The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Empirical Evidence Of An Exact Earth : Options
Dreamy
Posted: Thursday, June 25, 2015 2:14:24 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,505
Neurons: 8,828
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
You had me thinking I must be in cryostasis and all was dreamt, Epiphileon, when you questioned my reply to Abs as per below:



Quote:
From "The Freedom of The Atheist" thread:

Dreamy wrote:(in response to Absinthius who joined TFD in April).
The subject has been discussed at length and your view is one that has been expressed, as has mine, which is that anyone who believes the theory of evolution has been proved does so by faith,


Epiphileon wrote:
No Dreamy this did not happen, do you recall where you think this happened? I may have missed it, I know there were a number of discussions that eventually distilled down to one about whether all knowledge was faith based, and that was shown conclusively to not be so.


Thanks for your advice below, yes, I am familiar with the material as you may be with that of my link, and the discussion will have to wait until another time.

Epiphileon wrote:
I haven't noticed any inconsistency in your view of evolution. What I think would be useful though is if you were to got to this site at the University of Berkeley, "Misconceptions of Evolution", and see how many of what you think are issues are actually misunderstandings.


Back and forth...

Misconceptions About Creationism


Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
Epiphileon
Posted: Thursday, June 25, 2015 7:07:18 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,161
Neurons: 151,478
I read the page you linked to Dreamy, and I agree those are all misconceptions of the general view of creationism. The only exception I would have to what he said is, anyone who thinks the earth is less than 10,000 years old, may have been trained as a scientist, but that conclusion is not scientific.(Not unless you want to accept a sociopath god) Now I would challenge you to say that none of the misconceptions of evolution listed at my link, are not points you consider as valid objections to evolution.
The notion of Earth as a privileged planet by design, is not a conclusion that would be reached by an objective analysis of all available evidence, BUT, it is not an argument than can be rationally invalidated, in the same way we can not completely rule out that we are living in the Matrix.
Using the privileged planet argument though to support the belief in the Christian God, or any of the other personal gods proposed by man, though is non-sequitor. On the other hand though, as I think you agree, if evolution happened then the Bible can not be the Word of the God it supposedly reveals.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Dreamy
Posted: Thursday, June 25, 2015 8:21:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,505
Neurons: 8,828
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
Epiphileon wrote:
I read the page you linked to Dreamy, and I agree those are all misconceptions of the general view of creationism. The only exception I would have to what he said is, anyone who thinks the earth is less than 10,000 years old, may have been trained as a scientist, but that conclusion is not scientific.(Not unless you want to accept a sociopath god) Now I would challenge you to say that none of the misconceptions of evolution listed at my link, are not points you consider as valid objections to evolution.
The notion of Earth as a privileged planet by design, is not a conclusion that would be reached by an objective analysis of all available evidence, BUT, it is not an argument than can be rationally invalidated, in the same way we can not completely rule out that we are living in the Matrix.
Using the privileged planet argument though to support the belief in the Christian God, or any of the other personal gods proposed by man, though is non-sequitor. On the other hand though, as I think you agree, if evolution happened then the Bible can not be the Word of the God it supposedly reveals.

When I posted this thread in 2010 it was to generate discussion about the empirical evidence and conclusions that can be formed from all or some of it, for example the conclusion of Robert Jastrow:

Quote:
"After admitting that empirical evidence proves the universe had a beginning and is structured in an ordered and intelligent way, one agnostic scientist, Robert Jastrow, featured on The Privileged Planet DVD, is so moved that he has written a book called "God and the Astronomers" to show the unresolved conflict this admission causes him since he is not willing to believe in a Creator with a discoverable purpose."


I am particularly interested in the "unresolved conflict" aspect of Creationism versus Evolution, since I have personally never had such a conflict, although my inherent belief in God as the Creator has always brought me into conflict with those who interpret scientific evidence as negating any such belief.

Virtually from infancy my family members and educators were aware of a special interest I had in nature, and as a child I was accelerated into private studies under a supposedly learned tutor who introduced me to naturalism, this being as the dictionary says, "a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted."

These studies included the preaching of an antichrist gospel that its proponent called "the new morality".

This new morality was based on the theory of evolution and advocated that all laws governing sexual activities between humans be abolished in favour of letting nature take its course, no matter who got harmed in the process.

I knew this was inherently wrong and after thoroughly investigating the whole dynamic of naturalism and evolution to my own satisfaction I refined a credo that "the Universe is in the Eternal Presence of God and the Eternal Presence of God is in the Universe, which is His Creation."

Believing as I do that God is eternally present and capable of being everywhere and anywhere, of doing everything and anything according to His Purpose and Plan, and of knowing everything and anything without time being relevant, I have no unresolved conflict, but rather an abiding hope that no scientific theory or evidence can wrest from me.

This link below is to a two and a half-hour debate in which questions are raised that evolutionists may consider invalidate my position, and indeed Bill Nye won my admiration for the way he conducted himself even if he remained unwilling to view the Bible as the inspired Word of God.

Creationism Vs Evolution Debate Ken Ham And Bill Nye 2014:2hrs32mins.

Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
Epiphileon
Posted: Friday, June 26, 2015 6:18:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,161
Neurons: 151,478
Sorry Dreamy but I do not see how your reply in any way addresses the question, or the issue I raised in my post.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Dreamy
Posted: Friday, June 26, 2015 7:21:36 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,505
Neurons: 8,828
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
Epiphileon wrote:
Sorry Dreamy but I do not see how your reply in any way addresses the question, or the issue I raised in my post.

You will have to draw your own conclusions from my reply, as I do from yours.

If you accept there is a distinction between "Origins Science" and "Operational Science" then we may have a meeting point.

Origins Science uses scientific methods to make predictions about the past, but these predictions cannot be proven as irrefutable fact, which is where faith kicks in both for the evolutionist and the creationist.

Operational Science uses scientific methods to conduct experiments and invent things using the laws of nature to make predictions that can be conclusively proved. Both evolutionist and creationist manage to achieve great things in this regard.

Christians may disagree over predictions that arise from "Origins Science" but our Salvation doesn't depend on these predictions or what age we think the earth might be.

Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
tunaafi
Posted: Saturday, June 27, 2015 3:52:06 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,453
Neurons: 53,503
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
Dreamy wrote:
Origins Science uses scientific methods to make predictions about the past

How do you make predictions about the past?

Quote:
Operational Science uses scientific methods to conduct experiments and invent things using the laws of nature to make predictions that can be conclusively proved.

Predictions may turn out to be correct or incorrect. You can't really 'prove' a prediction.
Absinthius
Posted: Saturday, June 27, 2015 4:43:35 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 374
Neurons: 24,787
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
Dreamy wrote:
If you accept there is a distinction between "Origins Science" and "Operational Science" then we may have a meeting point.


Science isn't a church, there are no different kinds of science. You can, of course, apply science to different fields; physics, biology, chemistry, you name it. "Origins science" is not a thing. When studying in one the fields in which science is applied, you learn very quickly that science is a tool. Your concept of science seems to have an intinsic goal.

Dreamy wrote:
Origins Science uses scientific methods to make predictions about the past, but these predictions cannot be proven as irrefutable fact, which is where faith kicks in both for the evolutionist and the creationist.


No, faith doesn't kick in for "evolutionists", faith is something you have when you don't have evidence. Evolution has been proven time and time again. Evoltion is as much a fact as anything can be.

Dreamy wrote:
Operational Science uses scientific methods to conduct experiments and invent things using the laws of nature to make predictions that can be conclusively proved. Both evolutionist and creationist manage to achieve great things in this regard.


Once again, this is not what science does. Science doesn't invent things by using the laws of nature. Science is a method to objectively test and describe what happens in certain situations. It doesn't make predictions, it makes observations. The predictions are made by people, who might be wrong or right.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Dreamy
Posted: Sunday, June 28, 2015 1:42:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,505
Neurons: 8,828
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
All my studies on what constitutes "scientific method" include prediction, as per this quote:

Wkpd wrote:

DNA example

The basic elements of the scientific method are illustrated by the following example from the discovery of the structure of DNA:
Question: Previous investigation of DNA had determined its chemical composition (the four nucleotides), the structure of each individual nucleotide, and other properties. It had been identified as the carrier of genetic information by the Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment in 1944,[31] but the mechanism of how genetic information was stored in DNA was unclear.
Hypothesis: Linus Pauling, Francis Crick and James D. Watson hypothesized that DNA had a helical structure.[32]
Prediction: If DNA had a helical structure, its X-ray diffraction pattern would be X-shaped.[33][34] This prediction was determined using the mathematics of the helix transform, which had been derived by Cochran, Crick and Vand[35] (and independently by Stokes). This prediction was a mathematical construct, completely independent from the biological problem at hand.
Experiment: Rosalind Franklin crystallized pure DNA and performed X-ray diffraction to produce photo 51. The results showed an X-shape.
Analysis: When Watson saw the detailed diffraction pattern, he immediately recognized it as a helix.[36][37] He and Crick then produced their model, using this information along with the previously known information about DNA's composition and about molecular interactions such as hydrogen bonds.[38]

The discovery became the starting point for many further studies involving the genetic material, such as the field of molecular genetics, and it was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1962. Each step of the example is examined in more detail later in the article.


The problem with Origins Science is that predictions about the past cannot be proven by experimentation since all the elements of the past are not able to be reproduced in the experiment.

A case in point is that of Stephen Fry and Mark Carwardine in the TV series "Last Chance To See" getting excited about sharks populating an area of ocean near where historical evidence of wolves had been found, and making the statement that comparisons of the legs and teeth of the wolves with the fins and teeth of the sharks had resulted in evidence that the sharks had evolved from wolves that came down to swim in the ocean and over multiple generations adapted to swimming so well that eventually their limbs became fins and they morphed into sharks, a prediction about origins not borne out by experimentation.







Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
will
Posted: Monday, June 29, 2015 8:37:38 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
Dreamy wrote:
A case in point is that of Stephen Fry and Mark Carwardine in the TV series "Last Chance To See" getting excited about sharks populating an area of ocean near where historical evidence of wolves had been found, and making the statement that comparisons of the legs and teeth of the wolves with the fins and teeth of the sharks had resulted in evidence that the sharks had evolved from wolves that came down to swim in the ocean and over multiple generations adapted to swimming so well that eventually their limbs became fins and they morphed into sharks, a prediction about origins not borne out by experimentation.

Whoa!
This is only a case in point to indicate that, if something seems ridiculous, one should check to see if you've understood or if it's supported by all available data. Have you got a link for citation? I'd be happy to check exactly how you've arrived at the assumption that this nonsense is true...

It's no wonder you have no issue with a literal interpretation of Bible myths.
.
Dreamy
Posted: Monday, June 29, 2015 5:20:10 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,505
Neurons: 8,828
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
will wrote:
Dreamy wrote:
A case in point is that of Stephen Fry and Mark Carwardine in the TV series "Last Chance To See" getting excited about sharks populating an area of ocean near where historical evidence of wolves had been found, and making the statement that comparisons of the legs and teeth of the wolves with the fins and teeth of the sharks had resulted in evidence that the sharks had evolved from wolves that came down to swim in the ocean and over multiple generations adapted to swimming so well that eventually their limbs became fins and they morphed into sharks, a prediction about origins not borne out by experimentation.

Whoa!
This is only a case in point to indicate that, if something seems ridiculous, one should check to see if you've understood or if it's supported by all available data. Have you got a link for citation? I'd be happy to check exactly how you've arrived at the assumption that this nonsense is true...

It's no wonder you have no issue with a literal interpretation of Bible myths.
.

You can easily check the series was made. I only watched the one episode, so in good faith I am giving a first hand account of what I observed, not a rumour or conjecture.

When you write such twisted lines as "I'd be happy to check exactly how you've arrived at the assumption that this nonsense is true..."
you do yourself a disservice and portray a bitterness that is unbecoming, and not conducive to informed discussion, will.



Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
will
Posted: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 6:55:06 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
Dreamy wrote:
When you write such twisted lines as "I'd be happy to check exactly how you've arrived at the assumption that this nonsense is true..." you do yourself a disservice and portray a bitterness that is unbecoming, and not conducive to informed discussion, will.

I fail to see how me suggesting you have believed something so obviously nonsensical is in any way different from you suggesting Fry and Carwardine had believed something so obviously nonsensical.

Never mind the 'evolutionist' position, a google search could not turn up a single creation apologist that makes this claim... and believe me, they have no qualms in distorting 'evolutionist' statements that are far less damning and far easier to call BS on.

I'll expand on this point when I finally get around to a response to your cut and paste of that Gould quote.

As for my bitterness; I experienced a few emotions to your post --at the amused and flabbergasted end of the range-- but bitterness was not one of them. I suggest you are projecting. How 'becoming' you find me has no bearing on facts. Your assertion that Fry and Carwardine believed something so obviously nonsensical, without checking the facts, was stupid and a far better example of something that is 'not conducive to informed discussion'. Given the circumstances, I think I was quite generous.
.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, July 19, 2015 10:40:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,710
Neurons: 49,922
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
The title of this thread caught my eye as I was looking for another thread. I read the last few posts. The topic of a privileged planet (I had not heard the actual title given to this theory before) made me wonder a couple of things. (Maybe this was discussed earlier in the thread. If so, I apologize for not reading thoroughly.)


Do Creationists believe God created the planet earth, or do they believe he created the universe? I see Dreamy includes the universe.


So that makes me question why earth is the only planet that is so 'privileged'? Or do Creationists believe God rules some other planet too?
:::::
ETA - Dreamy, not all Evolutionists believe one should throw out sexual mores. As a matter of fact it is the first time I ever heard of that. As you have explained it, you threw out the whole theory of Evolution because of a small group's incorrect extension of the theory? Is that not like the old saying of throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
ithink140
Posted: Sunday, July 19, 2015 1:43:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
Interpretation of creationism is very like that of evolution in that there are many versions of it. There is much discord amongst evolutionists as to how we are supposed to have arrived at the state we are today, as indeed is there among those who believe in creation.

As to the earths age we need to look at the Bible verses in context to reach a true understanding of the Biblical stance.

Firstly, the notion that the earth and all creation was brought forth by God in seven 24 hour days.

The Hebrew word for day is Yohm. There are two noteworthy points to be made here. Firstly the earth was already in existence before the beginning of the ‘seven day' period which leaves it open to be billions of years old. Secondly the Hebrew word for day … Yohm … does not necessarily mean a period of 24 hours. What it does mean is a period varying in length according to expression and context, but consistent in that it has a beginning and an end.



Genesis 1 (NIV)
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day
“And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.”(Ge 1:4, 5)



At 2Pe 3:8 a day (Yohm) is equated with 1000 years with a beginning and an end

At Ps 90:2, 4 a day (Yohm) is equated with a watch in the night… at one time four hours and another three.



In the scriptures a day is often used to denote sunlight hours and at others a day’s (Yohm) journey… the distance travelled by camel or some other mode of transport or even on foot. The Hebrew word Yohm for day is also used to denote the length of a man’s life or as period in history or a part or time in as man’s life … in my day… in his day… in the days of those kings.

To further support this conclusion, King David … ruled 1077-37 BCE … refers to God’s rest day, the seventh day, as still continuing some two and a half thousand years after the Genesis account. The Apostle Paul makes reference to this comment of David's and says that we are still in God’s rest day some 4000 years after the Genesis account.



Psalm 95:10-11 (NKJV)
10 For forty years I was grieved with that generation,
And said, ‘It is a people who go astray in their hearts,
And they do not know My ways.’
11 So I swore in My wrath,
‘They shall not enter My rest.”


Hebrews 4:1-5 (NKJV)The Promise of Rest
4 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said:
“So I swore in My wrath,
‘They shall not enter My rest,’”[b]
although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; and again in this place: “They shall not enter My rest.”



The above scriptures determine that the length of a creative day is thousands of years long.


'Life is too short to be eaten up by hate.'
tunaafi
Posted: Sunday, July 19, 2015 5:00:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,453
Neurons: 53,503
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
ithink140 wrote:
To further support this conclusion, King David … ruled 1077-37 BCE … refers to God’s rest day, the seventh day, as still continuing some two and a half thousand years after the Genesis account.

Unfortunately there is no real evidence that David ever existed.

Quote:
The above scriptures determine that the length of a creative day is thousands of years long.

Fine, but the scriptures quoted have no more value as scientific evidence than the myths and legends of any culture.
ithink140
Posted: Sunday, July 19, 2015 6:25:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
So once again, Tuff, you repeat your claim that: 'Unfortunately there is no real evidence that David ever existed.'

So to whom do you attribute the 70 or more beautiful Psalms he is said to have written? And the internal Biblical evidence of his kingship by several writers? His history is filled with places, names and peoples, all who are known to us and many of which exist today.

One could also make the claim you make about David about Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenmides and many more, all of whom are long since dead and are only attested to by others who are dead, by their writings... just like David.

Your claim is empty and has no force.


You also claim that the scriptures '...have no more value as scientific evidence than the myths and legends of any culture'

That is plain rubbish. The Bible is not a scientific book but it does touch on science in its creation account which is entirely in accord with the facts of life. The order of the appearance of life in the fossil record accords with the Biblical account. Also in two instances it refers to the earth standing upon nothing and as an orb or circle in the sky, thousands of years before the Greeks who believed it was on the shoulder of a man and long before the flat earth society dissolved into obscurity.

The Bible also accurately revealed the water cycle, whereby we obtain fresh salt less water. You dismiss the Bible with very little knowledge of it.

The Bible was way ahead of modern science in its advice on communicable diseases, and hygiene after touching a dead body, something that in medicine is a relatively new thing. Also circumcision was ordered to take place on the 8th day after birth when normal amounts of the blood-clotting element called vitamin K are not found in the blood until the fifth to the seventh day after birth. Another clotting factor known as prothrombin is present in amounts only about 30 percent of normal on the third day but on the eighth day is higher than at any other time in the child’s life—as much as 110 percent of normal.

Dr. McMillen observes: “From a consideration of vitamin K and prothrombin… determinations the perfect day to perform a circumcision is the eighth day…”—None of These Diseases, 1986, p.


You may glibly dismiss such matters at a stroke of your keyboard, but such behaviour is disingenuous of you without offering any proof.




'Life is too short to be eaten up by hate.'
Absinthius
Posted: Monday, July 20, 2015 3:27:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 374
Neurons: 24,787
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
ithink140 wrote:
One could also make the claim you make about David about Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenmides and many more, all of whom are long since dead and are only attested to by others who are dead, by their writings... just like David.


Which is why "Plato said it" or "Socrates said it" holds no scientific value whatsoever either. If an idea holds up, scientifically, even after new evidence is obtained, that is valuable. And we should credit the initial philosopher who came up with it. Pythagoras is a prime example, his theorum isn't true beause he said it. He is merely credited for coming up with a theorum that just plainly holds up.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
ithink140
Posted: Monday, July 20, 2015 6:21:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
David was not a scientist... he was a poet, statesman, musician and maker of musical instruments, King, fighter and shepherd. He left behind some beautiful writings in the form of Psalms. His name occurs within the Bible over 1100 times. He was considered an historical figure by millions right up to the first century CE, and is so perceived by millions now.

If one can dismiss him and his works with a few strokes of ones keyboard, then one can do the same to a host of other figures from history including the Greek 'greats'. If one dismisses David then who wrote his psalms?


'Life is too short to be eaten up by hate.'
tunaafi
Posted: Monday, July 20, 2015 6:49:05 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,453
Neurons: 53,503
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
ithink140 wrote:
So once again, Tuff, you repeat your claim that: 'Unfortunately there is no real evidence that David ever existed.'

That is because there is no real evidence. There is no real evidence for almost anything before about 700 BCE that is noted in the Bible


Quote:
So to whom do you attribute the 70 or more beautiful Psalms he is said to have written? And the internal Biblical evidence of his kingship by several writers?

Internal evidence in a collection of myths and legends is not terribly convincing.

Quote:
Also in two instances it refers to the earth standing upon nothing and as an orb or circle in the sky, thousands of years before the Greeks who believed it was on the shoulder of a man and long before the flat earth society dissolved into obscurity.

The Old Testament in the form we know it was almost certainly cobbled together in the sixth century BCE, about the same time that the Greeks were beginning to come up with the idea of a spherical earth.
.
Quote:
The Bible was way ahead of modern science in its advice on communicable diseases

Right, so next time I see somebody with leprosy, I'll take a live bird, dip it in the blood of a bird I've just killed, and shake the blood over the leper to cure him (Leviticus 14). It really is astonishing that modern science hasn't caught up yet with the Bible on such fabulous cures.

Quote:
Dr. McMillen observes: “From a consideration of vitamin K and prothrombin… determinations the perfect day to perform a circumcision is the eighth day…”

So the Bible came up with the perfect day to perform male genital mutilation. One brownie point for the Bible.


tunaafi
Posted: Monday, July 20, 2015 6:49:06 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,453
Neurons: 53,503
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
ithink140 wrote:
So once again, Tuff, you repeat your claim that: 'Unfortunately there is no real evidence that David ever existed.'

That is because there is no real evidence. There is no real evidence for almost anything before about 700 BCE that is noted in the Bible


Quote:
So to whom do you attribute the 70 or more beautiful Psalms he is said to have written? And the internal Biblical evidence of his kingship by several writers?

Internal evidence in a collection of myths and legends is not terribly convincing.

Quote:
Also in two instances it refers to the earth standing upon nothing and as an orb or circle in the sky, thousands of years before the Greeks who believed it was on the shoulder of a man and long before the flat earth society dissolved into obscurity.

The Old Testament in the form we know it was almost certainly cobbled together in the sixth century BCE, about the same time that the Greeks were beginning to come up with the idea of a spherical earth.
.
Quote:
The Bible was way ahead of modern science in its advice on communicable diseases

Right, so next time I see somebody with leprosy, I'll take a live bird, dip it in the blood of a bird I've just killed, and shake the blood over the leper to cure him (Leviticus 14). It really is astonishing that modern science hasn't caught up yet with the Bible on such fabulous cures.

Quote:
Dr. McMillen observes: “From a consideration of vitamin K and prothrombin… determinations the perfect day to perform a circumcision is the eighth day…”

So the Bible came up with the perfect day to perform male genital mutilation. One brownie point for the Bible.


ithink140
Posted: Monday, July 20, 2015 2:42:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
I am afraid that reasoning is not your strong point. To dismiss serious argument with the throw away comment of score of a brownie point highlights the level of your debating.

It is plain to see that you know next to nothing about the Bible yet you arrogantly dismiss it out of hand with unsupported claims. I am done with you.


'Life is too short to be eaten up by hate.'
Absinthius
Posted: Monday, July 20, 2015 2:54:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 374
Neurons: 24,787
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
ithink140 wrote:
I am afraid that reasoning is not your strong point. To dismiss serious argument with the throw away comment of score of a brownie point highlights the level of your debating.

It is plain to see that you know next to nothing about the Bible yet you arrogantly dismiss it out of hand with unsupported claims. I am done with you.


And you "deplore" someone elses style... You are a stain on civilized debate.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
tunaafi
Posted: Monday, July 20, 2015 3:21:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,453
Neurons: 53,503
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
ithink140 wrote:
I am done with you.


There is a God after all!
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Monday, July 20, 2015 4:55:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 43,030
Neurons: 506,178
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
Ithink,
talking about reasoning...
I haven't seen any in your comments in this thread.

You might have some good opinions, and the Psalms are beautiful, but the reasoning limps.

Sorry, if I intervened.


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
ithink140
Posted: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 5:37:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
It is ok, JJ, you are entitled to your view, as we all are.

Ab, I certainly deplore your style. What an erudite poster you are ... a stain indeed! Reminds me of Tuff repeatedly calling me a liar.


'Life is too short to be eaten up by hate.'
will
Posted: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 6:11:22 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
The point is, Peter, that in a Venn diagram containing all the worst aspects of this forum, you are firmly within the intersection.
.
tunaafi
Posted: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 6:26:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,453
Neurons: 53,503
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
ithink140 wrote:
Reminds me of Tuff repeatedly calling me a liar.


I'll have to do so now. I have not repeatedly called you a liar.


ps. In an earlier post, you said that you had done with me. This latest post of your suggests that you were not telling the truth before, does it not??
Epiphileon
Posted: Friday, July 31, 2015 12:51:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,161
Neurons: 151,478


Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Epiphileon
Posted: Saturday, August 1, 2015 6:11:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,161
Neurons: 151,478
Oops sorry I thought I'd deleted that post, after accidentally hitting post instead of preview, and then deciding not to post at all.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
pedro
Posted: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 6:06:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 13,059
Neurons: 62,962
Epiphileon wrote:
Oops sorry I thought I'd deleted that post, after accidentally hitting post instead of preview, and then deciding not to post at all.


Did you mean to post this post or is it just a postscript post?

All good ideas arrive by chance- Max Ernst
Epiphileon
Posted: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 7:45:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,161
Neurons: 151,478
Postimage maybe.


Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.