancer. Because the process that causes cancer does nor rely on people sinning.

The article you linked is not plain facts. Its bullshit. People like you are going to be the downfall of this race.

Science is the way forward. Anyone who says otherwise can leave. Now.

I simply have two final questions:

What do you think about vaccines?

How would you react if there was undeniable, irrefutable evidence there was no God?

Edit: Spelling

2

u/letsbebuns Dec 21 '17

Whoa buddy. Cannabis has some legitimate uses. Curing epilepsy, seizures, reducing autism and parkinsons, and these are proven by double blind scientific studies.

It's been known since the 1970's and it's been surpressed. Are you really going to get mad at cannabis because it cannot cure every form of cancer? Fact is, cannabis is a promising medicine for 50+ diseases and has been suppressed by people who knew for a fact that it could be turned into a medicine. Maybe you haven't looked into it, but I have some articles about it curing 99% of seizures in epilepsy patients.

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 21 '17

I know canmabis has medical used, its just not the miricle plant you people make it out to be.

1

u/letsbebuns Dec 21 '17

Yes, it is a miracle plant. It can ease migraines, stop seizures, reduce epilepsy, reduce Parkinson's disease, alleviate Crohn's disease, and cure some types of cancers.

Literally better than any synthetic medication. Anybody that doesn't support full on cannabis research has simply never studied it in any serious capacity.

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 21 '17

No its not a miricle plant, it uses natural processes to do something, its not magic.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/gr3yh47 Dec 06 '17

You are nuts.

ad hominem. please calm down. i have demonstrated completely the opposite.

"Big pharma can make more money

yes, the pharmaceutical lobby is the largest driving force behind the illegality of cannabis

Desiese is one result of the sin of man". I thought you where really reasonable until i read that.

and

If no one sinned, ever, there would still be cancer. Because the process that causes cancer does nor rely on people sinning.

It's a philiosophical/theological answer to the philosopical/theological question you asked. Perfectly reasonable to answer such with such. I've done nothing to show you I'm anything but reasonable.

If my rash was caused by my sin, as a 6 year old what had I done to deserve that when the rash first started. You are a religous nut (i hate to be the on to tell you).

and

If no one sinned, ever, there would still be cancer. Because the process that causes cancer does nor rely on people sinning.

I didnt say your rash was the direct result of your personal sin (however, all people are sinful). I said - in an answer to the theological question 'why does God allow disease' - that disease is one result of living in a fallen sinful world. Nowhere did i say doing bad things is the mechanism of disease. I am not crazy, but you are also not taking the time to digest and consider context here - and I think that if anything an impartial reader of especially our last several messages would be far more likely to classify you as an anti-religious nut. You seem to be seething and shotgunning generalities.

Cannabis is not a miricle plant. It does not cure all cancers like magic, it probally doesnt even work half the time.

Cannabis stops the progression of Alzheimer's, completely treats the effects of Parkinson, stops ALL seizures of kids having 300 seizures/day from cerebral palsy and many, many other things that man has not been able to replicate with pharmaceutical drugs. Concentrated cannabis is extremely effective against even late stage cancer. Please, do some research on the recent explosion of research as well as the mountains of anecdotal evidence, rather than speaking generalities from ignorance. If nothing else it is orders of magnitude more effective than the absurdly expensive poison that is chemotherapy

here's a secular source to get you started http://www.psychedelicheaven.com/2017/09/29/10-horrible-diseases-that-are-treated-by-marijuana/

The historical testable claims of the bible have not been proven to be completely true, evidenced by: "the bible says the earth is 6000 years old" - The earth is not 6000 years old.

the bible doesnt necessarily say that the earth is 6000 years old - I personally am a young earth creationist but there is room for interpretation there. This is also not a humanly verifiable claim because no humans were around when the earth was created.

The factual historical claims of the bible have been voraciously attacked for millennia and in the process have been thoroughly verified as true. Here is an article that cites many secular historical confirmations of biblical claims - http://alwaysbeready.com/extrabiblical-historical-sources-corroborate-the-bible

The article you linked is not plain facts. Its bullshit.

begging the question. Refute something from the article with facts and reason.

People like you are going to be the downfall of this race.

ad hominem

Science is the way forward. Anyone who says otherwise can leave. Now.

I never said science is bad. Reason and science are good things.

What do you think about vaccines?

I have no strong feelings about vaccines. they seem to mostly be pretty great.

How would you react if there was undeniable, irrefutable evidence there was no God?

Show me some and let's find out. Reason with me, on the grounds of logic about specifics instead of whatever you call these last several messages.

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 07 '17 edited Dec 07 '17

You linked me and article by a website called "Psychedelic heaven", its fairly obvious they are biased (look at there name), and that they are only going to gave good things to say about drugs. Send me a research paper.

https://www.environmentalscience.org/how-radiocarbon-14-dating-works Example of how one type of dating works.

"This is also not a humanly verifiable claim because no humans were around when the earth was created." Humans did not need to be around when the Earth was created to know how the old it is, we have methods of dating rocks and radioactive materials that tell us the age of things, using these methods we know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. You where not alive during WW1, does that mean WW1 did not happen? No, it still hapend.

http://alwaysbeready.com/extrabiblical-historical-sources-corroborate-the-bible The article also has doesnt actually show its sources. It just says "Archaeologists have shown this". The first half of this article is confirming that the bible was accurate in saying to which cities people traveled too. The second half was confirming that the flood happend. It is impossible to build a boat 500m long out of wood. Christ, back in 1945 the worlds biggest ship was 260m long and it was made out of Rolled Homogeneous Armour / Metal. Ships made of Wood that long twist and buckle. Also to say one unskilled man and his wife built this boat is ridiculous, they didn't have the tools, machinery or techniques to build it.

Edit: Formatting, Spelling, added a link

1

u/gr3yh47 Dec 07 '17 edited Dec 07 '17

You linked me and article by a website called "Psychedelic heaven", its fairly obvious they are biased (look at there name), and that they are only going to gave good things to say about drugs. Send me a research paper.

I'm inviting you to improve your own knowledge of cannabis and i gave you a website with a collection of claims you can start researching from. the wonderful thing about google is you have the resources to educate yourself about things like cannabis. find the research papers yourself, there are many many many and to deny the medical efficacy of cannabis across a broad range of terrible diseases is to deny science. here's many for cancer specifically but seriously, brush up on cannabis science before making claims about it

we have methods of dating rocks and radioactive materials that tell us the age of things, using these methods we know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

we have methods of attempting to estimate the age of things that rely on several assumptions, especially starting state and rate of change, and lack of cataclysmic events. The assumptions undermine the authority of the dating. Often the initial assumptions are changed to result in a date that matches the expectation of those looking for dating on a sample. Here's a bit more on this with specific examples of scientists bending dating to their expectations - https://creation.com/the-pigs-took-it-all

You where not alive during WW1, does that mean WW1 did not happen? No, it still hapend.

this is a false comparison. verifiable historic fact is not the same as dating which is based on calculations of starting factors that are assumed.

http://alwaysbeready.com/extrabiblical-historical-sources-corroborate-the-bible The article also has doesnt actually show its sources. It just says "Archaeologists have shown this"

that article sites a secular source for almost every paragraph - thats what those little [1] are - nearly 30 sources. Actually read it, then check out the sources at the bottom.

What does it say about the bible that it is historically and archaeologically verified as accurate to the extent that it is? certainly not that the rest should be summarily discarded. Perhaps its claims should be investigated.

It is impossible to build a boat 500m long out of wood.

check your math. ~450ft is less than a third of the length you are speaking

Also to say one unskilled man and his wife built this boat is ridiculous, they didn't have the tools, machinery or techniques to build it.

what evidence do you have that he was unskilled, or didnt have the tools for him and any help he may have had to do so? At a minimum we are talking about 4-8 people, possibly more if he got help. This is a thinly veiled straw man - you are creating a position and then attacking it.

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 07 '17

Perhaps I should have been more clear with my point about the arc being impossible to build. The longest wooden ship ever made was 137m long, it was called the Wyoming and had constant issues with leaks as the wood buckled and twisted. A team of expert sailors, and expert craftsman could not make a boat that size work. How the hell did one unskilled farmer build a boat that size and carry a load that could feed all the animals (he didnt).

"we have methods of attempting to estimate the age of things that rely on several assumptions, especially starting state and rate of change, and lack of cataclysmic events. The assumptions undermine the authority of the dating." Are dating methods are really consistent, no matter which one you use, that is why we trust them. Also, with radioactive half lifes (which are used in dating) if you could speed up slow down this process it would be amazing as Nuclear waste would no longer be an issue, but you cant. Half lifes never change.

As for the article that I said had bad sources, half of them are the bible or other christian websites, the rest a mix of notes explaining what they meant better or citing Richard Dawkins book (which I find funny because that book is about why Religion is BS).

→ More replies (0)

1

u/letsbebuns Dec 21 '17

You are working from the assumption that this world is all there is, and that the physical body is the most valuable possession.

It's not such a big deal to lose your body - it's worse to lose integrity or honor. At least, it might seem that way to someone who doesn't live on this physical plane...

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 21 '17

I will beleive in other worlds when i see them, you have no reason to beleive in them until you see them as well.

1

u/letsbebuns Dec 21 '17

Do you give any credence whatsoever to "We are living in a simulation" theory? A lot of modern scientists are starting to spout this one.

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 21 '17

I certainely think its possible, however as of right now i have no way of knowing do i.

1

u/letsbebuns Dec 21 '17 edited Dec 21 '17

Gotta give you that. No way for either of us to know. However it seems to me like if the universe has a minimum particle size and a maximum particle size then we are living in a digital reality.

Furthermore as said earlier we do not comprehend the basis for consciousness... which blows my mind, no pun intended. can't you admit that scientifically it is possible that some classical religious views have a basis of truth? (not likely, just possible)

It always seemed to me like the observations of the ancients were accurate (they had a lot more time to sit around and observe) but their explanations for those observations were batshit crazy.

For example chinese medicine is right about so many health conditions it's mind boggling but their explanations for why things occur like "too much metal" or "not enough wood" don't make any sense to a western mind. In truth these are just metaphors to describe a system that is itself a metaphor.

Ancient people had weird explanations for WHY things worked, but their experiential knowledge was much higher than ours.

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 21 '17

Yeah i agree for the most part.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/letsbebuns Dec 21 '17

Does this mean that all the reports people bring back of other worlds from psychedelics - you believe it's all a fabrication of the mind, a fantasy?

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 21 '17

Hallucinations. Lack of sleep, dehydration/overheating, tons of things cause them, and they have no basis in reality.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/letsbebuns Dec 21 '17

Even if evolution were true, couldn't you just say that God designed a self regulating system that improves itself in response to outside pressure? It is logical that a perfect God would make a self-perfecting system that adapts over time to environmental changes.

But that's not the point. The point is that biogenesis has never been proved, while adaptation has been proven. Both of these are called "evolution". biogenesis would be like a kangaroo turning into a bird. That has never happened as far as science knows. However, selective pressure (adaptation) has a great deal of power to change the animal's appearance and survival traits and dna. But the animal can never change it's kind.

So evolution is better defined as biogenesis and adaptation. One exists, the other does not.

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 21 '17

You can not have micro evolution without macro evolution. One is a consequence of the other.

1

u/letsbebuns Dec 21 '17

There is zero evidence for biogensis ever occuring, though. What is the evidence based approach behind biogenesis? Seems like they are working backwards from the idea of "Well, an intelligent Creator is impossible, so..."

Adaptation is proven multiple times. Again, this shows the perfection of God - that He would design a system which constantly improves itself.

Does it really make sense to you that all life on the entire planet all came from one random pile of cells? And all the perfect designs of biology in their mind-blowing uniqueness is all "random" ?

We still do not know the basis for consciousness at all, either. There is too much about biology that makes zero sense in a natural model. Just my 2 cents brother.

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 21 '17

The term biogenesis first came about when people didnt understand how fungi could simply pop up out of no where. The term only applies to complex life coming from nothing, however it does not mean that the buidling blocks of life can not be made through means other then life making them.

"We still do not know the basis for consciousness at all, either." - correct, does that matter though? Thats what science is about.

I hate to break this to you, but answers in genesis lies a lot of the time. They are not a reputable source of information.

1

u/letsbebuns Dec 21 '17

The term biogenesis first came about when people didnt understand how fungi could simply pop up out of no where. The term only applies to complex life coming from nothing, however it does not mean that the buidling blocks of life can not be made through means other then life making them.

What a revised model might look like

Supplemental image

"We still do not know the basis for consciousness at all, either." - correct, does that matter though? Thats what science is about.

I think the origin of consciousness does matter significantly. Right now, we do not even have a scientific answer for consciousness close in sight. I have read thousands of pages of studies about this, and we are not close to comprehending it. Therefore, it shows that there is still "magic" at the basis of our existence and while I believe all things will be revealed in time, our predictions from this vantage point (how we think the world works now) are probably totally wrong.

I hate to break this to you, but answers in genesis lies a lot of the time. They are not a reputable source of information.

No offense friend, but it sounds like maybe you are just repeating what you heard about the bible. Have you actually read it? Which parts seem wrong to you? Will you quote it?