Profesco

You're still alive?

Thanks Profesco it's good to see you man

You teach science now? I may need your help to take down a monster this big. The stupid is strong with this one.

It's okay, Profesco. I'm here for you. We can weep for the future together.

Thank you for the advice; I guess I took the blerb "Come here to discuss current events in Movies, Television, and music!" too literally. It didn't mention books so I never clicked it. Maybe they should add books to the description.

One more thing and I'm out of your hair. A while back I started a thread about giving Kanto region (specifically mentioned in Godzilla) TOHO monsters Pokemon types for fun (example Godzilla = water/dragon). The Mods of General Pokemon said that it didn't belong there because TOHO monsters are not Pokemon, and the Misc General Mods said it didn't belong there because Pokemon types are Pokemon and not Misc. Is there a forum for orphan threads that have no place?

"The Time Ships" by Stephen Baxter is particularly epic, and for once the word "epic" is used properly. Also, I know that this is a bit off topic (but not far) I also would like to recommend S. M. Stirling's excellent sequels to Terminator 2: Infiltrator, Rising Storm, and The Future War. Both writers have done well in the Science Fiction genres. Stirling writes alternate history, and Baxter writes space epics.

Do you have any idea as to why the moderator thought that it was impossible to have a conversation about book? I was a little bit confused when the thread was closed almost as soon as I posted it without giving it a chance.

Thanks for introducing Patheos in the "Let's tax churches" topic. There are a lot of really decent pieces on that site. I've been reading through it for most of the night.

My post was based on a comparison of statements from one of his books that I have. At some points, the game-plan he expresses is consistent with, well, standard debating practice. At others, it isn't.

Oh, man, Hagee's argument is, if you will pardon the odd mix of net slang and odd science metaphor, facepalm at or near the speed of light. That Jesus mentioned strange weather patterns is uncontroversial (well, unless you're a member of the ultra-radical Jesus Seminar, who seem genuinely embarrassed by the apocalyptic side of the historical Jesus, but that's another story...). However, such a statement is not near specific enough. Namely, it is one thing to argue that the end times are associated with certain meteorological phenomena. But arguing the other way around is, at the very least, more difficult. And the reference to God being true but every man a liar is hilarious! That might just warrant an inclusion in a top 100 list of worst-interpreted passages, as it could kinda call into question, like, oh, I don't know...everything people say?! This one, however, is very interesting for accepting the climate change now and disputing its human contribution instead of saying God will cause warming later (as the previous link).

Oh, yes. I am aware of the different emphasis on reasons for modesty. The usual emphasis I see in my own subculture tends to emphasize protection for both sexes, not just females. It was precisely that you were in any way advocating modesty that was surprising. I mean, when some popular, pro-freedom type arguments seem to contain an undercurrent of positively encouraging females to use outfits as a means of manipulating males, it is highly unusual to see someone saying what you did. (Just a caution, one of your later posts on that topic may have cast the net a bit too wide.)

I'll try to PM you tomorrow. But for now, I have an entirely unrelated question: Who is responsible for the tags on patheos?

I meant to say this before, but this was what I posted in the Christian club literally right as the debate was starting. Soon, I'll say more on your excellent point about the human capacity for discovery. Not sure how soon I'll get to the link on fetal personhood.

However, I should clarify something I said before that could easily have given several different wrong impressions. It definitely could have seemed rude not to give any kind of reason why I didn't watch the Youtube video you linked, especially when the annoying load times on this computer were forefront in my mind. Also, it occurred to me that the phrase "false prophet" was not well-defined enough to leave it at that. And while I might sensibly be uninterested in the opinions of a dude who actually has supernatural powers but uses them to mislead (not inform), that wasn't what I meant. I just should have said "someone who claims to be a prophet, but has predicted things which clearly did not come to pass." That said, did he make an argument and can it be summarized without doing it injustice?

Oh, and here's another thing I meant to tell you sooner...


----------
Rodney Dangerfield is among my comic influences.
----------

----------
Man, I do wish they'd forgone the minishorts. Any young women playing Pokemon don't need the encouragement to wear underwear on the outside and pretend they're legitimate pants.
----------
The former means you might get along well with my dad, while the latter indicates you might get along well with my mom!

On the latter, I'm really glad you said what you did. But it really did surprise me, since I had heard similar things (not about Pokémon) from conservative Christians.



Anyway, on a different note entirely, do you mind if I PM you with several favors I'd like to ask? (The PM will probably also contain a few fun things I've been meaning to tell you.)

As far as Ken Ham is concerned, it is quite the opposite. I can take no offense because I, too, believe he deserves sharp rebuke, some of it from a distinctly theological angle. Let me be even clearer: Though I believe Ham will be in heaven one day, I believe his Lord will tell him that some of his words/deeds are not worthy of eternal rewards. I probably should have watched the debate, because I suspected how it would go.

And I got much more than a chuckle out of it! I am almost certain there was a Youngster in one iteration of Brock's gym who said roughly same thing. I wanted to say, "So Ken Ham is taking cues from Pokémon NPCs?" Sadly, I did not find the quote, despite looking in my games and looking on Bulbapedia. Ham's argument is common to scientific creationism; I think Henry Morris even suggested that all the photons from all the distant stars could have been just flat-out created so as to be "in transit" (my words) every step of the way from there to here. This would fall under a category that scientific creationists call "creation with apparent age" (pretty sure that's it).

I don't know how to explain my view about that briefly. Suffice it to say, it's a weird position to take due to several combined factors.

BTW, I didn't actually watch the YouTube video, but if Hagee is the guy my pastor has mentioned several times (or is related to him), we are discussing an actual false prophet.

Another BTW: my cat made me spill water near the computer while I was typing this VM. I would have been done like 45 minutes sooner. Am also frustrated.

Third BTW: Usually, cold symptoms drag on for me long after I'm done. While it wasn't my quickest recovery, it may have been one of the times when symptoms disappeared quickest afterwards!

Hmm...I meant to respond sooner, but I got caught up in a bunch of trading, some 4th-gen battling, and a bit of last-minute cloning....And I caught a cold.

The anti-climate change article was interesting because I initially missed his angle and was going to chalk it up to political and religious opportunism. But he did make the argument that the Bible attributes end-times environmental disasters to God's actions rather than man's. But this is somewhat specious, given two facts: (1) The one particular judgment whereby "men were scorched with great heat" (Revelation 16:9) doesn't simultaneously add anything like "but the heat had been totally normal and unaffected by human action for a long time before that." (2) Some of God's judgments in Revelation definitely involve human action (as the Antichrist himself is counted as a judgment), and there are even some hints that some human evils perpetrated during the end are directed against the environment.

Coyne may have seen more people using such arguments against anthropogenic global warming, but it is still rare. Some of the Catholics on Fox News (or anywhere else) would laugh outright at such a treatment of end-time prophecy, though this may have to do with a generally poor approach to Jewish apocalypticism, even of the type that Jesus preached.

I plan on responding to the thing about Ken Ham soon.

Please read previous VM first!

And your point about sacrifices is important. I thought I made it clear that the evidence wouldn't be sufficient by emphasizing that it's not proof, but I still probably should have worded it differently. Maybe it'd be better to say that Christian theology would not give the same explanation for "no results" of modern sacrifices in the Hebrew tradition.


BTW, while searching for news articles that had to do with the Big Bang, I found one entirely unrelated that I felt was worth sharing. It said some things along the lines of what I'd been thinking myself, things that people against GMO foods need to know. Some have argued that GMO foods cause this or that negative condition. However, this fails to note that not all of the genetic modifications are the same--it is literally impossible for them all to cause the same thing. In other words, it seems not enough of the people who oppose GMO foods can point to specific genetic alterations and the precise harmful effects of consuming this or that particular GMO food.

This helps explain why I avoid the ambiguity of the phrase "fundamental problem of..."; I'd say there is a "fundamental problem with" many anti-GMO food arguments. I will probably refer to this distinction again, so I hope that helps explain.

My memory is one of my better faculties. Except when it's not. Like now. Don't know why it's been so hard to get my brain in gear for remembering what sort of careless claims I was thinking about from scientific creationists. Anyway, yes, the age of the universe is a prime point of contention for them, though I think I've heard of an odd few who hold to an old universe. Most don't. One Sunday night, our church viewed a creation science DVD on cosmology, and it volunteered quite frankly that there are stars that are billions of lightyears from Earth. It proceeded to offer some explanations--bizarre combinations of scientific-sounding words. It had previously dismissed some old-universe explanations for certain anomalies as "speculative." Though my pastor thoroughly believes in a young universe, he actually expressed skepticism about these particular young-universe explanation, and I think he used the same word--speculative. It's a step in the right direction and I wish more would take it.

But that doesn't even encompass all of the opposition to the Big Bang. Some of it is related to the mere use of the word "evolution" regarding the cosmos. Apparently there are a few people who connect the cosmological and biological senses of this word, but it is an error for them to treat this as ubiquitous. Another odd trend is that some scientific creationists take statements of some scientists and science popularizers as representing the consensus, what the Big Bang means. This results in statements like "How can an explosion of nothing cause everything to come into existence?" The problem being that plenty of scientists do not state that the Big Bang actually generated the mass-energy of the universe.

Thank you! That's probably the most humorous compliment I've gotten for a while!

A few more clarifications regarding sacrifices are necessary, since I probably reduced it too far in my initial comment on Coyne: I'm aware of no Christian denominations that do them (due to the aforementioned technicality), and I can't even say I know of any Jewish groups that still do them (although it is probable that a few do, given that they don't accept a such a thoroughly Christian technicality). I would also say that if there are Hebrews who still do sacrifices, a lack of results could even be interpreted as evidence for the truth of the Christian technicality you mentioned (evidence, not proof). I could go on about how few if any people worship the Graeco-Roman deities anymore and how this causes any experiment to fail to control for the theoretical possibility of their existence, but the doubts you expressed indicate that this sub-conversation has been highly useful.

I'll have to wait to discuss the other topic, as I can't organize my thoughts at the moment, and I really need to get to bed.

There is a technicality regarding sacrifices, one of which you are already aware. The same technicality applies to the issue of more general divine favor in the Hebrew Scriptures. (This is quite apart from the fact that they are very hard to understand on that point; some things seem to indicate the righteous will be blessed materially and not suffer while there are Psalms asking why the righteous suffer.) And just to be clear, I'm not saying, "They all believed everything that Christians believe, they just looked to it in the future whereas we believe the Messiah has already come." But the concept of a resurrection at the end of time was well entrenched (if not understood as "heaven" exactly). Apart from that, I realized that Graeco-Roman religion at times probably advertised sacrifices as a catch all--you know, promote blessings, ward off pestilence. And that actually brings up two more issues, namely to whom the sacrifice is directed and the sincerity of the sacrificer--not easily replicated in the lab, to say the least.

Yes, his point about cosmology was certainly closer, so perhaps I was off to describe it as error, even if I'm not sure how I would classify it. I'm planning to write about some careless statements from scientific creationism regarding the Big Bang. I even have a short devotional by (I think) Henry Morris including statements similar to ones you made...but he still harshly rejects it! It is as though he failed to understand the very words he wrote--ominous, really. Just to be clear, I really like what you wrote on the Big Bang. Something similar describes my own beliefs on the topic. Sadly, a search for articles on the recent discoveries turned up the article I already showed you, and stuff about a certain TV show.

Please read previous VM first!

The only other things in the article that I'd count as errors, aside from philosophical errors, would be a few passing references he made to other fields of science.

(1) If "politically and religiously fraught topics of evolution and global warming" was meant the way it sounds, then it is an error. A different order and a "respectively" would be necessary to single out global warming as politically fraught. I know of no specific branch of any religion which has some specific teaching that conflicts with the idea that the globe is warmer and human action has been a significant contributor to such warming. One of my textbooks even made an attempt to connect it with biblical prophecy (which was somewhat lame, and left out other statements from the book of Revelation). I myself would argue that there probably is some warming, though it may not be as much as some have asserted and proposed solutions may be misguided.

(2) His comment about cosmology being a rival to evolution as something that discomfits the faithful. This may be true, as some data seems to indicate. However, I note Hawking's comment in A Brief History of Time about the Catholic Church almost immediately pronouncing the Big Bang theory in accord with Scripture. There was also some new data that increased scientific confidence in the Big Bang (only happened to read the headlines). My brother ShinySandshrew responded very favorably to hearing something I mentioned from the headline. Anyway, I really should go dig up something about this, as it could be important for our discussion.

That's all I've got for now!

You are welcome! And thanks for the Heart Scale! (The PP Max was probably going to go to waste if I didn't give it to you, so don't think too much of that!)

Now, I can't delve into all of the stuff about the Coyne article, but here's what I have so far.

The mention of rain dances was on point and not an error. But as long as I am remembering the Hebrew Scriptures correctly, there is not one reference to sacrifices, as a rule, doing anything except providing atonement. Merriam-Webster is a good enough place to begin to understand what that means (especially note the concise encyclopedia entry). After reading that, I think you can see that atonement is not something that can be detected. I cannot say I know for sure about animal sacrifices in other religions, but I certainly cannot say I know of one that holds that they regularly cause super-strength in ones left hand, grant X-ray vision, or whatever.

Cool--amazing, in fact! It does have Anticipation, right? If so, I'll be ready to hop on and trade!

Read previous VMs first!

There is one more thing. I'm jumping ahead in the game, and moving chesspieces in such a way as to open up my Bisharp and Honchkrow to attack, but I agree to a surprising degree with Coyne's proposal for which problem is the fundamental one faced by science. It may be entirely true that "religion" is not the problem under the definition he gave. But... *sly grin* ... he didn't operate strictly within that definition.

But the fundamental problem is still deeper.

Read previous VM first!

This is probably a good time to tell you the different things about the article that I enjoyed, starting with the things I enjoyed that were not my favorite thing. (This may also help explain why I chose to start by eliminating things that are not the fundamental problem faced by science, to show just how deep the problem goes.)

My favorite thing was not how he took to task the arguments from religious scientists and religionists who accept evolution. His counterexample citing religion and adultery was, to use what may be the most ironic word possible, highly appropriate. And how he held scientific organizations accountable for the same type of error? Great, but not my favorite.

Some of the errors he made were hilarious, but not my favorite. I mean, studies into "the efficacy of...animal sacrifices"? Just which religion(s) actually teaches that animal sacrifices are supposed to, as a rule, have any observable consequences?

Nor was it the surprise conclusion that America is highly dysfunctional, a conclusion I initially resisted. Then I thought about some media coverage of sports figures and their misbehavior. He's right.

It was also fun to watch him jump into a few of the philosophical traps he set for the religious. He actually seemed to take disagreements between religions as proof of something beyond their incompatibility with each other. And his defense of naturalism was plagued by no less than two issues. But this was still not my favorite thing.

My favorite thing was the first solution he proposed (before the alleviation of societal dysfunction), and part of the second. He advocates that scientists should stick to their expertise and speak on science, and, yes, that they should present arguments and evidence to counter religion. I may hold to a religion, but on that point, I can agree heartily.