EPT
New series: The historical accuracy of the Bible
| Blogs > JesusCruxRH |
|
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42668 Posts
| ||
|
Wizard
Poland5055 Posts
| ||
|
Rayzorblade
United States1172 Posts
for instance, when God rebukes Job near the end of the book, He says certain things that we should now marvel about - when God asked "Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow?" was He referring to the natural (and rather mystic) creation of a snowflake; today we now know that no two snowflakes are alike ever and just why this happens. . . well, we just don't know. similarly, God's reference to the "behemoth" in Chapter 40, verses 15-24 are also interesting - God describes this monstrous creature (to cite some of it) whose bones are like iron and his thirst unquenchable even by the Jordan river. a creature of this kind of magnitude could have only been some kind of dinosaur, but science tells us that their dynasty ended well before man crawled out of the jungle. what is it then? just some other mysteries of the Bible I remembered. . . | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
quite accurate indeed. | ||
|
intotherainx
United States504 Posts
On October 28 2007 06:10 Kwark wrote: Circle doesn't mean sphere. It means circle, which in this context would be a disc. When they mean sphere they'll say sphere, the Bible is after all infallible. If it were fairly close to the truth but not quite there then maybe they could say circle and mean sphere. But it can't be doubted the Bible says circle and as such the world is a disc. Why would it mean a disc "in this context"? Because you say so? It could also mean something like a sphere. Even if you were "correct," which I don't think anyone can be for sure, what if 2000 years ago the word "circle" meant something different in contexts? What if the word for sphere never even existed? Lol, I can't believe I just entertained a superficial, poorly-thought-out argument about a wrong definition of a circle. Props to you for being bait to waste my time. | ||
|
Snet
United States3573 Posts
| ||
|
mikeymoo
Canada7170 Posts
| ||
|
BalloonFight
United States2007 Posts
Signed, TL.net | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
I can't imagine any rational being taking the bible serious. Even considering it's historical acurateness is a joke. I wish people would shut the fuck up about the bible already. | ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
| ||
MasterOfChaos
Germany2896 Posts
| ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
| ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
On October 28 2007 07:33 intotherainx wrote: I think if you post a religion-related topic on teamliquid, there are bound to be many people who will disagree with you because they just don't like religion (and conversely those who support you because they like religion). It is very hard to find people who will discuss the topic without flaming each other or just acting irrationally. Why would it mean a disc "in this context"? Because you say so? It could also mean something like a sphere. Even if you were "correct," which I don't think anyone can be for sure, what if 2000 years ago the word "circle" meant something different in contexts? What if the word for sphere never even existed? Lol, I can't believe I just entertained a superficial, poorly-thought-out argument about a wrong definition of a circle. Props to you for being bait to waste my time. You don't have to defend the ill-informed assertions of our ancestors to make you feel good about your beliefs. Arguing semantics to support 'scientic' 'evidence' (Don't argue that you never said scientific evidence, please) of the bible is just... backwards. | ||
|
TesisMech
Peru688 Posts
On October 28 2007 08:22 BalloonFight wrote: Rebelheart, please stop trying to impose your beliefs on this forum. We don't care. Signed, TL.net No , its his blog | ||
|
TesisMech
Peru688 Posts
On October 29 2007 07:48 Meta wrote: I believe the bible said a man survived being eaten by a whale for three days. Am I mistaken? Or that there was a flood which covered the earth, and then the waters miraculously... disappeared? Since it did cover the earth, there would have been nowhere for the water to recede to. Any child could point out the flaws in the bible scientifically, if he were to think about it hard enough. Perhaps all of the layers of strata that we see around the world were formed by that world-wide flood? | ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On October 29 2007 08:16 TesisMech wrote: Perhaps all of the layers of strata that we see around the world were formed by that world-wide flood? except that isn't how it would work. There wouldn't be multiple strata layers and we would see all different types of animals in the same strata layer. The fact is we don't, because most of these animals did not exist at the same time;( You are also ignoring all the other affects a global flood would have had. It would be VERY evident. And of course the question "where did the water come from?" Most creationists say there was a layer of water above the earth in pre flood times........ ... that shouldn't even need to be argued against;( | ||
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
| ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
On October 29 2007 08:16 TesisMech wrote: Perhaps all of the layers of strata that we see around the world were formed by that world-wide flood? Are you seriously arguing that the earth used to be 100% covered in water? Do you really believe that noah went out and got two kinds of all the spicies of animals on the earth today (since evolution doesn't exist, right? all the animals that exist today must be direct descendants from the animals on the ark?) including the over 250,000 spicies of beatles from all over the world? And then these wild animals from completely different ecosystems survived for fourty days and nights on a wooden boat without dying/eating each other? Please don't insult your intellegence. | ||
LosingID8
CA10828 Posts
no one is forcing you to read it stop complaining | ||
|
man
United States272 Posts
On October 29 2007 08:16 TesisMech wrote: Perhaps all of the layers of strata that we see around the world were formed by that world-wide flood? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord have fun | ||
|
TesisMech
Peru688 Posts
On October 29 2007 09:37 Meta wrote: Are you seriously arguing that the earth used to be 100% covered in water? Do you really believe that noah went out and got two kinds of all the spicies of animals on the earth today (since evolution doesn't exist, right? all the animals that exist today must be direct descendants from the animals on the ark?) including the over 250,000 spicies of beatles from all over the world? And then these wild animals from completely different ecosystems survived for fourty days and nights on a wooden boat without dying/eating each other? Please don't insult your intellegence. My point still stands evolution doesnt exist,there are different kinds of humans are u going to say they are different because they are products of evolution? dogs are still dogs, wolves are stll dogs, all are from the same family just different KINDS of them, no evolution there whatsoever | ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On October 29 2007 11:35 TesisMech wrote: My point still stands evolution doesnt exist,dogs are dogs, wolfs are different kinds of DOGS no evolution whatsoever there cmon man, I would hope you would read up on some things a bit after discussing this many times  Even creationists claim there is "evolution" they just try and separate it into micro and macro evolution. They only claim that "macro-evolution" doesn't exist. That being said, no respectable biologist would ever even acknowledge that there is a difference between the two, it is all evolution, just on a smaller scale. It is fine if you believe what you want to believe, but don't try to argue with others until you can bring something new to the table. If you want common creationists arguments, go to www.answersingenesis.org ( you may be semi-familiar with this already. ) After that i STRONGLY encourage to go to www.talkorigins.org/ To even have an opinion you should at least read both. If you still want to argue, please give me something you feel that talkorigins doesn't address. Otherwise you are just giving the same arguments that have been refuted time and time again You make think this site is anti-religion, which is true to some extent, but that doesn't mean the points brought up are any less valid. What you have to remember is that most people don't chose to be an atheist or agnostic or w/e and then try to look up facts to support their view. Can the same be said about your "quest" for knowledge? This is a serious question which I hope you will answer. Anyway, please don't attack evolution with the same old creationists arguments;( If you honestly believe you have points that haven't been addressed, then PM me and I'll answer them to the best of my ability or link you to credible sources. | ||
|
TesisMech
Peru688 Posts
I think what you are confusing its adaptation to an specific environment. Example wolves grow hair when they are on snow or cold weather, still wolves. No evolution. Im not gonna agree on something that isnt true sry and im not gonna post anymore here cause i dont want to turn this thread into another debate between christianity and atheism. im pretty tired of that ;/ | ||
|
man
United States272 Posts
Also, the fact that you say that there is no evidence of evolution demonstrates quite clearly that you have never researched it at all. Another thing, that example you give is poor because you don't understand what evolution is. Evolution is the change in the relative frequency of genes in a gene pool over time. No one would argue that animals growing a thick winter coat is evolution, and then they evolve again in the summer. Please educate yourself. A much better example would be something like insular dwarfism. | ||
|
TesisMech
Peru688 Posts
No its not. "Evolution" is such a broad term, simply meaning "change," that it can be stated quite honestly that adaptation qualifies as a type of evolution. However, when "evolution" is stated to the layperson, the concept is of one sort of organism, like a bacteria, through time, chance, mutations, and natural selection, becoming another sort of organism, like an elephant. If this is the sort of evolution being referred to, then adaptation is in a different category altogether. Adaptation is the process whereby a series of variations already within a population gets winnowed down to the few that are best suited to any particular environment. This is not a matter of adding anything new to the genetic material of the population, but simply weeding out what is not working as well as some other variations. For instance, a population of bears which wandered north at some point, gradually lost members with less fat, less aggressiveness, and darker fur, eventually leaving us with the white, aggressive, and fat-layered polar bear. There may have been some mutations or combinations which increased the fat or the aggressiveness or the lightness of color, but nothing which changed the essential "bear-ness" of the beast. This is radically different from the type of evolution which posits that some kind of unicellular organism through millions of mutations became that bear in the first place. K I will not post anymore here. | ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
On October 29 2007 14:46 TesisMech wrote: ... No its not. "Evolution" is such a broad term, simply meaning "change," that it can be stated quite honestly that adaptation qualifies as a type of evolution. However, when "evolution" is stated to the layperson, the concept is of one sort of organism, like a bacteria, through time, chance, mutations, and natural selection, becoming another sort of organism, like an elephant. If this is the sort of evolution being referred to, then adaptation is in a different category altogether. Adaptation is the process whereby a series of variations already within a population gets winnowed down to the few that are best suited to any particular environment. This is not a matter of adding anything new to the genetic material of the population, but simply weeding out what is not working as well as some other variations. For instance, a population of bears which wandered north at some point, gradually lost members with less fat, less aggressiveness, and darker fur, eventually leaving us with the white, aggressive, and fat-layered polar bear. There may have been some mutations or combinations which increased the fat or the aggressiveness or the lightness of color, but nothing which changed the essential "bear-ness" of the beast. This is radically different from the type of evolution which posits that some kind of unicellular organism through millions of mutations became that bear in the first place. K I will not post anymore here. Your example isn't any different from evolution of other sorts. A group of relatively skinny, brown bears travel north. Over thousands of years, they become fat and white or die out. Where did the ones with extra fat and white fur come from? You said it yourself: mutations. And those mutations just happened to be ones that increased the chances of survival and reproduction of the bear, as to pass it's mutation on to future generations. That is evolution. Evolution doesn't turn a cat into a banana, it's very gradual. | ||
|
sundance
Slovakia3201 Posts
How to Argue Like a Creationist Mark Harpt's Secrets to Rhetorical Success (other contributors' names included in brackets) 1. Make outrageous claims, but don't dare to support them. Make other people prove them wrong. 2. Keep repeating your claims. People will believe them eventually. 3. If someone asks you specific questions about one of your claims, make up answers. 4. When presented with evidence that contradicts your claims, trivialize it. Say, "ha ha! you only presented X pieces of evidence!" Hope they won't notice that you presented none. 5. When caught in an error, redefine the English language to accommodate the error. 6. Refuse to provide references for any claim unless at least 10 people ask for them. 7. When producing your reference, assuming you have one, provide a vague citation with no page numbers or publisher information. 8. By all means, do not transcribe the contents of a supporting reference on your own, even if it's only 2 sentences. Make others do your work for you. They probably won't bother. 9. If somebody actually bothers to look up your reference, misrepresent it. Say it "implied" what you claimed, even if it claimed the opposite. 10. When the chorus of challenges grows loud, divert attention away from the challenges by whining about name-calling. 11. Before complaining about name-calling, call your opponents names like "liar" and "history revisionist". 12. Leave talk.origins, come back a few months later, change the topic of discussion, and hope nobody remembers how well you applied these techniques the last time you were there. 13. Killfile people who provide particularly effective criticisms, so you do not have to listen to them and can plead ignorance about their comments. [Andrew MacRae] 14. After avoiding a direct question once, with one of the above techniques, claim that you've "already answered that question" if anyone asks it again. [Doug Turnbull] 15. In lieu of argument, refer readers to http://www.superb.com/~markh/. [Loren Petrich] 16. Claim you have "killfiled" someone, even though the headers on your messages show you are using a newsreader which doesn't support killfiles. [Paul Farrar] 17. When the going gets tough, start a new thread and reiterate your original assertion as fact. After a while, consolidate your threads and repeat. [Michael Keane] 18. Go on (or pretend to go on) a vacation or trip. When you return, repeat all the same assertions as fact. Forget or ignore all the criticisms that were made before you left. [Michael Keane] 19. When somebody asks you, weeks later, for evidence of an earlier claim, say "I already dealt with that in an earlier article." [Russell Stewart] 20. Write a hit-and-run article. Claim to have disproved all your opponents' arguments and then refuse to answer anymore relevant questions or challenges. 21. If someone disagrees with you, use the "Philosophy 101" argument from authority. Pretend all great philosophers and scientists have endorsed your argument, even when practically none have. 22. Call your opponents biased against Christianity. If someone disagrees with you, then that person obviously hates Christians. 23. Have all your past articles purged from Usenet archiving services like DejaNews. That way, there will be no record of you losing all your arguments. 24. If absolutely, irrevocably proven wrong on some fundamental point, claim that said point was actually "minor". [Dan Breslau] 25. Quote your opponent out of context so it appears that he's actually agreeing with you, even though he's actually shattered your argument. Brett Vickers ---- bvickers@ics.uci.edu | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
literalists are winnars | ||
|
TesisMech
Peru688 Posts
And if you say the ability to adapt to a certain environment of an animal/person/ its prove for evolution its just NOT true at all there is no prove for that ,bears still bears, dogs still dogs , dogs cant evolve into birds which is part of your theory. Yeah as ridiculous as it sounds its what your theory stands for. Just different kinds of them due to their environment, did evolutionists research what they claim at all? -_- actually this questions reminds me of this (Note how he completely avoids the question, no evidence) for his asnwer and set a completely answer base on his "beliefs") funny how someone told me to not attack what its been discussed "and rebutted" by evolutionists in an attempt to avoid the questions I asked. First of all if you want to make your theory at least acceptable, you have to prove that you can make non-living matter into living-matter which is the whole premise of your theory. k I will not post , now for further discussions just pm me q8/ | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32051 Posts
| ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On October 30 2007 03:20 TesisMech wrote: My english is bad but i will try. And if you say the ability to adapt to a certain environment of an animal/person/ its prove for evolution its just NOT true at all there is no prove for that ,bears still bears, dogs still dogs , dogs cant evolve into birds which is part of your theory. Yeah as ridiculous as it sounds its what your theory stands for. Just different kinds of them due to their environment, did evolutionists research what they claim at all? -_- actually this questions reminds me of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g (Note how he completely avoids the question, no evidence) for his asnwer and set a completely answer base on his "beliefs") funny how someone told me to not attack what its been discussed "and rebutted" by evolutionists in an attempt to avoid the questions I asked. First of all if you want to make your theory at least acceptable, you have to prove that you can make non-living matter into living-matter which is the whole premise of your theory. k I will not post , now for further discussions just pm me q8/ ...........wow? It is VERY VERY well known that tape is edited. That might be one of the worst things you could post because it attacks the credibility of the creationists;( http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=14255 " A full account of the hoax is given by Barry Williams, in the (Australian) Skeptic. I don't have the reference with me (I'm in Miami Airport, on my way to Galapagos) but it is given in the chapter of A Devil's Chaplain, called The Information Challenge. Briefly, the long pause occurred when I tumbled to the fact that the film-makers were creationists, and I had been tricked into allowing them an interview. I was trying to decide how to handle the difficult diplomatic situation. Should I throw them out immediately? Should I answer the question? Should I stop the interview and discuss their dishonesty with them before deciding whether to allow the interview to continue? I eventually took the third option. It later turned out that they used the long pause to make it look as though I was unable to answer the question. At the end of the long pause, they cut to a scene of me talking about something completely different (presumably the answer to another question which was cut), to make it look as though I was evading the question by changing the subject. In the original film, 'From a Frog to a Prince', the 'information content' question is put to me by a MAN. We see him in a bare room, very obviously not the well-furnished room in which I am shown (not) answering the question. The new version on YouTube is different in at least two respects. First, the question is put to me by a WOMAN (we don't see her). And while she is speaking I am obviously not listening to anybody asking questions (I would be looking straight at the questioner if so) but I am clearly lost in thought, the same long train of thought that persists for a long time after the question ends (intended to look embarrassingly long, as if I am incapable of answering the question). There is another difference. In this new version of the film, I ask them to stop the camera (and this really happened, for the reason given above). Then there is the cut to me answering the completely different question, as if trying to change the subject. In the original film, my request to stop the camera is missing. I've got to go and board the plane, but it might be quite interesting for somebody to post both versions of the film together on our website, so they can be compared directly. " edit: ill pm you the rest | ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
I posted in the blog how the video you posted was a well known hoax;o lets talk about some of the things you said in your post;) I am not trying to convince you anymore, merely just defend any attacks you make on evolution. First thing I need to address, and I think it has been told to you many times before, is that a scientific theory does not have the same definition of the way we casually use theory. Normally most people know this and are being intellectually dishonest when they say "evolution is just a theory" but in your case, english isn't your first language, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The first part of this article can help clarify. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html And if you say the ability to adapt to a certain environment of an animal/person/ its prove for evolution its just NOT true at all there is no prove for that ,bears still bears, dogs still dogs , dogs cant evolve into birds which is part of your theory The problem with this is, you don't really have an argument here Of course you aren't going to see a dog evolve into a bird or a different animal. You know that evolution states that it takes gradual changes over millions and millions of years. Even if you don't agree, what you said is attacking a straw man(by that I mean, you are attacking an argument evolution doesn't make). We have to look at the past to help us understand. I am going to talk about strata layers, because it is the best example to use. Earlier you made a post about how the strata layers could have been "caused by the flood." I responded to it in the thread but in case you didn't read it, I'll respond here. A flood would not cause strata layers like the ones we find for MANY reasons. I can't cover them all here but most of them are really obvious, here is a link if you wish to read about it. http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=1087 We look to the different strata layers, each which represent specific events or time periods, for fossils. What we see is that certain animals are confined to certain layers. For example, you won't find fossils of a rabbit in the cretaceous period. At the end of the precambrian era, we see ONLY fossils of very simple forms of life. (worms, invertebrates, extc.) On the flip side, what you are proposing is that every animal started off with a specific design, and existed at the same time. You are also claiming that the number of species of animals is only decreasing overtime, since new ones can't be formed. The problem is, if this were true, we would find rabbits and dinosaurs in the same strata layer. Instead what we find is that all MAMMALS didn't even "show up" until just recently. Just something to consider. First of all if you want to make your theory at least acceptable, you have to prove that you can make non-living matter into living-matter which is the whole premise of your theory. This is just plain wrong. I hope you see the obvious flaw in this logic without me pointing it out but here it goes. We don't know how life came to be, but that has NOTHING to do with evolution. You are equating abiogenesis with evolution, when the two are totally different theories. There are still many questions as to how life on earth began, but that in NO WAY relates to the evidence we see for evolution. Evolution is the explanation of how living things became more complex, and has nothing to do with how life began. You do realize that even most christians believe in evolution right? I am not saying this to convince you, but merely to prove a point. Most christians simply stick God in front of evolution or the big bang, and this is a great example of how evolution has nothing to do with how life began. funny how someone told me to not attack what its been discussed "and rebutted" by evolutionists in an attempt to avoid the questions I asked. That was me, and you sort of keep proving my point. You are making attacks that are quite silly amongst any educated circle, and HAVE been refuted again and again. These 2 specific attacks aren't even legitimate criticisms, and are completely fallacious. This shows that you obviously haven't done enough reading and/or comprehending of the subject;( People don't want to spend the time typing it out for you so they tell you to go read up on the topic. You insist you are very well read on the topic and then make these straw man attacks which show an obvious lack of understanding of evolution. I took the time to type some stuff out for you in hopes that you will read this and stop making the same attacks. If you have any other questions, pm me plz. | ||
|
omgbnetsux
United States3749 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32051 Posts
no one can ever answer how the hell noah's ark and the great flood are even possible... the sheer amount of shit and piss that would be on that thing would spawn so many lovely diseases that most life would die within a week. | ||
|
byChris
United States99 Posts
| ||
|
man
United States272 Posts
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html Ask yourself this: Without evolution, how do new species come into being? It is known that not all species found today were here millions of years ago. Do they just suddenly materialize? How do we explain all the plesiomorphies we find amongst genus, family etc, without common descent? | ||
| ||
