Talk:Eternal Productions: 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

	This Biblical scientific foreknowledge related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes Could use more references. Also references need proper formatting, and Wikipedia articles need to be replaced.

Pwned!

Lyra § talk 14:31, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I hope you're referring to them and not me. Thunderkatz^Ho! 14:42, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

YouTube

Could someone with a YouTube account post a link here in the comments? 'Twould be greatly appreciated. Thunderkatz^Ho! 22:54, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

...Why don't you sign up? It's free and takes >10 sec. I would rather not be busted for spamming. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:18, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't think it's really spamming to point out that one of the links in the description contains faulty information, and then point out a site that contains refutations of that inaccurate information. But I probably should create an account anyway... Thunderkatz^Ho! 23:21, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmm. I responded to a couple comments, and when I hit "post" it said "pending approval". I then went back and didn't see them. I think whoever posts a video gets to "approve" the comments before they post now. Which explains the unbroken line of "this video is the greatest" comments, and the lack of critical comments, despite the fact that his video has 134,500+ views and was posted in response to an atheist video. If follows that there should have been a large number of atheistic comments, but there are none to be found. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:27, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Ahh, I see. Considering he also disabled rating, I might be inclined to agree with you. Which seems pretty anti-youTube-spirit, i.e., if you can't stand the criticism, you shouldn't be out there posting stuff in the first place. Thunderkatz^Ho! 23:29, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Supposedly, VenomFangX is notorious for this kind of thing. He moderates comments and locks down the rating function, typically after a few "five star" votes. Thus, it creates the illusion that he is brilliant, his videos are infallible, and his e-penis is many times longer than everyone else's. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 23:33, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

e-penis! :D Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:40, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Dude, one of us needs to post a video response to his video. That's the one thing you can't moderate. And it needs to quote what Arcan just said—it's awesome. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:42, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

As long as it includes the word e-penis and a link to this article. Any volunteers? Though I'm guessing he has the ability to moderate video responses as well, or else there would definitely not be 0. So it couldn't be a direct comment on the video, which would lower the views. Thunderkatz^Ho! 23:45, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't think you can moderate video responses. I recall one person vehemently protesting injustice in Dubai, and a video response was posted that was undeniably a tourist advertisement for Dubai (specially made just in response to the protester's video). If he could have moderated that, I'm sure he would've. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

nav menus things

I hope you don't mind, that now this thing is "public" if I rearrange them a tiny bit? (At least moving them out of the tables and centering them?) ħuman 04:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Also, when using WP as a footnote, one should use "permalinks", not just normal links. If one has to use WP as a ref at all... surely there were sources that stood behind what we assert (don't get me wrong, you did a lot of work, but now it stands for all of us... Oh and PS, there's some first person stuff in here that we have to figure out a way around, eventually) ħuman 04:56, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I fixed the first person stuff, and I'll take a look at changing some refs away from WP. And feel free to rearrange it in whatever way looks best. Thunderkatz^Ho! 10:15, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Formatting in error

Is it just me or is the formatting very bad - "Craptacular" even? Random surfer (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC) (2nd post ever)

No.69

It says on section 69 that the behemoth had a tail like cedar.This is a quote from the bible often used by creationists to claim that the behemoth was a dinosaur.However,the actual quote is that the tail 'moveth like cedar'.QUOTE MINE!!!--Thedoctor80 (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Counter-Counter Arguments By a Rational Christian ( Yes. I agree with Evolution taking Epigenetics into account.)

I am a scientific, rational Christian (and yes, I agree with evolution and The Big Bang) Skip to #10 if you don't believe me. Here are my arguments and support or a lack thereof, for each claim made by Eternal Productions and Rational Wiki whom I shall refer to as EP and RW respectively.

Counter – Counter Arguments By a Christian who agrees with Science

1. 1: The idea of taking the book of Job in poetic form is one given by man. The Wikipedia page for the Bible states that it is a poetic book, however, unless the scripture itself says so, it is not possible to agree on the matter . Note: The foundation and footings are the very same referred to in RW’s response. i.e the cosmic phenomenon which facilitate the very existence of Earth . Moreover, consider four pillars (pillars are oft spoken of as states RW in its argument). Now according to RW, the “heaven” (emphasis on “heaven”) is supported by such pillars. Consider the Universe. It is held in an apparent balance (rather than complete chaos) as seen in our own solar system because of the four major forces (as known by most, I don’t think the four forces require emphasis).
2. 2: God having created “matter” from “nothing” is in fact the very belief of all monotheistic religions and multiple polytheistic ones. It is on this very topic that believers and atheists disagree and it will not be resolved soon in any rational way . Moreover, the belief that God made matter of nothing already exists in the very beginning of Genesis and the very same is spoken of in Judaism, Islam and other Abrahamic religions. (It is on this very fact that the controversy of Creationism is based and I do believe that arguing on this matter will give no clear solution.)
3. 3: The ark is believed to have been instructed to be constructed by God. No Abrahamic religion lays claim to the existence of a propulsion system and the belief is held that as with all things, God guides. This may or may not be rational to the reader based on preconceived notions . Yet again, it lies purely in the reader’s beliefs.
4. 4: Well, that’s just dumb . As in the succeeding counter-counter argument, it is quite modern for a people who existed millennia past.
5. 5: I disagree with Eternal Productions on the “up until World War I” aspect, however, the early dawn of systematic sanitation is in fact seemingly advanced for a time period of such age .
6. 6: Nowhere in the book of Job does it state that it is not meant to be taken literally. Apart from preconceived notions of taking Job poetically, there is no strict biblical mention of the same. Moreover, the verse states the precise fact rather than any kind of metaphor (which RW seems so adamantly against ). The aspect of shallow/deep may have been known since times past, but that of “springs of the sea” could not possibly have been understood. Being a Theistic and Scientific thinker; shallow/deep may seem like an invalid point. But that of “springs” is in fact completely valid. The argument put forth by RW is not one of validity in the latter part.
7. 7: The verse does not merely make reference to him exiting in general, it aptly describes HOW he exists within the “waters” and the “depth” and in direct continuity (note that he states the following precisely after he defines his state of being intricately –read through verse-) In usual prose, a state of being that is aptly defined is followed by the events that occur in the same state of being unless or until the next state of being has been defined. Here, state of being refers to the location or rather (in simpler terms) the “spot” wherein he resides and the circumstances he is in .
8. 8: I’m not sure what EP (Eternal Productions) meant to say here and I’m also not certain the argument is apt. As a Christian, I do believe that emotions are a result of hormones, nerve impulses and so on, but I also think the theory of evolution stands true as of now (the bible is not against this theory). However, according to me, and most followers of other Abrahamic religions, true joy comes not from learning or attaining that which is of the world but rather through God who gives us joy. The very same God who made all things come to be. Moreover, as the Bible states, no amount of learning or understanding can fulfill our needs of food, fruitful harvests, wellbeing and overall gladness and joy. Note that joy is not the same as happiness . (and on evolution, refer to Epigenetics please: I may refer to it in future counter-counter arguments)

I spoke of Epigenetics (which arose quite recently) merely to indicate human misconception. In the end, the very same phenomenon Christians and Atheists disagreed on, turned out to be basically (i.e the very definition of evolution) wrong. What both did not understand was that: a. Nowhere does the Bible disagree with evolution. b. The definition of evolution itself has not been perfected. Unlike previously thought, an individual’s lifestyle (including specific acquired traits) would possibly determine the future of individuals yet to come. RW, a simple request. Next time, pick a fight with a Scientific Christian who agrees with Science and religion rather than with people who are partially blind to Science.

1. 9: As it Gandhi said: I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians.

Not all people who call themselves Christians are righteous or true to their religion. There are those who claim to be as such but are, in no way, true Christians. And so the final portion of the argument of specific Christians (Christian physicians) has been debased. Now for the rest. The “ancient Israelites” could have managed to find that you could die in multifarious ways including, and contained to, “bleeding a lot” : as I stated in #4 and #5, it seems strange that these people would emphasize on “blood” rather than all the other options available to them. Why not speak of body parts which, if severed, will lead to death? Why not speak of flesh itself rather than blood? Consider these, before baseless arguments are made. The #9 is either a topic to remain neutral on or one to agree with. A total baseless disagreement is rational folly .

1. 10: Unfortunately, I disagree with EP when it states that evolution is false biblically. As far as I’m concerned, the Bible does not disagree with evolution. Moreover, I disagree with RW when it states that the verse itself is wrong. It is in fact valid. Every creature does, in fact, bring forth its own kind. Note clearly that the verse does not refer to creatures and does not say “creatures after their own kind” but rather refers in singular form i.e “creature after his kind”. And so it is with Science. Every creature that exists on Earth (if it copulates) gives rise to offspring. Each, emphasis on each-singular form. The parent and offspring are scientifically speaking: related the closest genetically. Consider the human DNA test (I assume the reader knows of this.) It is possible to identify the parent of a given species provided the adequate DNA. Though all humans are of the same species, it is possible to genetically identify the parent of the offspring merely via DNA. Genetically speaking, one organism does in fact give rise its own kind i.e the closest genetic relative of the offspring, i.e the closest in kind is in fact, the parent(s). This, in no way, goes against the theory of evolution.

I do wish to note RW here of how the verse states in singular and not in plural. A simple difference in this could affect the very course of the Bible’s agreement with Science. But it does not. And that is what is unbelievably beautiful.

1. 11: The apparent belief in “the survival of the fittest” is in essence false primarily because the very act of existence is an indicator of survival, to exist is to survive. This is not simply a “made up” argument in lieu of the fact that Science agrees with this. Moreover, it has in fact been observed that not only man, but other organisms also exhibit “helpful natures ”.
2. 12: This has, in fact, been scientifically validated. And I do not claim this “only because the Bible says so”. In fact, Science agrees with the Bible. [links provided for the apparently “rational” ones]. The chicken came first because the formation of the egg requires a specific protein(ovocledidin-17 (OC-17) present only within the parent (specifically the mother) and only that can facilitate the formation of an egg. Hence, the first true “chicken” (genetically) came to be, before the first egg . As for the egg, it was laid by a chicken like species (the closest relation genetically to a chicken, but not exact) but not a true chicken. So for the final question posed, the answer would be: “Please check with Science for affirmation.”

For rational people, it seems that RW does not have a true grasp on Science.

1. 13: Here also, I disagree with both RW and EP. The verse states that God created all things. And that is apparently one of the most “scientifically inaccurate” argument for Creationism. As for why many believe, it is because they state that things cannot merely come to be, hence there exists God. Creationism is what I believe in, but this verse may or may not seem right based on the beliefs of the people who read it. I, for one, believe that God created all things .
2. 14: I note something strange in RWs state of arguments. Merely claiming that verses are “poetic” in nature does not render them invalid. “One” leaving aside the fact that we “return to dust” consider the fact that we are of the dust. And not merely, “elementally” unlike EP states but also, “evolution-wise.” Recall that the soil consists of not merely elements and compounds but also of life, the very same life that evolution claims to state all creatures evolved from. Not only are our bodies composed of elements of the soil, but human beings (over a vast time scale) evolved . And obviously, after death we do return to dust. Again, a reference to evolution: On the evolution of animals, (from Poriferans to Mammals) it is scientifically stated that all evolved from a common ancestor which lived/existed in the sea (nucleotides, perhaps?). That is, the sea was the origin of Animal life. An animal is generally defined as any creature that can move. (Poriferans are the only sessile animals but they are aquatic. Coelenterates are sessile only in one stage of their life since they exhibit an alternation of generation. They are also aquatic.) And what does the Bible say about animal life. Here’s Genesis 1:20:

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Note extremely intricately how the waters brought forth abundantly every creature that moveth. In fact, note how the very first reference to animal life is from the waters. It could have been that the land animals were mentioned first, could have been that the birds of the air came first, but of all the possibilities: the waters brought forth, not one but every creature that moveth.

1. 15: I’m not sure whether EP can lay claim to the first law of Thermodynamics, but as for RW:

Genesis 7:4 states that God “caused” but does not use the word “created.” Similarly, nowhere in Exodus 16:4 is the word “created” utilized. The same is with all other cases RW has mentioned. It may not directly imply the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, but it does not oppose it .

There is yet more to come.And I will improve exiting arguments when required.

Change to referencing of verses from text to Rationalwiki:Annotated Bible?

The idea was to keep everything in one place so in case we need to change something we don't need to dig everything up to see if they stand corrected. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

An apparent reply from 83.110.74.242

Rather than let this disappear, I will paste it here for your perusal and discussion:

An apparent reply:

8: I’m not sure what EP (Eternal Productions) meant to say here and I’m also not certain the argument is apt. As a Christian, I do believe that emotions are a result of hormones, nerve impulses and so on, but I also think the theory of evolution stands true as of now (the bible is not against this theory). However, according to me, and most followers of other Abrahamic religions, true joy comes not from learning or attaining that which is of the world but rather through God who gives us joy. The very same God who made all things come to be. Moreover, as the Bible states, no amount of learning or understanding can fulfill our needs of food, fruitful harvests, wellbeing and overall gladness and joy. Note that joy is not the same as happiness . (and on evolution, refer to Epigenetics please: I may refer to it in future counter-counter arguments)

I spoke of Epigenetics (which arose quite recently) merely to indicate human misconception. In the end, the very same phenomenon Christians and Atheists disagreed on, turned out to be basically (i.e the very definition of evolution) wrong. What both did not understand was that:

a. Nowhere does the Bible disagree with evolution.

b. The definition of evolution itself has not been perfected. Unlike previously thought, an individual’s lifestyle (including specific acquired traits) would possibly determine the future of individuals yet to come.

RW, a simple request. Next time, pick a fight with a Scientific Christian who agrees with Science and religion rather than with people who are partially blind to Science.

(added to the article by 83.110.74.242, 21 June 2014, promptly reverted by Watcher in the Dark) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No 98

Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) - You can ask Kent Hovind about that.

Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). - There must be a few million dead creationists by now.

If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. - Seriously? God has broken many of his commandments so why should anyone follow someone who breaks their own rules.God is an atheist because he does not believe in a higher being. Thou shalt not kill (global genocide via flood). Thou shalt not steal (god stole Adam's rib to make Eve) Thou shalt not commit adultery Mary (who was in a committed relationship with Joesph) ended up having God's baby. Thou shalt not lie (God said to Adam and Eve that if they ate the forbidden fruit then they would die, they ate the fruit and lived for quite a while.--Cmbisme (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

They'll twist the bible around to interpret it differently, thus rejecting their view of biblical literalism. Unless, that is, it agrees with their view.--TemplarJLS (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)