Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Friday, October 3, 2008

It Burns

Tim accused Ray of "Bearing false witness (lying about atheists and their positions, lying about the evidence for evolution, misrepresenting evidence for evolution, quote-mining".
.
Forgiven37 (Mark) replied:
tim when has ray lied about an atheist position ? There position is very simple, they don't believe God exist. DUH
.
.
This is from the same thread as this:
.
Ray Comfort wrote:
God created the sea. It didn’t crawl up out of a puddle billions of years ago, created by nothing. How crazy is that?
.
.
.

28 comments:

  1. Oh no, not Mark Laine, that guy is such an asshat!

    "God created the sea. It didn’t crawl up out of a puddle billions of years ago, created by nothing. It just poofed into existence magically by a creator that was created by nothing. How crazy is that?"

    *FIXED*

    That guy on fire is epic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Can't find the Mark comment under the "grasping for evidence" post....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh crap, wrong Mark.

    Hang on, I'll fix the OP and we'll never mention it again, and they will be none-the-wiser...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have no idea what you're talking about...mistake? What mistake? There's nothing to be fixed......

    ;)

    P.S I actually haven't seen Mark Laine around lately, maybe he realized what an ass he was.

    ReplyDelete
  5. hey I finally made it to the big time ! so this is where the atheist hang out. anyway the core of tim's argument is that Ray misrepresents your position on God. I think that you have made that clear for everyone though we keep hoping and praying for you. though this is my first post here I may drop in from time to time.

    forgiven37(mark)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I asked Ray to please show me someone, anyone, who has ever said the sea crawled out of the ooze billions of years ago. I'm not holding my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  7. so rufus where did it come from ? something from nothing.... are you in politics ?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey Mark,

    I'm glad you're not the Mark I originally thought you were (Mark Laine) and feel free to drop by any time.

    I'm somewhat confused as to why Ray keeps bringing up evolution topics. Even if evolution was entirely false that doesn't prove Genesis.

    ReplyDelete
  9. thanks I might do that. Not sure why he brings up evolution so much. talking to others sometimes clears up their own position on things. I understand your position and you understand mine that doesn't mean that we can't get along and have civil discussions.

    forgiven37(mark)

    ReplyDelete
  10. forgiven37 (Mark) said...
    "so rufus where did it come from ? something from nothing.... are you in politics ?"

    I already replied to your comments re: Ray's representation of atheists over at AC, so I won't go into it again here (unless you really want to), but as to the origin of the sea, as the Earth was forming (according to the most current theories), the most common elements available were hydrogen, oxygen, silicon, helium, carbon and nitrogen. The various compounds that these will form include water (H2O), sand (Si2O), carbon oxides (CO and CO2), methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3). These are mostly gases (except for Si2O) and so will (roughly) seperate out by relative densities under the growing influence of the gravity of the central mass (that will become the sun). The denser compounds, such as water and sand, are more prevalent closer in, so water is common here and on venus and mars (but not so much on Mercury where the temperature is too high for the water to liquify)
    That is a masively simplified picture as other factors such as escape velocities dictate what gases can be retained by a body at what temperature, break offs and impacts mix the whole thing up and the ignition of the star pulls a lot of the remaining dust cloud in. For a better picture, look up planet formation or ask a proper cosmologist, but that's the basics.

    ReplyDelete
  11. thanks Paul I will look up these and respond. I do have a question for you. why do you guys shoot down any objections from "Christian" scientist?

    ReplyDelete
  12. by the way, quasar I like the picture.

    ReplyDelete
  13. mark,

    Speaking for myself, I do not reject everything from a Christian scientists. For example, I've read Ken Miller's books and find them to be very enlightening. However, I do approach anything that would come out of an organization like AiG with extra skepticism. This is in their Statement of Faith:

    "No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

    What that shows me is AiG is willing to ignore evidence if it contradicts the Bible. I still like to evaluate the claims, but any organization with a similar Statement of Faith is practicing intellectual dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mark (not laine)...

    There are many scientists out there who are Christians. And I respect their work. They are the ones like Ken Miller, who leave their religion out of it.

    It's the ones who's only answer is; "God did it exactly as it says in Genesis." The ones who automatically throw out any real evidence that disagrees with Genesis.

    They aren't scientists. So why bother listening to them. We already know what they're going to say.

    ReplyDelete
  15. A quick one for you Mark, as you mentioned this in your post.

    I am an agnostic atheist. Think about it.

    Gnostic/agnostic deals with what you know.

    Theism/atheism deal with what you believe.

    I am agnostic because I cannot know without a doubt that there is no god.

    I am atheist because I don't believe there is a god. I have seen no evidence that proves there is a god.

    Most god theories are god of the gaps. In other words, you can't explain this so it must be god. That is how gods started out as controllers of thunder, rain, drought, etc... As we learned more through studying nature, we found no god in these gaps. What we have found are natural reasons for everything. So why should we suddenly think we are going to find a gap that cannot be explained except by god? Personally I think the only gap you can claim that in is before the big bang.

    The other thing about the god of the gaps, is that it hinders scientific knowledge. If you assume god did it, then where do you go from there?

    "We are star stuff which has taken its destiny into its own hands."

    "We are a way for the universe to know itself."

    both quotes by Carl Sagan

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Mark,

    As someone in graduate school training to be a scientist, I can tell you that we have teachers and students of every stripe of religious affiliation.

    It's not that atheists reject "chrsitian scientists" outright - we reject them and their work when it plainly and completely goes against the rules of science to which we are all bound(IE. allowing for supernatural forces within the scientific method).

    ReplyDelete
  17. Where did what come from? Ray's brain? Some kind of transplant? With a mole, or possum as the donor?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Answers in Genesis.

    A believer who hasn't heard of Answers in Genesis? They're a hoot.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thank you rufus.

    AIG is also my insurance company...so had to ask.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I believe that Mark W Laine was so impressed with Ken Ham's Flintstone Sin & Salvation Wonderland that he has given up his career and and signed on with Ham as a voluntary intern. His current duties include parking attendant, tram driver, and filling in for "Adam" riding the herbivore T Rex when the animatronic Adam fails.

    Needless to say, he refrains from looking lustfully at Eve.

    ReplyDelete
  21. LOL!

    I bet Ken and him would be bestest friends.

    "Needless to say, he refrains from looking lustfully at Eve."

    I could too, have you seen those animatronic people they have? Creepy....

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  23. How can the sea "crawl up" from a puddle? It burns!

    Forgiven37 (Mark),

    Good to see you around. Your question:

    why do you guys shoot down any objections from "Christian" scientist?

    He, I do think you mean like those in Answers in Genesis, or Ham, or those idiots (because you said "objections"). Sorry, but that is what they are. I do read them, because otherwise I would not have the right to suggest fundamentalist Christians to read proper literature. However, as you read from others, they start by rejecting anything contradicting their bibles (intellectual dishonesty), but not only that, they redefine terms to make them sound like "the enemy" so that the Christian reading that starts with a negative predisposition, they assume that anything scientific that contradicts their beliefs is a conspiracy against God, and a huge et cetera.

    Do you know what makes me angry forgiven37? How easily they lie to you about things they do not care to understand, how easily they appeal to your emotions so that you do not see their deception.

    Anyway, thanks for stopping by.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  24. mark said,
    Thanks for the responses sorry for the delay in responding my wife has been sick.


    Maragon you said,
    we reject them and their work when it plainly and completely goes against the rules of science to which we are all bound(IE. allowing for supernatural forces within the scientific method).

    mark said,
    I won't use the complete knowledge argument it's been done to death. I just ask why are we bound by any rules ? There is much in the world that can't be explained. We have only touched a small fraction of what we are able to do. As a scientist do you not allow for any varabiles in your experiment? What if the varabiles are of supernatural nature ? Do you not owe it to yourself to explore the possibility ?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Mark,

    What supernatural variables should a scientist look out for in an experiment? They can't assume stuff exists when there is no evidence for it. All the evidence points to being bound by certain laws. Until there is evidence gravity may all of a sudden become unpredictable, scientists will account for it in experiments. Science is able to function by applying what we do know to the mysteries of life. That's how science advances.

    I won't speak for Maragon, but from my perspective I would require a large amount of evidence to believe a big life changing supernatural claim. Furthermore, when it comes to forming hypothesis and conducting experiments it is always more plausible and does not violate Occam's Razor to explain and expect natural causes for natural phenomena.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The Skeptical Sorcerer said...
    Mark,

    What supernatural variables should a scientist look out for in an experiment? They can't assume stuff exists when there is no evidence for it. All the evidence points to being bound by certain laws. Until there is evidence gravity may all of a sudden become unpredictable, scientists will account for it in experiments. Science is able to function by applying what we do know to the mysteries of life. That's how science advances.

    I won't speak for Maragon, but from my perspective I would require a large amount of evidence to believe a big life changing supernatural claim. Furthermore, when it comes to forming hypothesis and conducting experiments it is always more plausible and does not violate Occam's Razor to explain and expect natural causes for natural phenomena.

    mark said, look at the advances we have in our world today.They pushed the boundries of science instead of being bound by them. I'm not saying that we owe supernatural phenomena for these advances. But these people at least expored all area's. I understand your view point and we may never agree and that's ok. Thanks for taking the time and letting me post here.

    ReplyDelete
  27. mark said,

    "look at the advances we have in our world today. They pushed the boundries of science instead of being bound by them."

    I completely agree, I'm just saying that from my knowledge of science the boundaries are pushed by
    a) assuming we live in a natural world that has natural laws and
    b) applying what we do know about the world to stuff we are not so sure about.
    I think these would provide a foundation to build a theory (supernatural of otherwise) on. Otherwise a scientist would be operating under some type of "anything goes" philosophy.

    "Thanks for taking the time and letting me post here."

    Anytime, post away =D

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.