Creationist Quackery, Part 150, 001 : Creationists Say Aliens Don't Exist, So Let's Stop Looking!

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Yesterdays scientific textbooks were changed to today's scientific textbooks and my guess about scientific textbooks will be changed in the future .Now that is just a guess on my part but I will chose to believe it will be so . The bible uses s all forms of literature and is not for the faint of heart or for unbelievers .that is a fact ... a reply to: Krazysh0t

Science updating its information is a GOOD thing. It shows that science is willing to admit when its wrong instead of just changing all of its claims into metaphors. That means that science is more reliable.

The bible doesn't use all forms of literature. For one, I see no satire in it. And I'm not sure what the "not for the faint of heart or unbelievers" means. It isn't scary. It DOES have bad literary techniques in it though, but you can't fault a bunch of illiterate goat herders on their literary composition skills.

As for the unbelievers quip, if that is true, then it is useless. The bible just becomes an echo chamber. If an unbeliever can't read it and become a believer then what use is it? Just a book that reinforces your preconceived beliefs (which you got from the bible). You haven't exactly highlighted GOOD qualities of the bible here.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Phantom423

Could you please provide an example of "circular logic" in a scientific publication? I haven't seen one lately.

How do scientists date fossils? A: By the layer of rock they are found in.

How do scientist date the rock layers? A: By what fossils they contain.

That is an oversimplified to the point of absurdity of the way it is actually done. There are many different dating techniques that independently verify other dating techniques. It isn't a circular pattern of reinforcement. It is a web of reinforcement.

Neither of which is accomplished by burying your (metaphorical your) head in a 2000+ year old book.

a reply to: thov420 It is not a metaphorical book any more than a scientific book using a metaphor to try and convey a message is . The Book makes clear statements that are not metaphorical .Science does the same thing .The big difference you might like to consider is that the Bible is dealing in metaphysics ,spiritual .Trying to convey a message from out side the physical world into it . It's not a big concept to see but it is not a easy reality to understand as well . I used the word quantum only as a reference because it is a scientific word that could be considered a line of investigation for both camps as a starting point . sprite/quantum of sorts . Science also has to determine if they want to maintain the divisions within their own structure . bad scientist do bad work but are still scientist . the good better best and the lesser values or statuses compromise the whole. You can be a armature astronomer who makes many discoveries and a professional one who makes none . Which one is the true astronomer? See the problem ?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I take issue with this. I can point to any number of Christians that will point to any different number of bible passages and call them real or metaphorical. The bible ISN'T very clear as to what is and isn't metaphorical. Though usually the things that defy science tend to get put in the metaphorical camp. Though that doesn't even stop some Christians from taking those passages seriously. So I'm saying you are wrong about that.

The Book makes clear statements that are not metaphorical

Like which statements are clearly NOT metaphorical? Can you list some of them? Creation? Exodus? Flood account? Tower of Babel? Job? Mystical Jesus? Revelation? The laws in Leviticus?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What I said isn't that far off from the truth.

Here

You say you have never seen any satire in it but if you were to read it properly you would .Here I will help you with a story about the god Baul and the challenge where the fire comes down and consumes the offering of the prophet .Just prior to the fire he says well maybe your god is using the bathroom and cant come just yet .He taunts them in a satirical way . There may just be other rhetorical devices you are unaware of .think about that .. a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: the2ofusr1

That isn't satire. That is just arrogant taunting. Do you know what satire even is? It is where you over-exaggerate a problem to the point of absurdity and comedy to make a point about the flaws in a perceived idea or ideology. For satire to exist in the bible, the WHOLE story in question would have to be satirical or at least a good bit of it.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

What you said was completely off. Read your own link thoroughly. As Krazysh0t said, you simplified to the point of absurdity.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What I said isn't that far off from the truth.

Here

What you stated was two lines of text and two forms of dating. The link you provided at the very least breaks dating up into three sections and then goes into further detail about the various different ways it is done within those sections. Your link is COMPLETELY different than what you are saying.

Here are the three sections in the article:

Relative dating to determine the age of rocks and fossils
Determining the numerical age of rocks and fossils
Using paleomagnetism to date rocks and fossils

So without even reading the article you are already wrong.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: NOTurTypical

What you said was completely off. Read your own link thoroughly. As Krazysh0t said, you simplified to the point of absurdity.

I'm not here for, nor do I have to desire to write a massive post. A simple question was asked and a simple answer was given. It's a rough example. Scientists DO use fossils to date rock layers, and scientists DO use rock layers to date fossils. That's not arguable, in fact that is taught in education textbooks the world over. Sure, it's simple, but it's also accurate.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

See above

a reply to: NOTurTypical

But it is wrongly simplified. You can give a simplified account of the way things work to help someone understand it better, as is done in education; but to use that as evidence on why it is wrong is dumb. Simplified accounts AREN'T what the scientists are saying. They are saying the more complicated accounts, so they aren't the same thing and you are wrong for trying to say they are. That is called a straw man.

Well read the story because the priests of Baul throw every device they had in their arsenal .The one bathroom line said it all and was all that was needed to make it great satire .imo a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: the2ofusr1

You miss the point of satire. You are confusing comedy with satire. Satire is a form of comedy. For one, a satirical piece isn't true. Again it is an exaggerated (to the point of absurdity) account of how things really are done to make a point. The exaggeration is forced so that you know that story isn't true. None of that applies to the Bible, even your story, since there are people saying that every word in it is true.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: NOTurTypical

What you said was completely off. Read your own link thoroughly. As Krazysh0t said, you simplified to the point of absurdity.

A simple question was asked and a simple answer was given.

A simple but wrong answer.

It's a rough example.

It's a simplification to the point of absurdity that conveniently left out the important details because either a) you weren't aware of them or b) you were being deceptive.

Scientists DO use fossils to date rock layers, and scientists DO use rock layers to date fossils. That's not arguable, in fact that is taught in education textbooks the world over. Sure, it's simple, but it's also accurate.

See above.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

It is not a metaphorical book any more than a scientific book using a metaphor

I never said it was a metaphorical book, I only used the metaphorical term to separate you personally from a larger group of people.

The Book makes clear statements that are not metaphorical .Science does the same thing .The big difference you might like to consider is that the Bible is dealing in metaphysics ,spiritual .Trying to convey a message from out side the physical world into it . It's not a big concept to see but it is not a easy reality to understand as well .

Any clear non-metaphorical statements you want to share?

I used the word quantum only as a reference because it is a scientific word that could be considered a line of investigation for both camps as a starting point . sprite/quantum of sorts . Science also has to determine if they want to maintain the divisions within their own structure . bad scientist do bad work but are still scientist . the good better best and the lesser values or statuses compromise the whole. You can be a armature astronomer who makes many discoveries and a professional one who makes none . Which one is the true astronomer? See the problem ?

What divisions would that be? Of course bad people can and will do bad science, that is why the peer review system is in place, to verify scientific platforms and make sure the science stands up to scrutiny. No credible scientist will posit a theory or proof and then run/avoid confrontation. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but if I'm wrong about something I am more than willing to reconsider in the face of new evidence.

Well you can define for your self what ever way you want and believe what ever you like and determine for yourself is past satire qualifies in the definition of satire in today's culture . have at it because you can make up your own mind and be convinced what ever way you like . that is a fact . a reply to: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
You say you have never seen any satire in it but if you were to read it properly you would

Are you saying that the bible is satire?

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Well you can define for your self what ever way you want and believe what ever you like and determine for yourself is past satire qualifies in the definition of satire in today's culture . have at it because you can make up your own mind and be convinced what ever way you like . that is a fact . a reply to: Krazysh0t

Except you are confusing sarcasm with satire and trying to pretend like at some point they were the same thing.

I will say this though. I have looked further into this and there does appear to actually be satire in the bible. So I will admit when I am wrong. Your story still isn't satire though. It's about someone being sarcastic. Also, the definition of satire didn't change. It's always been the same.

Well like the incidence in France was a satire magazine they had sarcasm aimed at a particular group but made for another group that would get the humor . Things can make us laugh and it may be one particular element that makes it so . He (the prophet) said it probably to the crowd that was gathered to watch the challenge .They may have gotten a little bored with the whole ordeal and the prophet decided to do a comic routine . Some laughed I am guessing while others were cutting themselves to get their god Baul to answer . a reply to: Krazysh0t