
[ref001]


apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 3/26/96
apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 3/26/96

[00:35] PostModrn (guest@kiowa.wildstar.net) joined 
#apologetics.
[00:37] Acolyte (st_aidan@199.171.190.3) joined #apologetics.
[00:37] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[00:37] <PostModrn> hello.
[00:37] <Acolyte> hullo
[00:38] <PostModrn> I have seen your web site.
[00:38] <PostModrn> I have read your logs.
[00:38] <Acolyte> really
[00:38] <PostModrn> I remain unconvinced.
[00:38] <Acolyte> me?
[00:38] <Acolyte> IC and what are you?
[00:38] <PostModrn> a non-theist.
[00:38] <Acolyte> what type?
[00:39] <PostModrn> what are my choices?
[00:39] <Acolyte> don't you know?
[00:39] <PostModrn> how can I know?
[00:39] <Acolyte> good question
[00:39] <PostModrn> indeed
[00:40] <Acolyte> r u an atheist?
[00:40] <Acolyte> pantheist?
[00:40] <Acolyte> what?
[00:40] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip97.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[00:40] <Acolyte> re pascoe
[00:40] <pascoe> hello.
[00:40] <PostModrn> I am a non-theist
[00:40] <PostModrn> hello, pascoe.
[00:40] <Acolyte> brb
[00:40] <pascoe> PostModrn:  wow.
[00:41] <PostModrn> pascoe: he asked.
[00:42] <pascoe> PostModrn:  I am impressed that you 
did not tackle the claim of atheism as many try to 
do.
[00:42] <PostModrn> hmmm.
[00:42] <Acolyte> what epistemology do you hold to?
[00:42] <pascoe> PostModrn:  non-theist is so much more 
appropriate for most people since they are not prepared 
to defend the atheistic claim.
[00:43] <PostModrn> Acolyte: that we cannot know what 
we think we know.
[00:43] <Acolyte> are you a naturalist?
[00:43] <Acolyte> define knowledge
[00:43] <PostModrn> pascoe: indeed.
[00:43] PostModrn (guest@kiowa.wildstar.net) left irc: 
WildStar public access IRC.  telnet telnet.wildstar.net 
  login: guest
[00:44] <Acolyte> how do you know pascoe?
[00:45] PostModrn (guest@kiowa.wildstar.net) joined 
#apologetics.
[00:45] <pascoe> Acolyte:  he kinda admitted it didn't 
he?
[00:45] <Acolyte> are you a naturalist?
[00:45] <Acolyte> define knowledge
[00:45] <PostModrn> sorry, I have a time limit here.
[00:45] <Acolyte> ic
[00:45] <pascoe> PostModrn:  me too and its about up. 
 8(
[00:45] <Acolyte> please tell me what did not convince 
you?
[00:46] <PostModrn> I might be a naturalist. and knowledge 
is the certainty of knowing.
[00:46] <Acolyte> how is that not circular?
[00:46] <PostModrn> Acolyte: the transcendental argument.
[00:46] <Acolyte> ic, what about the transcendental argument?
[00:47] <PostModrn> the idea that to know anything, one 
must presuppose theism.
[00:47] <Acolyte> ok, what in particular?
[00:47] <PostModrn> that IS in particular
[00:47] <Acolyte> that seems to general to me
[00:47] <Acolyte> please elaborate
[00:48] <PostModrn> one cannot KNOW anything. Therefore, 
the argument that one must presuppose theism to know 
anything falls short.
[00:48] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal36-04.ppp.iadfw.net) 
joined #apologetics.
[00:48] <pascoe> hello Achimoth.  8)
[00:48] <Acolyte> how do you come to the conclusion that 
 no one cannot know anything?
[00:48] <Achimoth> i figured you all headed over here....
[00:49] <PostModrn> knowledge requires certainty, which 
we cannot possess
[00:49] <Acolyte> are you certain of that?
[00:49] <PostModrn> nope
[00:49] <PostModrn> because I CAN'T be.
[00:50] <Acolyte> then how do you justify that claim?
[00:50] <Acolyte> how do you know you can't be ?
[00:50] <pascoe> Acolyte:  he is certain we cannot be 
certain.  8)
[00:50] <PostModrn> I don't pretend to. I don't know 
that I can't be. Because I can't be.
[00:50] <ProfG> re
[00:50] <ProfG> oh my goodness.
[00:50] <PostModrn> hello ProfG
[00:51] <ProfG> Postie for dinner?
[00:51] <ProfG> :-)
[00:51] <Acolyte> kinda self defeating, you can't be 
but you don't know it, then why do youhold to what 
you don't know?
[00:51] <PostModrn> I have been to your web page, ProfG.
[00:51] <Acolyte> seems like an unjustified claim
[00:52] <PostModrn> for the same reason that all do. 
One cannot know, therefore one can only hold to that 
which one cannot know.
[00:52] <Acolyte> so why not believe in Theism then?
[00:52] <Acolyte> if everything is meaningless, why not 
construct a myth?
[00:52] <Acolyte> seems like you have
[00:53] <ProfG> You really *are* postie, aren't you?
[00:53] <PostModrn> Theism requires "knowing"
[00:53] <PostModrn> indeed.
[00:53] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip97.csrv.uidaho.edu) left 
irc: Read error to pascoe[xslip97.csrv.uidaho.edu]: 
Connection reset by peer
[00:53] <Acolyte> well again that depends on a CERTAIN 
defintion of knowledge
[00:53] <Acolyte> whcih I reject
[00:53] <Acolyte> I am not a Modernist either
[00:53] <Acolyte> I am a NON-Modernist
[00:53] <Acolyte> I reject STRICT foundationalism
[00:54] <Acolyte> Pstmodern, you are still a modernist 
tho
[00:54] <Acolyte> you are still working off of Descartes 
epistemology
[00:54] <Acolyte> in essence
[00:54] Action: ProfG isn't really here, sorry
[00:54] <Acolyte> if your claims to knowledge that you 
don't and cannot know are unjustified, why believe 
them at all?
[00:55] PostModrn (guest@kiowa.wildstar.net) left irc: 
Write error to PostModrn[kiowa.wildstar.net], closing 
link
[00:56] <ProfG> hmmmm
[00:56] Action: ProfG wishes he had the time to spend 
with Postie
----------------------------------------------------------
[01:25] <FauxReal> Science doesn't deal in proof; it 
deals in evidence.  One thing evolutieon has lots of.
[01:25] <ProfG> heh
[01:25] <Acolyte> creation is archaology origin science?
[01:25] <creation> Fauxreal:  sure
[01:25] <Acolyte> pascoe it uses the methodology which 
makes it a science
[01:25] <FauxReal> I do commend you for your debate tactics.
[01:26] <pascoe> Acolyte:  strictly speaking I disagree. 
 8)
[01:26] <creation> Acolyte:  Probably since it deals 
with events that happened once in the past and you 
can't observe them.  Origin sciences deal not with 
falsifiability but with probability.
[01:26] <Cassidy_> Aco...this is a test of the IRC humor 
broadcasting system...this is only a test...."This guy 
walks into a bar with a duck under one arm....."
[01:26] <Acolyte> pascoe streictly speaking you're wrong 
:)
[01:26] <pascoe> Acolyte:  the requirement of strict 
science is repeatability.
[01:26] <FauxReal> Acolyte:  Music, too, uses methodology. 
;)
[01:26] <pascoe> Acolyte:  but then again some people 
think politics is a science.  8)
[01:26] Deanr2 (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) joined 
#apologetics.
[01:26] <ProfG> the requirement of strict science is 
repeatability.
[01:26] <Acolyte> fauxreal not any methology, I said 
THE methodology.
[01:26] <ProfG> the requirement of strict science is 
repeatability.
[01:27] <ProfG> hey, pascoe, I resemble that remark
[01:27] <pascoe> ProfG:  I noticed.  8)
[01:27] <ProfG> heh
[01:27] <Cassidy_> ooooof...
[01:27] <ProfG> hi Deanr2
[01:27] <ProfG> :-)
[01:27] <FauxReal> Then I hate to say it, but Henry Miller 
repeated the incipient stages of life.
[01:28] PageMastr (user@whx-ca5-24.ix.netcom.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[01:28] <ProfG> Henry Miller repeated the incipient stages 
of life.
[01:28] <ProfG> Henry Miller repeated the incipient stages 
of life.
[01:28] <Acolyte> cassidy Scott is reading Chilton
[01:28] <creation> FauxReal:  hahahahahahaah  You have 
no idea what you are talking about.  
[01:28] <pascoe> FauxReal:  embryology was refuted.  
8)
[01:28] <FauxReal> the formation of proteins from amino 
acids.
[01:28] <PageMastr> what's the topic
[01:28] <PageMastr> whats the diffence
[01:28] <PageMastr> who care???
[01:28] <Acolyte> faux I am an evolutionist and you are 
in error on that point
[01:28] <ProfG> repetitiveness, Page
[01:28] <creation> FauxReal:  All he did was make amino 
acids.  Hardly the incipient stages of life.
[01:28] <PageMastr> who knows
[01:28] <Cassidy_> Aco...your long-term investment in 
scott is admirable...
[01:28] <Acolyte> Creation, the amino acids they got 
all make life impossible, they kill life
[01:28] <Acolyte> cassidy what do youmean?
[01:28] <ProfG> DEANR, are you even here?
[01:29] <Achimoth> fauxreal: how about the formation 
of RNA from neucleotides, before proteins?
[01:29] <PageMastr> electrolyte
[01:29] <ProfG> hmmm...
[01:29] <PageMastr> shock
[01:29] <pascoe> Miller did not justify his use of electricity 
in his experiments.
[01:29] <creation> FauxReal:  No, no proteins were formed. 
 only amino acids.  The closest was Sydney Fox who 
got what he called "proteinoids" which are a poor example 
of proteins.
[01:29] <PageMastr> sma
[01:29] <FauxReal> Sorry, that was stanlyey miller.
[01:29] <ProfG> somebody tell Deanr he's an op now. sheesh. 
I'm going to bed.
[01:29] <PageMastr> tibc
[01:29] <Acolyte> profg ok
[01:29] <Acolyte> thanks
[01:29] <PageMastr> nite poof
[01:29] <Cassidy_> nothing more than what I said. I find 
it difficult to stick to one person especially when 
they drag their feet for so long.
[01:30] <PageMastr> prof
[01:30] PageMastr (user@whx-ca5-24.ix.netcom.com) left 
#apologetics.
[01:30] <ProfG> hey, he called me a poof
[01:30] <Cassidy_> nite poofg
[01:30] <pascoe> bye ProfG.  8)
[01:30] <Cassidy_> :-)
[01:30] <Acolyte> bye profg
[01:30] Deanr (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) left irc: 
Ping timeout for Deanr[KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM]
[01:30] <ProfG> I'll kick the whole lot of ya
[01:30] <Acolyte> blah
[01:30] <creation> Acolyte:  Not all.  But a lot of them. 
 They did get the 20 (not in the same experiment mind 
you) but along with 50 different non-biological amino 
acids.  That creates big problems when you only find 
20 in biological systems.  H

ow do you select for those..
[01:30] <ProfG> :-)
[01:30] <Acolyte> no works of supererogation for you!
[01:30] Action: Cassidy_ runs for the hills...
[01:30] Deanr2 (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) left irc: 
Ping timeout for Deanr2[KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM]
[01:30] <creation> Acolyte:  20 out of the plethera that 
are there.
[01:30] Deanr (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) joined #apologetics.
[01:30] <ProfG> re deanr
[01:31] <FauxReal> According to my biology book, he synthesized 
those amino acids which, in part, make up an organism.
[01:31] <Acolyte> deanr y ou're an op here
[01:31] <Deanr> re
[01:31] <Acolyte> fauxreal yeah it took intelligence 
to do it too
[01:31] Mode change '+o Deanr ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[01:31] <ProfG> finally
[01:31] <Deanr> hey thanks! :)
[01:31] <pascoe> FauxReal:  bricks, in part, make up 
a building.  8)
[01:31] <creation> FauxReal: Amino acids = life??????????
[01:31] <Acolyte> deanr now, see hwo good I am to you. 
(You may kiss the ring now.)
[01:31] <ProfG> Cassidy and Deanr: I now need bios and 
pics from you for the Web page.
[01:31] <creation> FauxReal:  Not
[01:32] <FauxReal> creation I said incipient stages.
[01:32] <ProfG> AND PASCOE.
[01:32] <Cassidy_> Aco...in a few years perhaps.
[01:32] <pascoe> ProfG:  you resemble science.
[01:32] Action: Deanr takes Acolyte's ring and..... 
stuff's it in his shirt pocket. :)
[01:32] <FauxReal> I should have added in the formation 
of life from abiotic substances. ;)
[01:32] <Acolyte> cassidy, it will take many yrs for 
me to become a Bishop
[01:32] <Cassidy_> prof...youu got it.
[01:32] <ProfG> heh
[01:32] <Acolyte> deanr you'll see
[01:32] <Acolyte> ;)
[01:32] <creation> FauxReal:  Yeah well, you are going 
to have a LOT of problems with the concerto effect 
and the law of mass action.
[01:32] <pascoe> Miller did not justify his use of electricity 
in his experiments.
[01:32] <Achimoth> creation: if i remember by Nova episodes 
properly, isnt there a problem with the formation of 
RNA from nucleotides? as Enzymes are required to replicate 
RNA and enzymes are made BY RNA?
[01:32] <Cassidy_> prof...how long should the bio be 
(how short)?
[01:32] <Acolyte> WE ARE ANGLICAN. RESISTENCE IS FUTILE. 
YOU WILL CONVERT! ahahahahha
[01:33] <Deanr> hehehe
[01:33] <ProfG> Cassidy: look at the bios on the page 
now for help
[01:33] <Acolyte> lol
[01:33] <FauxReal> pascoe Storms.  We see them on other 
planets.
[01:33] <Cassidy_> hehe
[01:33] Action: pascoe is Christian, already born again. 
 8)
[01:33] <pascoe> FauxReal:  you mean lightening?
[01:33] <Cassidy_> prof...whats the adress?
[01:33] <creation> FauxReal:  Concerto effect!!!  The 
same energy that creates also destroys!!!!
[01:33] <Acolyte> pascoe which is better to drive a car 
with four wheels and an engine or a new Acura?
[01:33] MrBell (Micah@ppp209.ihug.co.nz) joined #apologetics.
[01:33] <ProfG> http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[01:33] <pascoe> FauxReal:  if Miller had used lightening 
it would have destroyed his lab and burnt up all his 
ingredients.
[01:34] <creation> Achimoth:  Yeah, it is the problem 
of what came first, protien or nucleic acids.  Besides, 
you have a problem with racemic mixtures.
[01:34] <ProfG> Aco: "I am Pentium of Borg. Division is 
futile. You will be approximated."
[01:34] <FauxReal> cech found that modern cells use RNA 
catalysts called ribozymes to catalyze the synthesis 
of new RNA.
[01:34] <Acolyte> creation Prometheus Press sent me a 
new bk against creationism
[01:34] <Achimoth> LOL
[01:34] <Cassidy_> hehe
[01:34] <Acolyte> profg Anlgicanism is better
[01:35] <Acolyte> ;)
[01:35] <pascoe> Acolyte:  four wheels and an engine 
is better than a washer.  8)
[01:35] <FauxReal> pascoe:  He did it in a scale model.
[01:35] <Acolyte> pascoe but you can't drive a washer 
;)
[01:35] <pascoe> FauxReal:  how do you scale a lightning 
bolt?
[01:35] <Acolyte> faux and he designed it too
[01:35] <creation> FauxReal:  Cech Ribosomes have proteins 
in them that are NECESSARY for the function of the 
ribosome.
[01:35] <Cassidy_> gentlemen...I have an exam to study 
for. I will catch you all on the flip-side.
[01:36] <pascoe> bye Cassidy_.
[01:36] <Cassidy_> byebyebyebyebyebyebyebye.
[01:36] <Acolyte> by cass
[01:36] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@irv-ca22-20.ix.netcom.com) 
left #apologetics.
[01:36] <Acolyte>  hmmmmm
[01:36] <Acolyte> wanna have some fun?
[01:36] <FauxReal> What that proved though is that you 
don't need to have  proteins to synthesyze RNA.
[01:37] Action: ProfG is falling asleep on his keyboard
[01:37] <pascoe> bye ProfG.  8)
[01:37] <Acolyte> profg call me
[01:37] <Acolyte> at work
[01:37] <Acolyte> NOW
[01:37] asdf (sadf@GN-205-161-161-31.gulfnet.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[01:37] <Acolyte> ok?
[01:37] <ProfG> um... ok
[01:37] <creation> FauxReal:  They also concluded that 
the smallest RNA molecule that you could get that could 
act as a functional catalyst is one that is about 400 
nuceotides long.  This is way to big for what the first 
primordial RNA catalyst wa

s.
[01:38] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) joined #apologetics.
[01:38] <Acolyte> hey zx
[01:38] <pascoe> hello zx.  8)
[01:38] <zx> hi
[01:38] <ProfG> um... I need a number, Aco
[01:38] <zx> whats up
[01:38] <creation> FauxReal:  But the question remains: 
 How do you get the RNA????  You still have the same 
problems as you have when you are trying to get proteins.
[01:38] <asdf> hello all
[01:38] <ProfG> ok
[01:39] <ProfG> nite all
[01:39] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) left #apologetics.
[01:39] <creation> FauxReal:  Concerto effect, Racemic 
mixtures of left and right handed sugars, etc.
[01:39] Deanr (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) left irc: 
Ping timeout for Deanr[KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM]
[01:39] <pascoe> FauxReal:  how do you scale a lightning 
bolt?
[01:40] <FauxReal> protobionts.
[01:40] <asdf> very carefully...
[01:40] <FauxReal> pascoe:  You can measure them now. 
 Just project it.
[01:40] asdf (sadf@GN-205-161-161-31.gulfnet.com) left 
#apologetics.
[01:40] <creation> pascoe:  Depends on what kind of atmosphere 
you have.  Was it mildly reducing?  strongly reducing? 
 Oxidative?
[01:40] karen-1 (ajanssen@lbx-ca6-04.ix.netcom.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[01:41] <pascoe> FauxReal:  how does Miller justify electric 
currents in his experiment tho?  lightening would destroy 
his lab and burn stuff.
[01:41] <creation> FauxReal:  How do you keep all your 
necessary elements in the atmosphere (methane, ammonia, 
etc.)?
[01:41] <FauxReal> pascoe lightning equals electrical 
current... 
[01:42] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial50.fiu.edu) left irc: 
Ping timeout for ProfG[fiudial50.fiu.edu]
[01:42] MrBell (Micah@ppp209.ihug.co.nz) left #apologetics.
[01:42] Paladin (Adversary@ts40-7.homenet.ohio-state.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[01:42] <pascoe> FauxReal:  yes, why didn't Miller use 
lightening in his experiments then?
[01:42] <FauxReal> Simple, he couldn't.
[01:43] <creation> FauxReal:  If you don't have ozone, 
then you don't have protection from the UV light.  
YOur methane gets polymerized and you get an oil slick 
1-10 meters thick all across the globe.  YOur ammonia 
would be photodestroyed into nit

rogen and hydrogen.
[01:43] <Paladin> greetings and salutations
[01:43] <pascoe> FauxReal:  the reason he didn't use 
lightning is because it would destroy his experiment.
[01:43] <creation> FauxReal:  And what ever is left over 
would have been absorbed into the ocean due to its 
high solubility.
[01:43] <FauxReal> Who said there was no ozone?
[01:43] <creation> FauxReal:  There was no OXYGEN!!
[01:43] <Paladin> As far as I remember it, there wasn't 
ozone...
[01:43] <creation> FauxReal:  NO oxygen, no ozone
[01:43] <FauxReal> pascoe Lightning striking a couple 
glass tupes probably would.
[01:44] <Paladin> The UV light helped to act as a catalyst, 
however, instead of being harmful
[01:44] <pascoe> FauxReal:  how did Miller justify the 
use of glass tubes in his experiment?
[01:44] Action: Paladin is going to get his biology 
textbook...
[01:44] <creation> Paladin:  WRONG!!!   It would act 
as both a catalyst and it would also destroy your product.
[01:44] <FauxReal> pascoe Glass is non-reactive with 
biological substances.
[01:45] <FauxReal> creation:  We are bombarded with UV 
everyday.
[01:45] <creation> Paladin:  The same energy that creates 
also destroys.  Carl Sagan realized this concerto effect.
[01:45] <pascoe> FauxReal:  did he need glass tubes to 
isolate his products perhaps?
[01:45] <FauxReal> To keep them in a closed system like 
the earth was.
[01:45] <creation> FauxReal:  We have Oxygen in our atmosphere. 
 You propose that there was no oxygen in the atmospher 
at the time of abiogenesis.
[01:46] <pascoe> FauxReal:  evolutionists argue that 
the earth is open system.
[01:46] <FauxReal> Pascoe:  Yes, but not to a different 
atmosphere!
[01:46] <pascoe> FauxReal:  but if real lightning were 
to strike the ingredients Miller used, it would more 
likely burn them all up.
[01:46] <FauxReal> creation: Not at all. For there to 
be water, there haad to be O.
[01:46] <Paladin> creation:  according to biological 
theory, oxygen was spread into the atmosphere after 
organisms began to photosynthesize
[01:47] <pascoe> Paladin:  sounds like chicken-egg syndrome.
[01:47] <Paladin> BTW, what does this have to do with 
apologetics?
[01:47] <FauxReal> pascoe:  The very small amount that 
he had, probably.  However.  We're talking on a global 
scale.
[01:47] <pascoe> Paladin:  I dunno, evolution came up. 
 8)
[01:47] <Paladin> pascoe:  how so?  free oxygen isn't 
necessary for photosynthesis...it's a waste product 
from the breaking down of water
[01:48] <pascoe> FauxReal:  yes, my point is that Miller's 
experiment is unlikely to occur on a global scale.
[01:48] <creation> FauxReal:  *sigh*  It HAS TO BE *FREE* 
oxygen.  Not oxygen in a compound.  ozone is O3, oxygen 
is O2.   THere is a big difference between free oxygen 
and that which is found in compounds.
[01:48] <creation> Paladin:  I'm talking about before 
there was life.  How did you get it?
[01:48] T1 (TGJoyce@www-20-216.gnn.com) joined #apologetics.
[01:48] <pascoe> FauxReal:  Miller did not justify the 
inclusion of electric currents on the scale he applied 
them in his model.
[01:48] <FauxReal> I was using it for the word oxygen, 
dumb@$$.
[01:49] <Paladin> creation:  there wasn't any
[01:49] <creation> Paladin:  That is my point.  So, how 
do you protect your methane from the UV light?
[01:49] <creation> Paladin:  How do you protect your 
ammonia from the UV light?
[01:49] <FauxReal> pascoe:  All he needed the current 
for was to induce certain changes in the atmosphere. 
 Lighting does that without killing everything.
[01:49] karen-1 (ajanssen@lbx-ca6-04.ix.netcom.com) 
left irc: Ping timeout for karen-1[lbx-ca6-04.ix.netcom.com]
[01:50] <FauxReal> ever go near where lightning has struck? 
 You'll smell O3
[01:50] <creation> FauxReal: your point?
[01:50] T1 (TGJoyce@www-20-216.gnn.com) left #apologetics.
[01:50] <Paladin> creation:  I don't know...I remember 
from somewhere that UV light has been used in exchange 
of electricity in reproductions of the of Miller experiment, 
with about the same results
[01:50] <pascoe> FauxReal:  so the glass tubes were to 
contain the O3 he just produced?  isn't that cheating?
[01:50] <creation> FauxReal:  ARe you saying that lighting 
created enough ozone to protect everything?  hehehehehahahahahahahha 
 
[01:51] <Paladin> creation:  Chemistry is not my strong 
point, however...What was the problem you said there 
is with UV rays?
[01:51] <creation> Paladin:  Well, take an organic chemistry 
course.  You'll learn that UV light easily causes methane 
to polymerize into oil, and it destroys your ammonia 
(converts it to hydrogen and nitrogen).
[01:51] <FauxReal> The current represents atmospheric 
lightning.  No, pascoe, they didn't.  I was talking 
about what current does now.  It was a simile.
[01:52] <pascoe> there must have been an abundance of 
glass tubes in the prehistoric environment.  8)
[01:52] <creation> pascoe:  hehehehe
[01:52] <FauxReal> creation: Not at all.  It's an example 
that atmospheric lightning will cause slight changes 
in gasses et. al.
[01:52] pasnflowr (stormy08@fre-ca1-16.ix.netcom.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[01:52] <Paladin> creation:  from what I remember, Miller's 
choice of gases was later decided to be inaccurate 
based upon more recent discoveries...he used methane 
and ammonia, correct?
[01:53] <pascoe> FauxReal:  how often were electric currents 
necessary in the experiment?
[01:53] <creation> FauxReal: it is ad hoc.  It doesn't 
help your situation.
[01:53] <creation> Paladin:  Um, can you point to an 
experiment that didn't use those gases?  
[01:53] <FauxReal> pascoe I don't know.  Occasional sparks, 
though.  Not constant current.
[01:54] <Paladin> creation:  no, I can't...that's why 
I stated it just as something I remember from somewhere, 
just fact...wondering if anyone else remembers similar
[01:54] brentf (brentf@ip-pdx10-43.teleport.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[01:55] <Paladin> creation:  ok, I'm reading the section 
in my textbook on the Miller experiment...
[01:55] <creation> Paladin:  There are variations on 
the theme but the problems are still there.  Another 
thing that they don't tell you is that in order to 
create sugars for your DNA you need formaldehyde but 
your formaldehyde fixes your amino ac

ids.  CATCH 22.
[01:55] <pascoe> FauxReal:  so on a global scale the 
lightning would have had to strike the same location 
more than once without destroying the products?
[01:55] <pascoe> hello brentf.  8)
[01:56] <brentf> Howdy, pascoe :)
[01:56] <Paladin> creation:  according to my text, Miller 
repeated the experiments himself using carbon monoxide 
and carbon dioxide in place of methane
[01:56] <FauxReal> pascoe:  No, it only needed to be 
in the atmosphere.  Miller never had the current touch 
the water.
[01:56] Action: creation wonders if Acolyte is taking 
notes hehehehehe  (just kidding) :)
[01:57] <creation> Paladin:  But you will learn that 
the more oxidative the conditions become the less the 
yield.
[01:57] pasnflowr (stormy08@fre-ca1-16.ix.netcom.com) 
left #apologetics.
[01:57] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip20.csrv.uidaho.edu) left 
irc: Read error to pascoe[xslip20.csrv.uidaho.edu]: 
Connection reset by peer
[01:57] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip20.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[01:57] <FauxReal> creation: true, but by then, the photosynthetic 
forms had developed.
[01:58] <Paladin> creation:  yes, and there wasn't a 
great degree of free oxygen until photosynthesis started
[01:58] <creation> FauxReal:  How?????  That is a giant 
leap.
[01:58] <pascoe> creation:  all this happened in the 
space of about 24 hours and within the same little 
pond.  8)
[01:58] <Paladin> creation: that was one of the main 
premises that the Miller experiment started with, that 
considering the corrosive effects of oxidation, a reducing 
atmosphere would be necessary instead
[01:59] <creation> FauxReaL:  You're going from non-living 
chemicals straight to complex cells.  Without the intermediate 
steps.  You can't even account for your atmosphere 
yet.  How can you talk of complex life?
[01:59] <Paladin> pascoe:  try worldwide and over millions 
of years
[01:59] <FauxReal> creation: once you've got it going, 
it proceeds forth.
[01:59] Action: pascoe marvels at the convenient appearance 
of photosynthetic forms.  8)
[01:59] <Paladin> creation:  he was jumping ahead because 
you were asking about an oxygen atmosphere...that happened 
later
[01:59] <creation> Paladin:  But you get back the problem 
on not having protection from UV light.
[02:00] <pascoe> creation:  chicken-egg syndrome.
[02:00] <creation> FauxReal:  you haven't even got it 
existing.
[02:00] <FauxReal> thanks paladin.
[02:00] <Paladin> creation:  well, my text says that 
the UV light was a useful source of energy instead 
of a damaging force...
[02:00] <pascoe> Paladin:  they generally don't admit 
things like that.
[02:01] <creation> Paladin:  I'm talking about before 
life.  It does no good to imagine after life starts 
when you can't get out of the drawing room.
[02:01] <Paladin> pascoe:  how do you mean?
[02:01] lopomac (ddd@pm-lo-21.terminus.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[02:01] <Paladin> creation:  I'm talking about before 
life too
[02:01] <Paladin> without free oxygen, you would lack 
an ozone layer
[02:01] <Paladin> hence more UV light
[02:01] <FauxReal> pascoe:  Funny, mine does.  It even 
talks about young stars emiting even more UV radiation.
[02:01] <pascoe> Paladin:  it doesn't promote the theory 
to poke holes in it from the start.
[02:01] <creation> Paladin:  You have to go to the primary 
sources.  What the heck does it mean by usefull?  what 
were the yeilds?  
[02:01] <Paladin> hence more energy to act as a catalyst 
for the formation of polymers, complex molecules
[02:02] <Paladin> It isn't an organic chemistry text--that's 
all it mentions, so that's all I can verify now about 
the theory
[02:02] <creation> Paladin:  Hence more destruction. 
 Your point?
[02:02] Action: creation notices how everyone forgets 
about the destructive action of lightning and UV light 
and just focus on the creative force only.
[02:02] <Paladin> I'll look into what you were saying 
though about the destructive potential of the UV light...my 
friends are considerably more knowledgable in chemistry 
than I am and I ask tomorrow
[02:03] <pascoe> creation:  8)
[02:03] <creation> Paladin:  That is fair enough :)
[02:03] <FauxReal> creation: with a reducing atmmosphere, 
it takes considerable energy to join these molecules. 
 Lightning and UV radiation provided it.
[02:04] <pascoe> FauxReal:  hey, you said the lightning 
was only for atmospheric changes.
[02:04] <creation> FauxReal:  But you forget that they 
also destroy it too.  One second oyu have it, the next 
you don't.
[02:04] <Paladin> Is this another attempt to disprove 
evolution and therefore prove creationism by default?
[02:04] <FauxReal> creation:  I'm afraid not.
[02:04] <creation> Paladin:  Creation hasn't even been 
mentioned.
[02:04] <pascoe> Paladin:  I am only aware of those two 
basic alternatives.
[02:05] <Paladin> Just wondering...
[02:05] <creation> FauxReal:  And you prove yourself 
to be ignorant.
[02:05] <FauxReal> Paladin: panspermia?
[02:05] <FauxReal> ;)
[02:05] <Paladin> pascoe:  well, disproving one does 
not prove the other one...you don't believe in something 
just because you can't think of alternatives 
[02:05] <pascoe> FauxReal:  is the lightning for atmospheric 
changes or for energy input into the product?
[02:05] <creation> FauxReaL:  panspermia doesn't solve 
the problem, it is just Crick's vain attempt to move 
it some where else.
[02:06] Action: Paladin wishes everyone would get off 
this damn chemistry kick...he's going to bed soon
[02:06] <pascoe> Paladin:  in the absence of more than 
2 alternatives, evidence against one is taken as evidence 
in favor of the other.
[02:06] <FauxReal> UV radiation does not kill (from so 
far away), it will however induce mutation.
[02:06] Action: creation is going to bed soon too.
[02:07] <Paladin> pascoe: Quite simply, no.
[02:07] <FauxReal> pascoe:  It did a lot more with the 
atmosphere. Wherever it touched down, it probably killed 
stuff.
[02:07] <creation> Fauxreal:  hahahahah  What?  The long 
wave length UV light destroys, period.
[02:07] <Paladin> Use your imagination.  I can come up 
with plenty more...  :)
[02:07] <pascoe> FauxReal:  I imagine that is mostly 
what it did since that is all it tends to do today. 
 Even complex systems cannot synthesize that much energy 
input into useful work.
[02:08] <lopomac> vea lo m&sdot;s tarde voy surfing
[02:08] <pascoe> Paladin:  really?  like what?
[02:08] <creation> Fauxreal:  Long wave length UV light 
doesn't create.  It destorys.  There is a narrow range 
of UV light that can be used to create, but that can 
be destructive as well
[02:08] lopomac (ddd@pm-lo-21.terminus.com) left #apologetics.
[02:08] <Paladin> Squirrels did it.
[02:08] <Paladin> That's why there's so many damn trees.
[02:09] <pascoe> Paladin:  the question was regarding 
the origin of life.  invoking squirrels ignores the 
question.
[02:09] <FauxReal> creation: as I said -- it has been 
found that young stars generate more intense (shorter 
wave) UV radiation.
[02:09] Action: creation feels sorry for those that 
hold to abiogenesis.  He hasn't even begun on the destructive 
reactions yet :)
[02:09] <Paladin> No, these are transcendant squirrels.
[02:09] <pascoe> Paladin:  so you are arguing my side 
now?  ok.  8)
[02:10] <Paladin> No, because they formed the world by 
gnawing on the great cosmic roots that had always existed.
[02:10] <Paladin> Hardly creation ex nihilo...
[02:10] <Paladin> :)
[02:10] <pascoe> Paladin:  are they alive?
[02:10] <creation> FauxReal: Sorry, doesn't help your 
situation.  \
[02:10] <Paladin> They are, yet they aren't!
[02:10] <Paladin> They are beyond life!
[02:10] Action: creation isn't feeling well, has a 
sore throat.  He needs to get some sleep.
[02:11] <FauxReal> I thought as much.  Run before we 
attack creationism.
[02:11] Action: Paladin tosses creation a virtual throat 
losenge
[02:11] <creation> FauxReal:  Oh please.
[02:11] <FauxReal> ;)
[02:11] <pascoe> Paladin:  did the squirrels always exist 
too?
[02:12] <creation> pascoe:  Squirrels must be God :)
[02:12] <Paladin> I don't know...I haven't been able 
to ask them yet.
[02:12] <Paladin> And quite frankly, I don't think they'd 
talk.  They're quite snobbish, y'know.
[02:12] <pascoe> creation:  yes, I'm still looking for 
the alternative.  8)
[02:12] <FauxReal> creation: how would you explain dinosaurs?
[02:12] <Paladin> Anyone who doesn't have a bushy tail 
just isn't good enough...
[02:12] <pascoe> Paladin:  are the squirrels intelligent?
[02:12] <creation> FauxReal:  Well, they are reptiles 
and they lived and they died.
[02:12] Nick change: Paladin -> ex_nihilo
[02:13] <ex_nihilo> Why, FauxReal, dinosaurs lived alongside 
Adam and Eve!
[02:13] <creation> 
[02:13] Action: creation agrees with ex_nihilo
[02:13] <FauxReal> no.
[02:13] <creation> yes
[02:13] Action: pascoe agrees with ex_nihilo as well.
[02:13] <pascoe> yes.
[02:14] <FauxReal> He was being facetious.
[02:14] <ex_nihilo> You see, Satan put those bones in 
the earth at various levels and falsified the entire 
geological record.
[02:14] <ex_nihilo> He also seriously enlarged them from 
their previous size...
[02:14] <pascoe> Paladin:  are the squirrels intelligent?
[02:14] <ex_nihilo> They were actually quite gerbil like
[02:14] <ex_nihilo> pascoe:  I don't know...they just 
giggle when I ask
[02:14] <creation> ex-nihilo:  nope, no need for satan. 
 The fossils are easily explained from a scientific 
stand point.
[02:15] <ex_nihilo> But enough about the squirrels...
[02:15] <creation> ex-nihilo:  don't you know that reptiles 
continue to grow as long as they live?  
[02:15] <pascoe> ex_nihilo:  I thought you were claiming 
to know of an alternative but it seems to be just smoke 
now.
[02:15] <ex_nihilo> pascoe:  well, I could count the 
number of religions on earth...
[02:15] <ex_nihilo> ...and that still wouldn't take into 
account variations in scientific theory
[02:15] <pascoe> ex_nihilo:  isn't it convenient that 
gigantic forms are found mostly in the reptile group?
[02:16] <ex_nihilo> So the big question we are all waiting 
to hear the answer to is...
[02:16] <ex_nihilo> How old were those crazy ever-growing 
dinosaurs anyways?
[02:16] <FauxReal> we have nothing like the tyrannosaurus 
or pterodon(sp).
[02:16] <creation> 
[02:16] <pascoe> ex_nihilo:  the general creation model 
does not specify a name for the Creator, so naming 
each religion adds no new alternatives.
[02:16] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit.
[02:17] <pascoe> FauxReal:  how many t-rex fossils are 
known?
[02:17] <ex_nihilo> pascoe:  you really need to read 
more if you think they can be lumped in together that 
easily
[02:17] <creation> Faux:  And we have nothing like the 
Do Do bird either.  You know why???  Because it went 
extinct!
[02:17] <FauxReal> pascoe: I have no idea.
[02:17] <pascoe> ex_nihilo:  you really need to supply 
a different alternative than the two general ones already 
known.
[02:18] <pascoe> FauxReal:  about 12.  and surprisingly, 
they are all t-rex.  that is an amazing coincidence 
given the alleged timelines and changes involved.  
8)
[02:18] bitwise (pilgrim@tahoe-d21.foothill.net) joined 
#apologetics.
[02:18] <pascoe> hello bitwise.  8)
[02:18] <bitwise> salutations :)
[02:18] <FauxReal> what's that supposed to mean?
[02:19] <ex_nihilo> pascoe:  wait...you asked him how 
many t-rex fossils are known, and then you said 12 
and said it was surprising that they were all t-rex...
[02:19] creation (dcovalt@ux7.cso.uiuc.edu) left irc: 
have to get work done and sleep.
[02:19] <ex_nihilo> What DOES that mean?
[02:20] <pascoe> ex_nihilo:  yes.  it just seems curious 
to me the great coincidence involved such that we find 
t-rex in the same form in every instance given the 
timescale alleged.
[02:20] <ex_nihilo> ???
[02:21] <pascoe> but then I have come to accept that 
no transitionary series are known, so it is no surprise 
that the t-rex finds are all t-rex.
[02:21] <brentf> It begs the question:  Where are the 
"almost t-rex" forms and the "t-rex plus" forms?
[02:21] <FauxReal> They're all in the same span of eras.
[02:21] <pascoe> FauxReal:  amazing.  is that what happened 
with the 6 archeopteryx finds too?
[02:21] <FauxReal> Okay, how about transitionary man?
[02:22] W (cservice@undernet.org) got lost in the net-split.
[02:22] <pascoe> FauxReal:  ya, how about it?  where 
is it?
[02:22] <ex_nihilo> transitory species would be classified 
as different species, and hence wouldn't be t-rex finds, 
Captain Obvious
[02:22] <FauxReal> pascoe:  I'm no expert in paleontology.
[02:22] <pascoe> ex_nihilo:  name the transitions leading 
to t-rex or pteranodon or archeopteryx.
[02:23] <pascoe> FauxReal:  I expect very little and 
have not been disappointed.  don't be ashamed.  8)
[02:23] <ex_nihilo> I'm not a dinosaur expert, but there 
are plenty of species similar to all of them
[02:23] <FauxReal> pascoe:  As soon as we find every 
fossil, it will be done. ;)
[02:23] <ex_nihilo> Do you expect evolution to be a smooth 
spectrum?  A continuous smear?
[02:23] <FauxReal> Indeed, ex_nihilio.
[02:23] <pascoe> FauxReal:  it would be nice to start 
with at least one transitionary series.
[02:23] bitwise (pilgrim@tahoe-d21.foothill.net) left 
#apologetics.
[02:23] <FauxReal> Okay, try man.
[02:23] <pascoe> ex_nihilo:  I expect fossil evidence 
if such a thing occured, yes.
[02:24] <Achimoth> we got a post-modern debate raging 
in #bible.. hehe
[02:24] <pascoe> Achimoth.  8)
[02:24] <ex_nihilo> pascoe:  yes, and then after we give 
you two closely related ones, you point out the gap 
in them...and then the gap between those if we fill 
the previous one...
[02:24] <pascoe> ex_nihilo:  I need to have a transitionary 
series, not a intermediate form.
[02:24] <ex_nihilo> pascoe:  You obviously don't understand 
evolutionary theory then, because it doesn't happen 
that smoothly, nor is it a linear transformation
[02:24] <ex_nihilo> pascoe:  all forms are transitionary
[02:25] <ex_nihilo> Ever hear of punctuated equilibrium?
[02:25] <pascoe> ex_nihilo:  yes, yes, I know.  it was 
too fast to be seen in the fossil record and too slow 
to be seen today.
[02:25] <pascoe> ex_nihilo:  the embarassment of the 
fossil record requires things like punct equil.
[02:25] <ex_nihilo> pascoe:  hardly too fast to be seen...just 
not like climbing a staircase
[02:26] <pascoe> ex_nihilo:  what you are saying is that 
you can't provide the fossil evidence.  but then I 
don't expect you to.
[02:26] <pascoe> ex_nihilo:  you expect me to accept 
evolution on faith as you have.  my faith is in an 
intelligent Creator tho.
[02:26] <ex_nihilo> pascoe:  no, I'm saying that what 
you are asking for does not exist, nor did it ever, 
nor would evolutionary theory require it because that's 
not how the theory works
[02:26] W (cservice@undernet.org) joined #apologetics.
[02:27] Mode change '+o W ' by okc2.ok.us.undernet.org
[02:27] <FauxReal> pascoe:  We can trace it  in horses. 
 Leading from hyracotherium -> Mesohippus -> Merychippus 
-> pliohippus -> Equus (modern horse.
[02:27] <ex_nihilo> pascoe:  don't believe in evolution...you 
really have nothing to lose.  It isn't something I 
think about every day.
[02:28] <pascoe> FauxReal:  the horse 'series' is a manufactured 
chronology that is not even supported by evolutionists. 
 the arragement in order of size is not chronological 
or geographical.
[02:28] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[02:28] <ex_nihilo> FauxReal:  But, but, what about the 
gaps?  you have distinct species there...they should 
all blend into a smear!!
[02:28] <pascoe> creation:  evolutionists are still using 
the horse 'series'.
[02:28] <creation> I'm in my room now  :)
[02:28] <creation> Oh my gosh!!!   
[02:28] <creation> you have to be kidding me.
[02:29] <pascoe> FauxReal:  evolutionists might just 
as well arrange the dog species in order by size and 
call it a transitionary series.
[02:29] <creation> Gee, Pit ponies and Clydsdales are 
both horses
[02:29] <FauxReal> it's an example of phyletic progression. 
 Not smallest to largest.
[02:30] <pascoe> FauxReal:  the museum horse display 
was arraged in order by size.
[02:30] <FauxReal> creation:  yes, but they're both distinctly 
Equus.
[02:30] <FauxReal> pascoe:  It *did* get larger.
[02:30] <creation> FauxReal:  By what characteristics?
[02:30] <pascoe> FauxReal:  It *did* get discarded too 
by most evolutionists when they discovered the underlying 
data.
[02:30] <ex_nihilo> by the characteristic of being able 
to interbreed successfully
[02:31] <FauxReal> You can look at the hoof evolution.
[02:31] <creation> paladin:  You know, if you still want 
to discuss that naturalism/nihilism and ethics/knowledge, 
acolyte is the best man to talk to.  He can explain 
it far better than I can.
[02:31] <FauxReal> pascoe: not true.
[02:31] <pascoe> the North American progression goes 
from 3 toes to one while the South American went from 
one to 3 toes.  supposely during the same timeframe.
[02:31] <ex_nihilo> creation:  sorry, acolyte has always 
gotten on my nerves...  he can't even type right
[02:32] <ex_nihilo> kept on misspelling my nick
[02:32] RedTango (silver@ip9-014.lax.primenet.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[02:32] RexMundi (RexMundi@pm2-10.netexpress.net) joined 
#apologetics.
[02:32] <FauxReal> There were many ends. At the top of 
the tree do you get one branch or many?
[02:32] Nick change: ex_nihilo -> Adversary
[02:32] <pascoe> FauxReal:  is the horse 'series' the 
best example you can offer in the way of fossil evidence?
[02:32] <creation> FauxReal:  You erase the branches 
and what do you have?  Different kinds of animals with 
no transistions.
[02:32] <FauxReal> pascoe: No, Hyracotherium was 3-toed.
[02:33] <RedTango> hey, its creation..on his favorite 
subject!
[02:33] <FauxReal> I gave you the complete transition 
from hyracotherium to Equus.
[02:33] <pascoe> FauxReal:  was hyracotherium north or 
south american?  I never can remember since they were 
all mixed up in the progrression.  8)
[02:33] <creation> red:  yep
[02:33] <RedTango> hahaha
[02:33] <RedTango> hey, creation, i ahve been reading 
up on creation.
[02:33] bitwise (pilgrim@tahoe-d21.foothill.net) joined 
#apologetics.
[02:33] <creation> Red:  Like what?
[02:33] <FauxReal> hyracotherium splin in the eocene 
period into orohippus and pachynolophus.
[02:34] <RedTango> hey, bhey bitwise, long time....
[02:34] <bitwise> Red! :)
[02:34] <RedTango> crreation, i bought a book from a 
christian bookstore
[02:34] <RedTango> where have you been, bit?
[02:34] <pascoe> FauxReal:  was hyrachterium north or 
south american?
[02:34] <creation> name?
[02:34] <FauxReal> Orohippus survived to create mesohippus 
-> miohippus.  
[02:34] <bitwise> Off and on.
[02:34] <RedTango> the story of creation..i lent it to 
a friend, so i dont remember the author
[02:35] <Adversary> RedTango:  and so what did you learn?
[02:35] <pascoe> FauxReal:  and chiwawa survived to create 
spaniels too.  8)
[02:35] <FauxReal> pascoe.  This was the original.  Besides, 
if you remember, horses were *introduced* into the 
americas by the Spanish!
[02:35] <RedTango> nothing new!
[02:35] <creation> RedTango:  Doesn't sound familiar. 
 Probably not the best you could get as a represtative 
of what is out there.
[02:35] <pascoe> FauxReal:  are you thinking of 'modern' 
horses now?
[02:35] <pascoe> FauxReal:  let's not get our timeline 
mixed up.  8)
[02:35] <Adversary> fauxreal:  actually, it was because 
the native population had hunted horses to extinction 
that they were absent from the Americas...  
[02:35] <Adversary> the spaniards reintroduced them
[02:35] <FauxReal> miohippus branched into anchitherium 
hypohippus and parahippus.
[02:36] <RedTango> creation, well, it gives me alot of 
the stories and things that i have read in other books..i 
also have another book called darmwin's delimma.
[02:36] <pascoe> FauxReal:  eohippus is supposed to be 
the original.  but that one is debatable now.  8)
[02:36] <FauxReal> Parahippus survived to go on.
[02:36] <FauxReal> pascoe: there are no duckbilled playpuses 
indiginous to the americas, either.
[02:36] <RedTango> creation, i notice alot of repeat 
information, even reused graphics, in unrelated books.
[02:37] <pascoe> eohippus was probably more like a pig 
than a horse, but hey, you take what you can get.
[02:37] <pascoe> FauxReal:  good point about the platypus.
[02:37] <Adversary> platypus...there's one hell of a 
nonconforming animal...
[02:37] <bitwise> Red: who wrote Darwin's dilema?
[02:37] <Adversary> a mammal that lays eggs
[02:37] Hume (lagorer@pm106.spots.ab.ca) joined #apologetics.
[02:38] <FauxReal> pascoe: and we're more like chimpanzees 
than horses.  Your point?
[02:38] <pascoe> Adversary:  one of the many evolutionary 
miracles.  8)
[02:38] <creation> RedTango:  Darwin's Dilemma?  Hmmm, 
sounds familiar.  Is that talking aobut Darwin's Dilemma 
about how truth value doesn't necessarily correlate 
with survival value.  The truth of a belief held doesn't 
necessarily coincide with 

its survival value.  
[02:38] <Adversary> pascoe: one of the many evidences 
of transition
[02:38] <RedTango> Bit, actually, its called darwins 
enigma..written by Luther Sunderland.
[02:38] <FauxReal> pascoe: if god created the platypus, 
he must have been crazy.
[02:38] <pascoe> Adversary:  transition from what?
[02:38] <RedTango> creation, i got the title of the book 
wrong..
[02:39] <pascoe> FauxReal:  He did it to keep you up 
at night.  8)
[02:39] <Adversary> pascoe:  reptiles, probably
[02:39] <bitwise> Red: ahh, yes... and what was your 
opinion?
[02:39] <pascoe> Adversary:  of course.
[02:39] <RedTango> bit, my opinion stands, that the idea 
of creation is ridiculous and unfounded.
[02:39] <creation> Red: That is what I thought.  Yeah, 
I've seen the book.  havn't read it yet.  I'm busy 
trying to read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins and 
"The Creationists" by Numbers.
[02:39] <Adversary> pascoe:  but of course, you want 
the gaps all sealed, don't you?  paying no attention 
to the sometimes small size of the gaps...
[02:40] Action: creation 's opinion still stands as 
well.
[02:40] <FauxReal> Pascoe:  Looks like you're the one 
who stays up at night, worrying.  You need to gather 
all the info you can to try to disprove evolution.
[02:40] <pascoe> Adversary:  actually I'm willing to 
start modestly.  a single solid transitionary series 
would be nice.  a series leading to a modern specied 
would be even better.
[02:40] <Adversary> "So this individual t-rex then mutated, 
and became taller, and then this type of t-rex had 
evolved, and his children mutated in this way..."
[02:40] <RedTango> I was also given some papers supposedly 
invalidating carbon dating but they didnt, these creationsit 
papers leave out some very important information. They 
also borrow from science when they want, then twist 
it around.
[02:40] <Adversary> "...and so on down through the 30,000 
generations"
[02:41] <creation> Red:  You should read "The Mystery 
of Life's Origin's" by Bradley, Thaxton and Olsen if 
you really want a good book to read and not piddle 
around with those other books.
[02:41] <pascoe> RedTango:  do you know of a transitionary 
series?
[02:41] <RedTango> creation, Ill see if i can find it, 
but im not going to waste any more money on them.
[02:42] <creation> Red:  Too bad
[02:42] <pascoe> FauxReal:  I went to the evolution web 
page and looked under transitionary series and they 
didn't have the horse?????
[02:42] <Adversary> redtango:  wise choice...once you've 
read one, you've read them all
[02:42] <RedTango> Pascoe, i havent studied enough in 
the area of transitory skeletons.
[02:42] <pascoe> RedTango:  oh.
[02:42] <creation> Red:  I never knew it to be a waste 
to gain knowledge even if you don't agree with the 
position.
[02:42] <FauxReal> pascoe:  Never been there so I can't 
say.
[02:42] <RedTango> creation, i said it was a waste of 
money, not time.
[02:42] <Adversary> Oh, THE evolution web page, eh?  
Well, I guess FauxReal's been pulling your hoof all 
along then
[02:42] <pascoe> FauxReal:  they must have forgotten 
about it.  8)
[02:43] <FauxReal> pascoe:  I don't need to waste my 
time.
[02:43] <creation> Red:  A waste in any sense.
[02:43] Hume (lagorer@pm106.spots.ab.ca) left #apologetics.
[02:43] <pascoe> FauxReal:  You should write them and 
tell them not to forget the horse 'series' on their 
web page.  8)
[02:43] <RedTango> Im not going to shell out tons of 
money for creationist books, sorry.
[02:44] <FauxReal> I don't need to.  People don't need 
to include every example.  They generally use what 
they know best or what best demonstrates the 
[02:44] <FauxReal> principle they're upholding.
[02:44] Action: Adversary yawns
[02:44] <pascoe> FauxReal:  oh.
[02:44] <creation> Red:  hmmm, how do you logically conclude 
that a $11.00 book equals tons of money?
[02:44] <RedTango> where did you get $11.00 from?
[02:45] Action: Adversary yawns again
[02:45] <creation> Red:  I simply suggested a book and 
you come up with "tons of money" so...
[02:45] Action: pascoe wouldn't spend $11 on evolutionist 
books either.  8)
[02:45] Action: Adversary almost...no, wait...no, the 
yawn was stifled that time
[02:46] <bitwise> stop that Adversary...you're making 
me yawn !!!
[02:46] Action: FauxReal tosses adversary a couple 
vivarin and some Sartre to keep him awake during this 
tedious exchange...
[02:46] <Adversary> So what was the name of Adam's pet 
dinosaur?
[02:46] Action: FauxReal giggles inanely.
[02:46] <RedTango> I have several christian books, i 
went out an purchased a $20.00 creation book, and a 
book called "Why Knock Rock" which is really hilarious.
[02:46] <creation> Red:  What creation book costed 20 
dollars?
[02:46] <Adversary> redtango:  any of them put out by 
the watchtower association?  theirs are the funniest...
[02:47] <creation> cost even
[02:47] <RedTango> The one called "The story of creation"
[02:47] <pascoe> RedTango:  you buy books like 'Why Knock 
Rock' and complain about creationist books?  8)
[02:47] <brentf> Rex? <heheheh>
[02:47] <RedTango> I complain about them all! Actually, 
they are all quite interesting.
[02:47] <RexMundi> brentf: yes?
[02:47] <Adversary> Spot.  
[02:47] <creation> Well, I hope you looked through it 
before you bought it.
[02:47] <Adversary> As in what Adam was when his pet 
bronto stepped on him.
[02:48] <RedTango> creation, i checked it out, then went 
back and bought it.
[02:48] <creation> 
[02:48] Action: Adversary recommends A History Of God 
by Karen Armstrong to anyone and everyone
[02:48] <creation> Acolyte:  Have you read that book, 
"A History of God"?
[02:48] <RedTango> creation, do you go to a christian 
college?
[02:48] Action: pascoe recommends the Bible to anyone 
and everyone.
[02:48] <creation> Red: No
[02:48] <FauxReal> I want to read the _Biography of God_.
[02:49] Action: Adversary likes the King James Verson 
the best
[02:49] bitwise (pilgrim@tahoe-d21.foothill.net) left 
irc: Ping timeout for bitwise[tahoe-d21.foothill.net]
[02:49] <Adversary> fauxreal:  I read it...it's worth 
the read
[02:49] <Adversary> fauxreal:  you mean "God: A Biography", 
right?
[02:49] <pascoe> FauxReal:  is this an authorized biography?
[02:49] <FauxReal> Yeah, I guess.
[02:49] <brentf> Are you people aware that most public 
libraries are willing to buy books if you indicate 
an interest in checking it out?
[02:50] <RexMundi> Does it have his signature in goldleaf? 
:)
[02:50] godiva (mpr11sp@www-17-38.gnn.com) joined #apologetics.
[02:50] <FauxReal> Ha, we couldn't get evolution vs. 
creationism books here.  I'm from the state where they 
can fire you if you teach it as anything other
[02:50] Action: creation has read "The Monkey Business" 
by Eldridge.  amusing.  and "Scientists Confront Creationism" 
and amusing again.
[02:50] <FauxReal> than conjectured theory.
[02:51] <Adversary> what state is that?
[02:51] <FauxReal> TN
[02:51] <Adversary> oh
[02:51] RexMundi (RexMundi@pm2-10.netexpress.net) left 
#apologetics.
[02:51] <Adversary> Wait, wasn't that where the Scopes 
trial was too?
[02:51] <FauxReal> Why do people still say that we came 
from monkeys?
[02:52] <FauxReal> Yep.
[02:52] godiva (mpr11sp@www-17-38.gnn.com) left #apologetics.
[02:52] <RedTango> I dont know, we never did.
[02:52] <Adversary> fauxreal: because they just don't 
know what they're talking about
[02:52] <creation> FauxReal:  You should go talk to Dr. 
Kurt Wise at Bryon University.
[02:52] <Adversary> they set up a straw man for evolution 
and then tear it down
[02:52] <FauxReal> Indeed.  You paying for the trip creation?
[02:52] <creation> Adversary:  Dayton 
[02:52] brentf (brentf@ip-pdx10-43.teleport.com) left 
irc: lagging badly...changing servers
[02:52] <RedTango> heheheheheh
[02:52] <Adversary> creation:  a friend of mine recommended 
him to me
[02:52] brentf` (brentf@ip-pdx10-43.teleport.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[02:52] <Adversary> creation:  Columbus, at OSU
[02:53] <pascoe> evolution is its own straw man.  8)
[02:53] <Adversary> ha.
[02:53] <Adversary> oh, my sides...
[02:53] Nick change: brentf` -> brentf
[02:53] <Acolyte> ok I am back
[02:53] <creation> Adversary: He is a creationist and 
recieved his Ph.D under Gould at Harvard while he was 
a creationist.
[02:53] <FauxReal> creation and pascoe can just go to 
their local biology professor.
[02:53] <RedTango> People need to deny that they are 
animals.
[02:53] <Acolyte> redtango why?
[02:53] <pascoe> people need to deny their accountability 
to a Maker.
[02:53] <RedTango> Because it feeds the fantasy.
[02:54] <Acolyte> redtango perhaps nature disposes them 
to that fantasy?
[02:54] <RedTango> there is no accountability to a maker
[02:54] <Adversary> pascoe:  people need to deny their 
accountability to reality
[02:54] <RedTango> that is a man imposed concept.
[02:54] <Acolyte> Creation I know that bl
[02:54] <FauxReal> Red, Adversary>  Have you guys seen 
"The Human Animal" by Desmond Morris?
[02:54] <Acolyte> Creation I know that bk
[02:54] <RedTango> acolyte, what else would
[02:54] <creation> Acolyte:  What did you think of "A 
History of God"
[02:54] <Adversary> fauxreal:  yes, and I read The Naked 
Ape
[02:54] <Acolyte> redtango thatis the point, nature has 
disposed you to believe in other mysths
[02:54] <Acolyte> Creation crappy
[02:54] <creation> hehehe
[02:54] <RedTango> i dont beleive in myths.
[02:54] <Acolyte> creation about 40 yrs out of date
[02:55] <FauxReal> Cool, huh!
[02:55] <Acolyte> redtagno sure you
[02:55] <creation> do
[02:55] <pascoe> evolution is a myth.
[02:55] <Acolyte> creation thanks
[02:55] <creation> acolyte:  no problem :)
[02:55] <Acolyte> Redtango ethics are a myth, and yet 
you hold to them
[02:55] <Adversary> creation:  ignore acolyte...  I highly 
recommend it as a general look at the philosophical 
history of the three ethical monotheistic religions
[02:55] <FauxReal> evolution is  atheory, creation is 
a myth.
[02:55] <RedTango> Evolution is fact, you are an animal 
and will die an animal.
[02:55] <FauxReal> redtango: theory, but that's much 
better than myth.
[02:55] <creation> Adversary:  Hmm, I don't think I would 
ignore acolyte.
[02:56] <Acolyte> creation she holds to outdated theories 
on Textual transmission and compostion and holds EXTREMELY 
late dates that were barely tenable before we had the 
Dead Sea Scrolls.
[02:56] <pascoe> RedTango:  but you already said you 
didn't know of any transitionary series.  how can you 
say it is fact?
[02:56] <Adversary> acolyte:  ethics are common sense, 
Einstein
[02:56] <RedTango> ethics are something i find that works 
for me personally. Myths regarding supernatural beings 
dont.
[02:56] <Acolyte> Redtango Evolutiuon does not exclude 
a God, naturalism does
[02:56] <Adversary> true
[02:56] <Acolyte> redtango you have an ethics myth
[02:56] <RedTango> pascoe, research into evolution is 
an ongoing, lifelong process. Science makes new discoveries 
each year, and i am there to follow the progress.
[02:56] <Acolyte> redtango it really is not true, but 
you made it up to cope with reality, hence a myth
[02:57] <Adversary> acolyte:  myths are stories about 
supernatural beings
[02:57] <Adversary> you mean LIE
[02:57] <pascoe> RedTango:  you are there to place your 
faith in what they say.
[02:57] <RedTango> acolyte, and it doesnt involve the 
supernatural..thats what i meany=t by "myth", the supernatural.
[02:57] <Acolyte> Advasary some are
[02:57] <Acolyte> advasary mean a myth
[02:57] <FauxReal> Why is it that Religion thinks it 
holds a monopoly on morality and ethics?
[02:57] <Acolyte> advarsay it is an illusion to cope 
with or explain reality
[02:57] <RedTango> religion is about control and power, 
thats why.
[02:57] <Adversary> acolyte:  you can't even get the 
bloody name right!!!
[02:57] <Adversary> A D V E R S A R Y
[02:57] <FauxReal> red:  Actually a myth is a god or 
hero story of any faith/tradition/culture.
[02:58] <Acolyte> advarsary I am dyslexic, I have a disability, 
do you have a problem with that?
[02:58] <RedTango> Faux, there you go.
[02:58] <Acolyte> Fauxreal depends on whom you ask
[02:58] <pascoe> FauxReal:  what is the basis of morality 
apart from accountability to a Creator?
[02:58] <Adversary> ...yawn
[02:58] <creation> yeah adversary, you got a problem?
[02:58] <FauxReal> myth connotates neither verit or falsehood
[02:58] <RedTango> I am moral without a God.
[02:59] <pascoe> RedTango:  why?
[02:59] <Acolyte> fauxreal, so it ir neither true nor 
false? it carries no true value?> hence it is meaningless
[02:59] <FauxReal> pascoe:  Responsibility to one's self 
and one's fellow man.
[02:59] Action: Adversary is moral without a God as 
well
[02:59] <Acolyte> redtango define morality
[02:59] <RedTango> acolyte, why define it?
[02:59] <Acolyte> redtango why should I not rape you?
[02:59] <RedTango> You will only sit and tear it apart.
[02:59] <Adversary> Morality:  a system of ethics that 
supports the prosperity of human life
[02:59] <Acolyte> redtango because I wishto know what 
you mean.
[02:59] <pascoe> FauxReal:  how do you define irresponsibility 
then if you are your own judge?
[02:59] <Acolyte> Adversary thatis ONE SYSTEM of ethics, 
not all systems
[02:59] <Acolyte> adv thatis a type of consequentialism
[02:59] <RedTango> acolyte, you have spoken to me before, 
you know my "worldview.." or at least your version of 
it.
[02:59] <FauxReal> pascoe: see adversary's def.
[03:00] <Adversary> Then by my book that's not morality...that 
is exploitation
[03:00] <Acolyte> adva ok, why is explotation wrong?
[03:00] <pascoe> Adversary:  what authority are you using 
to make these categories?
[03:00] <Adversary> By the fact that I am alive and wish 
to stay so...
[03:00] <Adversary> By my knowledge of philosophy...
[03:00] <Adversary> By my rational capability...
[03:00] <Adversary> Why do you ask?
[03:01] <Acolyte> ad Iso you just create ethics ipso 
facto?
[03:01] <Adversary> Ethics does not come from authority
[03:01] <Acolyte> ad how do you justify any ethic as 
correct?
[03:01] <Acolyte> Ad how do you know?
[03:01] <Adversary> By the consequences, and by the rational 
principles behind the theories
[03:01] <Acolyte> ad Ic, why value the consequences?
[03:01] <Acolyte> ad what principles would those be?
[03:01] <Adversary> sort of the whole point of ethics, 
to produce a certain result
[03:02] <creation> question beggin
[03:02] <creation> g
[03:02] <Acolyte> ad that is consequentialist ethics, 
which is only good if youvalue a thing, I want to know 
why value X, not the results of X
[03:02] <Adversary> the problem with ethics based upon 
authority is that there is no argument for them if 
you do not recognize the authority
[03:02] <FauxReal> ac:  the determination of right and 
wrong.
[03:02] <Acolyte> ad that depends on what authority one 
is arguing for
[03:02] <Adversary> acolyte:  you mean why do I value 
life?
[03:02] <Acolyte> Faux thats better
[03:02] <Acolyte> ad yes why?
[03:03] <Adversary> Because I enjoy living.
[03:03] <Adversary> It's a choice, if nothing more.
[03:03] <Acolyte> ad ok but nature has disposed you to 
enjoy it, how do you know that it is right tho?
[03:03] <Adversary> And I make that choice with full 
responsibility of the consequences.
[03:03] <Adversary> Right by what standard?
[03:03] <Acolyte> responsible to whom?
[03:03] <Adversary> Life is the standard by which I define 
right.
[03:03] <Adversary> Responsible to reality...
[03:03] <FauxReal> However, we think human sacrifice 
is wrong and our ancestors thought that their gods 
wanted it.
[03:03] <Acolyte> how do you get an ought from an is?
[03:03] <Adversary> Responsible for supporting my own 
life, instead of being a parasite off of the ability 
of others
[03:04] <Acolyte> fauxreal not my ancestors
[03:04] <Adversary> is determines what should be
[03:04] <Acolyte> ad so you grow your own food?
[03:04] <Adversary> acolyte: I work to earn it
[03:04] <Acolyte> Ad how do you derive from nature what 
ought to be?
[03:04] <creation> is-ought fallacy?
[03:04] <Acolyte> ad you still depend onothers
[03:04] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip20.csrv.uidaho.edu) left 
irc: Ping timeout for pascoe[xslip20.csrv.uidaho.edu]
[03:04] <Acolyte> creation yes
[03:04] <Adversary> acolyte:  I exist in a society, but 
I give my return to it...I am paying for my education, 
I pay for my housing, I pay for my food
[03:05] <Adversary> I pay taxes
[03:05] <Acolyte> adversary-how do you derive from nature 
what out to be?
[03:05] <Adversary> Because reality determines what is 
necessary to maintain a certain state
[03:05] <Adversary> I wish to maintain my life in happiness 

[03:05] <FauxReal> ad or acolyte please change nicks. 
 It's difficult to tell you apart.
[03:05] <Acolyte> fbut again, why value what is?
[03:05] <Adversary> What is real, what my nature is, 
determines how I need to do that
[03:05] <Adversary> If I don't, then I die
[03:05] <Acolyte> ok, so then you do not know what is 
true,but what nature determines you to think eh?
[03:05] <Adversary> If I don't recognize reality, then 
my chances of survival decrease significantly
[03:06] <Acolyte> ok, why value survivial?
[03:06] <Adversary> What is true is what is real
[03:06] <Acolyte> how  do you know what is real?
[03:06] <Adversary> Because I am conscious
[03:06] <Adversary> I observe, I experience
[03:06] <Acolyte> but that is determined by nature
[03:06] <Adversary> yes, reality
[03:06] <Acolyte> you only know what mnature determines 
yout o know
[03:06] <Acolyte>  which may not be true
[03:06] <Adversary> yawn
[03:06] <Acolyte> survivial beleifs may have LOW truth 
value
[03:06] <Acolyte> Spit
[03:06] <Adversary> Not by definition
[03:07] <Acolyte> I beg to differ
[03:07] <Acolyte> for example
[03:07] <Adversary> Truth is what enables us to survive
[03:07] <creation> hehehehehe
[03:07] <Adversary> go ahead, beg
[03:07] <Acolyte> not necessarily
[03:07] <creation> ROTFL!!!!!!!
[03:07] <Acolyte> for example
[03:07] Nick change: Adversary -> Paladin
[03:07] <Acolyte> jack may run away froma tiger for MANY 
reasons,not all of them true
[03:07] <Acolyte> not just because he wishes to survive 
or not just because he is scared
[03:08] <RedTango> Acolyte, you seemed determined to 
prove that God is the only way anyone's morals and 
values can be justified or valid, there is this strange 
mistrust you have about individuals making choices 
for themselves, like these choices a

re always wrong. Why?
[03:08] <FauxReal> If at least one is true, then he made 
the right decision.
[03:08] <Acolyte> red i make choices for myself all the 
time, whats the problem?
[03:08] <Paladin> Acolyte:  So who then do I rely upon 
to tell me what is true, if I can not?
[03:08] <FauxReal> RedTango:  Verrrry niiicce. 
[03:08] <RedTango> acolyte, but you have your god myth 
as a defense.
[03:08] <Acolyte> Paladin, that is not what I am saying 
at all
[03:08] <Paladin> I either rely upon my own mind, or 
I give up my responsibility to think and leave it to 
someone else
[03:08] <RedTango> We dont, so you pick, pick pick at 
our choices and values.
[03:08] <Acolyte> redtango and you have irrationality 
as yours, so?
[03:09] <RedTango> Acolyte, i am talking about YOU for 
a moment.
[03:09] <Acolyte> red I pick my choices too, so?
[03:09] <Paladin> And pretending there is some aspect 
of reality that doesn't follow natural laws does not 
prove your position of a spiritual realm
[03:09] <RedTango> Your hobby here is to pick pick pick 
at our choices.
[03:09] <Acolyte> redtagno and I am talking about me 
2 and you, so?
[03:09] <Acolyte> paladin I did not say that
[03:09] <RedTango> Paladin, yes, true.
[03:09] <RedTango> Acolyte, you are always inclined that 
way, however.
[03:09] <Acolyte> paladin I said nature may produce beleifs 
in you that have LOW truth value but HIGH survivial 
value and you would have no way to verify the truth 
of EITHER of them since what you think is determined 
by nature
[03:10] <Acolyte> redtango your point?
[03:10] <Paladin> Acolyte:  with all due respect, could 
you speed it up a bit?  I need to get some sleep soon...
[03:10] <FauxReal> Red:  Let's not point fingers.
[03:10] <Acolyte> paladin, sorry if I am not speedy gonzales 
here ok
[03:10] <RedTango> You told me the other day that you 
are not like me..you are not made of the same things 
I am..what else can that mean, but that you think you 
are connected to a deity, while we are not, and you 
sit and pick and pick at our choic

es.
[03:10] <Paladin> Acolyte:  You're really not accomplishing 
much by saying that what I believe is determined by 
reality
[03:10] <Acolyte> paladin answer my point please
[03:10] <Acolyte> paladin sure I am, it is not verifiable
[03:10] <RedTango> Faux, i am pointing right at Acolyte.
[03:10] <Paladin> Acolyte:  What has nature made me to 
be?
[03:11] <Acolyte> redtagno you totally miscontrued whatI 
said
[03:11] <FauxReal> What everyone believes and how they 
act are determined by reality.
[03:11] <Acolyte> I said VERY clerly that things in my 
paradigm are VERY different than the things in yours
[03:11] <RedTango> Acolyte, then if i have misunderstood, 
then lets clear this up.....
[03:11] <Acolyte> redtango i just did
[03:11] <FauxReal> Now, what determines that reality? 
and is it the same for all?
[03:12] <Acolyte> paladin it has determined youto have 
 certian beleifs, how do you verify them?
[03:12] <RedTango> Do you feel your morals and values 
are more rational, better, more real because you believe 
in God? Your answer to this will clear it up.
[03:12] <Paladin> Acolyte:  so how do I know that what 
enables me to survive is true?
[03:12] <FauxReal> ac: observation and ration.
[03:12] <Acolyte> Redtango I think Theism is the only 
rational basis for ethics and epsitemology
[03:12] <Paladin> Is that your basic question?
[03:12] <Acolyte> fauxreal is that part of nature or 
outside of natures detemrination?
[03:12] <RedTango> Acolyte, well, there you go..you proved 
my point exactly.
[03:12] <Acolyte> paladin thatis one question
[03:12] <Paladin> You have a valid point about the man 
running from the tiger...
[03:12] <Acolyte> redtango which was?
[03:13] <Acolyte> paladin thank you
[03:13] Iris (iris@prism.com) joined #apologetics.
[03:13] <FauxReal> observation, part; ration, outside.
[03:13] <Paladin> We do act and then later rationally 
justify our action
[03:13] <Paladin> regardless of whether or not that was 
the original intention
[03:13] <RedTango> Acolyte, you think your system of 
morals and values are more valid than ours.
[03:13] <Paladin> However, we do have a talent for correcting 
our mistakes
[03:13] <Acolyte> paladin but the point was, survival 
beleifs are not necessarily true beleifs
[03:13] <RedTango> thats the point.
[03:13] <Acolyte> redtango not more valid., your system 
is not valid logically at all.
[03:14] <Paladin> Acolyte:  What enables us to survive 
must be pretty close to reality, otherwise it wouldn't 
work, now would it?
[03:14] <Acolyte> paladin still determined by nature
[03:14] <RedTango> Acolyte, then if my system isnt valid 
logically, why is my life going so well?
[03:14] <FauxReal> red & ac:  stop bickering. 
[03:14] <Paladin> still determined by reality, yes
[03:14] <Acolyte> Paladin, but there is no way to verify 
it to know
[03:14] <RedTango> Faux, we talk here frequently.
[03:14] <Acolyte> redtango in spite of it, not because 
of it
[03:14] <RedTango> Please dont tell me how to conduct 
my conversations.
[03:14] <Acolyte> Red i have ops here don't worry about 
it
[03:14] <Acolyte> faux chill
[03:14] <FauxReal> red: still, that's the past.  leave 
it there while we're discussing the issue at hand.
[03:15] <Paladin> We verify our knowledge through more 
experience, which tends to either disprove or further 
support our beliefs
[03:15] <RedTango> Acolyte, so, somehow, by some crazy 
twist of luck, i have manages to make good of a life 
based on total iirationality..somehow, it is working...
[03:15] <Paladin> Knowledge is always an approximation...
[03:15] <Acolyte> paladina nd that experience is determined 
by nature as well and so on...
[03:15] <Acolyte> redtango luck? what luck? there is 
no luck
[03:15] <Acolyte> paladin is that an approximation too?
[03:15] <Paladin> acolyte:  and once again, you are really 
not accomplishing much by saying that my experiences 
are in reality
[03:16] <Paladin> touch&eacute;
[03:16] <Acolyte> paladin I did not say that, i said 
every experience is determined an henc enot verifiable
[03:16] <RedTango> Acolyte, it seems you insinuate that 
my life is going really well in spite of my worldview, 
you cant admit that my worldview may actually contribute 
to my success in life..thats just impossible, eh?
[03:16] <Paladin> verified by what means?  stepping outside 
of reality?  no, it can't be done that way...
[03:16] <FauxReal> acolyte: even your experience with 
god?
[03:16] <Acolyte> redtango yup, but not how you think 
I think of it
[03:16] <Paladin> it is verified only through comparison
[03:16] <RedTango> AColyte, hahahaha
[03:16] <Acolyte> fauxreal I am talking about paradigms 
here, not in mine
[03:17] <Acolyte> paladin is allreality physical?
[03:17] <Paladin> define physical
[03:17] <Acolyte> paladin material, composed of matter
[03:17] <FauxReal> reality is physical; nature goes somewhat 
beyond.
[03:17] <Acolyte> or don't you know what that is?
[03:17] <Paladin> no, all of reality is not composed 
of matter
[03:17] <Acolyte> paladin then what is it composed of?
[03:17] <Paladin> energy
[03:18] <Acolyte> matter=energy
[03:18] <Acolyte> BFD
[03:18] <Paladin> matter is a possible state of energy
[03:18] <creation> energy = matter
[03:18] <creation> hehehe
[03:18] <FauxReal> energy exists by physical laws and 
is therefore physical.
[03:18] <Acolyte> Paladin what are ideas?
[03:18] <FauxReal> creation: no energy = matter times 
the speed of light squared. ;)
[03:18] <Paladin> hmm...concepts held by a mind
[03:19] <Acolyte> paladin and what is a mind? a brain 
perhaps?
[03:19] <RedTango> Acolyte, you dont sound like the type 
of person who has had much experience in life.
[03:19] <Acolyte> redtango perhaps
[03:19] <creation> Fauxreal:   mc^2 = energy in ergs.
[03:19] <Paladin> the mind is the pattern of the brain's 
functioning
[03:19] <Acolyte> redtango and perhaps not
[03:19] <Paladin> the brain is the physical reality that 
expresses the pattern
[03:19] <RedTango> How old are you, early twenties?
[03:19] <Acolyte> paladin and  what are ideas
[03:19] <Acolyte> red mid 20's
[03:19] <Acolyte> red and u?
[03:19] <RedTango> 29
[03:19] <Paladin> 19
[03:19] <Acolyte> red you are 4 yrs older than me
[03:20] <FauxReal> just turned 20.
[03:20] <RedTango> Your inexpereince shows.
[03:20] <brentf> kids <heheheh>
[03:20] <Acolyte> REd yeah I can see all those 4 fricken 
years on you.
[03:20] <Acolyte> red you are truely ancient
[03:20] <creation> hehehehe
[03:20] <FauxReal> no, but certainly wizened.
[03:20] <RedTango> It isnt simply chronological age.
[03:20] <Acolyte> red I don't have to take poision to 
know that it will kill me either
[03:20] <Acolyte> red true
[03:20] <RedTango> It is experiencing people.
[03:20] <Paladin> ideas are a product of intellectual 
action
[03:20] <Paladin> a thought
[03:20] <Paladin> a belief
[03:20] <Acolyte> red and what specifically are you referring 
to?
[03:20] <Acolyte> paladin they are chemcials in the brain
[03:21] <RedTango> It is gaining a braoder understanding 
about differences between people.
[03:21] <Paladin> yep, that's the physical reality that 
the patterns are expressed in
[03:21] <Acolyte> red I understand the difference quite 
well
[03:21] <FauxReal> chemicals in the brain are the physical 
manifestation of these patterns.
[03:21] <Paladin> just as the pattern of life is expressed 
in carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc.
[03:21] <RedTango> Being able to step outside yourself 
and experience and take people at face value.
[03:21] <Acolyte> paladin, fine, and what is the brain 
governed by? what laws?
[03:21] <RedTango> No, you dont.
[03:21] <Paladin> disrupt the physical reality, the pattern 
is disrupted as well
[03:21] <Acolyte> red, oh I don't now, oh please inform 
me 
[03:21] <Acolyte> paladin, fine, and what is the brain 
governed by? what laws?
[03:22] <RedTango> You are still into making assumptions 
about people, and they are not educated assumptions.
[03:22] <Paladin> laws of reality
[03:22] <FauxReal> the brain is governed by physical 
laws.
[03:22] <Acolyte> red IC and what assumptions might those 
be?
[03:22] <Paladin> but I dislike the term laws
[03:22] <Acolyte> fauxreal good, now, so your thoughts 
are governed by what laws?
[03:22] <Iris> like the one you just made about aco, 
red?
[03:22] <FauxReal> axioms, perhaps?
[03:22] <Acolyte> irisi which was?
[03:22] Iris (iris@prism.com) left #apologetics.
[03:22] <Paladin> laws are man-made, descriptions given 
to observed tendencies
[03:22] <RedTango> You are very very self protective 
as well, very concerned, if not a tad paranoid, about 
losing control.
[03:22] <creation> hmmm, sounds like redtango is making 
some assumptions about acolyte himself.
[03:22] <Acolyte> paladin so do they exist or no?
[03:22] <FauxReal> ac: thoughts are governed by the laws 
of behaviour and psychology.
[03:23] <Paladin> do what exist?
[03:23] <Acolyte> red control of what?
[03:23] <RedTango> creation, and i stand corrected if 
i am wrong.
[03:23] <Acolyte> fauxreal which are laws of nature
[03:23] <RedTango> acolyte, your direction, your options.
[03:23] <Acolyte> red ic
[03:23] <Acolyte> red what else
[03:23] <Acolyte> Red what would I need to say to prove 
you wrong?
[03:23] <RedTango> Acolyte, i only see what is here on 
IRC, i cant delve into other parts of your life.
[03:24] <Paladin> acolyte:  I'm sorry if you wish for 
a reality that is not governed by identity, but it 
is not about the compromise for your whims
[03:24] <creation> Red:  But you are still making assumptions 
which was your point.
[03:24] <Acolyte> red then why make the judgement?
[03:24] <Paladin> to exist is to have an identity
[03:24] <Paladin> to have an identity is to have traits
[03:24] <RedTango> creation, and i am waiting to be corrected.
[03:24] <Paladin> to have traits is to behave in a particular 
way
[03:24] <Acolyte> paladin all your choices are determined 
by natureal laws, its vbery simple, you are a machine
[03:24] <Paladin> that's the way reality works
[03:24] <RedTango> acolyte, i am judging you on what 
i have seen displayed here.
[03:24] <Acolyte> red from your perspective
[03:24] <RedTango> acolyte, what else?
[03:24] <Acolyte> red I can undertsand how you see me
[03:24] <Paladin> Acolyte:  no, it's very complex and 
a machine is a fairly acceptable analogy
[03:25] <Acolyte> I would ask, try to see things how 
I see them, just try
[03:25] <Paladin> acolyte:  now, did you just ignore 
what I typed before, or will you respond to MY statements?
[03:25] <RedTango> Acolyte, it is only one part of you
[03:25] <Acolyte> paladin no it is not an anology at 
all
[03:25] <FauxReal> not really laws, but they fit within 
the parameters of observable situation.
[03:25] <Acolyte> paladin I have
[03:25] <Acolyte> paladin how are you not detemrine by 
nature if you are only part of nature?
[03:25] <RedTango> AColyte i cant sit and guess about 
anything else, i have no information about you other 
than your conversations about basically one subject 
here on IRC.
[03:25] <Paladin> In order to command nature, you must 
first obey it...
[03:25] <Paladin> I am part of the system of reality, 
sorry to tell you.  As are you.
[03:26] <Paladin> Reality exists, and so do you, and 
you can't choose otherwise.
[03:26] <Acolyte> paladin but even that commading is 
part of your being determined by it
[03:26] <Paladin> My being is that command, that tendency 
of the matter to behave in that way...
[03:26] <Acolyte> paladin so no free will eh?
[03:26] <Paladin> My will is not free from reality, no
[03:26] <Paladin> My will is not dictated by the will 
of other humans
[03:26] <RedTango> Acolyte, what is your personal fascination 
with "determination by nature?" Its a real sticking point 
with you. Why is that?
[03:26] <Paladin> nor is it dictated by the will of gods
[03:26] <Acolyte> paladin so your will is determined 
by physical states
[03:27] <Paladin> my will is a physical state
[03:27] <Acolyte> redtango it is a fatal flaw in naturalism.
[03:27] <creation> Acolyte:  A friend of mine as that 
Bonson and Stein debate on tape.  I'm going to borrow 
it some time.
[03:27] <Acolyte> paladin then iut is determined
[03:27] <brentf> Ahhh...determinism rears its ugly head
[03:27] <Acolyte> creation do yourself a favor and memorize 
it
[03:27] <FauxReal> will is determined by identity and 
conciousness with a good mix of sapience.
[03:27] <Paladin>  to exist is to have an identity
[03:27] <Paladin> > to have an identity is to have traits
[03:27] <Acolyte> brentf a certain KIND of it tho
[03:27] <creation> Acolyte:  Ok :)
[03:27] <Paladin> to have traits is to behave in a particular 
way
[03:27] <Acolyte> creation its great
[03:27] <RedTango> Acolyte, do you feel that your theories 
have flaws as well?
[03:28] <Acolyte> paladin so?
[03:28] <Paladin> So what?
[03:28] <Acolyte> redtango I have worked out most of 
the bugs, but they are not my theories
[03:28] <Acolyte> redtango If there are any, I know jwhere 
they are, no on has yet been able to find them.
[03:28] <Acolyte> redtango but they are not true defeaters 
to my system
[03:28] <RedTango> Acolyte, tell me, what flaws are still 
left in your beleifs that are still a problem for you..can 
you describe one for me?
[03:28] <creation> amen
[03:28] <Acolyte> red can i ask you a personal question?
[03:29] <RedTango> sure
[03:29] <Acolyte> why do you talk to me so much?
[03:29] <Paladin> Reality behaves in a particular way. 
 No, I am not free from reality.
[03:29] <RedTango> Acolyte, you are one of several people 
i talk to regularly on IRC
[03:29] <Acolyte> paladin then your choices are determined 
and hence you only thnk what you are determined to 
think
[03:29] <Acolyte> Red why?
[03:29] <RedTango> why what?
[03:29] <Acolyte> Red why talk to me?
[03:29] <RedTango> should i not?
[03:30] <Paladin> Acolyte:  at that level of perspective, 
you can not separate my identity from what is determining 
it, however
[03:30] <Acolyte> that is not what I asked
[03:30] <Acolyte> paladin true 
[03:30] <Acolyte> Red why talk to me?
[03:30] <RedTango> Acolyte, why not?
[03:30] <Paladin> acolyte:  it really accomplishes very 
little to talk of human will and morals from anything 
but the perspective of a human identity
[03:30] <Acolyte> Red will you answer or no?
[03:30] <RedTango> i did answer.
[03:30] <RedTango> you want specifics ?
[03:30] <Acolyte> red yes
[03:31] <FauxReal> Paladin: Amen!
[03:31] <Paladin> acolyte: so what was your point?
[03:31] <Paladin> acolyte:  I already knew that I was 
ultimately a unified part of reality, so what are you 
getting at?
[03:31] <RedTango> I talk to people who beleive differently 
than i do...see the world differently, solve problems 
differently. You are one of many who are different 
than i am.
[03:31] <Acolyte> paladin, the point is, that moral and 
all ideas in your paradigm have no truth value since 
1. there is no way to verify them since every attempt 
would be a determiend outcome as well 
[03:32] <Acolyte> red but why me if I am so wrong?
[03:32] <Acolyte> red do you enjoy talking to me?
[03:32] <RedTango> Acolyte, i dont come here to convert 
or convince people they are wrong...i dont care if 
someone doesnt beleive the same wasy I do.
[03:32] <FauxReal> acolyte: That's from the physical/reality 
point of view.
[03:32] <RedTango> Yeah, i enjoy talking to you
[03:32] <Acolyte> red I care
[03:32] <Acolyte> red why do you enjoy it?
[03:32] <Acolyte> fauxreal I know
[03:33] <Acolyte> fauxreal which is the point
[03:33] <FauxReal> ac:  Take a look at it from the conciousness/identity 
point of view.  It won't be easy, then.
[03:33] <RedTango> because i need to think..i dont want 
to sit around in boring channels and "sip coffee" and 
goof off. I want ot think and tos around new ideas.
[03:33] <Paladin> acolyte:  saying that I am not free 
from the reality that created me does not destroy the 
tendencies of human identity within that reality
[03:33] <Paladin> rather, it supports them...
[03:33] <Paladin> We behave the way we do for a reason...
[03:33] <FauxReal> Red: Amen!
[03:33] <Acolyte> faux if you hold to non-material reality 
sure, I am a Dualist, he is not, hence his problem,not 
mine
[03:33] <Paladin> It is part of our very nature, and 
something that can not be separated from us
[03:33] <Acolyte> paladin no, it codifies them
[03:34] <Acolyte> paladin that is part of the point
[03:34] <Paladin> acolyte:  which is...?
[03:34] <Paladin> acolyte:  You are trying to take the 
stance of someone looking down on us poor determined 
humans from afar
[03:34] <Acolyte> paladin your ideas are determined, 
you could never verify anyone fo them. they are meaningless
[03:34] <Paladin> We don't operate that way
[03:34] <RedTango> Acolyte, I would like to hear from 
you what flaws you have a problem with in your own 
beliefs.
[03:34] <Paladin> I would not be communicating right 
now if ideas were meaningless
[03:34] <Acolyte> paladin so you don't operate according 
to the principles of nature? ar eyou above nature in 
some way?
[03:34] <Paladin> there, verification
[03:35] <Acolyte> Red I bet you would
[03:35] <RedTango> Acolyte, you keep asking the same 
questions over and over.
[03:35] <Paladin> acolyte: i never said otherwise
[03:35] <Paladin> I said that we don't look at ourselves 
as from outside
[03:35] <Acolyte> Paladin how is that verification if 
it is detemined as well?
[03:35] <FauxReal> acolyte: so, you're saying identity 
codifies reality?
[03:35] <Paladin> we look through our own eyes
[03:35] <Acolyte> fauxreal no
[03:35] <RedTango> Acolyte seems to have a deep fear 
of meaninglessness.
[03:35] <Paladin> acolyte:  I'M saying that identity 
codifies reality
[03:36] <Acolyte> redtango to you or to them?
[03:36] <Paladin> I'm saying that to exist to have identity
[03:36] <Acolyte> Red yes I do, is jthat a problem?
[03:36] <RedTango> what?
[03:36] <Acolyte> paladin, so, still determined
[03:36] <Paladin> and it is our identity to be able to 
observe reality
[03:36] <RedTango> Acolyte, i am just trying to understand 
the man behind the message.
[03:36] <Acolyte> paladin, so, still determined
[03:36] <Paladin> STILL DETERMINED BY WHAT IS REAL AS 
OPPOSED TO YOUR FANTASIES, YES
[03:36] <Acolyte> reed can I be frank?
[03:36] <RedTango> yeah go ahead
[03:36] <Paladin> Now what's the point before I go to 
bed?
[03:37] <Acolyte> paladin, which means that your ideas 
are determined as well, hence they are meaningless
[03:37] <Acolyte> THAT IS THE POINT
[03:37] <Acolyte> THAT IS THE POINT
[03:37] <Acolyte> THAT IS THE POINT
[03:37] <Paladin> oh, brother...
[03:37] <Acolyte> paladin, which means that your ideas 
are determined as well, hence they are meaningless
[03:37] <RedTango> geez.
[03:37] <Paladin> No, it means they are firmly rooted 
in reality instead of being arbitrary
[03:37] <FauxReal> By determinism, acolyte, then so are 
yours. :)
[03:37] Paladin!Adversary@ts40-7.homenet.ohio-state.edu 
kicked by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: go to bed 
already
[03:37] <Acolyte> fauxreal nope
[03:37] Paladin (Adversary@ts40-7.homenet.ohio-state.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[03:37] <brentf> Hmmm...I don't fear meaninglessness 
as much as I enjoy meaningfullness...therefore, I choose 
to seek a system which gives meaning and purpose to 
life...which determinism does not.
[03:37] <Acolyte> fauxreal i am nto a naturalist, he 
is
[03:38] <Acolyte> fauxreal i am a dualist, not a monist
[03:38] <Acolyte> red if you wishto undertsnad me, truely, 
you are going about it the wrong way
[03:38] <FauxReal> but if, by being a determinist, his 
ideas are meaningless, then yours, by the same token 
of his determinism, would be equally meaningless.
[03:38] <Acolyte> faux real true. if his poaradigm were 
actually the case
[03:38] <RedTango> brent, i live without a God and I 
determine my own meaning and what i am going to do 
with the time i have here. it is a big responsibility, 
and I am mature and creative enough to handle it.
[03:39] <FauxReal> ac: for him, it is.
[03:39] <Acolyte> faxreal which would make the whole 
convo meaningless
[03:39] <FauxReal> Indeed. <steeples fingers>
[03:39] <Acolyte> red if you wish to  know me, talk tome 
on the phone
[03:39] Action: Paladin thinks Acolyte is meaningless
[03:39] <Paladin> goodnight all
[03:39] Paladin (Adversary@ts40-7.homenet.ohio-state.edu) 
left #apologetics.
--------------------------------------------------------------
[04:07] jp22 (jperrinjr@p5.pm0.theriver.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[04:07] <jp22> hello
[04:07] <brentf> hello, jp22
[04:07] <jp22> what is up with the topic?
[04:08] <brentf> Heh, I was wondering the same thing.
[04:08] <jp22> glad i asked
[04:08] Topic changed by Acolyte!st_aidan@199.171.190.3: 
The Home of rational Theism
[04:09] <jp22> is there such a thing as rational theism?
[04:09] <Acolyte> jp22 yes
[04:09] <jp22> i disagree
[04:09] <Acolyte> jp22 why?
[04:10] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) joined #apologetics.
[04:10] <zx> yeah
[04:10] <jp22> seeing as theology is the study of a religion 
which is based on the spiritual that you cannot prove 
exists
[04:10] <Acolyte> hey zx
[04:10] <Acolyte> define proof
[04:10] <jp22> how can something you cannot see be classified 
as rational
[04:10] Mode change '+o zx ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[04:10] <Acolyte> jp22 can you see an idea?
[04:10] <jp22> no
[04:11] <zx> who me?
[04:11] <zx> hehehe
[04:11] <zx> aco i got to get back lotta action over 
there
[04:11] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) left #apologetics.
[04:11] <Acolyte> ok
[04:11] <Acolyte> jp22 are ideas classifiable and yet 
not tangable?
[04:11] <Acolyte> yes they are
[04:12] <Acolyte> being non-material is not a deteriment 
to classification
[04:12] <jp22> are you arguing proof or rational theism
[04:12] Action: Achimoth is &iuml; back &iuml;
[04:12] <Acolyte> both
[04:12] <jp22> how can you rationalize on a whole theology, 
the study of the spiritual
[04:12] <Acolyte> jp22 r u an atheist?
[04:13] <jp22> no
[04:13] <Acolyte> then what?
[04:13] <jp22> does it matter
[04:13] <Acolyte> yes
[04:13] <jp22> why
[04:13] <Acolyte> cause I asked
[04:13] <jp22> how is that pertinant to rational theism
[04:13] <Acolyte> fine don't anmser
[04:14] <jp22> i wont
[04:14] <Acolyte> i will asume u r an atheist
[04:14] <Acolyte> fine by me
[04:14] <jp22> you know what they say about people who 
assume
[04:14] <jp22> and why are you assuming that i am atheist
[04:14] <Acolyte> jp22 I don't care what others say
[04:14] <jp22> obviously
[04:14] <Acolyte> I care abvout what is reasonable, don't 
you?
[04:14] <Acolyte> perhpas not
[04:15] <Acolyte> achimoth I gotta go home and go to 
bed
[04:15] <Acolyte> achimoth its late
[04:15] <jp22> leaving so soon
[04:15] <Achimoth> ok
[04:15] Mode change '+o Achimoth ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[04:15] <Acolyte> its 1 am here and I gotta drive homme
[04:15] <jp22> is it reasonable to assume that i am atheist
[04:15] <Acolyte> jp22 yes
[04:15] <jp22> how is that reasonable
[04:16] <jp22> you know nothing about me
[04:16] <Acolyte> jp22you are a non-bliever you do not 
believe inthe xian God, hence you are a form of Atheist
[04:16] <Acolyte> simeple enough
[04:16] <jp22> how do you know that
[04:16] <Acolyte> you told me
[04:16] <jp22> are you xtian
[04:16] <Acolyte> you talk like it as well
[04:16] <Acolyte> yes I am
[04:16] <Acolyte> r u?
[04:16] <jp22> you sure are quick to judge for a xtian
[04:17] <Acolyte> maybe
[04:17] <jp22> no i am not a xtian
[04:17] <Acolyte> are  you a jew?
[04:17] <Acolyte> are you a Muslim?
[04:17] <jp22> no
[04:17] <jp22> no
[04:17] <Achimoth> to quote Acolyte: what is your paradigm?
[04:17] <Acolyte> are you a theist?
[04:17] <jp22> define theist
[04:17] <jp22> let me ask you this
[04:17] <Acolyte> theist-one who believes in a deity 
or deities
[04:17] <Acolyte> ask away
[04:18] <jp22> can a person believe in Christ as the 
son of god and not be a xtian
[04:18] RLB (rbruno@van-as-11b01.direct.ca) joined 
#apologetics.
[04:18] <Acolyte> jp22 no
[04:18] <Acolyte> rlb the Arian
[04:18] <jp22> is it not historically proven that Christ 
was the son of God
[04:18] <jp22> historically written 
[04:18] <Acolyte> I don't think so
[04:18] <Acolyte> wait
[04:19] <jp22> then who was christ according to history?
[04:19] <Achimoth> Christian=follower of Christ
[04:19] <Acolyte> what do you mean?
[04:19] <RLB> jp22 the bible is considered as a historicaql 
document
[04:19] <jp22> RLB, how I agree and disagree with you 
there
[04:20] <jp22> what do I mean?>
[04:20] <Acolyte> jp22who is Jesus in your opinion?
[04:20] <jp22> The son of GOd
[04:20] <RLB> bur we both know believers wrote it
[04:20] <Acolyte> jp22 does he have his fathers nature?
[04:20] <jp22> that is historically written that he was 
the son of God
[04:21] <RLB> historically (secular historians) that 
ever wrote that jesus is the Son of God were believers 
too
[04:21] <jp22> RLB the bible is a biased outdated non-factual 
prophesising document that may tell us about society 
in the times of Jesus, but is it a valid source seeing 
as it was so mass produced and written by scribe after 
scribe
[04:22] <Acolyte> jp22 if the NT is not reliable no piece 
of ancient writing is
[04:22] <Achimoth> yep
[04:22] <jp22> and why is that?
[04:22] <Acolyte> jp22 the multipe ancient copies of 
the Nt make it reliable
[04:22] <Acolyte> because we can check against other 
copies against errors
[04:22] <Acolyte> you can't do that with other documents
[04:23] <Acolyte> because
[04:23] <Acolyte> they only have a few copies
[04:23] <RLB> 22 its the most well keep historical account 
during those times
[04:23] <Acolyte> and the time gap is so vast betyween 
when they were written and when they were originally 
composed
[04:23] <jp22> i dont doubt that, but did it ever occur 
to you that folklore changes, most of Paul's stories 
were told by Paul to people who then told the scribes 
 
[04:23] <Acolyte> jp22 how is the Nt non-factual?
[04:23] <jp22> see abouve
[04:24] <Acolyte> jp22 how is the Nt non-factual?
[04:24] <Acolyte> jp Paul did not write the Gospels
[04:24] <Acolyte> thats for starters
[04:24] <Achimoth> jp22: Paul wrote those epistles
[04:24] <Acolyte> second if it changed we have no evidencer 
that it did change
[04:24] <jp22> did i say he wrote the gospels?
[04:24] <Acolyte> jp22 how is the Nt non-factual?
[04:24] <Acolyte> jp22 I was pointing it out for you
[04:24] <Acolyte> jp22 how is the Nt non-factual?
[04:25] <jp22> but you leave it open that there is a 
chanve that pauls epistles could have been changed
[04:25] Action: Achimoth finds it interesting that 
the book of Isaiah is almost completely unchanged from 
the time of the Qumran settlement to now
[04:25] <Acolyte> jp22 sure and there is a chance that 
aliens took jesus to heaven, but I don't go on what 
COULD BE, I go on what I have evidence for
[04:25] <Acolyte> don't u?
[04:26] <jp22> and how do you have evidence that Moses 
parted the red sea?
[04:26] <Acolyte> achimoth 7 varient words over 1,100 
yrs of transimmsion
[04:26] <Acolyte> jp22 how is the NT non-factual?
[04:26] <Achimoth> acolye: mindboggling from atheistically 
POV
[04:26] etaro (s334285@s334285.slip.cc.uq.oz.au) joined 
#apologetics.
[04:26] <Acolyte> achnith naybe
[04:26] <jp22>  and how do you have evidence that Moses 
parted the red sea?
[04:27] <Acolyte> jp I have asked you first 7 times, 
please answer
[04:27] <Achimoth> jp22: do you have evidence it didnt?
[04:27] <Acolyte> then I will be more than happy to answer 
yo9ur question
[04:27] <jp22> if you scroll back you will see my answer
[04:27] <Acolyte> jp22 I did, and you gave me no example 
of how it is non-historical
[04:27] <Acolyte> jp22 how is the nt false?
[04:27] etaro (s334285@s334285.slip.cc.uq.oz.au) left 
#apologetics.
[04:28] <jp22> the fact that the epistles were passed 
down by word of mouth leads to what could be a question 
of validity, and that changes history
[04:28] <RLB> must sleep  goodnight
[04:28] RLB (rbruno@van-as-11b01.direct.ca) left irc: 

[04:28] <Achimoth> jp22: they werent
[04:28] <Achimoth> theres your flaw
[04:28] <Acolyte> jp22, the epistles were written, hence 
epistles, LETTERS
[04:29] <Acolyte> by word OR epistle
[04:29] <Acolyte> hence the epistle is not word of mouth
[04:29] <jp22> no flaw, Paul told what he saw to a scribe 
who then wrote them, how do you know that Paul sat 
down and wrote those epistles
[04:29] <Achimoth> all the epistles were letters written 
by the apostles to others, that were preserved.. and 
copied
[04:29] <Acolyte> jp22 because he says so
[04:29] <jp22> also the bible is also translated from 
hebrew
[04:29] <Achimoth> jp22: Paul was greek trained.. he 
wrote fluent greek and spoke it as well
[04:30] <Achimoth> the OT was
[04:30] <Acolyte> jp22 if my secretary transcribeds what 
i said, it is stillmy words
[04:30] <jp22> your willing to take his word
[04:30] <Acolyte> jp22 I have no evidence not to
[04:30] <Achimoth> Paul was not some ignorant preacher 
off the street....
[04:30] <Acolyte> achimoth anyhow I gotta go to sleep
[04:30] <Acolyte> and go home
[04:30] <Acolyte> achimoth later
[04:30] <jp22> paul was a platonist
[04:30] <Achimoth> he was a Pharisee trained by the best 
teachers...
[04:31] <Acolyte> jp22 AHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH
[04:31] <Acolyte> jp22 that allagation is about 90 yrs 
old
[04:31] <Acolyte> and 90 yrs refuted
[04:31] <Achimoth> aco: i may kick this guy.. sheeesh
[04:31] <Achimoth> where des he get this?
[04:31] <Acolyte> see J. Gersham Machen, the Origin of 
Pauls religion
[04:31] <jp22> read Ceasar and Christ
[04:31] <Acolyte> by whom? McCabe?
[04:31] <Acolyte> already done that
[04:32] <jp22> and who is it refuted by, christians?
[04:32] <Acolyte> do you want toknow why paul was not 
a platonist?
[04:32] <Acolyte> Paul believed in the Resurrection of 
the BODY, Platinists thought the material body was 
evil,
[04:32] <Acolyte> simple fact of history
[04:33] <Acolyte> jp22 even liberal scholars do not hold 
that view, they have not for about 90 yrs
[04:33] <brentf> Don't kick him.  And don't be so condescending, 
either.  There are polite ways of disagreeing and pointing 
out errors in one's opinions and beliefs.
[04:33] <Acolyte> jp22 who is the author of the bk you 
mentioned?
[04:33] <jp22> i dont remember 
[04:33] <jp22> but i read parts of it
[04:33] <Acolyte> it was by prometheus press right?
[04:33] <jp22> huge book
[04:33] <Acolyte> jp22 see The gospel and the greeks, 
By ronald nash
[04:34] <Acolyte> jp22 go to the CRI web site and Nash 
has an article on that very issue
[04:34] <Acolyte> jp22 its under apologetics
[04:34] <jp22> Time magazine had an article on the bible 
too, fact or fiction
[04:34] <Achimoth> brentf: theres a difference between 
rational debate and pulling possibilities out of thin 
air
[04:34] <Acolyte> jp22 I know I read it
[04:34] <Acolyte> jp22 it was a pretty fair article
[04:35] <jp22> i have the article, i just havent read 
it yet
[04:35] <Acolyte> achimoth did you hear, we have Jeremiah's 
fingerprints now????
[04:35] <Achimoth> from where?
[04:35] <Acolyte> achimoth from clay seals
[04:35] <Achimoth> ahh...
[04:35] <Acolyte> achimoth with his name on them, and 
finher prints
[04:35] <brentf> Achimoth:  Agreed.  But good debate 
begins by understanding your opponent's position, not 
by ridiculing it.
[04:35] <jp22> paul was a platonist, but then converted 
to christianity
[04:36] <Achimoth> that would be about the only way they 
could be preserved too
[04:36] <Acolyte> jp22 Paul was a Pharasee and a Jew 
and no Platinist
[04:36] <Achimoth> jp22: wrong
[04:36] <Achimoth> he was a Pharisee...
[04:36] <Achimoth> on the fast track to a seat on the 
Sanhedrin
[04:36] <jp22> so you agree that history can disagree
[04:36] <Achimoth> a student of Hillel IIRC
[04:37] <Acolyte> jp22 he was a Rabi, an not a Platonist 
and then he disagreed with Philo and other Neo-Platonists 
of his day 
[04:37] <jp22> that there is not one way that you can 
tell if history is correct or not
[04:37] <Acolyte> jp22 no I think you are ignorant of 
the facts
[04:37] <Acolyte> I am goingto be
[04:37] <Acolyte> bed
[04:37] <Acolyte> later
[04:37] <jp22> how am i ignoreant
[04:37] <Achimoth> night Aco
[04:37] <jp22> i think that is funny
[04:37] <jp22> you call me ignorant and then run 
[04:37] <Acolyte> jp22 I bet you do, mosty fools do as 
well
[04:37] <Acolyte> achimoth when have I run?
[04:38] <Acolyte> jp22 you were done 10 minutes ago
[04:38] <Achimoth> not ever as far as i know
[04:38] <jp22> you look like the fool when you start 
something call someone ignorant and then say you have 
to go to bed
[04:38] <Acolyte> achimoth have him for a snak
[04:38] <brentf> Now that's what I call good rational 
debate :(  sheesh
[04:38] <Acolyte> jp22 I gave you 4 sources, go read 
them
[04:38] <Achimoth> jp22: hes been saying hes had to go 
to bed since youve been on channel
[04:38] <Acolyte> achimoth before that even
[04:38] <jp22> then why did he start an argument
[04:38] <Achimoth> yep
[04:38] <Acolyte> when creation was on
[04:39] <Acolyte> jp22 if you think you are so slick 
email me
[04:39] Arai (iris@prism.com) joined #apologetics.
[04:39] <jp22> what do i e mail you
[04:39] <Acolyte> ~st_aidan@deltanet.com
[04:39] <Acolyte> hullo arai
[04:39] <Acolyte> arai how old   r u?
[04:39] <Arai> Hi Aco
[04:39] <Arai> er....
[04:39] <Arai> 41.. why?????????
[04:39] <Acolyte> just wondering
[04:39] <Acolyte> arai u m or f?
[04:40] <Arai> female
[04:40] <Acolyte> where do you live and what church do 
you attend presently?
[04:40] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) joined #apologetics.
[04:40] <Acolyte> I am just curious is all
[04:40] <zx> whats going on in here!
[04:40] <jp22> acolyte is it safe to say that your sources 
are biased towards your religion
[04:40] <Acolyte> jp22 some are and some are not
[04:41] <Arai> I live in Perris California.  I'm non 
denominational.. but I rarely attend one specific church. 
 havent done that in years.
[04:41] <Achimoth> <alternate> Don't try to prove the Bible 
correct by using the Bible
[04:41] <Achimoth> hehehe
[04:41] <Acolyte> jp22 see Oscar Cullman, The christology 
of the NT
[04:41] <Acolyte> jp22 and see also Raymond Brown, An 
Introduction to NT Chrstology
[04:41] Arai (iris@prism.com) left #apologetics.
[04:41] <Acolyte> and I. Howard Marshall, The Origins 
of Nt Christology
[04:42] <jp22> why are you asking me to read all these 
books
[04:42] <jp22> what will i get out of it
[04:42] <Acolyte> jp22 they are standard works iun the 
field that is why
[04:42] <Acolyte> then you won't be ignorant any longer
[04:42] <jp22> what is the point that you are trying 
to prove to me by assigning me of these books
[04:42] <Acolyte> at least of Nt criticism
[04:42] <jp22> i read 3 books and im cured of ignorance
[04:42] <jp22> JOY
[04:42] <Acolyte> jp22 for verification by top scholars 
in the field of what I ams aying
[04:43] <Acolyte> anyhow
[04:43] <Acolyte> I NEED TO DRIVE HOME
[04:43] <Acolyte> and GO TO BED
[04:43] <Acolyte> by zx
[04:43] <Acolyte> achi
[04:43] <Acolyte> later
[04:43] <zx> bye aco
[04:43] Mode change '+o zx ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[04:43] <jp22> i still dont see how theism is rational
[04:43] <jp22> or can be rational
[04:43] <Acolyte> not my fault
[04:43] <Achimoth> jp22: are you rational?
[04:43] <jp22> which is what we started arguing
[04:43] <Acolyte> see Sturat hackett, The Reconstruciton 
of the Christian revelation Claim
[04:43] <brentf> and that is where this whole argument 
began :)
[04:43] <Acolyte> baker books
[04:44] <Acolyte> Stuart even
[04:44] <Acolyte> BYE
[04:44] Acolyte (st_aidan@199.171.190.3) left irc: 
Leaving
[04:44] <jp22> he never proved me wrong, he went off 
on something else
[04:45] <brentf> Say again why you believe theism is 
not rational.  I think I remember, but really don't 
want to scroll back that far.
[04:46] <jp22>  seeing as theology is the study of a 
religion which is   based on the spiritual that you 
cannot prove exists
[04:46] <jp22>  seeing as theology is the study of a 
religion which is   based on the spiritual that you 
cannot prove exists
[04:46] <jp22>  seeing as theology is the study of a 
religion which is   based on the spiritual that you 
cannot prove exists
[04:46] <jp22> how can something you cannot see be classified 
as rational
[04:46] <jp22>  how can you rationalize on a whole theology, 
the study of   the spiritual
[04:46] <brentf> that's the line I remember.
[04:47] <brentf> (the second one)
[04:47] <jp22> yah
[04:47] <brentf> I believe Acolyte's point was that ideas 
can be rational without being *seen*
[04:48] <Achimoth> one can be tottaly grounded in the 
5 sense and be tottally irrational
[04:49] <jp22> ok, but theology is a study of a religions 
correct, the spiritual side?
[04:50] <Achimoth> theology is the study of God and his 
Nature
[04:50] <jp22> right the spiritual side
[04:50] <Achimoth> what you speak of is another branch 
of though entirely
[04:50] <Achimoth> thought even
[04:51] <brentf> theology = theos (God) logos (word) 
or *a word about God*...even atheism is theology as 
it is an idea about God :)
[04:52] <jp22> but there are so many people in this world 
who belive God said so many things, how can you possibly 
rationalize all of them
[04:53] <jp22> when there are thousands of different 
interpretations
[04:54] <brentf> I don't try to rationalize all of them. 
 Many of them are contradictory.  I use my ability 
to reason to choose those which I believe to be rational 
and reject the rest as irrational.
[04:55] <jp22> then what is "rational theism"
[04:55] <brentf> I think a better title might be *The 
Home of Rational Debate About Theism* :)
[04:56] _79188711 (thebasher@205.139.116.11) joined 
#apologetics.
[04:56] <_79188711> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[04:56] -_79188711:#apologetics- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[04:56] CTCP ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^: 
 from _79188711 (thebasher@205.139.116.11) to #apologetics
[04:56] <_79188711> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[04:56] -_79188711:#apologetics- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[04:56] CTCP ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^: 
 from _79188711 (thebasher@205.139.116.11) to #apologetics
[04:56] jp22 (jperrinjr@p5.pm0.theriver.com) left #apologetics.
[04:56] <_79188711> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[04:56] -_79188711:#apologetics- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[04:57] Mode change '+b *!*@205.139.116.* ' by Achimoth!adarcaan@dal36-04.ppp.iadfw.net
[04:57] CTCP ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^: 
 from _79188711 (thebasher@205.139.116.11) to #apologetics
[04:57] _79188711!thebasher@205.139.116.11 kicked by 
Achimoth!adarcaan@dal36-04.ppp.iadfw.net: &iuml;[X]&iuml; 
***NumbSkull KiCK***
[04:57] <brentf> That was interesting
[05:00] <Achimoth> very lame
[05:05] Menalcas (scud@wh707.wave.co.nz) joined #apologetics.
[05:05] <Menalcas> hi, anyone talking?
[05:06] <brentf> Hello...I've been watching the #bible 
channel
[05:06] <Menalcas> have you
[05:06] <Achimoth> hi
[05:06] <Menalcas> hi
[05:06] <Menalcas> have you been discussing anything?
[05:07] <Achimoth> not recently
[05:07] <brentf> It's been a good five minutes since 
the last debate ended <g>
[05:07] <Menalcas> is achimoth your name?
[05:07] <Achimoth> its my assumed nick
[05:08] Menalcas (scud@wh707.wave.co.nz) left irc: 
Read error to Menalcas[wh707.wave.co.nz]: Connection 
reset by peer
[05:09] Menalcas (scud@wh707.wave.co.nz) joined #apologetics.
[05:12] jp22 (jperrinjr@p5.pm0.theriver.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[05:12] <jp22> that dude was flooding me
[05:12] <jp22> so i left
[05:12] <brentf> he flooded all of us...and was banned
[05:13] <jp22> i left before i got kicked off
[05:13] <jp22> the server
[05:13] <brentf> I survived <g>
[05:14] Action: Achimoth uses hacking scripts as they 
have excellent floodprotection
[05:14] <Menalcas> what is "flooded"
[05:15] <Achimoth> menalcas: when someone sends a larghe 
amount of data on the screen to the point the server 
disconnects you 
[05:19] <brentf> jp22:  Was your basic question, "What 
is rational Theism" (as in a certain type of theism), 
or "What is rational *about* Theism" (as in, can theism 
be rationa

l)?
[05:19] <jp22> the second
[05:20] <jp22> i dont see how one theism can be rational 
and others cannot
[05:26] <brentf> It seems that you want to say that since 
not all forms of Theism can be correct (in that they 
are contradictory to each other), then no form of theism 
is correct, or rational.
[05:27] Action: brentf is still struggling to understand 
your question...sorry :(
[05:28] <Achimoth> sounds like post-modern thought to 
me
[05:29] <jp22> i dont see how you can take one form of 
theism as you say you do and judge it rational when 
there are other theisms that are just as rational when 
looked at through unbiased eyes, how can you have one 
universal rational theism
[05:29] <brentf> I still think a better title might be 
*The Home of Rational Debate About Theism*
[05:29] <Achimoth> because Jesus Christ IS
[05:30] <jp22> but to a Muslim, ALLAH IS
[05:30] <Achimoth> ahh but the muslim says a Jesus was 
a prophet of God and hence taught proper doctrine
[05:30] <brentf> I don't believe there is any such thing 
as *unbiased eyes*.  I admit I am biased toward what 
I believe to be true.
[05:30] <Achimoth> yet Jesus said this:
[05:30] <jp22> to the buddist BUDDAH IS
[05:31] <Achimoth> wrong.. to the Bhuddist Bhudda was 
and is no more.. 
[05:32] jp22 (jperrinjr@p5.pm0.theriver.com) left #apologetics.
[05:33] <Achimoth> hmphhh
[05:33] <brentf> And so the debate is about which form 
of theism is *more* rational, not whether theism is 
rational or not.
[05:34] <brentf> I would be confused, too, if I tried 
to merge all forms of theism into one *universal theism* 
<g>
[05:34] Menalcas (scud@wh707.wave.co.nz) left irc: 
Read error to Menalcas[wh707.wave.co.nz]: Connection 
reset by peer
[05:34] <Achimoth> hehehehe
[05:36] <brentf> Looks like Punxy should be in this channel 
:)
[05:36] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal36-04.ppp.iadfw.net) 
left #apologetics.
[05:40] brentf (brentf@ip-pdx10-43.teleport.com) left 
irc: calling it a night...God bless you as you seek 
His truth
[ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page
[ref003]Return to LOGS Page
[ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library



[ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_3_26_96.html
[ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html
[ref004] ../

