The Evolutionists' Fundamentalist Preacher

[cybercoma]

betsy said something I found amusing... she said we're discussing "the theory of ID vs the theory of evolution".

Well, betsy.... ID is not a theory, but a hypothesis that is untestable, unverifiable, unchangeable and therefore bunk. A theory is something that has been tested, held up to scrutiny, and has repeatable results, otherwise the theory is modified or scrapped for something better.

Calling ID a theory doesn't make it so. I have a "theory" about a Flying Spaghetti Monster that created the universe. Calling it a theory doesn't actually make it one.

[benny]

betsy said something I found amusing... she said we're discussing "the theory of ID vs the theory of evolution".

Well, betsy.... ID is not a theory, but a hypothesis that is untestable, unverifiable, unchangeable and therefore bunk. A theory is something that has been tested, held up to scrutiny, and has repeatable results, otherwise the theory is modified or scrapped for something better.

Calling ID a theory doesn't make it so. I have a "theory" about a Flying Spaghetti Monster that created the universe. Calling it a theory doesn't actually make it one.

The word "theory" comes from Theoria, the Greek word for contemplation or "the perception of beauty regarded as a moral faculty".

[WIP]

Oh boy, here comes the archeologist in you...dig, dig,dig, dig all those dirt!

You sound like a broken record already.

So the "Christian settlers" had some blemish. Did that have anything to do with our discussion???

Yes, slavery and Indian wars were quite a blemish! And they should be added in whenever attempts like these are made to mythologize history. The rightwing propaganda you've absorbed about our Christian forefathers ignores the reality that Christian values of two hundred or three hundred years ago were not quite the same values that televangelists talk about today!

We're still stuck with the same law, aren't we? It's still a crime to kill, to steal, commit perjury, and to swindle your neighbor!

And exactly how do you classify those rules as "Christian," when they are found in modern and primitive societies around the world, and throughout history? These rules are based on principles that are part of human nature and the fact that they are found in unchristian societies, led Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church to dig up Aristotle's theory of Natural Law, to explain why the heathen could have very similar ethical rules as Christians without first learning about the superior Christian system.

[WIP]

Huh? Half of the 10 commandments are centred around an insecure god making sure no one dares date any other gods. If our legal system were really based on christianity, blasphemy would certainly have been made a crime.

Blasphemy, worshipping other gods, breaking the sabbath, would all be crimes -- punished by public stoning, as would dishonouring ones father and mother. Actually, all of the ten commandment rules would have carried a death sentence, except maybe for stealing.

Anyways, it's an archaic law code, likely borrowed from the Sumerian priest/king Hammurabi's code of laws. Most of the fundamentalist Christians who claim that our laws come from the ten commandments, can't even name off the first two. A little while back, Stephen Colbert punked a Republican congressman who sponsored legislation to display the 10 commandments in the Capitol Building.....and like most great advocates for the Ten Commandments, he couldn't name more than two of them! http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/17/ten-c...dments-con.html

[WIP]

Hah! I'll put my response where it's appropriate.....if I'll respond at all. :angry:

You're losing your coooooool.

I'll assume you won't respond at all, and instead, start another brushfire creationist thread!

[benny]

Blasphemy, worshipping other gods, breaking the sabbath, would all be crimes -- punished by public stoning, as would dishonouring ones father and mother. Actually, all of the ten commandment rules would have carried a death sentence, except maybe for stealing.

Anyways, it's an archaic law code, likely borrowed from the Sumerian priest/king Hammurabi's code of laws. Most of the fundamentalist Christians who claim that our laws come from the ten commandments, can't even name off the first two. A little while back, Stephen Colbert punked a Republican congressman who sponsored legislation to display the 10 commandments in the Capitol Building.....and like most great advocates for the Ten Commandments, he couldn't name more than two of them! http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/17/ten-c...dments-con.html

I find amusing that those who laugh at religion cannot imagine a more evolve future civilization that will laugh at science.

[GostHacked]

I find amusing that those who laugh at religion cannot imagine a more evolve future civilization that will laugh at science.

Be vary carefull when using the term EVOLVE. You might get laughed at. And when you understand the difference between science and religion, then we can have a good debate. I beg you .. no challenge you to understand the difference.

But I expect more one-liners that mean absolutely nothing.

Cybercoma

Calling ID a theory doesn't make it so. I have a "theory" about a Flying Spaghetti Monster that created the universe. Calling it a theory doesn't actually make it one.

I have been touched by his noodley appendages !!!!! I have been saved.

http://blogs.the-haleys.org/media/1/200510...ieve400x330.jpg

[DogOnPorch]

I have been touched by his noodley appendages !!!!! I have been saved.

http://blogs.the-haleys.org/media/1/200510...ieve400x330.jpg

[WIP]

I find amusing that those who laugh at religion cannot imagine a more evolve future civilization that will laugh at science.

Of course you do, since you want to live in your own little relativistic world where you can make up any bullshit and call it truth.

[Oleg Bach]

Of course you do, since you want to live in your own little relativistic world where you can make up any bullshit and call it truth.

Years ago - I made up the law of gravity...and called it truth or law...I also decided that we revolved around the sun - and I made that bit of bullshit a truth also - the point being - what is science today - will be sillyness and an untruth in 500 years - even the law of gravity which is not fully defined as yet will be something else in the future.. Learning goes on eternally - we like to pigeon hole and classify - in order to feel secure and powerful in our knowledge...institutionalization within religion or science brings learning to a hault..the very nature of knowledge is the total lack of it in the end... Wonder what the newly out fitted Huble telescope will reveal - even more I am sure....myth and science and religion are pretty much the same...one is not as important or true than the next.

[benny]

Be vary carefull when using the term EVOLVE. You might get laughed at. And when you understand the difference between science and religion, then we can have a good debate. I beg you .. no challenge you to understand the difference.

Where there is no difference, there is no debate.

[GostHacked]

Where there is no difference, there is no debate.

I called it with the one liner WIP .... more facepalm??

[benny]

I called it with the one liner WIP .... more facepalm??

Time matters.

[cybercoma]

It's still a crime to kill, to steal, commit perjury, and to swindle your neighbor!

Hammurabi. Edited May 13, 2009 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

borrowed from the Sumerian priest/king Hammurabi's code of laws.

Beat me to it.

[benny]

Beat me to it.

Fundamentalism is sticking to the code (genetic, legal, etc.).

[GostHacked]

Time matters.

Alright, you will be the third person I ever put on ignore.

Time not important. Life important.

I can play this game as well, but it is counterproductive. Kind of like religion.

[benny]

Alright, you will be the third person I ever put on ignore.

Time not important. Life important.

I can play this game as well, but it is counterproductive. Kind of like religion.

So long!

[cybercoma]

Fundamentalism is sticking to the code (genetic, legal, etc.).

Fundamentalism is refusing to stick to the codes (genetic, legal, etc.).

[benny]

Fundamentalism is refusing to stick to the codes (genetic, legal, etc.).

A literal interpretation of a (sacred) text is stickiness towards its written code.

[betsy]

Anyways, it's an archaic law code, likely borrowed from the Sumerian priest/king Hammurabi's code of laws.

Are we extrapolating?

Edited May 14, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

Hey Benny, I'm a little lost with this fellow Cybercoma.

Isn't he a hardcore Atheist? Detests religion and doesn't believe in God or a god?

Yet twice now I've seen him refer to the word HAMURABI.

He wields it about as an unquestionable one-word answer! Like this:

Hammurabi.

Well, according to Wiki....

A carving at the top of the stele portrays Hammurabi receiving the laws from the god Shamash, and the preface states that Hammurabi was chosen by the gods of his people to bring the laws to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi

Edited May 14, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

Hey Benny, I'm a little lost with this fellow Cybercoma.

Isn't he a hardcore Atheist? Detests religion and doesn't believe in God or a god?

Yet twice now I've seen him refer to the word HAMURABI.

He wields it about as an unquestionable one-word answer! Like this:

Hammurabi.

So I was curious to know who this god of Hamurabi is:

"Shamash was the common Akkadian name of the sun god and god of justice in Babylonia and Assyria, corresponding to Sumerian Utu.

The Sumerians practiced a polytheistic religion, with anthropomorphic gods or goddesses representing forces or presences in the world, in much the same way as later Greek mythology. According to said mythology, the gods originally created humans as servants for themselves but freed them when they became too much to handle."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamash

Well....well.....this is intriguing! Sounds more like another type of Creationism!

Involving not one...or two....but several gods and goddesses!

Let me try my hand at extrapolation....ala-evolutionist scientist:

Cybercoma gave HAMURABI as a one-word answer. Twice, in fact. According to their "scriptures" Hamurabi worshipped the god Shamash. Shamash corresponds to the Sumerians' belief in gods, and that gods originally created humans.

Therefore, it is very likely...and it seems like....that after all the twisting and shoutings, Cybercoma is just another type of Creationist. Of course, I'm advancing that as a fact!

Edited May 14, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

Any way here's an excerpt from The California Institute for Ancient Studies:

"There has been a great deal of divergence of opinion over the years as to the date to be assigned to Hammurabi, so much so that Courville, who radically revised Hammurabi down to c. 1400 BC, wrote in 1971 of Hammurabi as "floating about in a liquid chronology of Chaldea" [20]. According to Kevin Knight in his New Advent offline article, entitled "Hammurabi".[25]:

The King-lists would suggest 2342 B.C. as the date of [Hammurabi's] accession; but it is now commonly believed that these lists need to be interpreted, for from the "Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings", published by L. W. King (1907), it appears that the first and second Babylonian dynasties were not successive, but in part contemporary; the first kings of the second dynasty (that of Shesh-ha) ruled not at Babylon, but on "the Sea-country". Other indications furnished by Nabonidus, Assurbanipal, and Berosus lead us to lower the above date. Thureau-Daugin and Ungnad place the reign of Hammurabi between 2130 and 2088 B.C.; Tofteen adopts the dates 2121-2066 B.C.; King suggests 1990-1950 B.C.; Father Scheil, O.P., says 2056 B.C. is the probable date of the king's accession, which Father Dhorme places in 2041. [End of quote]

In other words, the conventional chronologists have really had no idea in which era to place the great Hammurabi."

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/hammurabi.html

Anyway, back to the topic.

Edited May 14, 2009 by betsy

[benny]

"Creation" is only a word to start with; all words written or oral are symbols; a symbol is a presence made of absence.

Edited May 14, 2009 by benny