Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
There is a basis for the assumption that things are written how the writers think. Joshua 10:13 says "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." The thing is, the Earth actually stopped spinning, for that is what causes the sun and moon to rise and set. The writers didn't know this fact, however, so they said what they thought happened. God still inspired it. If it had said, "So the Earth stopped rotating" people in that time would have not gotten it. So yes, there is a basis in the assertion.
So, if you claim that people would be unable to understand the earth is a rotating sphere, why would they be able to understand a 13.7 billion year old universe?
sudgy wrote:
And another thing. Can you provide evidence that there is no God?
That wasn't part of our deal. I'm not attempting to prove or disprove it. In fact, I am acting in good faith and giving your beliefs respect by not dismissing them out of hand and working within the guidelines that you set out for me, despite my believing them to be completely spurious.
My goal is to convince you that evolution is correct. (Correct being the theory or model that most closely resembles reality as we know it.)
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
One of the things that we know about nature is that time is relative, my 7 days is not necessarily the same as your 7 days. If we assume that the time frame presented is accurate, would it be possible that the 7 days presented is time dilated in such a way to allow for a 13.7 billion year old universe from our frame of reference?
This is the argument put forward by Gerald Schroeder in the Science of God, by the way.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
sudgy wrote:
While the Bible was made by humans, it was directly inspired by God. He made sure that what He wanted was in there, but what He didn't want not to go in there. All the contradictions are us misinterpreting what it says.
So contradictions between the Bible and Nature are simply us misinterpreting the Bible then?
By that logic would it be possible that the 6000 year span in the Bible is similarly a misinterpretation?
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Also, you'll have to show me that the Bible says that the universe is billions of years old. I believe that the Bible has more authority than science, so you can not show me through science that the universe is billions of years old.
Science is nothing more than the study of nature, and nature is the final arbitrator of science. If nature (which you hold to be God's direct creation) shows that the Bible (which may contain translation and transliteration flaws, and was reproduced by fallible humans and is thus only God's indirect creation) is in error. Which would you hold to be more authoritative?
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
I'm just working out the terms of the argument.
So as it stands, my understanding is I have to convince you that:
1) The literal interpretation of the Biblical time frame (6000 years, 7 days) is in error and inconsistent with nature.
2) "Macroevolution" is not inconsistent with nature (or scientific research, which is the same thing).
And then you'll accept "macroevolution" as a valid explaination of the way the world works.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
sudgy wrote:
No. It's still in conflict with the Bible. And there is a lot of scientific evidence against it, so I don't see how you could give me the evidence.
So I'll have to disprove both the asserted age of the universe in the Bible, and then prove to you that the theory of evolution is valid on a multi-million year time scale then, and not in conflict with any valid scientific research?
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
sudgy wrote:
Here's a challenge. What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that evolution is true? Assuming that the request is a valid claim of evolution, I can present evidence to support it.
First of all, I will never believe in macroevolution. It is clearly in conflict with the Bible, and with the scientific research. If your evidence is showing that organisms can change over time, I believe that can happen. Wild dogs evolved into domestic dogs. But, that was microevolution. There has never been a complete change from one species to a completely different species that we have recorded. They are able to change somewhat, even to the point that they are a new species, but they still are similar to what they originaly were, as with dogs. And if you were to look at the DNA of a wild dog and a domestic dog, they would still be similar. That is not the case with other similar species.
If you don't have a criteria to be convinced then you are not debating in good faith. And thus, are not worth arguing with.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
1. So what you're saying is: Adam didn't have nipples; Adam and Eve didn't have a curved spine or a tailbone; their voice box nerve went from the brain to the voice box without curving around the cardioid artery, etc etc, but once the Fall happened we suddenly got all of these poor design traits that we seem to share with other species in some cases?
Doesn't that strike you as the least bit disingenuous?
2. Actually, that post is an argument for "macroevolution" is possible given "microevolution" which are both just simply evolution. Over generations, yes, both can happen. The evidence is overwhelming.
Here's a challenge. What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that evolution is true? Assuming that the request is a valid claim of evolution, I can present evidence to support it.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Bisqwit wrote:
Yes, and goes to the category as some earlier "look how smart I am" shows in this thread. In short, make a predetermined conclusion, and then pick anything that seems to support that conclusion, no matter how far drawn, no matter how separated from context, no matter how irrelevant, and hope that by quantity alone you have sufficient "evidence" to waltz to victory and silence any opposition.
And yes, I know that you can say many of those same words about proponents of Bible, including me.
That's called "confirmation bias" and it's wrong no matter who does it.
However, his image stands as strong evidence that the Bible is not infallible.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
TAS frowns on saves, but if the save can be generated using an example movie it's generally ok, it's even more ok in this situation, because it's required. (If it's required)
I'd say don't worry terribly much about the logistics at this point. Things will work out as they work out.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
OhMega wrote:
Thanks for the effort. It's very relaxing to watch.
Btw: I got issues with the sound in the video. It's very delayed. Am I the only one experiencing this?
As noted before, there are a few issues with the published mp4 files.
They have just been fixed. Please redownload.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Blaming stupidity and a lack of general intelligence, OmnipotentEntity announced that there are various issues with the released mp4 files, with a/v desync and number of bits.
He will reencode and replace as soon as possible.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Toothache wrote:
Never use full frames when dumping. The videos are way too large and often times desyncs occur between sound and video. I'd recommend installing a lossless codec like Lagarith, and using that to capture the raw dump.
I use full frames while dumping. Yes, it does take up a lot of space. No, I don't get time desyncs.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
I have one unlisted video with all sorts of copyright violations. Ironically, it's a college paper about copyright.
I'm still able to upload extra long movies. So I doubt anything is that simple.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
CoolKirby wrote:
Sorry this has been taking so long. I've been trying to manipulate Lord Crump's "PUNISH HIM!" message to appear quicker (for some reason, it comes up faster if you wait a few frames, jump a certain number of times, etc.). It's the only thing so far (from the beginning of the game to entering Rogueport Sewers for the first time) that changes from attempt to attempt (no idea why). Manipulating it is pretty annoying, but I will not give up (my conscience wouldn't let me submit something I know is suboptimal).
I'll post an encode of the Prologue when I finish it.
You may want to check out if it's a frame rule. (only shows up every multiple of x frames)
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
The precedent set by the Rockman movie is that only human rerecords should count towards the final count, how many human rerecords went into this movie? Does anyone know?
The authors of the Rockman run had a good idea about how many rerecords were done by bot and how many were done by hand, and they cared about the distinction.
This author doesn't, and didn't keep track, which is fine.
The rerecord count is not used in any process on the site, not considered during judging, and only really used for meaningless statistics. The rerecord count doesn't matter.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
