Pluto and Spiderman

It's obvious that Pluto is geologically active due to the heat produced from the radioactive decay of Plutonium in its core. Sheesh.

The ancient Greek god of the underworld(s) keeps busy on his namesake planet - but not where NH can see him!

Pierce R. Butler said: The ancient Greek god of the underworld(s) keeps busy on his namesake planet - but not where NH can see him!

We invite our readers to suggest explanations (post hoc, of course, and within a creationist framework) for why Pluto and Charon are geologically active even though they are so small and so distant from the Sun.

It's going to be rather difficult to nail down a time. It appears that AiG only stamps their wackiness with a date. But, I'll play. My prediction is:

July 20, 2015, (Monday) between 10:30 and 11:00 (AM) - their first post of the day. I am assuming that they don't work on Sundays.

Knowing them as I do, I'm pretty certain their eventual line will be something like "A young surface for Pluto defies conventional planetary formation models, therefore God is the only other reasonable explanation!"

I suggest an additional pool for Byers. Anything he says could be worth more than AiG. In fact, he may make whatever AiG says look plausible!

That white frosty-looking mass on the bottom sure looks like a winged horse though - perhaps the giant white horse named Al Buraq which ferried the Prophet Mohammed up to the sun. The same horse that gave the illegitimate Muslim Kenyan usurper his name, and here it is plain as day on the Devil's very own planet.

Pluto, named after the god of Hell, is where all the Fallen Angels practiced their wickedness before launching into an outer space battle with the Angels of God, making such a mess on Earth's Moon that it shows the wrath and destruction to this day. Every Bible-believing Christian knows this is true. It is only the blind atheists that insist upon godless geology as the explanation for planetary morphology. Please pray for their souls and that they will see the light of God's Truth.

Dang, Matt!

You beat me to it!

I was going to make this very same prediction about AIG since I saw the news about the "young" Charon features on Thursday.

You snooze, you loose.

But scientific data do not tell stories—people do—and this Pluto tale will result from people's interpretation of the data. For this reason, it would be more accurate to state that secular scientists are hoping that data collected by New Horizons will enable them to tell a story about how the solar system came into existence. And although they do not say so explicitly (perhaps they don't wish to offend the American taxpayers who provide NASA's funding), there is little doubt they fully intend for this story to leave no room for a supernatural Creator.

Mike Elzinga said: Here is what Jake Hebert, "PhD" of the Institure for Creation "Research" has to say about the New Horizons probe.

But scientific data do not tell stories—people do—and this Pluto tale will result from people's interpretation of the data. For this reason, it would be more accurate to state that secular scientists are hoping that data collected by New Horizons will enable them to tell a story about how the solar system came into existence. And although they do not say so explicitly (perhaps they don't wish to offend the American taxpayers who provide NASA's funding), there is little doubt they fully intend for this story to leave no room for a supernatural Creator.

(Key the sad violin music and the wah-wah-wah trombone)

Mike Elzinga said: Here is what Jake Hebert, "PhD" of the Institure for Creation "Research" has to say about the New Horizons probe.

But scientific data do not tell stories—people do—and this Pluto tale will result from people's interpretation of the data. For this reason, it would be more accurate to state that secular scientists are hoping that data collected by New Horizons will enable them to tell a story about how the solar system came into existence. And although they do not say so explicitly (perhaps they don't wish to offend the American taxpayers who provide NASA's funding), there is little doubt they fully intend for this story to leave no room for a supernatural Creator.

(Key the sad violin music and the wah-wah-wah trombone)

Maybe if somebody were to point out to them that the existence of young features doesn't argue against older age of features that aren't young. There's no reason to think everything came into being around the same time.

Henry J said: Maybe if somebody were to point out to them that the existence of young features doesn't argue against older age of features that aren't young. There's no reason to think everything came into being around the same time.

Since - according to Jason Lisle - light is traveling at infinite speed toward us, we must be seeing Pluto as it is at this very instant. Therefore, if it looks young, it is young. It took the New Horizons probe 9.5 years to get there, but now we see it right away.

Creationist "science" is sooo simple. All one has to do is sit in an office and get paid really well to be a "scientific" rock star.

Mike Elzinga said: All one has to do is sit in an office and get paid really well to be a "scientific" rock star.

Just Bob said: Maybe I could rationalize it: I would just be giving the rubes what they want. If I didn't do it, someone else would.

Mike Elzinga said: Here is what Jake Hebert, "PhD" of the Institure for Creation "Research" has to say about the New Horizons probe.

... there is little doubt they fully intend for this story to leave no room for a supernatural Creator.

Mike Elzinga said: Here is what Jake Hebert, "PhD" of the Institure for Creation "Research" has to say about the New Horizons probe.

But scientific data do not tell stories—people do—and this Pluto tale will result from people's interpretation of the data. For this reason, it would be more accurate to state that secular scientists are hoping that data collected by New Horizons will enable them to tell a story about how the solar system came into existence. And although they do not say so explicitly (perhaps they don't wish to offend the American taxpayers who provide NASA's funding), there is little doubt they fully intend for this story to leave no room for a supernatural Creator.

(Key the sad violin music and the wah-wah-wah trombone)

The clean appearance of pluto, no crators etc, is not evidence of being geologically young or ever active.
its just evidence of being clean since its origin from something else.
i suggest its simply a caught rock in the orbit and not really a planet as such. So it was never hit by impacts because it was caught when the imp[acts were over. in fact it might itself be a lazy asteroid that didn't make it into the more busy solar system of ours.
I think creationism could predict this. I think all impacts happened at the same time on earth and elsewhere. Only a few after the flood for example.
Did anyone predict a clean geo pluto?? give them the prize if they did since most presumed it would be potmarked like the rest.
Yes YEC needs to squeeze all impacts into a short timeline . Not much room to move in since no yEC would see on earth or elsewhere a regular impacts episodes.

Yardbird said: Notice the repetition in the complete article of "secular" as a slur: "secular scientists", "secular astronomers", "secularists". More poop flinging from the logically impaired. Horrible people! Just horrible!!

Robert Byers said: The clean appearance of pluto, no crators etc, is not evidence of being geologically young or ever active. its just evidence of being clean since its origin from something else. i suggest its simply a caught rock in the orbit and not really a planet as such. So it was never hit by impacts because it was caught when the imp[acts were over. in fact it might itself be a lazy asteroid that didn't make it into the more busy solar system of ours. I think creationism could predict this. I think all impacts happened at the same time on earth and elsewhere. Only a few after the flood for example. Did anyone predict a clean geo pluto?? give them the prize if they did since most presumed it would be potmarked like the rest. Yes YEC needs to squeeze all impacts into a short timeline . Not much room to move in since no yEC would see on earth or elsewhere a regular impacts episodes.

Robert Byers said: The clean appearance of pluto, no crators etc, is not evidence of being geologically young or ever active. its just evidence of being clean since its origin from something else.

Yes, I thought Byers might give AiG a run for the title of loony. Let's see if AiG tops him.

For all we know the Earth could be the youngest planet if it was the last planet to form in the solar system.

Just Bob said:

Yardbird said: Notice the repetition in the complete article of "secular" as a slur: "secular scientists", "secular astronomers", "secularists". More poop flinging from the logically impaired. Horrible people! Just horrible!!

That's a freshman-level course for right wing talk show host wannabes: "All together now, class, 'Barack HUSSEIN Obama.' Not bad, but try it again, with more emphasis on the HUSSEIN."

Uh, Marilyn, that's like saying that if Scrooge McDuck had the most money, he'd be the richest duck in history.

Marilyn said: For all we know the Earth could be the youngest planet if it was the last planet to form in the solar system.

Keelyn said: It's going to be rather difficult to nail down a time. It appears that AiG only stamps their wackiness with a date. But, I'll play. My prediction is: July 20, 2015, (Monday) between 10:30 and 11:00 (AM) - their first post of the day. I am assuming that they don't work on Sundays.

eric said: Its a tour de force of fallacious reasoning, with such classics as "I suggest you [atheists] stop suppressing your knowledge of God’s existence (Romans 1:18–32) and recognize that judgment is coming for you."

DS said:

Marilyn said: For all we know the Earth could be the youngest planet if it was the last planet to form in the solar system.

So Marilyn, did you visit those caves yet? Did you try out your "were you there" routine? Are you still going with that? DId you learn anything on your trip?

Congratulations Marilyn. You appear to have learned that everything that happens leaves evidence and that that evidence can be discovered and interpreted. So, presumably, you now realize that the "were you there" ploy is just a transparently dishonest attempt to deny the evidence, you know like forensics Marilyn.

As for climate change, the fact that the climate has changed many times in the past in no way should be taken to mean that it cannot change in the present and the future due to human activity. There may have indeed been flooding associated with the end of the last ice age, or at least the last glaciation, but it was not a world-wide flood. We know this because of the evidence. Now, presumably, you do to.

Marilyn said: One think I learnt is that a lot to do with the survival of the human race, animals and plants is effected by how they adapt to climate change. Way back in the ice age I don’t think the blame could have been put on co2 emissions from the human foot print unless they had industry that we don’t know about, it was how the earth was positioned in orbit around the sun that effected the climate, and volcano activity. They did exceptionally well enough to prove to me they were intelligent and capable to manage with what ever equipment they had available at the time and would have been more than capable of preparing and surviving a flood.

I think that if they saw that the ice age was beginning to thaw they might assess that a lot of water would start to accumulate all at once and so would within their community start to prepare for such an event, possibly find higher ground, if not build an Ark.

If I wasn't there, they certainly was, and left clues as to what went on, so if a person could not be there they could pick up a clue or two to piece together some sort of idea as to what was happening, you know like forensics DS.

KlausH said:

Just Bob said:

Yardbird said: Notice the repetition in the complete article of "secular" as a slur: "secular scientists", "secular astronomers", "secularists". More poop flinging from the logically impaired. Horrible people! Just horrible!!

That's a freshman-level course for right wing talk show host wannabes: "All together now, class, 'Barack HUSSEIN Obama.' Not bad, but try it again, with more emphasis on the HUSSEIN."

You forgot to add the "MMMMM,MMMMM,MMMMM".

eric said:

Marilyn said: One think I learnt is that a lot to do with the survival of the human race, animals and plants is effected by how they adapt to climate change. Way back in the ice age I don’t think the blame could have been put on co2 emissions from the human foot print unless they had industry that we don’t know about, it was how the earth was positioned in orbit around the sun that effected the climate, and volcano activity. They did exceptionally well enough to prove to me they were intelligent and capable to manage with what ever equipment they had available at the time and would have been more than capable of preparing and surviving a flood.

Yes humans and many animals will likely survive even the worst case scenarios of climate change. That doesn't answer the question of whether we will regret our actions. We already regret killing off the dodos and thylacines (just to name two of many species our actions have possibly extinguished), yet the world spins on without them. The same will likely be true (but to a larger extent) if we end up killing off half the world's biodiversity via overuse or climate change: the world will spin on, but we will regret what we did and wish we hadn't done it. So...let's not do it.

I think that if they saw that the ice age was beginning to thaw they might assess that a lot of water would start to accumulate all at once and so would within their community start to prepare for such an event, possibly find higher ground, if not build an Ark.

Your time scales are all wrong. The glacier retreat after the last glacial period took place over 10,000 years and in that time sea levels rose about 400 feet. Or about half an inch per year. Nobody needed to build boats to outrun the sea as the last glacial period ended; nomadic hunter gatherers would've simply changed their territory by a few square miles every year as they walked from place to place with the seasons. In contrast, as Michael Kelsey has calculated numerous times, to cover the earth with 40 days of rainfall would require water level changes of feet per second; too fast for any boat to handle. They'd get destroyed by the pressure of the water or swamped, rather than rising with the water level.

If I wasn't there, they certainly was, and left clues as to what went on, so if a person could not be there they could pick up a clue or two to piece together some sort of idea as to what was happening, you know like forensics DS.

Yes, that's what archaeologists do, look at those clues left behind. And they conclude based on their forensic-like study that there was no flood and the earth is not young. You realize that, right?

Marilyn said: I do think that the Earth has a tremendous great age, but having said that I don't think you could tell that by looking at it, I think it is still youthful and regenerates it's youth by being able to renew it's self,

I do think that there was a possibility of a flood

who knows what effect a close comet could cause to the ice

because we cannot detect it now doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened, I still cannot rule the possibility out

But I have taken heed now of your expert knowledge and now think there is also a possibility it didn't happen, so now I am unconvinced either way but will not rule out either possibility now. In my opinion there is still a probability there was a flood extensive or not.

So I guess I was wrong. You haven't yet realized that the experts who have studied the past have examined the evidence and concluded that there was no world-wide flood less than 10,000 years ago. Of course here were floods, lots of floods, there still are, so what" You now seem to realize the we can have knowledge of such things, but you are unwilling to be convinced by the evidence, by logic or by reason. Well unless you have examined all of the evidence for yourself, and that includes the genetic evidence as well as the archaeological evidence, you are in no position to challenge the conclusions of the experts. Go ahead and believe whatever you want, or remain skeptical as long as you want, no one cares. At least we got that "were you there" crap off the table.

Oops, my math is way off. A 'genesis comet' would have had to have been between 5-6 times the mass of the one that hit the dinosaurs, not 2 times. I was thinking radius (5km for the dinosaur comet vs 9km for Everest), but I needed the ratio of the cubes if I'm comparing mass.

eric said: Oops, my math is way off. A 'genesis comet' would have had to have been between 5-6 times the mass of the one that hit the dinosaurs, not 2 times. I was thinking radius (5km for the dinosaur comet vs 9km for Everest), but I needed the ratio of the cubes if I'm comparing mass.

Marilyn said: I do think that the Earth has a tremendous great age, but having said that I don't think you could tell that by looking at it

I think it is still youthful and regenerates it's youth by being able to renew it's self

I still cannot rule the possibility out, I haven't studied the subject enough to be totally convinced it didn't happen at all... ... In my opinion there is still a probability there was a flood extensive or not.

Whoever voted for Monday wins the pool: look here!

So I guess I was wrong. You haven’t yet realized that the experts who have studied the past have examined the evidence and concluded that there was no world-wide flood less than 10,000 years ago. Of course here were floods, lots of floods, there still are, so what” You now seem to realize the we can have knowledge of such things, but you are unwilling to be convinced by the evidence, by logic or by reason. Well unless you have examined all of the evidence for yourself, and that includes the genetic evidence as well as the archaeological evidence, you are in no position to challenge the conclusions of the experts. Go ahead and believe whatever you want, or remain skeptical as long as you want, no one cares. At least we got that “were you there” crap off the table.

It’s posts like the above, Marilyn, that get you treated differently here to how we treat creationist trolls. You show a mind that is open. You acknowledge that people who have spent their lives gathering evidence and studying it know more about it than you, and you’re preparted to learn from them. Good on yer, as we say here.

Matt Young said: I know that Marilyn can take care of herself, but I think DS is being too hard on her...

Ta-da!

Matt Young said: Whoever voted for Monday wins the pool: look here!

Just Bob said:

KlausH said:

Just Bob said:

Yardbird said: Notice the repetition in the complete article of "secular" as a slur: "secular scientists", "secular astronomers", "secularists". More poop flinging from the logically impaired. Horrible people! Just horrible!!

That's a freshman-level course for right wing talk show host wannabes: "All together now, class, 'Barack HUSSEIN Obama.' Not bad, but try it again, with more emphasis on the HUSSEIN."

You forgot to add the "MMMMM,MMMMM,MMMMM".

I'm not sure I get that. Could you explain?

Klaus Werner Hellnick said: many crazy teachers were teaching children to sing praises of [Obama].

Yardbird said:

Mike Elzinga said: Here is what Jake Hebert, "PhD" of the Institure for Creation "Research" has to say about the New Horizons probe.

But scientific data do not tell stories—people do—and this Pluto tale will result from people's interpretation of the data. For this reason, it would be more accurate to state that secular scientists are hoping that data collected by New Horizons will enable them to tell a story about how the solar system came into existence. And although they do not say so explicitly (perhaps they don't wish to offend the American taxpayers who provide NASA's funding), there is little doubt they fully intend for this story to leave no room for a supernatural Creator.

(Key the sad violin music and the wah-wah-wah trombone)

Notice the repetition in the complete article of "secular" as a slur: "secular scientists", "secular astronomers", "secularists". More poop flinging from the logically impaired. Horrible people! Just horrible!!

eric said:

Keelyn said: It's going to be rather difficult to nail down a time. It appears that AiG only stamps their wackiness with a date. But, I'll play. My prediction is: July 20, 2015, (Monday) between 10:30 and 11:00 (AM) - their first post of the day. I am assuming that they don't work on Sundays.

Well, still nothing there. But checking inclined me to read the Spiderman article, and now I feel like I have to wash all the bad pseudo-philosophy off of me. Its a tour de force of fallacious reasoning, with such classics as "I suggest you [atheists] stop suppressing your knowledge of God’s existence (Romans 1:18–32) and recognize that judgment is coming for you." [snip....]

Atheists suppress all facts and knowledge that is perceived to harm their worldview.

Ray Martinez said: You got it wrong. Atheists do indeed have knowledge of God's existence; the same is realized in the fact that design is a claim based on direct observation. So it's this fact that is the object of continual and systematic suppression by Atheists. In addition: Atheists suppress all facts and knowledge that is perceived to harm their worldview.

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheists suppress all facts and knowledge that is perceived to harm their worldview.

That is simply pure projection; and a most excellent self-description. By now - after only about three or four hundred years of formal, scientific investigation - scientists have a rather good understanding of the universe. On the other hand, sectarians - after thousands of years of blood feuds among thousands of different "interpretations" of the "supernatural" - still can't tell anyone anything about deities.

Ray Martinez said: I could go on and on....

Man, the crazies of all stripes seem attracted to this thread. Yes, Pluto is 'far out', but...

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said: I could go on and on....

Indeed, that is all you ever do; yet, in striking contrast to science, you can't demonstrate anything with evidence of any kind. Time for the Bathroom Wall with you.

Just Bob said: Time for the BW, I'm sure, but...

Klaus Werner Hellnick said: many crazy teachers were teaching children to sing praises of [Obama].

From what reputable news source did you get that "fact", Klaus? Limbaugh? James O'Keefe? Beck? Or did you perhaps personally witness "many crazy teachers" doing that?

Just Bob said: Man, the crazies of all stripes seem attracted to this thread. Yes, Pluto is 'far out', but...

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said: I could go on and on....

Indeed, that is all you ever do; yet, in striking contrast to science, you can't demonstrate anything with evidence of any kind. Time for the Bathroom Wall with you.

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said: I could go on and on....

Indeed, that is all you ever do; yet, in striking contrast to science, you can't demonstrate anything with evidence of any kind. Time for the Bathroom Wall with you.

And one will never find Atheist Mike Elzinga posting where he is not protected by an Atheist moderator. Come over to the Talk.Origin Usenet (at Google Groups) where there are no moderators to save you, Mike.

Klaus Werner Hellnick said:

Just Bob said:

KlausH said:

Just Bob said:

Yardbird said: Notice the repetition in the complete article of "secular" as a slur: "secular scientists", "secular astronomers", "secularists". More poop flinging from the logically impaired. Horrible people! Just horrible!!

That's a freshman-level course for right wing talk show host wannabes: "All together now, class, 'Barack HUSSEIN Obama.' Not bad, but try it again, with more emphasis on the HUSSEIN."

You forgot to add the "MMMMM,MMMMM,MMMMM".

I'm not sure I get that. Could you explain?

When Obama was running for his first term, and shortly after he was elected, many crazy teachers were teaching children to sing praises of him. These teachers were apparently affiliated with all the nuts who voted for him because they believed that Obama would us the magic powers of the presidency to pay off peoples houses and cars, as well as provide totally free healthcare. This particular song stresses the full name of "Barack Hussein Obama". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3TKMKbifgQ There are many others, though the best ones I had seen have been removed from Youtube. I apologize for the different login names. For some reason, I am having trouble signing onto Movable Type from my laptop, and am using my facebook account. I hope it is obvious that I am KlausH.

A mere 3 posts before poor Ray claims that he is being persecuted... by someone just suggesting that perhaps another location on this same site--where he can post until the Crack of Doom--would be a more appropriate venue for theological argument, rather than a thread about the age of surface features on Pluto.

fnxtr said: Then watch all the other videos from "breakingtruth", just to put everything in perspective. :-)

Yardbird said:

eric said: Its a tour de force of fallacious reasoning, with such classics as "I suggest you [atheists] stop suppressing your knowledge of God’s existence (Romans 1:18–32) and recognize that judgment is coming for you."

That sounds like the Marxist charge of false consciousness or, more accurately, the Islamic idea of jahiliyya. Is there a general term for that particular type of thinking? Maybe Dave Luckett has a thought about that.

Ray Martinez said:

eric said:

Keelyn said: It's going to be rather difficult to nail down a time. It appears that AiG only stamps their wackiness with a date. But, I'll play. My prediction is: July 20, 2015, (Monday) between 10:30 and 11:00 (AM) - their first post of the day. I am assuming that they don't work on Sundays.

Well, still nothing there. But checking inclined me to read the Spiderman article, and now I feel like I have to wash all the bad pseudo-philosophy off of me. Its a tour de force of fallacious reasoning, with such classics as "I suggest you [atheists] stop suppressing your knowledge of God’s existence (Romans 1:18–32) and recognize that judgment is coming for you." [snip....]

You got it wrong. Atheists do indeed have knowledge of God's existence; the same is realized in the fact that design is a claim based on direct observation. So it's this fact that is the object of continual and systematic suppression by Atheists. In addition: Atheists suppress all facts and knowledge that is perceived to harm their worldview.

Dave Luckett said: Essentially, we are in the same old, same old lalaland of looking for evidence that we know can’t actually be there.

phhht said:

Dave Luckett said: Essentially, we are in the same old, same old lalaland of looking for evidence that we know can’t actually be there.

If the Pluto flyby had revealed mile-high ice mountains on Pluto, spelling out "John 3:16, by golly!", I'd accept that as evidence I could take seriously. To suppose that there can be no evidence for gods is to suppose either that gods are perverse, or that they do not exist.

One YEC (he used to work for NASA so is scarcely 'uninformed') has already jumped on the Pluto bandwagon (and LIED to an enquirer). Details here
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewforum.php?f=9 (see 'You win some, you lose some')

PS Just caught sight of this. Well the TITLE is correct, anyway (the surface is young - relatively speaking). Young earth creationist caught telling the truth!
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/solar-system/plutos-surface-is-young/
I've only skimmed the rest of the article as it is 4.30 am here - but it's usual one-sided stuff you always get from 'Answers in Genesis'. I simply don't buy their position that the whole solar system 'must' be just 6,000 years old because of unexplained anomalies like this one. It does not add up.

Ray Martinez said: For example: When Velikovsky (an Atheist) published evidence that Joshua's long day had indeed occurred the same was met with a blacklisting campaign never seen before in modern times, comparable to Stalinism.

I could go on and on....

About the word (or not?) "pooflinging" - is that poo + flinging, or is it poof + longing for?

phhht said: If the Pluto flyby had revealed mile-high ice mountains on Pluto, spelling out "John 3:16, by golly!", I'd accept that as evidence I could take seriously.

Two Kinds of Science It is helpful to distinguish between operational science and origin science, and compare how each one seeks to discover truth. Operational science uses observable, repeatable experiments to try to discover truth. Origin science relies on relics from the past and historical records to try to discover truth.

My YEC reason for why Charon and Pluto are active is because they were so cold and lonely being so far from the Garden of Eden, God felt sorry for them and breathed into their hearts and made them all toasty and warm.

Matt Young said: Whoever voted for Monday wins the pool: look here!

phhht, you're not going to find a sign on a mountain range on Pluto, for the same reason that you won't find it on Earth: because God isn't at your command. You can't say to Him, "Do this, and I'll believe". He's not to be tested by you. You're not the judge of what he has done, or what he should do. A theist of the Abrahamic tradition has no problem in explaining the lack of the evidence you want. He doesn't expect to find evidence that would satisfy a profound skeptic, either.

All demands for empirical testable evidence for God founder on that rock. Both the theist and the atheist have reasons why such evidence is not available. They agree, therefore, that it isn't, and their positions remain unchanged. Since the lack of empirically testable evidence is not fatal to the theist's position, we might as well posit it. That's what I meant when I said we were "looking for evidence that we know can’t actually be there".

So the theist would expect to find only evidence that isn't rigorously testable by empirical means. He would aver that there is some such evidence. The atheist dismisses all such evidence as worthless - nothing but anecdote, and better explained by natural means, mistake, error, myth-making or downright fraud. The theist then accuses the atheist of special pleading. And on we go, into realms of increasingly esoteric irrelevance.

Me, I'm not going there. I don't know. And all that means is that I don't know.

Dave Luckett said: God isn’t at your command. You can’t say to Him, “Do this, and I’ll believe”. He’s not to be tested by you. You’re not the judge of what he has done, or what he should do. A theist of the Abrahamic tradition has no problem in explaining the lack of the evidence you want.

He doesn't expect to find evidence that would satisfy a profound skeptic, either.

Dave Luckett said: All demands for empirical testable evidence for God founder on that rock.

But stevaroni, phhht, we all three agree that the OT, or the Bible in general, does not consist of factual literal accounts of anything, or at the very least, that we would certainly disagree about what to trust, if anything. Anyway, why do you assume them to be literal truth for the purpose of attempting to establish an inconsistency, but not for the purpose of establishing evidence for God? Surely this is no more than special pleading?

Even if you accept the stories you cite as literally true, the underlying principle you assume is that God must act in the same way, always. This, again, is an attempt to lay down the law to him. You are still in the position of demanding of God that he perform to your requirements, or at least according to criteria you approve.

There may be a reason why he doesn't: Christians cite Jesus's parable about the rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16. The rich man pleads from Hell that he didn't know, and he wants his living brothers warned by Lazarus, who is also dead, but in Heaven. The parable has Abraham replying, "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will pay no heed even if someone should rise from the dead". Is it not possible that God, having provided the Law, the prophets, then Jesus, then all the miracles claimed since then, is not moved to provide more to skeptics, simply because they have chosen to be skeptics: "If they will not believe these things, then they will not believe". There are also Jesus's words at John 20:29: "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed".

Or there may be no reason that our minds can comprehend, or there may be no reason at all other than God's will. But God is sovereign, and we are so not.

Now, we don't accept any of that. Granted. Agreed. And I have other reasons for distrusting faith, that don't appear in the above. But the fact that I don't accept something is not reason enough for me to dismiss it completely. I could be wrong. I often am. I simply don't know.

Just Bob said:

fnxtr said: Then watch all the other videos from "breakingtruth", just to put everything in perspective. :-)

Life's too short. I'm one of Klaus's "nuts", who voted for Obama. Twice. Apparently, the majority of the voting public in the US are "nuts" in KlausWorld. How about it, Klaus, would that diagnosis justify "Second Amendment remedies" to reverse the outcome of TWO democratic elections?

fnxtr said:

Klaus Werner Hellnick said:

Just Bob said:

KlausH said:

Just Bob said:

Yardbird said: Notice the repetition in the complete article of "secular" as a slur: "secular scientists", "secular astronomers", "secularists". More poop flinging from the logically impaired. Horrible people! Just horrible!!

That's a freshman-level course for right wing talk show host wannabes: "All together now, class, 'Barack HUSSEIN Obama.' Not bad, but try it again, with more emphasis on the HUSSEIN."

You forgot to add the "MMMMM,MMMMM,MMMMM".

I'm not sure I get that. Could you explain?

When Obama was running for his first term, and shortly after he was elected, many crazy teachers were teaching children to sing praises of him. These teachers were apparently affiliated with all the nuts who voted for him because they believed that Obama would us the magic powers of the presidency to pay off peoples houses and cars, as well as provide totally free healthcare. This particular song stresses the full name of "Barack Hussein Obama". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3TKMKbifgQ There are many others, though the best ones I had seen have been removed from Youtube. I apologize for the different login names. For some reason, I am having trouble signing onto Movable Type from my laptop, and am using my facebook account. I hope it is obvious that I am KlausH.

Then watch all the other videos from "breakingtruth", just to put everything in perspective. :-)

Speaking of dwarf planets, why has NASA not given us any good thermal imaging of Ceres? There is a lot of very unusual activity on the surface, including what may be geysers or plume, on a body with no discernible energy reserve, yet there is no temperature data. I also notice there is a lack of good images of the intriguing disk shaped structure in the Southern hemisphere with the unusual "dimples", one in the center, and 4 spaced at 90 degree intervals. The disk does not appear to be an impact crater, is almost perfectly circular, and the dimples are rounded and very similar in size and shape.

Marilyn said:

DS said:

Marilyn said: For all we know the Earth could be the youngest planet if it was the last planet to form in the solar system.

So Marilyn, did you visit those caves yet? Did you try out your "were you there" routine? Are you still going with that? DId you learn anything on your trip?

One think I learnt is that a lot to do with the survival of the human race, animals and plants is effected by how they adapt to climate change. Way back in the ice age I don't think the blame could have been put on co2 emissions from the human foot print unless they had industry that we don't know about, it was how the earth was positioned in orbit around the sun that effected the climate, and volcano activity. They did exceptionally well enough to prove to me they were intelligent and capable to manage with what ever equipment they had available at the time and would have been more than capable of preparing and surviving a flood. If they were remnants of people who had survived a previous natural disaster of natural means such as a flood, or human industrial emissions, they had learnt to live a very sparse life style, walking and hunting food, covering a vast area, as would this modern age man have to learn to get back to living without industry and the internet and transportation. Because of their knowledge of the land they traversed, I think that if they saw that the ice age was beginning to thaw they might assess that a lot of water would start to accumulate all at once and so would within their community start to prepare for such an event, possibly find higher ground, if not build an Ark. If I wasn't there, they certainly was, and left clues as to what went on, so if a person could not be there they could pick up a clue or two to piece together some sort of idea as to what was happening, you know like forensics DS.

Ray Martinez said: For example: When Velikovsky (an Atheist) published evidence that Joshua's long day had indeed occurred the same was met with a blacklisting campaign never seen before in modern times, comparable to Stalinism.

Keelyn said: Oh yes! Yea! That would be me (sorry eric)

Velikovsky wasn’t blacklisted,...

Dave Luckett said: phhht, you're not going to find a sign on a mountain range on Pluto, for the same reason that you won't find it on Earth: because God isn't at your command. You can't say to Him, "Do this, and I'll believe". He's not to be tested by you.

A theist of the Abrahamic tradition has no problem in explaining the lack of the evidence you want. He doesn't expect to find evidence that would satisfy a profound skeptic, either.

Klaus Werner Hellnick said: Speaking of dwarf planets, why has NASA not given us any good thermal imaging of Ceres? There is a lot of very unusual activity on the surface, including what may be geysers or plume, on a body with no discernible energy reserve, yet there is no temperature data. I also notice there is a lack of good images of the intriguing disk shaped structure in the Southern hemisphere with the unusual "dimples", one in the center, and 4 spaced at 90 degree intervals. The disk does not appear to be an impact crater, is almost perfectly circular, and the dimples are rounded and very similar in size and shape.

Matt Young said: Whoever voted for Monday wins the pool: look here!

Yardbird said: My YEC reason for why Charon and Pluto are active is because they were so cold and lonely being so far from the Garden of Eden, God felt sorry for them and breathed into their hearts and made them all toasty and warm.

Just Bob said:

Klaus Werner Hellnick said: Speaking of dwarf planets, why has NASA not given us any good thermal imaging of Ceres? There is a lot of very unusual activity on the surface, including what may be geysers or plume, on a body with no discernible energy reserve, yet there is no temperature data. I also notice there is a lack of good images of the intriguing disk shaped structure in the Southern hemisphere with the unusual "dimples", one in the center, and 4 spaced at 90 degree intervals. The disk does not appear to be an impact crater, is almost perfectly circular, and the dimples are rounded and very similar in size and shape.

Hmm, why do you suspect "NASA has not given us" those things? Could it be a conspiracy? Are they tying to hide the truth? Is Obama behind it?

Just Bob said:

Just Bob said:

Klaus Werner Hellnick said: Speaking of dwarf planets, why has NASA not given us any good thermal imaging of Ceres? ...

Hmm, why do you suspect "NASA has not given us" those things? Could it be a conspiracy? Are they tying to hide the truth? Is Obama behind it?

Oh dear! Forgive me for writing mockingly! Obama IS behind NASA's hiding the truth about Ceres... and here's the SHOCKING PROOF: http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/2015/03/obama-face-found-on-ceres-dwarf-planet.html That does it for me. I'm voting Republican from here on out, and only for the candidate Rush endorses. I think I'll join the NRA and buy an AK to protect myself from Obama's tyranny. I think I'll put a "cold dead hand" sticker on my bumper, and maybe a confederate flag.

Oops my prior comment omitted Klaus' question. The one I was thinking of was: "why has NASA not given us any good thermal imaging of Ceres?" The sociopolitical answer is: because in the early 2000s when Congress was deciding what sort of missions to fund and send out, Ceres was called a (mere) asteroid while Pluto was called a planet.

DanHolme said: Hi Marilyn. Sounds like you had an interesting time. I just wanted to make a couple of quick points - pushed for time this week! 1. Your basic 'Ice Age' nomad would not be spending a great deal of time actually near any ice, as there's not a lot living there to eat. You are quite right to say that they were adaptable and able to make stuff that worked for their needs, but they would do that only from the available resources. Not many trees in a periglacial environment, but lots of grass, which means lots of herd animals like bison or horses. The nomadic lifestyle comes about from following these herds as they move, exploiting them for fur/skin/bone/meat/hooves. It would be difficult to make a raft out of horse bones, let alone an ark! Also, heading for higher ground would not be an option, as that's where the glaciers and ice-caps would be! 2. There's definitely evidence of major collapses of ice dams which would have caused sudden, devastating, landscape-changing floods, but we can see this because they stand out in the landscape. Lake Lapworth in Shropshire and Lake Pickering in Yorkshire would be worth googling. The point about these is that they have left features in the landscape that are unusual and distinctive. A global flood wouldn't do this! If you're interested in finding out more, there is a bit on Wikipedia, though I'm sure there's more fun to be had by going on a field trip to some of the sites and looking for evidence in the field yourself. I'm very conscious that this has absolutely nothing to do with the Pluto thread, so I don't want to dither about here too long. I would say, to perhaps throw another point in Marilyn's favour, that 'the Ice Age' (I know...) is, generally, almost entirely absent from the British school curriculum and has been for a long time. There is a small amount of high mountain environment stuff for year 9 students (approx.14 - 15 years olf) but it is only really studied in depth for one term at A-Level, in Geography, an optional subject in an optional qualification. I really think Marilyn is asking the right questions, which I have had put to me face-to-face by tourists, and I entirely understand if she is not sure which pieces of information to trust. Pluto isn't the planet that excites me, to be honest. I'm hoping they'll get some good photos of Mondas next!

Daniel said: In reality, there have been floods. lots of them. Many even catastrophic in nature. Some of them, like the Missoula floods, raised over 100 meters over the valley floors of Oregon, flowing at speeds of over 100 km/h. Or the famous Mesopotamian floods, on which Noah's flood is based (read The Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet 11), which pretty much covered ALL THE KNOWN WORLD of the Mesopotamians. All these events, all these floods, leave MASSIVE amounts of evidence. In the Missoula floods case, it left a trail of devastation all the way from Missoula,Montana, to the delta of the Columbia River, visible even more than 10,000 years after. The mesopotamian floods also left evidence of their destruction. In fact, there is evidence of SEVERAL floods in the same region, time after time. But there is no evidence whatsoever of a global flood. Forget for a seconds the impossibility of building such an ark, of the gathering and then spreading of all the animals, of enough water to cover the Earth... leaving aside all that, the simple fact is that that specific flood left no physical evidence behind it at all.

Just Bob said:

Klaus Werner Hellnick said: Speaking of dwarf planets, why has NASA not given us any good thermal imaging of Ceres? There is a lot of very unusual activity on the surface, including what may be geysers or plume, on a body with no discernible energy reserve, yet there is no temperature data. I also notice there is a lack of good images of the intriguing disk shaped structure in the Southern hemisphere with the unusual "dimples", one in the center, and 4 spaced at 90 degree intervals. The disk does not appear to be an impact crater, is almost perfectly circular, and the dimples are rounded and very similar in size and shape.

Hmm, why do you suspect "NASA has not given us" those things? Could it be a conspiracy? Are they tying to hide the truth? Is Obama behind it?

Just Bob said:

Just Bob said:

Klaus Werner Hellnick said: Speaking of dwarf planets, why has NASA not given us any good thermal imaging of Ceres? There is a lot of very unusual activity on the surface, including what may be geysers or plume, on a body with no discernible energy reserve, yet there is no temperature data. I also notice there is a lack of good images of the intriguing disk shaped structure in the Southern hemisphere with the unusual "dimples", one in the center, and 4 spaced at 90 degree intervals. The disk does not appear to be an impact crater, is almost perfectly circular, and the dimples are rounded and very similar in size and shape.

Hmm, why do you suspect "NASA has not given us" those things? Could it be a conspiracy? Are they tying to hide the truth? Is Obama behind it?

Oh dear! Forgive me for writing mockingly! Obama IS behind NASA's hiding the truth about Ceres... and here's the SHOCKING PROOF: http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/2015/03/obama-face-found-on-ceres-dwarf-planet.html That does it for me. I'm voting Republican from here on out, and only for the candidate Rush endorses. I think I'll join the NRA and buy an AK to protect myself from Obama's tyranny. I think I'll put a "cold dead hand" sticker on my bumper, and maybe a confederate flag.

dave luckett said: But stevaroni, phhht, we all three agree that the OT, or the Bible in general, does not consist of factual literal accounts of anything, or at the very least, that we would certainly disagree about what to trust, if anything. Anyway, why do you assume them to be literal truth for the purpose of attempting to establish an inconsistency, but not for the purpose of establishing evidence for God?

The oldest parts of the bible, for example psalms, are very easily interpreted as truth, at least in part. God is referred to as the light at the top of the mountain, a column of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night, as making the earth shake, and spitting fire and brimstone on his enemies. This is all very consistent with the idea that the primitive Hebrews started out as worshippers of volcanoes. Over the millenia, beliefs have changed and become more sophisticated (emphasis on sophistry), to the point that Jewish (and Christian) theology no longer wants to admit this origin, but to an objective observer, this is very believable. Such religions are not unknown, even in relatively modern times (look up Pele in Hawaii).
That it makes modern Judeo-Christian beief even more laughable is just a bonus.

eric said: Oops my prior comment omitted Klaus' question. The one I was thinking of was: "why has NASA not given us any good thermal imaging of Ceres?" The sociopolitical answer is: because in the early 2000s when Congress was deciding what sort of missions to fund and send out, Ceres was called a (mere) asteroid while Pluto was called a planet.

"New Horizons has provided scientists with surprise after surprise, and among the latest is that Pluto has a tail." http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/21/new-horizons-flyby-reveals-pluto-has-a-tail/21211810/?icid=maing-fluid%7Cbon%7Cdl31%7Csec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D-1444106825

I WON'T make a joke! I won't. I won't. I swear. Oh lord, somebody help me. Make the joke before I have to!

Klaus Werner Hellnick said: ... why has NASA not given us any good thermal imaging of Ceres?

Hmm, why do you suspect "NASA has not given us" those things? Could it be a conspiracy? Are they tying to hide the truth? Is Obama behind it?

Because they haven't! What the hell do you mean suspect? Even you should be able to log on to jpl.nasa.gov and see for yourself!

Well of course Pluto has a tail! It is, after all, Mickey's dog!

Just Bob said:

Klaus Werner Hellnick said: ... why has NASA not given us any good thermal imaging of Ceres?

I said...

Hmm, why do you suspect "NASA has not given us" those things? Could it be a conspiracy? Are they tying to hide the truth? Is Obama behind it?

Klaus...

Because they haven't! What the hell do you mean suspect? Even you should be able to log on to jpl.nasa.gov and see for yourself!

Umm, YOU asked the question, Klaus! And your answer to why they haven't is "Because they haven't!" I'm not sure even Robert B. would call that a "line of reasoning."

Klaus Werner Hellnick said: I think YOU have garbled the semantics. I asked why they have not given us good thermal images. You asked me why I suspected they have not. I answered "because they haven't." From your latest response, I suspect that the question you asked, and I answered, was not the one you meant to ask. Assuming you are somewhat rational, I surmise that you had meant to ask what I thought NASA's reasons were for not releasing the information. In response to THAT question, I have to say I don't know. A couple possibilities occur to me: there could be instrumentation trouble that prevented them from collecting the data or they could have gotten data that they can't explain and don't want to publicize yet.

Dave Luckett said: But stevaroni, phhht, we all three agree that the OT, or the Bible in general, does not consist of factual literal accounts of anything, or at the very least, that we would certainly disagree about what to trust, if anything. Anyway, why do you assume them to be literal truth for the purpose of attempting to establish an inconsistency, but not for the purpose of establishing evidence for God? Surely this is no more than special pleading?

Even if you accept the stories you cite as literally true, the underlying principle you assume is that God must act in the same way, always. This, again, is an attempt to lay down the law to him. You are still in the position of demanding of God that he perform to your requirements, or at least according to criteria you approve.

Just Bob said:

Klaus Werner Hellnick said: I think YOU have garbled the semantics. I asked why they have not given us good thermal images. You asked me why I suspected they have not. I answered "because they haven't." From your latest response, I suspect that the question you asked, and I answered, was not the one you meant to ask. Assuming you are somewhat rational, I surmise that you had meant to ask what I thought NASA's reasons were for not releasing the information. In response to THAT question, I have to say I don't know. A couple possibilities occur to me: there could be instrumentation trouble that prevented them from collecting the data or they could have gotten data that they can't explain and don't want to publicize yet.

The ambiguity just struck me as I was out riding my bike. Yes, I did not mean, "What makes you think they haven't...?" but "What is your suspected reason WHY they haven't?" The context of the rest of your comment is what made me suspect that you suspected NASA of some sort of nefarious concealment of data, especially the bit about " the disk shaped structure in the Southern hemisphere with the unusual “dimples”, one in the center, and 4 spaced at 90 degree intervals. The disk does not appear to be an impact crater, is almost perfectly circular, and the dimples are rounded and very similar in size and shape." That sure sounds like something from Ancient Aliens or a UFOlogy site.

Klaus Werner Hellnick said:

Just Bob said:

Klaus Werner Hellnick said: I think YOU have garbled the semantics. I asked why they have not given us good thermal images. You asked me why I suspected they have not. I answered "because they haven't." From your latest response, I suspect that the question you asked, and I answered, was not the one you meant to ask. Assuming you are somewhat rational, I surmise that you had meant to ask what I thought NASA's reasons were for not releasing the information. In response to THAT question, I have to say I don't know. A couple possibilities occur to me: there could be instrumentation trouble that prevented them from collecting the data or they could have gotten data that they can't explain and don't want to publicize yet.

The ambiguity just struck me as I was out riding my bike. Yes, I did not mean, "What makes you think they haven't...?" but "What is your suspected reason WHY they haven't?" The context of the rest of your comment is what made me suspect that you suspected NASA of some sort of nefarious concealment of data, especially the bit about " the disk shaped structure in the Southern hemisphere with the unusual “dimples”, one in the center, and 4 spaced at 90 degree intervals. The disk does not appear to be an impact crater, is almost perfectly circular, and the dimples are rounded and very similar in size and shape." That sure sounds like something from Ancient Aliens or a UFOlogy site.

The disk is real, and NASA scientists had made many comments about it as the Dawn probe approached. But, once they got close, they suddenly stopped talking about it and just kept showing the bright spots in the Northern hemisphere. This is an early animated gif. Please watch the Southern hemisphere. I am having trouble finding some of the other pics of the area. Even links on the Dawn blog are broken and say the files have been moved or deleted. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/blog/20150310/pia18920-16.gif

Marilyn said:

DanHolme said: Hi Marilyn. Sounds like you had an interesting time. I just wanted to make a couple of quick points - pushed for time this week! 1. Your basic 'Ice Age' nomad would not be spending a great deal of time actually near any ice, as there's not a lot living there to eat. You are quite right to say that they were adaptable and able to make stuff that worked for their needs, but they would do that only from the available resources. Not many trees in a periglacial environment, but lots of grass, which means lots of herd animals like bison or horses. The nomadic lifestyle comes about from following these herds as they move, exploiting them for fur/skin/bone/meat/hooves. It would be difficult to make a raft out of horse bones, let alone an ark! Also, heading for higher ground would not be an option, as that's where the glaciers and ice-caps would be! 2. There's definitely evidence of major collapses of ice dams which would have caused sudden, devastating, landscape-changing floods, but we can see this because they stand out in the landscape. Lake Lapworth in Shropshire and Lake Pickering in Yorkshire would be worth googling. The point about these is that they have left features in the landscape that are unusual and distinctive. A global flood wouldn't do this! If you're interested in finding out more, there is a bit on Wikipedia, though I'm sure there's more fun to be had by going on a field trip to some of the sites and looking for evidence in the field yourself. I'm very conscious that this has absolutely nothing to do with the Pluto thread, so I don't want to dither about here too long. I would say, to perhaps throw another point in Marilyn's favour, that 'the Ice Age' (I know...) is, generally, almost entirely absent from the British school curriculum and has been for a long time. There is a small amount of high mountain environment stuff for year 9 students (approx.14 - 15 years olf) but it is only really studied in depth for one term at A-Level, in Geography, an optional subject in an optional qualification. I really think Marilyn is asking the right questions, which I have had put to me face-to-face by tourists, and I entirely understand if she is not sure which pieces of information to trust. Pluto isn't the planet that excites me, to be honest. I'm hoping they'll get some good photos of Mondas next!

It was really a step back in time experience to a very interesting era that has a lot of meaning and much to be studied, I appreciate you very much for telling me bout it, amazing little place. Just like Pluto, amazing.

Klaus Werner Hellnick said:

eric said: Oops my prior comment omitted Klaus' question. The one I was thinking of was: "why has NASA not given us any good thermal imaging of Ceres?" The sociopolitical answer is: because in the early 2000s when Congress was deciding what sort of missions to fund and send out, Ceres was called a (mere) asteroid while Pluto was called a planet.

Um, you do know we have a probe orbiting Ceres, right now, don't you?

eric said:

Klaus Werner Hellnick said:

eric said: Oops my prior comment omitted Klaus' question. The one I was thinking of was: "why has NASA not given us any good thermal imaging of Ceres?" The sociopolitical answer is: because in the early 2000s when Congress was deciding what sort of missions to fund and send out, Ceres was called a (mere) asteroid while Pluto was called a planet.

Um, you do know we have a probe orbiting Ceres, right now, don't you?

Sigh. So does it or doesn't it have the thermal imagining capability you wish it had? If it does, then I don't see the point of your complaint. If it doesn't, then my point stands. And is this the disk you're talking about? Are you literally complaining that NASA isn't releasing pictures of something that NASA released pictures of?

Marilyn said: One think I learnt is that a lot to do with the survival of the human race, animals and plants is effected by how they adapt to climate change. Way back in the ice age I don't think the blame could have been put on co2 emissions from the human foot print unless they had industry that we don't know about, it was how the earth was positioned in orbit around the sun that effected the climate, and volcano activity.

Error: Either 'id' or 'blog_id' must be specified.

Stevaroni, can we try this once more? God is not attested by any empirical evidence. We were arguing the proposition that this implies that he doesn't exist.

The counterargument was that God is not constrained by anything. Specifically, he is not constrained to deliver a demonstration of his own existence to anyone. He is not required to perform super magical tricks in order to gain our credence or get our attention. Therefore it is not reasonable to expect that he would oblige us in this way - for that is to make him subject to our will, not the other way around. This explains the lack of empirical, objective evidence.

To this it is objected that he seemed willing to provide it in the past, according to the Bible. Several examples were cited - there are a lot of them. One of the most direct is the story in 1 Kings 18 where Elijah runs what amounts to a field test of God's powers and responsiveness vs those of Baal, and demonstrates that Yahweh is the cheese. Fire from heaven on request. God did it, back then. Why not now?

Two answers. First answer: Either that story, and the other stories, are true, or they aren't. Either there was fire from heaven and miraculous doings, or there weren't. If you accept the story as true, end of argument. God's existence has been demonstrated, and quibbling about whether he is consistent or not is pointless. Or, in the alternative, that story, and all the others to similar effect, are fiction. No such things actually happened. If that's the case, then God didn't perform on cue back then, either, and the objection of inconsistency falls over. That is, no demonstration of his existence has been provided, but the above explanation of his refusal to provide one, stands.

Second answer: God is sovereign, and his mind is beyond our understanding. He does as he does, and may have reasons for intervening in person then, but not now, that we can't even guess at. Accuse him of inconsistency as you will, he is not constrained to meet your expectations in this matter either.

You say as a matter of fact "that the present, physical, God of the Bible seems to have gone suspiciously absent at the exact moment that humanity could start asking pesky questions about whether he was really there". But has he? We hear many stories of his current interventions. Yes, he has left no empirical, objective evidence, but then again, he never did. Elijah asked for fire from heaven, and it was said that he got it, but I bet a stage magician could think of ways to duplicate that trick. That's not empirical evidence, because it can't be replicated and tested by anyone else.

What about phhht's mountain ranges on Pluto spelling out "John 3:16, by golly"? If it happened, there's your proof of God. If it doesn't, it's not proof of his absence.

All it comes down to is that there is no empirical evidence. Is that enough to say there is no God? It's enough for me to say I don't believe in one, but I don't know. But I am not minded to dismiss the notion altogether. I simply don't know.

Klaus Werner Hellnick said: I agree that BreakingTruth seems to be a bit of a crank orgaization, but what the hell does that have to do with the validity of the video?

Dave Luckett said: The counterargument was that God is not constrained by anything. Specifically, he is not constrained to deliver a demonstration of his own existence to anyone. He is not required to perform super magical tricks in order to gain our credence or get our attention. Therefore it is not reasonable to expect that he would oblige us in this way - for that is to make him subject to our will, not the other way around. This explains the lack of empirical, objective evidence.

DS said: It seems awfully strange to me that the authors of this little diatribe chastise "uniformitarian scientists" and then use assumptions of uniform rate for many different processes in order to draw their predetermined conclusion. Even if Pluto was proven to be very young, it would not follow that the earth or the solar system or the galaxy or the universe was young.

richard09 said: The oldest parts of the bible, for example psalms, are very easily interpreted as truth, at least in part. God is referred to as the light at the top of the mountain, a column of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night, as making the earth shake, and spitting fire and brimstone on his enemies. This is all very consistent with the idea that the primitive Hebrews started out as worshippers of volcanoes.

Klaus Werner Hellnick said: ... why has NASA not given us any good thermal imaging of Ceres? A couple possibilities occur to me: there could be instrumentation trouble that prevented them from collecting the data or they could have gotten data that they can't explain and don't want to publicize yet.

Klaus Werner Hellnick said: The disk is real, and NASA scientists had made many comments about it as the Dawn probe approached. But, once they got close, they suddenly stopped talking about it and just kept showing the bright spots in the Northern hemisphere. This is an early animated gif. Please watch the Southern hemisphere. I am having trouble finding some of the other pics of the area.

stevaroni said: I rationally think that even if the Bible is holy writ I still don't think we should over-analyze it for detail. I think even a divinely inspired Bible would round pi off to 3 and use literary devices like "Go to the top of the highest mountain and view the whole Earth". I am an adult, and I understand that there's a certain amount of simplification inherent in telling any complex story and I would expect nothing else even in a holy book, unless it were, say, a divine trieste in math and physics.

...even as we speak they're out in a Tenesee cornfield hammering together Ark-II

Even if you, I, and AiG disagree about how much veracity to instill into the literal stories in the Bible, I think we should all be able to agree that if the Bible has any value as a religious book, it should be able to allow us some kind of glimpse into the the nature of the Creator. It's an autobiography, for cryin' out loud. If the Bible accomplishes nothing else, it should give us some insight into God and what he says he wants. And the God of the Bible, as described in the book he himself wrote...if you believe the Bible then God has, in fact, left detailed stories about how he acts, what he wants, and how he thinks.

But even if Pluto and Spiderman's alter ego do start with the same letter, what does Peter Parker have to do with Pluto?

Henry J said: But even if Pluto and Spiderman's alter ego do start with the same letter, what does Peter Parker have to do with Pluto?

Dave Luckett said: Stevaroni, can we try this once more? God is not attested by any empirical evidence. We were arguing the proposition that this implies that he doesn't exist.

The counterargument was that God is not constrained by anything. Specifically, he is not constrained to deliver a demonstration of his own existence to anyone. He is not required to perform super magical tricks in order to gain our credence or get our attention. Therefore it is not reasonable to expect that he would oblige us in this way - for that is to make him subject to our will, not the other way around. This explains the lack of empirical, objective evidence.

To this it is objected that he seemed willing to provide it in the past, according to the Bible. Several examples were cited - there are a lot of them. One of the most direct is the story in 1 Kings 18 where Elijah runs what amounts to a field test of God's powers and responsiveness vs those of Baal, and demonstrates that Yahweh is the cheese. Fire from heaven on request. God did it, back then. Why not now? Two answers. First answer: Either that story, and the other stories, are true, or they aren't. Either there was fire from heaven and miraculous doings, or there weren't. If you accept the story as true, end of argument. God's existence has been demonstrated, and quibbling about whether he is consistent or not is pointless. Or, in the alternative, that story, and all the others to similar effect, are fiction. No such things actually happened. If that's the case, then God didn't perform on cue back then, either, and the objection of inconsistency falls over. That is, no demonstration of his existence has been provided, but the above explanation of his refusal to provide one, stands.

Second answer: God is sovereign, and his mind is beyond our understanding. He does as he does, and may have reasons for intervening in person then, but not now, that we can't even guess at. Accuse him of inconsistency as you will, he is not constrained to meet your expectations in this matter either.

What about phhht's mountain ranges on Pluto spelling out "John 3:16, by golly"? If it happened, there's your proof of God. If it doesn't, it's not proof of his absence. All it comes down to is that there is no empirical evidence. Is that enough to say there is no God? It's enough for me to say I don't believe in one, but I don't know. But I am not minded to dismiss the notion altogether. I simply don't know.

science avenger said:

Dave Luckett said: The counterargument was that God is not constrained by anything. Specifically, he is not constrained to deliver a demonstration of his own existence to anyone. He is not required to perform super magical tricks in order to gain our credence or get our attention. Therefore it is not reasonable to expect that he would oblige us in this way - for that is to make him subject to our will, not the other way around. This explains the lack of empirical, objective evidence.

I fail to see why this should be any more persuasive than the kid that says "I can do anything I want", and when challenged to flap his arms and fly, says "I don't want to do that." All you are doing is backfitting a definition of "god" so that it is impervious to investigation. Good on your creative talents I suppose, but that hardly carries the significance of making belief in the object of that thought experiment reasonable.

phhht said:

To this it is objected that he seemed willing to provide it in the past, according to the Bible. Several examples were cited - there are a lot of them. One of the most direct is the story in 1 Kings 18 where Elijah runs what amounts to a field test of God's powers and responsiveness vs those of Baal, and demonstrates that Yahweh is the cheese. Fire from heaven on request. God did it, back then. Why not now? Two answers. First answer: Either that story, and the other stories, are true, or they aren't. Either there was fire from heaven and miraculous doings, or there weren't. If you accept the story as true, end of argument. God's existence has been demonstrated, and quibbling about whether he is consistent or not is pointless. Or, in the alternative, that story, and all the others to similar effect, are fiction. No such things actually happened. If that's the case, then God didn't perform on cue back then, either, and the objection of inconsistency falls over. That is, no demonstration of his existence has been provided, but the above explanation of his refusal to provide one, stands.

It is the latter proposal that I argue to be the case. If you wish to disagree, it is up to you to establish the truth of the stories you cite as evidence....

Again, I ask, What IS enough to conclude that there is no God?

David MacMillan said: Now, whether those stories reflect some experience of God on the part of the storyteller or the storyteller's culture...that's another question. Clearly, a story can convey a true idea even if it's not a historically accurate story.

David MacMillan said: What would be sufficient evidence for you to believe that aliens interacted with Earth at some point in the past? Barring an actual alien artifact (fragments of a spaceship, etc.), what sort of evidence or discovery would suffice?

phhht said:

David MacMillan said: What would be sufficient evidence for you to believe that aliens interacted with Earth at some point in the past? Barring an actual alien artifact (fragments of a spaceship, etc.), what sort of evidence or discovery would suffice?

You might as well be asking about the mile-high ice mountains on Pluto spelling out "John 3:16, by golly!" That would be enough to give me pause.

Phhht, God is by definition alone divine. Why would you expect other entities to share his essential characteristics?

As for why I'm prepared to allow him a little more slack than I would vampires etc, God explains the Universe, and although you or I don't care for that explanation, and discount it, there is no explanation that is any better proven.

If a lack of empirical evidence can be explained from the essential nature of the thing to be proven, it is not surprising that no empirical evidence exists, and that lack does not in and of itself suffice to demonstrate its non-existence.

True, the Abrahamic religions (well, generally) demand belief. Sucks be to them, say I, in chorus. They're demanding the impossible: I can't believe what I can't know. As for the necessity for faith, anyone whose brain approaches room temperature has to be aware of what faith can do, now and in the past. It defies my understanding how anyone can point to that record and demand faith.

But still. That puts me at about a 6 on Dawkins' atheism scale. You're a 7. We can get on.

Dave Luckett said: Phhht, God is by definition alone divine. Why would you expect other entities to share his essential characteristics?

As for why I'm prepared to allow him a little more slack than I would vampires etc, God explains the Universe, and although you or I don't care for that explanation, and discount it, there is no explanation that is any better proven.

If a lack of empirical evidence can be explained from the essential nature of the thing to be proven, it is not surprising that no empirical evidence exists, and that lack does not in and of itself suffice to demonstrate its non-existence.

True, the Abrahamic religions (well, generally) demand belief. Sucks be to them, say I, in chorus. They're demanding the impossible: I can't believe what I can't know. As for the necessity for faith, anyone whose brain approaches room temperature has to be aware of what faith can do, now and in the past. It defies my understanding how anyone can point to that record and demand faith. But still. That puts me at about a 6 on Dawkins' atheism scale. You're a 7. We can get on.

Dave Luckett said: Stevaroni, can we try this once more? God is not attested by any empirical evidence. We were arguing the proposition that this implies that he doesn't exist.

All it comes down to is that there is no empirical evidence. Is that enough to say there is no God? It's enough for me to say I don't believe in one, but I don't know. But I am not minded to dismiss the notion altogether. I simply don't know.

You're not asked to posit the reality of divinity, phhht, only to accept that that is the question, and that to start by saying that it isn't a possibility is to beg the question.

The cause of the Universe does not fit into what we already know to be true. We don't know what cause is the true one.

There is nothing that I know of that can conclusively demonstrate the non-existence of God. This is of course only another example of the impossibility of demonstrating a universal negative. There is no conclusive evidence for his existence. My response is to withhold belief; yours is to completely deny it; a theist accepts that God exists, pointing to a lesser standard of evidence and relying on the explanation I have given for the lack of empirical evidence, plus faith. None of these positions is irrational, except for the "faith" part.

See, stevaroni, you say "the tiniest little scintilla of evidence", but you don't mean that. You mean "empirically proven objective evidence that I can test for myself".

If you want a tiny little scintilla of evidence, I can refer you to millions of personal statements, witness attestations, historical records involving what are said to be eyewitness accounts, miraculous cures, and much more material - but you will reject all of that out of hand. You will say, not that these are of little worth, but that they are absolutely worthless, for if they were of any worth whatsoever, they would be, collectively, that "tiniest little scintilla" at least.

Me, I take refuge in Hobbes's question: which is more likely? And I cheerfully agree that mistake, hallucination, misreporting, fancy and fraud are far more likely. But as soon as I start making calculations like that, I have already conceded that there is a possibility of the alternative. I might consider it a remote one; but it's a big Universe.

phhht said:

David MacMillan said: Now, whether those stories reflect some experience of God on the part of the storyteller or the storyteller's culture...that's another question. Clearly, a story can convey a true idea even if it's not a historically accurate story.

You omit a third possibility: the storyteller had a delusional experience which he interpreted as an experience of a god.

phhht said: Now answer my question: What DOES suffice to conclude that gods do not exist, if not the utter absence of any empirical evidence to the contrary?

Dave Luckett said: See, stevaroni, you say "the tiniest little scintilla of evidence", but you don't mean that. You mean "empirically proven objective evidence that I can test for myself".

If you want a tiny little scintilla of evidence, I can refer you to millions of personal statements, witness attestations, historical records involving what are said to be eyewitness accounts, miraculous cures, and much more material - but you will reject all of that out of hand.

stevaroni said: It is possible, to test, for example, for the efficacy of prayer. Such studies have been done. They have allways come up dry.

Oh, and I completely missed the implications of "the God of AiG's bible". I stand four-square with stevaroni on that. There is no such god. If there were, the Universe would be hell, and here am I in it. Well, I'm not. I live in the same world as the latest 'flu virus, as I have current cause to know, and that virus and its cunning ways are the result of evolution. Is the virus evidence of a malevolent god? No more than that my own immune system, which is working on the problem, is evidence for a benevolent one. There's no evidence for either. Does that mean there is neither - no god at all, in fact?

The only answer I can come up with is an unqualified "maybe".

In the spirit of this thread, that is, that the AiG mouthpieces will miss no opportunity to distort science news to bolster their nonsense argumnets, let me be the first to say
thanks to fossil fuels carbon dating is now totally worthless!*

[panic] Ahhhhhh!!!!!!! We know nothing!!! One Eleven! One Eleven!** [/panic]

_{*not really}

_{**Oooh... that kinda felt good. No wonder AiG does this.}

Dave Luckett said: Oh, and I completely missed the implications of "the God of AiG's bible". I stand four-square with stevaroni on that.

I suspect that it might come down to professional training and background. Scientists are rightly drilled in the concept that an observation is either empirically verifiable or it's worthless. But I was trained as a historian, and there is no "empirically verifiable" to the evidence that we use. We rationally criticise it, and each other's treatment of it, but always from the viewpoint that its worth is variable, that is, its verity lies on a spectrum from bad to good. Yet, history can come to understandings that seem to be true. Possibly for that reason, I am willing to grant some value to non-empirical evidence.

DS said: It seems awfully strange to me that the authors of this little diatribe chastise "uniformitarian scientists" and then use assumptions of uniform rate for many different processes in order to draw their predetermined conclusion.

Dave Luckett said: Phhht, God is by definition alone divine.

Not every other god, Malcolm. Most of them were not the only God, to their worshippers. In fact, outside the Abrahamic religions, I can't think of any that were strict monotheisms at all.

And yes, I'm agnostic about all of them. Polytheism would solve the theodicy problem, and pantheism has its attractions, but no, I don't know about them, either.

Dave Luckett said: Not every other god, Malcolm. Most of them were not the only God, to their worshippers. In fact, outside the Abrahamic religions, I can't think of any that were strict monotheisms at all. And yes, I'm agnostic about all of them. Polytheism would solve the theodicy problem, and pantheism has its attractions, but no, I don't know about them, either.

So now they see cratered terrain on Pluto. Think they'll be consistent and say that Pluto's old now?

Nah, that would be like Behe using the same sort of evidence that indicates "microevolution" sans poofs (chloroquine resistance, say) to indicate that "macroevolution" occurs without poofs. Consistency just isn't what creationists do.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: So now they see cratered terrain on Pluto. Think they'll be consistent and say that Pluto's old now? Nah, that would be like Behe using the same sort of evidence that indicates "microevolution" sans poofs (chloroquine resistance, say) to indicate that "macroevolution" occurs without poofs. Consistency just isn't what creationists do. Glen Davidson

So, based on patchy cratering or a lack of cratering, it seems PARTS of Pluto could - conceivably - be just 6,000 years old. Will Faulkner and Coppedge be happy with that?

Ah. So if a scientist were to say that the planet has things with ages anywhere from a few years up to four billion and something years, they'll say he's ambivalent? indecisive? ambiguous? uncertain? Heisenberg? can't make up his mind?

Henry J said: Ah. So if a scientist were to say that the planet has things with ages anywhere from a few years up to four billion and something years, they'll say he's ambivalent? indecisive? ambiguous? uncertain? Heisenberg? can't make up his mind?

David MacMillan said:

richard09 said: The oldest parts of the bible, for example psalms, are very easily interpreted as truth, at least in part. God is referred to as the light at the top of the mountain, a column of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night, as making the earth shake, and spitting fire and brimstone on his enemies. This is all very consistent with the idea that the primitive Hebrews started out as worshippers of volcanoes.

I hate to rain on your parade, but there aren't really any volcanoes within a thousand miles of modern-day Israel which had any sort of eruptive activity between the 20th and 6th centuries BCE. It's also very well-established, historically speaking, that the Hebrew worship practices developed from existing myths in the region, moving from polytheism toward monolatry and finally to monotheism.

I was under the impression that ca. 4000 years ago there were at least half a dozen volcanoes in the area that gave rise to those "existing myths in the area". The descriptions in the OT are pretty much unmistakeable for anything else.

ashleyhr said: So, based on patchy cratering or a lack of cratering, it seems PARTS of Pluto could - conceivably - be just 6,000 years old. Will Faulkner and Coppedge be happy with that?

richard09 said:

David MacMillan said:

richard09 said: The oldest parts of the bible, for example psalms, are very easily interpreted as truth, at least in part. God is referred to as the light at the top of the mountain, a column of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night, as making the earth shake, and spitting fire and brimstone on his enemies. This is all very consistent with the idea that the primitive Hebrews started out as worshippers of volcanoes.

I hate to rain on your parade, but there aren't really any volcanoes within a thousand miles of modern-day Israel which had any sort of eruptive activity between the 20th and 6th centuries BCE. It's also very well-established, historically speaking, that the Hebrew worship practices developed from existing myths in the region, moving from polytheism toward monolatry and finally to monotheism.

I was under the impression that ca. 4000 years ago there were at least half a dozen volcanoes in the area that gave rise to those "existing myths in the area". The descriptions in the OT are pretty much unmistakeable for anything else.

It’s like if someone heard a modern Contemporary Christian song talking about God bringing life to the galaxies and transcending space and changing the course of time and lasting through eternity and thereby concluded Christianity derived from the worship of Type Ia supernovae (because, after all, Type Ia derive from white dwarf stars which have a lifetime greater than the universe, and they are responsible for nucleosynthesis and they can create black holes which break the classical understanding of space and time).

A Masked Panda said:

It’s like if someone heard a modern Contemporary Christian song talking about God bringing life to the galaxies and transcending space and changing the course of time and lasting through eternity and thereby concluded Christianity derived from the worship of Type Ia supernovae (because, after all, Type Ia derive from white dwarf stars which have a lifetime greater than the universe, and they are responsible for nucleosynthesis and they can create black holes which break the classical understanding of space and time).

Supernovae 1a don't make black holes, they merely blow up via nuclear fusion and leave no object behind at all, much as a hydrogen bomb simply explodes and dissipates. Glen Davidson

David MacMillan said:

A Masked Panda said:

It’s like if someone heard a modern Contemporary Christian song talking about God bringing life to the galaxies and transcending space and changing the course of time and lasting through eternity and thereby concluded Christianity derived from the worship of Type Ia supernovae (because, after all, Type Ia derive from white dwarf stars which have a lifetime greater than the universe, and they are responsible for nucleosynthesis and they can create black holes which break the classical understanding of space and time).

Supernovae 1a don't make black holes, they merely blow up via nuclear fusion and leave no object behind at all, much as a hydrogen bomb simply explodes and dissipates. Glen Davidson

**Cue the supernova-worship-theorist coming up with another explanation for why it still fits.**

"How will we liken the Kingdom of God? Or with what parable will we illustrate it? It is like the degenerate binary which, when it is stable, it is less than all the stars that are in the heavens, yet when it passes the Chandrasekhar limit and explodes, it becomes greater than all the stars, and sheds forth heavy elements, so that the planets of the galaxy may bring forth life in its nebula."

The idea that Mt. Sinai was a volcano has apparently been around since the 19th century. The main proposed candidate for the biblical Sinai appears to be Mt. Badr in the northwest corner of the Arabian peninsula.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hala-%27l_Badr

Personally I've always disliked the idea of trying to find naturalistic explanations like this for biblical stories, since it relies on the presupposition that they have some factual basis to start with.

Re "Personally I’ve always disliked the idea of trying to find naturalistic explanations like this for biblical stories"

But what if the "miracle" was simply a coincidence?

AltairIV said: The idea that Mt. Sinai was a volcano has apparently been around since the 19th century. The main proposed candidate for the biblical Sinai appears to be Mt. Badr in the northwest corner of the Arabian peninsula. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hala-%27l_Badr Personally I've always disliked the idea of trying to find naturalistic explanations like this for biblical stories, since it relies on the presupposition that they have some factual basis to start with.

David MacMillan has just posted an article about Pluto and creationism here.

Just Bob said:

Klaus Werner Hellnick said: I agree that BreakingTruth seems to be a bit of a crank orgaization, but what the hell does that have to do with the validity of the video?

So... you don't trust them as a valid information source in general, but you DO when it's Obamaphobic stuff. Got it.

eric said:

Klaus Werner Hellnick said:

eric said: Oops my prior comment omitted Klaus' question. The one I was thinking of was: "why has NASA not given us any good thermal imaging of Ceres?" The sociopolitical answer is: because in the early 2000s when Congress was deciding what sort of missions to fund and send out, Ceres was called a (mere) asteroid while Pluto was called a planet.

Um, you do know we have a probe orbiting Ceres, right now, don't you?

Sigh. So does it or doesn't it have the thermal imagining capability you wish it had? If it does, then I don't see the point of your complaint. If it doesn't, then my point stands. And is this the disk you're talking about? Are you literally complaining that NASA isn't releasing pictures of something that NASA released pictures of?