Yet another ID challenge.

[Box Whatbox]

I've just spent the afternoon with a relative who was introducing her 4-month-old son to our local section of the family.
The poor little blighter spent a lot of time pushing his hand into his mouth, screaming in pain.
Teething, it's called.
Who designed that?

[Wootah]

Moderator Comment

Please review the Rules.
This thread is on the problem of pain in general and teething in particular. Try not to use threads to continue discussions in other threads.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[rookiebatman]

That's what I've been providing -- pages and pages of it, on several threads -- and for a few weeks now.

The evidence is both empirical -- the same evidence, looked at with different presuppositions (which I maintain are ultimately epistemological in origin) will yield different interpretations -- as well as philosophical: e.g., a universe that has a beginning requires a cause for its existence.

As I stated... somewhere ... perhaps to you: I'm under no obligation to repeat the arguments for each new skeptic that arrives. That would be an endless sisyphean task. Please feel free to do your own investigation of the arguments I've made, and where they take you.

I'm not saying you need to restate all of the evidence every single time, but you could at least provide some links to the other posts, if you feel like you've already made the case convincingly. I've only recently come into the S&R forum, and you can see from my join date that I haven't been on the site in general for very long. I'm not going to read every single post on here on the off-chance that you've made an argument I haven't already heard elsewhere, or have presented evidence that fundamentally overturns everything we know about biological science, and yet hasn't made the news.

Why not just pick a couple posts that you think were the best presentations of your position and give me the links to those?

My modest hope is that occasionally, someone who has labored under the lifelong deception of being indoctrinated into the m2m myth, will question that indoctrination, and perhaps conclude that it is absurd on every level; and perhaps even turn to the alternative of Biblical truth, as a result.

Funny thing about that; I labored under the lifelong deception of being indoctrinated into the Genesis myth. Then, when I finally questioned that indoctrination, I examined the opposing evidence, and found it to be overwhelmingly compelling. That left me no choice but to conclude that creationism is absurd on every level. So it seems pretty doubtful that I would repeat that journey in almost exactly the opposite direction, without some very extraordinary evidence indeed. But if your only goal is to break people out of the lifelong indoctrination to evolution, you have nothing to worry about with me, because I was never indoctrinated to begin with. I never even considered evolution as anything other than absurd until I was in my late 20's, and then when I decided it was only fair to be open-minded and consider the evidence for myself, I conducted my own investigation. I wasn't taught or indoctrinated by anyone.

But then, given the discussion we've had so far, it seems a bit hollow for you to be claiming that evolution is absurd on every level, when your absurd description of evolution is a completely inaccurate straw man.

Also, out of curiosity, which position were you indoctrinated into?

[Volbrigade]

That's what I've been providing -- pages and pages of it, on several threads -- and for a few weeks now.

The evidence is both empirical -- the same evidence, looked at with different presuppositions (which I maintain are ultimately epistemological in origin) will yield different interpretations -- as well as philosophical: e.g., a universe that has a beginning requires a cause for its existence.

As I stated... somewhere ... perhaps to you: I'm under no obligation to repeat the arguments for each new skeptic that arrives. That would be an endless sisyphean task. Please feel free to do your own investigation of the arguments I've made, and where they take you.

I'm not saying you need to restate all of the evidence every single time, but you could at least provide some links to the other posts, if you feel like you've already made the case convincingly. I've only recently come into the S&R forum, and you can see from my join date that I haven't been on the site in general for very long. I'm not going to read every single post on here on the off-chance that you've made an argument I haven't already heard elsewhere, or have presented evidence that fundamentally overturns everything we know about biological science, and yet hasn't made the news.

Why not just pick a couple posts that you think were the best presentations of your position and give me the links to those?

My modest hope is that occasionally, someone who has labored under the lifelong deception of being indoctrinated into the m2m myth, will question that indoctrination, and perhaps conclude that it is absurd on every level; and perhaps even turn to the alternative of Biblical truth, as a result.

Funny thing about that; I labored under the lifelong deception of being indoctrinated into the Genesis myth. Then, when I finally questioned that indoctrination, I examined the opposing evidence, and found it to be overwhelmingly compelling. That left me no choice but to conclude that creationism is absurd on every level. So it seems pretty doubtful that I would repeat that journey in almost exactly the opposite direction, without some very extraordinary evidence indeed. But if your only goal is to break people out of the lifelong indoctrination to evolution, you have nothing to worry about with me, because I was never indoctrinated to begin with. I never even considered evolution as anything other than absurd until I was in my late 20's, and then when I decided it was only fair to be open-minded and consider the evidence for myself, I conducted my own investigation. I wasn't taught or indoctrinated by anyone.

But then, given the discussion we've had so far, it seems a bit hollow for you to be claiming that evolution is absurd on every level, when your absurd description of evolution is a completely inaccurate straw man.

Also, out of curiosity, which position were you indoctrinated into?

Atheistic evolution.

Your response is duly noted. And while I would gladly honor your request, I'm not much interested in reviewing everything I've written, either. I enjoy writing, and do too much of it, frankly. I find it to be... a relaxing and gratifying exercise.

Here's part of a post recently made on another -- much less moderated -- forum, that is sort of my online "home base". It speaks to my views on where one will stand on the topic of "Evolution" -- whether "uphill" m2m, or "downhill" specialization and speciation from more genetically diverse created "kinds".

I will then repeat a link -- provided earlier --after the quoted text, to evidences for a young earth; as that is one of the central tenets of the Biblically-based view. Fair enough?

It occurs to be that we are, fundamentally, faced with an epistemological choice. Epistemology being the theory of knowledge, it's source, scope and limits, the first choice we are faced with is "how do we know"?

And the choice is between two paths:

1. Everything that we can know is from within the system that we are a part of: from within the universe, or nature, or however you want to put it, or think of it.

This is the modern secular (i.e., Godless) atheistic view.

"The universe is all there is, was, or ever will be."

Or, as I saw recently in one of those newspaper "quotes for the day":

"The universe is like a safe, the combination for which is locked inside the safe."

2. This material world is but a subset of an extra-material, extra (hyper)-dimensional, "Spiritual" reality. And we have knowledge and information that has reached us from that outside source.

Now -- if we're together so far; here's what I concluded:

That at every step along those divergent paths --whichever one you choose to follow -- you will find all the evidence you need to confirm that path as the "true", or "right" one.

From the atheistically simplistic "I don't want to believe in God -- that'd interfere with my sinnin' (f'n, fightin' etc.); to the complex rationales of m2m, "deep time", "multiverses", etc.

Or the theistically simplistic "if the Bible says it, it's true -- what else do you need?"; to the complex verifications of microcodes in both nature and the Bible; and the counter-(m2m) evolutionary arguments, and on and on.

What's interesting to me is that this holds true for the simplest, as well as the most complex.

The "backwoods snake-handler", to the nuclear engineer working at the Large Hadron Collider.

IOWS, the dividing line between atheism and theism extends indefinitely.

I believe that THIS is an intentional design element; which points to the veracity of theism. That our reality is engineered this way, in order to preserve the element of CHOICE in regard to faith, at any and every level.

Obviously, there is no synthesis between these two paths. It is an "either/or". One must lead to truth, the other to endless and hopeless error.

EDIT:

Against my better judgment, I can't help but add that "pantheism" is, in a way, a sort of "synthesis" between theism and materialism -- i.e., "the universe" (however construed) IS god --

but it's only a hiccup along the path. And that path quickly becomes a choice -- does this "god" have a mind, will, intelligence? If it does, then pantheism is a prelude to theism.

And if it doesn't, then it is a prelude to atheism.

Which is why so many astronomers, astro-physicists, etc. have been drawn to Hinduism and Buddhism. They're malleable, and can conform to just about anything one wants to believe.

Which is a quality shared by all lies.

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

[rookiebatman]

Also, out of curiosity, which position were you indoctrinated into?

Atheistic evolution.

Which did you move away from first, atheism or evolution?

Here's part of a post recently made on another -- much less moderated -- forum, that is sort of my online "home base". It speaks to my views on where one will stand on the topic of "Evolution" -- whether "uphill" m2m, or "downhill" specialization and speciation from more genetically diverse created "kinds".

I will then repeat a link -- provided earlier --after the quoted text, to evidences for a young earth; as that is one of the central tenets of the Biblically-based view. Fair enough?

Yeah, that's good enough for a start. I think dinner's almost ready, so I'll try to look at this a little later and get back to you.

[ttruscott]

...

So do you, Wootah, personally worship a God who has let every innocent babe spend weeks or months howling in pain, when He could have made a minor adjustment to the design of the infant mouth?

... Explain please!

You write as if you think that the only pov GOD can have is to alleviate suffering. News flash - that is not what the earth is for, it is for suffering as a judgment against sin and as a discipline to rehab those sinners who can be changed. Isaiah 45:7 I [YHWH] form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; [that is by metonymy, disaster in this verse refers to the whole of any earthly suffering of our bodies ranging from small to strong and ending in our death] I, the LORD, do all these things.

And before you knee jerk and rupture something, no I do not believe babies are newly created but are at least 6000 yrs old and have been unrepentant sinners for a great deal of that time.

Old sinners in new bodies... Nobody pays in suffering or death for the sins of another, only their own: Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. [Again by metonymy, die in this verse represents all of the full range of suffering our bodies are heir to up to and including damnation.] The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Therefore suffering and death prove personal sin.

Peace, Ted

[Zzyzx]

.

No, no. I think we now have it on no less an authority that our very own WOOTAH that Adam and Eve created teething pain by eating an apple. Can anyone really take that seriously? That's right up there with Joseph Smith and his Reformed Egyptian.

Moderator Warning

This post is uncivil and insulting.

Kindly debate the issues without personal comments


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 23 by Volbrigade]
Your like on age of the earth is about the worst supported 101 items I have ever seen in my life. It clearly designed to overwhelm by sheer number and thus avoid anyone critically looking at any of it in detail. It's crap, it is not even warmed over crap, it is just crap. As far as I can see nothing references back to established science. There are no reputable peer-reviewed scientific papers. The is to either bald face lies are passed off as fact or referential support is provided by a house of cards composed of either creationist sources, or popular science magazines which support creationism.
---------------------------------------
(thanks to rationalwiki:)

Many arguments on the list suffer from a specific combination of affirming the consequent with the spotlight fallacy:

If the Earth is 6,000 years old, we expect X to be less than 6,000 years old.
Under some circumstances, X can form in less than 6,000 years.
Therefore, the Earth could be 6,000 years old.

This is wrong on two levels. Firstly, an Earth that is billions of years old can be expected to have things younger than 6,000 years on it " such as you. Secondly, even if one example of X really is "young", it doesn't mean all X are " the vast majority of X mentioned in the arguments can be shown to be far older than the entire young Earth timescale.

Logically, we can also note that any evidence proffered by creationists that shows the Earth to be significantly older than 6,000 years " however lower than the conventionally accepted age " is an "own goal" which, far from undermining the scientific case, is actually an argument against a young age of the Earth. (In general: if A is evidence for X, then not-A is evidence against X.)

Another common error is assuming a false dilemma between current scientific knowledge about the age of the Earth and the universe, and the young Earth creationism perspective: either science can explain everything, or YEC is true. In reality, it is infinitely more likely that further investigation will result in evidence supporting explanations consistent with deep time and will further discredit the YEC view.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_eviden ... e_universe

[Box Whatbox]

1) God declared the world good not perfect.
.

I am happy to take your word on this Wootah, because you 'know' your God and I don't.
So God made the world, and He saw that it was good.
'Meh,' He said. 'it's not perfect, but, hey, what is? Oh, wait a minute, I am.
Could I have made a better world? Sure I could. But this one is perfect for My purposes.'
Would that be about right, according to the teachings that you follow?
God could have designed the infant mouth such that the innocent would not suffer months of agony. But He chose not to do that.
Why, in your belief system, does the suffering of the innocent suit God's purpose?

[ttruscott]

...

Why, in your belief system, does the suffering of the innocent suit God's purpose?

First prove that children are innocent, then I might give my opinion again as to why it is like this since I accept a Christian opinion that
- no innocents suffer
- suffering proves sin.

Peace, Ted

[rookiebatman]

First prove that children are innocent,

Once again, a person making an extraordinary claim (that we all had a full previous life in another plane of existence that we don't remember) tries to put the burden of proof on the people making an ordinary claim (that babies were not already alive and sinful before being zygotes). Why should he have to prove his ordinary claim before your extraordinary one?