I see the in tray is full again …
I seem to recall providing you with an example from a mathematics textbook. Along with an exposition on how much work you need to complete, if you want whatever nebulous alternative to observational data or formal deduction to be accepted as a reliable means of segregating postulates. Did you READ any of that exposition?
Do you know the difference between the two? Only a substantive answer to this will be progress of a sort we’ve never seen from you before.
Except that modern developed jurisdictions recognise that eyewitnesses are frequently unreliable. Which is why courts in said jurisdictions place far heavier reliance upon such items as CCTV/dashcam footage, or the findings of forensic science, such as a DNA test.
Poppycock. See my previous sentences above.
Again, poppycock. See above.
Again, poppycock. If individual A is accused of raping a 12 year old girl, but the DNA test reveals that the sperm did NOT belong to individual A, it’s game over for the prosecution.
You mean, like the example I’ve just provided?
Except that your exposition on the matter is already riddled with elementary errors.
Oh look, it’s the warm-up for the “waaah, you’re biased” whinge we see so often from mythology fanboys.
In case you never learned this, a “bias” in favour of reality over made up shit is not merely legitimate, but a requirement for proper critical thinking. No surprise to see a mytholgoy fanboy try to squirm out of this.
The irony of seeing you post this is not lost on me, or anyone else here.
I can tell you never spent any time in a pure mathematics class.
Oh wait, heard of Fermat’s Last Theorem, have you? Which was first postulated way back in 1637 by Pierre de Fermat?
Except that, oops, we had to wait until 1995 for that theorem to be proven. It took 358 years to alight upon that particular “truth”, and that’s in a discipline within which we have a recognised gold standard for segregating propositions. Indeed, Andrew Wiles, the mathematician who finally proved Fermat’s Last Theorem, had to invoke entire new branches of pure mathematics that did not exist in Fermat’s day, in order to prove the result. He had to integrate the theory of elliptic curves and the theory of modular forms, both of which are essentially 20th century developments, and solve a conjecture known as the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture along the way, this now being known as the Modularity Theorem after Wiles’ successful proof thereof.
Indeed, there are outstanding problems in pure mathematics that have proven so intractable, that they now attract a million dollar prize for solutions. Such as the Riemann Hypothesis, about the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function, or whether or not there exists a closed-form analytical solution to the Navier-Stokes Equations, which is of interest to both Boeing and Airbus Industries, as those equations are an integral part of aerofoil design. A closed form solution for those equations will save those two companies about $100 million per year each, in terms of the cost of running numerical simulations on exaflop supercomputers.
Now the fun part is, that each of these problems I’ve covered above has a simple definition, at least symbolically. Yet one took over 350 years to solve, and the other two are still defeating the best efforts of world class mathematicians.
The astute here will also be aware that I mentioned pure mathematics, for one very good reason. Namely, propositions in pure mathematics are now recognised to be “true” in relation to the foundational axioms leading to those propositions. So, for example, a theorem about the behaviour of groups only makes sense with respect to objects that obey the axioms of group theory, likewise for rings, fields, vector spaces, manifolds etc. Though if you want a really high level of abstraction, you move to Category Theory, which attempts to define relations between all the other entities and their axioms.
So even in the realm of pure mathematics, the idea of “absolute truth” died a death some time ago.
Moving on …
Er, not always. If we have data pointing to a definitive conclusion, and that conclusion is other than the simplest conclusion, then abductive reasoning does not apply. So already, your apologetics is falling apart like that cheap submersible in the Atlantic.
Poppycock.
We know of entities that cannot exist, because their existence violates the known laws of physics. A planet with a radius of a million kilometres is impossible, because gravity will collapse it to the point where it turns into a star, as the pressure and temperature at the core reaches the values required to ignite nuclear fusion.
Once again, you need to learn some FACTS.
Since you failed to present a plausible apologetic case for your infantile version of “evidence”, what follows will almost certainly be superfluous to requirements, but let’s indulge you anyway and see what absurdity materialises …
Correction, the universe in its current form had a “beginning”. What occurred prior to this is the subject of active research in cosmological physics, and I’ve already provided an extended exposition of one example of that research, along with some of its implications for the “god question”. An exposition that [1] you either haven’t read, or [2] will summarily dismiss and hand-wave away with mendacious apologetic fabrications if you ever do read it.
No, this is an illusion. Oh wait, scientists have provided supertanker loads of evidence, to the effect that the only “designer” that exists is testable natural processes. How many peer reviewed scientific papers from the relevant bodies of literature have I brought here to this effect?
The anthropic principle has it backwards. We are here because the laws of physics permitted our emergence, and the relevant, physically permitted interactions took place. But we’re used to seeing Douglas Adams’ Puddle thinking from mythology fanboys here.
Oh, and if you’re going to raise the usual tiresome creationist canards about “information”, I’ve already dealt with those at length.
Except mythology fanboys gatecrashing atheist websites it seems …
Oh wait, once again, I’ve provided an extensive exposition, covering the evolutionary and biological basis of ethics, along with yet more peer reviewed scientific papers documenting the evidence for this, including direct experimental tests of relevant postulates.
Which surprises no one familiar with the tendency of early humans, to build settlements alongside fertile river banks or sea coasts offering bountiful fishing. None of this validates the farcical garbage about a “global flood” contained in your sad little goat herder mythology. But since you’ve brought this drivel up, here’s several cogent reasons why your fantasy “global flood” never happened:
[1] If the fantasy “global flood” had ever happened, then geologists would have found this out, courtesy of the existence of a single, deep, globally present sedimentary stratum dating unequivocally to a young age. This was never found. Instead, geologists found that the global map of strata was varied, with in some cases ancient strata found close to the surface, including igneous strata that should never have appeared in the fantasy “global flood” scenario.
One of those ancient strata, the Canadian Shield, being a Precambrian stratum, unequivocally dates to 1.8 billion years before present, and covers no less than 8 million square kilometres of land. Likewise, the Siberian Traps is another massive igneous rock stratum, covering 7 million square kilometres of land, which dates unequivocally to the end-Permian, 250 million years before present, and the Deccan Traps in India, covering 500,000 square kilometres of land, and dating unequivocally to the late Cretaceous, around 70 million years before present.
None of these strata would even exist, if the “global flood” bullshit was something other than the product of the televisions in the heads of mythology fanboys.
[2] Archaeologists have found ZERO evidence that several major civilisations extant at the time, ceased activity upon being purportedly drowned under 9,000 metres of water. The Ancient Egyptians and the Ancient Chinese, provide a vast body of archaeological evidence to the effect that they continued their activities unbroken, right about the time that creotard masturbation fantasists assert that they were under 9,000 metres of water.
[3] If the fantasy “global flood” had ever happened, whole swathes of aquatic life would have been exterminated. This includes tropical fish species I kept and bred successfully in the aquarium during a 35+ year career as an aquarist. The species in question would have been wiped out through osmoregulatory shock within about 72 hours, if this fairy tale had ever been real. I don’t even need to have studied fish physiology in order to know that this would have happened, but of course, the requisite scientific training helps here. ALL of the Ostariophysan fishes alone would have been exterminated, because they are ALL intolerant of salt, and something like twenty entire Orders of marine fishes, including all the reef-dwelling fishes, would have met a parallel fate. The species I’ve successfully bred in captivity have stringent water chemistry requirements, that would have been violated wholesale by the fantasy “global flood”.
Oh, and don’t try and peddle the creationist garbage that a few “kinds” somehow survived, then underwent massive speciation to produce the 33,000 species known to science, because this too is garbage. First of all, creationist liars for doctrine can’t even agree among themselves what a “kind” purportedly is, and second, among the species I’ve bred successfully is Corydoras panda, a South American catfish with tightly defined water chemistry requirements, which has a distant relative that was alive in the Eocene - the fossil of that ancestor, Corydoras revelatus, was found in 1922. That fossil wouldn’t even exist if creationist assertions about the “global flood” were something other than the products of their rectal passages.
Also part of the death toll, would have been all the higher aquatic plants, which would have been exterminated wholesale not only from osmoregulatory shock, but from being buried under millions of tons of silt, and shut off from sunlight by 9,000 metres of water. Entire phyla of freshwater and marine invertebrates would also have been exterminated for the same reasons, a particularly apposite example being the reef building corals, which not only need stringent water chemistry parameters in order to live, but also need access to light, courtesy of a symbiotic relationship with zooxanthellae (a clade of algae), which require access to light for photosynthesis if they are to remain alive.
[4] The physical and biological unreality of made up shit creationist attempts to treat science dishonestly as a branch of apologetics, to try and prop up this fairy tale, on its own tosses this vicious little exercise in psychotic fiction into the bin. Starting with Kent Hovind’s wank-break “vapour canopy” bullshit, which would have resulted in ludicrous thermodynamic exchanges, first cooling the entire planet to the ambient temperature of Pluto (around 30 Kelvins), at which point the breathable gases of the atmosphere would be liquefied or in some cases even turn into solid ices, This would then be followed by a second set of thermodynamic exchanges resulting in the ambient temperature of planet Earth rising to that of molten Copper. I’ve run the numbers on this.
Then there’s Baumgartner’s idiotic “runaway subduction” nonsense, which would have released enough heat to boil all the oceans off into space. Followed by Walt Brown’s “hydroplate” nonsense, which apart from being in direct violation of the Gas Laws, hilariously invokes a level of meteorite bombardment that would have sterilised the planet, and turned your 600 year old barge captain and his floating petting zoo into plasma. Finally, there’s the ludicrous “accelerated nuclear decay” drivel from Russell Humphreys, which would have generated enough heat to ignite helium fusion in the Earth’s core in the best case scenario, and in the worst case scenario, heated the planet to Grand Unification physics temperatures (yes, a whopping 1031 Kelvins).
[5] The exquisite sorting, in time and taxonomic order, of the fossil record, which involves sorting particles ranging from fossil pollen grains 50 microns across, to the carcasses of 100-ton Sauropod dinosaurs. The idea that this exquisite time and taxonomic sorting would have been produced by the fantasy “global flood” is manifest bullshit, especially to anyone familiar with the mathematics of fluid dynamics, and the behaviour of the Navier-Stokes equations, which describe the requisite behaviour of fluids, and which are used by Boeing and Airbus to design airliners successfully (the recent 737 Max débacle notwithstanding - though that was a software issue, not an aerodynamics issue).
The bullshit about “hydrologic sorting” peddled by professional liars for creationist doctrine, was flushed down the toilet by television footage of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and the 2011 Sendai tsunami, in which the resulting turbulent water flows produced no “sorting” of any variety. Plus, the manner in which any reasonable supercomputer model using the Navier-Stokes equations would have to be tampered with to a galactically dishonest extent, in order to produce so-called “hydrologic sorting”, again flushes this fantasy down the toilet.
[6] The idea that a wooden ship twice the size of a Ticonderoga Class guided missile cruiser would be seaworthy, is a deluded fantasy, as any marine architect will tell you. The largest wooden ship ever built in recent times, was considerably smaller, and needed constant pumping to stop seawater ingress as it suffered from hogging and sagging as it traversed the waves. It’s the reason we build aircraft carriers out of high tensile strength steel alloys, not wood. That wooden ship eventually succumbed to the stresses of flexing as it traversed the waves, as documented here:
That ship fell apart in heavy seas with the loss of all hands in 1924.
They also contradict each other with respect to core assertions. Or did this elementary concept fly past you, in your eagerness to post your Christian Nationalist historical revisionism?
Poppycock. See above with respect to contradictions.
No they weren’t. The Mayans certainly weren’t, if you look at their mythology. Neither were vast swathes of other Mesoamericans. Neither were the Ancient Chinese or the Ancient Egyptians. I suspect the various experts at the British Museum who spent decades deciphering Egyptian mythology will point and laugh at you for asserting this.
HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Did you treat yourself seriously when you made this shit up?
Hinduism has a vast panoply of weird multi-armed and multi-headed parts bin chimaeras that bear no relation whatsoever to your “christ” character.
Buddhism doesn’t even bother with gods in the usual sense of the term.
Your flatulent assertions are a pathetic joke.
Well quelle surprise, for an individual that (if it existed) never ventured outside the Middle East.
Oh no, it’s the “fulfilled prophesies” bullshit. Destruction of Tyre, anyone?
Actually, the only reason the Romans “accepted” Judaism, was because they had first hand experience of the fanaticism it inspired. They preferred not to have to expend large quantities of men and material in avoidable wars.
You really are clutching at straws here, aren’t you?
Oh wait, the Mediterranean was a focus for extensive maritime trading several hundred years before your religion existed. Indeed, the Greeks had already fought naval battles some 400 years or so before your religion existed - the First Peloponnesian War being a prime example.
Ships would have been a far better means for long distance dispersal of a message, and a means that was already well developed by various nations by the time of the supposed NT events. indeed, if evidence arises that the Trojan War was based upon a real historical event, instead of being mythological, this would mean that the Greeks had working sailing vessels fully 1,200 years before your religion existed.
Etruscan and Koiné Greek bear NO relation to each other. Now I know you’re making shit up. Classical Greek contains grammatical constructs not seen in other languages, such as aspect taking precedence over tense in verbs (with the exception of the future tense), the optative mood and middle voice for verbs, and a complex series of declensions. In addition, Etruscan is known to be agglutinative, while Greek is fusional.
Oh, and Etruscan wasn’t a “common language”, it was restricted to a small part of northern Italy, and was superseded by Latin.
And of course, the use of langauge for mercantile purposes is a fact you’ll doubtless dismiss as “irrelevant” …
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
First century Judea didn’t have a postal service. Though Persian civilisation did.
Apologetic fabtrication. See the many above reasons why your assertions are horseshit.
No they don’t. Another Christian Nationalist lie.
Wrong. It’s dated to no earlier than 70 CE. It mentions within its pages events occurring after the destruction of the Second Temple. Unless you want to assert that the anonymous author thereof was a time traveller?
Irrelevant. See above. Oh, and actual scholars place Acts around 90 CE.
Irrelevant. (Snipped pointless gibbering about the contents of mythology)
Poppycock. Murderous mythology fanboys tried to kill science in Europe. Giordano Bruno ring a bell?
Oh, and the only reason that the arts received funding, was because the providers of those funds wanted propaganda pieces.
Meanwhile, Classical Greek civilisation had been providing scientific discoveries, and a large part of the philosophical underpinnings of Western Civilisation, 300 years before your religion existed.
They weren’t. See above with respect to the Greeks.
Because of the mischief of mythology fanboys? Without which this individual would be an irrelevance?
No. Once again, do learn the difference between assertions and facts.
Would they have bothered if the raving followers thereof hadn’t been engaging in active propagandising for the requisite religion?
No they don’t, this is ex recto apologetic fabrication on your part.
No they don’t. Much of the above you pulled out of your arse.
Your blatant exercise in Christian Nationalist historical revisionism is a farce. You’ve blatantly made shit up to prop up this duplicitous fantasy, though since you set a precedent for doing so here some time ago, no one here is surprised to see this tactic of yours rear its ugly head yet again. It’s obvious you don’t recognise how proper discourse is conducted, despite having had a free education on the subject from several here.