Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SunTracker on March 01, 2005, 01:19:01 PM
-
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050221/full/050221-15.html
Formaldehyde claim inflames martian debate
MarK Peplow
Top scientist defends data that he says point strongly to life on Mars.
Is the scent of life on Mars growing stronger?
© NASA
Formaldehyde has been found in the martian atmosphere, according to a senior scientist working with the Mars Express orbiter. If correct, the discovery provides strong evidence that Mars is either extremely geologically active, or harbouring colonies of microbial life. But many experts are not yet convinced.
The claim comes from Vittorio Formisano, who is in charge of the Planetary Fourier Spectrometer on the European Space Agency's orbiter. The spectrometer analyses infrared light, whose frequencies carry the fingerprints of chemicals in the atmosphere.
The most likely source of formaldehyde (CH2O) is the oxidation of methane (CH4), which has already been identified in the martian skies (see 'Methane found on Mars' ). So the presence of formaldehyde itself is not too surprising, says Michael Mumma, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre near Washington DC, who studies the martian atmosphere. Any oxidizing atmosphere such as Mars's that contains methane should also have formaldehyde, he explains.
Big claim
The truly eye-opening part is the sheer quantity of formaldehyde that Formisano claims to have found: about 10 to 20 times more than there is of methane. This means that estimates of martian methane production must be revised upwards substantially, as most of the gas is oxidized as soon as it comes out of the ground, he says.
I do believe there is life inside the planet, maybe 50 to 100 metres below the surface, but there is a long way to go to demonstrate that.
Vittorio Formisano
Principal investigator of the Planetary Fourier Spectrometer instrument on Mars Express
"If you consider formaldehyde as oxidized methane, then Mars is producing 2.5 million tonnes of methane a year," says Formisano.
This is simply too much to be accounted for by any known geological process, he says, so some other source (possibly life) must be involved. However, other planetary scientists say the planet alone could still be responsible.
"We don't know the intricacies of [martian] geochemistry," says Rocco Mancinelli, an astrobiologist from NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California.
Formisano presented his results to a packed session of the Mars Express Science Conference at Noordwijk in the Netherlands on 24 February.
Unstable hope
The discovery of martian methane last year excited scientists, who said that there were two likely sources of the gas: active geological processes beneath the planet's surface or a population of methane-generating microbes. Because Mars was long thought to be a dead planet, devoid of both life and geothermal activity, either prospect came as a revelation.
However, a molecule of methane can typically survive for about 350 years in the atmosphere before being broken down by the Sun's ultraviolet radiation. So the possibility remained that the gas could have been delivered to the planet by a colliding comet, or by an occasional release from an underground reservoir.
Formaldehyde is far more unstable, surviving for just 7.5 hours or so before breaking apart. The majority of scientists agree that methane is the most likely precursor for formaldehyde on Mars, so this means that the planet's production of methane must be an ongoing, continuous process, says Formisano.
Going sceptic
Formisano is careful to point out that he has not proved there is life on Mars. "I do believe there is life inside the planet, maybe 50 to 100 metres below the surface, but there is a long way to go to demonstrate that."
"We all want to believe in something," says Yuk Yung, a planetary geologist from the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena. "Even as scientists we're not completely objective, especially about something we've worked on for ten years. There's enormous pressure to deliver, and under this pressure you can easily believe things that are unbelievable."
Many scientists are sceptical about the quality of Formisano's data. "The measurements are right on the borderline of the [instrument's ability]," says Mancinelli.
"I don't believe it," adds Yung. He explains that Formisano's infrared fingerprint of the formaldehyde in Mars's skies should match a laboratory sample of the gas, "and the match is just not convincing".
But Formisano argues that his martian spectrum tallies in 15 key places, which should be enough to convince anyone: "It's not a matter of opinion any more," he says. He adds that, since he presented his data at the conference, several sceptics have already changed their views. He points out that although rejected by Nature, the research will soon be published in the journal Planetary and Space Science.
Acid test
Formisano also announced at the conference that he has found traces of hydrogen fluoride (HF) and hydrogen bromide (HBr) in the atmosphere, which are probably produced when acids break down certain minerals in the soil.
Many scientists believe that Mars once had briny, acidic seas (see 'A picture of young Mars') that may have been conducive to life. "An acidic environment still exists," says Formisano. "On Earth, there are certain bacteria that prefer very acid conditions."
He also points out that he has found higher concentrations of methane directly above an area of Mars that seems to be covered in pack ice (see 'Mars may have frozen sea' ). This raises the tantalizing possibility of a microbial colony living beneath the surface.
Mumma says that more convincing evidence for life is needed. Continuous production of heavier hydrocarbons such as propane, which cannot come from geothermal processes, would be a key finding, he says. Better still would be a skew in the ratio of carbon isotopes in the air, as produced by organisms on Earth.
NASA and the European Space Agency are both planning Mars missions for the end of the decade that will look for precisely that.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
I do believe there is life inside the planet, maybe 50 to 100 metres below the surface,
Martian Mole People!
-Sik
-
living proof that FDBs took a vacation a while back. 'tis naught but lingering flatulence.
-
If they do find life, many religious factions have a lot of explaining to do, that's for sure. :D
-
This is simply too much to be accounted for by any known geological process, he says, so some other source (possibly life) must be involved. However, other planetary scientists say the planet alone could still be responsible.
Okay... can someone tell us the number of planets where scientists have observed the production of oxidized methane?
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
If they do find life, many religious factions have a lot of explaining to do, that's for sure. :D
Why? Evidence and proof never discouraged them before! :D
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
If they do find life, many religious factions have a lot of explaining to do, that's for sure. :D
Out of curousity, explaining what for example?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Out of curousity, explaining what for example?
It's a good question. I can't see the existence of life on another planet as an important religious issue.
Now, if that life turns out to be intelligent, that's something else.
-
Take a year of college biology, that will suck the religion out of ya.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Take a year of college biology, that will suck the religion out of ya.
Back to evolution? I'm just ignorant enough of both biology and religion to believe that evolution doesn't necessarily deny the existence of god.
Of course, this doesn't change the fact that I'm a godless heathen...
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Back to evolution? I'm just ignorant enough of both biology and religion to believe that evolution doesn't necessarily deny the existence of god.
Of course, this doesn't change the fact that I'm a godless heathen...
both require = amount of faith neither can be proven or will ever be proven.
-
Originally posted by storch
or will ever be proven.
Speaking of faith-based statements... you just made one.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Speaking of faith-based statements... you just made one.
it is. I have supreme faith in the supreme being.
-
Originally posted by storch
it is. I have supreme faith in the supreme being.
Oh... and the proof of your faith will be shown to you. You can count on it. Unfortunately, you won't be able to tell anyone about it. ;)
-
I have it on good authority that there is life on Mars. BTW Mavin wants his illudium Q35 space detonator returned. He says he can take care of the smog problem for us.
-
Weren't the Martians living underground in the John Carter of Mars books?
-
Wow, a Mars thread that hasnt turned into a NASA bash about how we should just cease any sort of space exploration and expand welfare!
Actually the news on Mars has been pretty cool. The Mars Express Radar has detected vast amounts of frozen ice, so there is water there. The rovers keep on rolling and with all this methane and such being detected, there's a lot of new speculations being circulated.
Now if we could only find intelligent life on this rock! :p
-
Speaking of John Carter of Mars... a movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401729/)?
-
According to an ecology professor of mine, the question isnt really "Is there alien life in space". Its "Is the alien life using DNA as a method of replication".
Biologist can make the components of cells in labs. This was first done in the Miller-Urey experiment (1953):
"A warmed flask of water simulated the primeval sea. The "atmosphere" consisted of H2O, H2, CH4, and NH3. Sparks were discharged in the synthetic atmosphere to mimic lightning. A condenser cooled the atmosphere, raining water and any dissolved compounds back to the miniature sea. As material circulated through the apparatus, the solution in the flask changed clear to murky brown. After one week, Miller and Urey analyzed the contents of the solution and found a variety of organic compounds, including some of the amino acids that make up the proteins of organisms"
-
methane on mars.................the sheep ......oooh the sheep
-
Silly.
Certainly there is life on Mars.
And its been here. In Grovers Mill NJ,Not a 20 minute ride from me. I've seen the plaque and can verify its existance thus proving Martians have really been here
(http://members.tripod.com/%7EUFO359/gmill2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Oh... and the proof of your faith will be shown to you. You can count on it. Unfortunately, you won't be able to tell anyone about it. ;)
I don't require the creator to prove anything to me, afterall I am the creation.
order is not born of disorder. the functioning universe is sufficient proof.
-
Originally posted by storch
I don't require the creator to prove anything to me, afterall I am the creation.
Nevertheless... when you find your creator (or not), it'll no longer be a matter of faith.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
According to an ecology professor of mine, the question isnt really "Is there alien life in space". Its "Is the alien life using DNA as a method of replication".
Time to think for yourself. That professor sounds like an idiot.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Time to think for yourself. That professor sounds like an idiot.
So... you don't believe there is such a thing as extraterrestrial life?
-
read the quote I responded to..
-
I saw that...
Technically, I've replicated my DNA (or at least parts of it) twice. ;)
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
According to an ecology professor of mine, the question isnt really "Is there alien life in space". Its "Is the alien life using DNA as a method of replication".
And some people wonder what's wrong with our kids :rolleyes:
-
You see... first, it's "the professor sounds like an idiot" and then, "and some people wonder..."
Nuke... can you be any more vague?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Nuke... can you be any more vague?
As a matter of fact....... why, yes.
:D
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Silly.
Certainly there is life on Mars.
And its been here. In Grovers Mill NJ,Not a 20 minute ride from me. I've seen the plaque and can verify its existance thus proving Martians have really been here
(http://members.tripod.com/%7EUFO359/gmill2.jpg)
Other damn pic didnt work
Her's another.
again PROOF Martians have been here LOL
(http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/images/nj/NJGROufo_top.jpg)
Martian landing site (http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/NJGROufo.html)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You see... first, it's "the professor sounds like an idiot" and then, "and some people wonder..."
Nuke... can you be any more vague?
I stand by my statements.
The professor is an idiot, because he assumes that aliens are manipulating human DNA......... he assumes such a stupid thing.....he's an idiot. No Alien life form has ever been discovered, yet this guy takes a leap of ignorance and assumes that alien life not only exists, but is fuggin with DNA.
LOL!
-
Several religious groups have denied the existense of extra terrestial life for centuries. So yes, if some was found they would be proven wrong along with the rest of thier teachings.
The Spanish inquisition slaughtered several people for just daring to blame the earth wasn't the center of the universe let alone this isn't the only place where life exists. It's a center issue on many religions that God created man on _earth_ along with animals and man is over the animals. I even remember seeing a religious argument where scientists claimed there could be life outside earth and religious people denied even the possibility.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I stand by my statements.
The professor is an idiot, because he assumes that aliens are manipulating human DNA......... he assumes such a stupid thing.....he's an idiot.
You fool, the professor is QUESTIONING IT.
Cripes save yourself some time and don't even attempt to go head to head with someone with a doctorate in biology on biology itself, even through proxy.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
No Alien life form has ever been discovered, yet this guy takes a leap of ignorance and assumes that alien life not only exists, but is fuggin with DNA.
LOL!
Originally posted by ThrawnYou fool, the professor is QUESTIONING IT.
He is not questioning it. He is assuming facts and injecting conjecture.
Originally posted by SunTrackerAccording to an ecology professor of mine, the question isnt really "Is there alien life in space". Its "Is the alien life using DNA as a method of replication".
-
The professor is an idiot, because he assumes that aliens are manipulating human DNA......... he assumes such a stupid thing.....he's an idiot. No Alien life form has ever been discovered, yet this guy takes a leap of ignorance and assumes that alien life not only exists, but is fuggin with DNA.
WTF
Lets take this very slowly. Many people in the scientific community believe, due to the sheer volume of planets in the Universe (we have discovered 130 so far), that there will be life on some of them. The big question is not 'if' there are alien life forms (most biologist assume there are). The question is what do they use to replicate themselves. All life on this planet, with the exception of some bacteria, transmit their genetic material by DNA (deoxyribosenucleic acid). It would really be fascinating to find a life form that didnt use this system.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
He is not questioning it. He is assuming facts and injecting conjecture.
First, I should have been more clear I was referring to this.
"No Alien life form has ever been discovered, yet this guy takes a leap of ignorance and assumes that alien life not only exists, but is fuggin with DNA."
Second, there is nothing wrong with assuming that the standing theory is accurate unless you find data which disproves all or part of it.
Unless one thinks that scientists are supposed ignore the evidence and try to re-prove theorys that have already been tested for. If such were the case, they would never be any progress.
I find it hilarious that Nuke, calls the professor an idiot when it comes to biology when he himself doesn't appear to even know basic highschool science.
-
Well, it is definitely proof of available research grants on earth
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Several religious groups have denied the existense of extra terrestial life for centuries. So yes, if some was found they would be proven wrong along with the rest of thier teachings.
Which group or groups for example?
-
Originally posted by bunch
Well, it is definitely proof of available research grants on earth
ROFL, viva academia!
-Sik
-
Jackal1: All groups basically that base thier faith on Bible. The Bible contains no references to extraterrestial life - on the contrary it's describing how life was created on earth from nothing.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Jackal1: All groups basically that base thier faith on Bible. The Bible contains no references to extraterrestial life - on the contrary it's describing how life was created on earth from nothing.
I have never heard or seen statements or arguments against alien life from any religious group I know of. That`s why I was asking. Don`t mean the argument doesn`t exist. I`ve just never heard of it.
What would no reference to extraterrestial life in the bible have to do with it?
The Bible, as I see it, relates to creation of earth, human life, creator and the here after.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Nevertheless... when you find your creator (or not), it'll no longer be a matter of faith.
yes, but the proving ground is the here and now. that's why it's call faith.
if it were clearly evident then it would not be a matter of faith. there are some of us who inspite of much ridicule and derision from our peers actually "see" the evidence (as it were) and frankly don't understand other's failure of grasping the obvious.
science has no clear evidence supporting any of it's positions when it comes to the questions of origin and evolution either yet millions repeat it's dogma in rote.
all I can say is if I'm wrong and folks like you are right then upon expiration I will experience nothing.
on the other hand..............get your asbestos underware drycleaned frequently, buy more that a cuople also.
-
Jackal I'm not sure of the current stand of the catholic church for example, but at one time they also denied any chance of an extraterrestial lifeform.
The idea is based on the total trust to the Bible. If you're a strict creationist there's no space for any life outside earth according to the bible.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Jackal1: All groups basically that base thier faith on Bible. The Bible contains no references to extraterrestial life - on the contrary it's describing how life was created on earth from nothing.
actually there a several references in the Bible which at least to me clearly indicate extraterrestrial visitation/intervention.
1. Gen. 5:24
2. Gen. 19:27 archeologists have actually discovered this site and verified the destruction.
3. 2 Kings 2: 10-12
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Jackal I'm not sure of the current stand of the catholic church for example, but at one time they also denied any chance of an extraterrestial lifeform.
The idea is based on the total trust to the Bible. If you're a strict creationist there's no space for any life outside earth according to the bible.
really? source?
-
I might be totally wrong - Bible is really not one of my strong points.
Then again, it wouldn't be the first time the book was interpreted selectively.
If you want internet links storch, these religious groups are most likely not the first ones to build web sites. :D
I couldn't find any references from the net but I could swear I saw several references in the media such as tv and radio to this during the past years.
-
That genesis has an interesting point - what if the long ages of people described in it are actually caused by space travel and distortion of time (traveller ages one day, rest of the world 1000.)
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
I might be totally wrong - Bible is really not one of my strong points.
Then again, it wouldn't be the first time the book was interpreted selectively.
of course no one within the scientific community interprets evidence in anything other than pure and true objectivity.
-
The point with the catholic church is quite obvious without any links. If they were ready to kill Copernicus, a claim like this would have meant torture and death automatically.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
That genesis has an interesting point - what if the long ages of people described in it are actually caused by space travel and distortion of time (traveller ages one day, rest of the world 1000.)
that or possibly the existence of a moisture belt in the stratosphere which could have impeded the penetration of harmful radiation (see noah) thus allowing the human body's regenerative system to renew/replace damaged cells for a far longer period of time than we currently experience.
-
One thing is for sure - the old language of the Bible is just hilarious.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
One thing is for sure - the old language of the Bible is just hilarious.
try the NIV :D
-
I've never understood why people believe that science and religion have to be mutually exclusive.
The important parts of religion are not in the technicalities like how humans became human or how old the planet is, but in how we live our lives.
Were there a supreme being, does anyone believe that a man or group of men could possibly understand it completely?
Another way of looking at it: What if the bible were written today. It would fit what we know now and would contradict science less. Why? Because it is man's interpretation of what's going on; not written by the hand of God.
Unfortunately, it seems many people on both sides don't get it. Religious groups are rife with hypocrites and many of the non-religious are no better.
-
Originally posted by majic
I've never understood why people believe that science and religion have to be mutually exclusive.
The important parts of religion are not in the technicalities like how humans became human or how old the planet is, but in how we live our lives.
Were there a supreme being, does anyone believe that a man or group of men could possibly understand it completely?
Another way of looking at it: What if the bible were written today. It would fit what we know now and would contradict science less. Why? Because it is man's interpretation of what's going on; not written by the hand of God.
Unfortunately, it seems many people on both sides don't get it. Religious groups are rife with hypocrites and many of the non-religious are no better.
I think that science has increasingly maintained the position that it and it alone has the answers when clearly science by it's very nature creates more questions than it can answer. the problem is without doubt exascerbated by egos on both sides.
I like to fuel that battle for personal amusement. :D
so in that spirit. scientists of every stripe are demagogic pinheads unless they are also born again Christians.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
The idea is based on the total trust to the Bible. If you're a strict creationist there's no space for any life outside earth according to the bible.
Sorry, I just can`t buy that. Mind ya I haven`t wore the varnish off a pew or wore down my finger prints tithing in a long, long time. I just don`t remember ever seeing or hearing reference from the bible denying life outside of earth.
-
IMO a discovery of alien life questions the principles of creationism bluntly. It would be a major problem to theology.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
IMO a discovery of alien life questions the principles of creationism bluntly. It would be a major problem to theology.
I just don`t see how you figure that.
Ya know....."He created the heavens and the earth" kind of thing.
I would like to see some references though. Got my curousity peaked.
-
One of my favorite quotes from the guests on "Politically Incorrect" was "Why do people who never read the bible, automatically assume they know more about it than people who spend their lives reading it?"
Siaf_csf, first just to introduce myself, yes I'm a pastor and an evangelical and I believe in biblical inerrancy. While it proves nothing objectively, I do hold two graduate degrees, an M.A. in Modern History from St. Andrews University, Fife, Scotland and a Master of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA. I note that simply to prove that while I may indeed be an idiot, I am not the infamous "poor, uneducated and easily led" idiot of Washington Post lore.
I do not come from a religious background, and I used to be an anti-theist and a believer in Darwinian evolution. My wife studied Geo-Chemistry at the University of Rochester, where one of her projects was neodymium/selemium dating of rocks from the Canadian Shield. So this is a topic that I've had to discuss and think through for some time.
Just a couple of points to begin with:
1) The bible doesn't teach geocentricity (that the earth is the center of the universe) The Roman Catholic Church (hereafter RCC) did indeed promulgate that doctrine as something to be believed by the faithful, but this had more to do with the fact that the RCC accepted an Aristotelian Cosmology (which was obviously a Pagan Greek construct) and allowed it to trump a strictly biblical cosmology.
The Royal Academy of Science, on the other hand, was established by deeply religious Protestant Puritans and did much to advance the Copernican cosmology and many of the scientific paradigms still in use today to explain the observed data. Amongst the more famous Puritan Scientists in the Academy where Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon. None of these men woud have accepted the notion that a belief in inerrancy entails geocentricity.
2) While the Bible specifically teaches special creation and intelligent design (something that both the DNA data and astrophysics support - see for instance John Byl's "God and Cosmos," Behe's "Darwin's Black Box," or "Intelligent Design" by Dembski) the idea of life, per se, on other planets is not ruled out.
In fact the consistent teaching of the bible is that "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1) i.e. the very purpose of Creation is to show that there is a creator worthy of being glorified. Given the doctrine that man was created in the image of God, with dominion over creation as His steward, the idea of intelligent life on other planets is a bit of theological stretch, but bacteria? Nope, nothing biblical precludes the existence of one-celled critters or any other flora or fauna on other planets. It simply teaches that God is the author of creation everywhere in the universe.
Your Servant,
SEAGOON
-
Well that round went 1-0 seagoon.
I stand corrected.
As I said, I'm not a Bible expert of any kind but I had a recollection that the church denied the possibility in some discussions that I saw.
Seagoon, would you think that the Bible leaves room for interpretation for those who would like to deny extraterrestial existense?
Nice to meet you, sir, by the way. There seems to be terrestial intelligence left on this planet.
-
Geeez Rev, ya think I could find a translation of what you said into Texican somewhere? :D
-
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/bible/flatearth.htm
The Bible is not the book to read to learn about physical properties of Earth. This page lists exact verses that mention the earth being immovable, resting upon pillars, and being flat.
-
Dear Suntracker,
Thank you for sending the link to the "flat-earth bible" page. It's difficult to know where to begin in responding especially without producing something long and unintelligible to honest Texicans. So let me just bring up a few points that I hope will point out a few foundational errors in Mr. Schadewald's (the author of the page) reasoning.
1) While the Bible doesn't presuppose a flat earth, Mr. Shadewald presupposes that we adopt an impossibly flat, atomistic, and contextless reading of the Bible. This would be a bad way of reading anything, save perhaps the instruction manual for assembling a lawn-mower.
For instance, he sites Psalm 93:1 which he quotes as "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..." [Just as an aside, checking 8 English translations I was unable to find this rendering.] Here is the full verse in the New American Standard which is a fairly literal translation: "The LORD reigns, He is clothed with majesty; The LORD has clothed and girded Himself with strength; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved."
The point of the inspired Psalmist in this Psalm* is the sovereignty, eternality, and unchanging nature of the Lord, not to make a point about the "motionlessness" of the earth. In making a poetic comparison to illustrate those concepts, what is he going to use? The passing reign of earthly kings? No, they come and go and are extremely fickle. Civilizations? No they rise and fall too. What from a human perspective endures unchanging? The land, the earth. We are born and return to the dust but the heavens and the earth endure. The Lord who made them all and who upholds them remains steadfast and sure.
Now these are people who experienced earthquakes on occasion, so even the silliest Israelite wouldn't translate "immovable" as crassly as Mr. Schadewald. Given his method of interpretation, Paul is giving fatal advice when he counsels Christians to be "be steadfast, immovable" in 1 Cor. 15:58.
2) The language of the Bible is true but tailored to the understanding of the original audience and often speaks from the perspective of their observations. In other words, God speaks to us at a level we can understand. If your 3 year old asks you "why is the sky blue", do you pull out the chalkboard and begin talking in terms of refraction, giving them countless formulas about dust particles, light waves, etc. Or do you attempt to explain it as simply as possible? If the bible was filled with references to atoms, quarks, and isotopes what good would it have been to the Israelites? As Calvin put it so well in explaining why God the father is sometimes described in the Old Testament as having body parts:
"The Anthropomorphites also, who dreamed of a corporeal God, because mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are often ascribed to him in Scripture, are easily refuted. For who is so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far below his proper height. "
In order to know God at all, he must reveal himself to us, and for us, whose understanding is finite and limited, to understand and obey one whose understanding is infinite requires Him to make an infinite stoop in his communication.
This means that often idioms and expressions are used that speak of phenomena as we observe them. Hey we still use the phrases "Sunrise and Sunset" does this mean we really believe that the Sun literally moves from one side of the sky to the other, or are we using language to describe the phenomena as we observe it?
3) The Bible is not concerned with presenting us with an astrophysics text book, its primary emphasis is on "What man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man." The bible therefore will not tell you how to fly a plane or even prepare Matzo Ball soup. It will however, teach you how to live your life as a pilot or a cook to the glory of God. The main points have to do with the three great issues of Creation, Salvation, Judgment, etc. Alpha Centauri is only discussed peripherally.
Anywho, sorry I can't do the simultaneous Texican translation in print. As blessed as I was, I weren't born "Texan by the Grace of God."
- SEAGOON
*Psalm 93 is short enough that I can quote the rest to illustrate the point about context:
NAS Psalm 93:1 The LORD reigns, He is clothed with majesty; The LORD has clothed and girded Himself with strength; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
2 Thy throne is established from of old; Thou art from everlasting.
3 The floods have lifted up, O LORD, The floods have lifted up their voice; The floods lift up their pounding waves.
4 More than the sounds of many waters, Than the mighty breakers of the sea, The LORD on high is mighty.
5 Thy testimonies are fully confirmed; Holiness befits Thy house, O LORD, forevermore.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Anywho, sorry I can't do the simultaneous Texican translation in print. As blessed as I was, I weren't born "Texan by the Grace of God."
My condolences Rev. :D
-
Scientists tend toward seeing alien life as being completely different from anything we can imagine, if the alien life is real. (The idea being, based on evolution from alien enviroments very different from our own, the lifeforms would necessarily be extremely different.)
Mars may not be that different from Earth, as say, Jupiter or Saturn. It could reasonably be expected any life found there may not be that unusual from that of Earth. Microbes, etc.
Space is a hostile environment and we don't know what's out there. NASA scientists were concerned that stepping on the Moon for the first time might be a surprise, i.e the laws of physics weren't completely trusted on that first step (the Moon may have a different set of physical laws as we know them, was the concern). The radiation level in space would kill humans over a long interspace voyage. But what about intelligent beings that travel through space? The technology and robustness to do that would be greater than ourselves, though even with the technology we couldn't stand up to space travel for long distances.
And yes, scientists at NASA do have think tanks inviting thoughts about this very thing.
If the aliens were like us, human like, it seems that would indicate an intelligent creation, as opposed to randomness. All it would take is just one instance of this discovery to discredit the transmigrational theory of evolution. It would be strong evidence of God's existence. The scientists would love to have proof of something like that.
The Bible states transmigration of species is not how creation operates. All flesh is not the same flesh. This is in direct conflict with evolution on Earth as some biologists postulate (transmigration of species).
Given the fact that those who build rockets have admitted the laws of physics may not be universal, can true science afford to not consider the Biblical account as a very real possibility?
If there are little green men from Mars, I don't think that would shake up the creation theory. It would strengthen it scientifically to my thinking.
Scientists start out thinking alien life would be very strange, perhaps not conforming to our laws of physics, and then base their beliefs/findings on the reality of risk taking and finding out for sure. Of course by then, it may be too late, far as stepping on another planet goes. Even Earthly physics, which could be different "out there" is not accepted as a universal fact by these scientists.
Les
-
Seagoon,
Just a couple questions here and not posed as sarcasm.
Which bible in your opinion is the correct version?
Second question. How litterally (sp?) should it be taken?
-
Leslie if I understood right man was supposed to rule the world, right?
What if aliens appeared to be much more advanced than humans, becoming the dominant race?
I have a hard time to believe any serious scientist would spend one second thinking creationists had it right.
-
Probably more logical than provable. Deductive reasoning says when you eliminate all other possibilities, whatever remains must be true, no matter how unlikely.
Logic has flaws and so does science. Man needs a spiritual anchor to go on and forward. I'm not sure if my brother was an athiest or not, I don't think he was, but he was very inscrutible when it came to God. He didn't let on one way or the other, but he did leave the idea of God out of the subject when he spoke about science.
The other side of the coin is, something has to be there to strive toward, or we are missing the boat, so to speak. I am not a scientist, so it's only think tank thoughts here. I guess it depends on the science and the scientist. Building rocket engines is not very philosophical, but having men ride them to the Moon is, and I would wager every single one of them was saying a prayer to something bigger than themselves. Would you call that superstition?
Les
-
The basic fact of the matter is this:
If there is a planet similar to earth, with an electromagnetic shield (thus allowing an atmosphere), water, carbon, other elements, and a source of energy, there will be life there. The basic elements of life come together relatively easily. Given enough time and a bit of energy, they get more complex.
In 1996, a meteorite was found in the artic. It was believed to have come from Mars. In it were microfossils, possibly of alien bacteria-
Of the 24,000 or so meteorites that have been discovered on Earth, only 34 have been identified as originating from the planet Mars. These rare meteorites created a stir throughout the world when NASA announced in August 1996 that evidence of microfossils may be present in one of these Mars meteorites.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
The basic fact of the matter is this:
If there is a planet similar to earth, with an electromagnetic shield (thus allowing an atmosphere), water, carbon, other elements, and a source of energy, there will be life there. The basic elements of life come together relatively easily. Given enough time and a bit of energy, they get more complex.
In 1996, a meteorite was found in the artic. It was believed to have come from Mars. In it were microfossils, possibly of alien bacteria-
that piece of rock has already been proven not to contain any fossils. but what has that got to do with the topic at hand. extraterrestrial life does not preclude intelligent design and creation, in fact it would only serve to further prove intelligent design.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Seagoon,
Just a couple questions here and not posed as sarcasm.
Which bible in your opinion is the correct version?
Second question. How litterally (sp?) should it be taken?
Hi Maverick,
I should probably have waited to answer this, as I'm dog tired, but...
The correct version would be the Greek and Hebrew, but in terms of English translations, most of the modern English versions are reliable and convey the true meaning of the text. You can access most of them online here (http://bible.gospelcom.net/) There are only a few "translations" that actually add or twist the wording in order to support or convey a non-biblical theology such as the Jehovah's Witness "New World Translation" for instance or the RSV in some of its decisions (compare the RSV translation of almah "virgin" or "maiden" in Is. 7:14 to the NIV translation, for instance).
But that said, all of the modern word-for-word translations, the (NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, etc.) teach the same doctrine. The KJV is a good translation as well, but suffers at points from being early 17th century English and thus sometimes unintelligible to the modern reader. In terms of personal preference, I read the New King James (and sometimes the KJV) for pleasure and in the pulpit and use the New American Standard for study.
How literally should it be taken? Well, first the bible should (I recognize that not all will) be read as what it regards itself as, the inspired word of God: "All Scripture is God-breathed..." (2 Tim. 3:16) and "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20)
But when we read it, we keep in mind the genre (i.e. in a historical book, we remember it is history, in a poetical book, we remember it is poetry), and allow for the use of allegory and simile. Thus for instance, we don't adopt a flat reading of passages like: "Your teeth are like a flock of shorn sheep" and assume they are literally furry and bleeting. (see the rest of Song of Sol. 4 for examples of this). But we remember that it tells us that it is all true and that we interpret it in light of other passages. So when John the Baptist says of Jesus "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" we know he doesn't mean that Christ is literally a lamb, but we don't get hopelessly allegorical and say "that merely means he's humble" we remember that the lamb was a sacrifice for the sins of others, that this was classic OT language pointing to the Messiah. That the Messiah is Immanuel, literally "God with Us."
Hope that helps.
Be smart in your reading, but not cynical.
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon,
Thanks for the reply. I suppose it really should have gone in another thread but your eloquent reply about the bible earlier piqued my interest. It's unusual to have a bible scholar here. This is not meant as a slight to those who study the bible on their own or as part of their religious study.
The 2 volumes I was referring to were the King James version and the Dueay (sp??)(I know it's pronounce dooway but don't know how to spell it. :)) version. I guess one is related directly to the common bible found in most Protestant Denominations versus what is normally associated with the Roman Catholic Church. This of course brings up the debate on the "editing" that was done to make the King James version different from the other earlier version.
-
extraterrestrial life does not preclude intelligent design and creation, in fact it would only serve to further prove intelligent design.
Actually if earth was unique among planets it would prove intelligent design. If life starts randomly given the proper conditions, there are millions and millions of suitable planets in the universe. If evolutionists are right, they should be populated widely.
A bigger question is if mankind will ever know of another species due to the huge distances and limited lifespan. And by that I mean lifespan as in individuals and as species.
-
this one time, at band camp...
Only missing thing to tie this all together is some good ol numerology.
-
Those stupid Earthlings are coming again
(http://www.playhere.com/wallpaper/marvinsmall.JPG)
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Actually if earth was unique among planets it would prove intelligent design. If life starts randomly given the proper conditions, there are millions and millions of suitable planets in the universe. If evolutionists are right, they should be populated widely.
A bigger question is if mankind will ever know of another species due to the huge distances and limited lifespan. And by that I mean lifespan as in individuals and as species.
as an intelligent designer and creator (as it were) I have designed and constructed many different items and have never stopped, nor will I as long as I am physically able. since I was created in the image of my creator (not necessarily physically) and was instilled with these atributes by my creator it is easy for me to believe that I am mimicking the creators ceaseless creativity when I create. who says he started and ended with this orb?
-
Well let's turn it the other way. What kind of scientific evidence can you find that actually supports creationist outlook in any way? There are an abundance of evidence pointing to the opposite direction.
-
Another planet to pillage. Maybe 2 years after landing we could have a war.
Leave Mars alone.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Well let's turn it the other way. What kind of scientific evidence can you find that actually supports creationist outlook in any way? There are an abundance of evidence pointing to the opposite direction.
Have you opened your blinds and looked around lately?
:D
-
If it's so obvious, point out a few things.
-
If you are totaly convinced that some big explosion or whatever started all that you see out that window such as life itself, trees, grass, animals, then I could point till I wore out a few fingers and it would do no good.
-
You don't need to go that far Jackal.
Creationism means inevitably that all species were created at once i.e. world was made ready. How do you explain all the evidence pointing to evolution?
//Edit: If you need God to explain things that you don't see or understand, do you believe in basic biology? Seismology? Astronomy?
Afterall, all these are things you never see happen really, some events take a million generations to occur or are simply too distant or tiny to witness..
-
I have never seen anything in the evolution theory that impressed me at all.
-
They didn't teach you this stuff at school?
Did you have a purely religious upbringing?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I have never seen anything in the evolution theory that impressed me at all.
I fail to see how Creationism. and evolution cant co exist.
Evolution is nothing more then adaptation to a changing environment/Diet etc over long periods in time.
And we see it all over the place including man
In the majority of cases I've heard of they support one another.
the story of Moses is a good example of this.
Everything in there is scientifically explainable.
Now this doesnt take anything away from God IMO
Because the real miracle isnt that these things happened but that Moses knew they would happen.
THAT is the part I find astounding. I mean expecting someone of those times to understand these naturally occuring events is like expecting a 4 year old to understand quantum physics without ever being taught.
-
So you actually take the flooding story as a historical fact? Meaning that all species of the world today were put in one wooden boat while the whole planet sunk under water?
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
They didn't teach you this stuff at school?
Being "taught" that would mean that I bought into the whole lame thing.
It was put forth for what it was, a theory, and was presented as such.
-
Excuse me, but I must chuckle a bit now.
Being "taught" that would mean that I bought into the whole lame thing.
So you prefer to trust hand copied 2000 year old information based on ancient mythology? :D
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Excuse me, but I must chuckle a bit now.
So you prefer to trust hand copied 2000 year old information based on ancient mythology? :D
I prefer to trust common sense and what I can see and understand with my own eyes.
Do you prefer to trust a theory, an unsubstaniatated theory, put together and added to by ones grasping at straws with maybe just a touch too much time on their hands and very vivid imaginations? :D
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
So you actually take the flooding story as a historical fact? Meaning that all species of the world today were put in one wooden boat while the whole planet sunk under water?
There is in fact Geological evidence that the world or a very large part of it was indeed covered by a flood.
and not a hard streach to imagine considering 3/4 of it is already covered by water
Every species? No. Not every species would need to have been.
Now take into account the size of the Ark
300 Cubits long
50 cubits wide
30 cubits tall
A cubit is about the size of the length of an average mans forearm from elbow to fingertip (about 18 inches)
That makes the ark no small boat.
Boken up into decks
Its floor space alone would have been about 100,000 square feet and its total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet
Now there is over 1 million species of animals on the earth but most of them are not dependant of land to survive. Whales ,Fish, and Even ducks I hear do quite well in watery environments.
Really at the time of Noa only about 35,000 species would have needed to go on the ark. Many of not all the really large ones could have been young.
even if you bumped that number to 50,000 that would still only take up about 37% of the ark
-
Does DNA research support the flooding? If every animal species today would have been created from just two animals it would show serious genetic damage due to inbreeding.
I'm curious how they managed to build a total animal population (planet wide, mind you) from just 2 base animals at the time when populations of 200 are considered to be hopelessly extinct due to constant inbreeding.
All land based animals all in one spot, majority of them predators to eachothers, carnivores would be eating eachothers like crazy with no available source for food.
Over half of the animals would have been eaten long before they hit shore. And we haven't even touched the issue of how the animals finally got into remote places like Australia etc.
Now which theory was more logical in the end? :D
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I prefer to trust common sense and what I can see and understand with my own eyes.
Do you prefer to trust a theory, an unsubstaniatated theory, put together and added to by ones grasping at straws with maybe just a touch too much time on their hands and very vivid imaginations? :D
You forget the Bible is pretty vague about how things went down also
I woudlnt call either theory anywhere near unsubstantianted.
There is pleny of evidence of evolution. Certainly more then pure creationism other then the vague discription put forth in the bible. Which has been known to be mistranslated either through human error or arrogence.
-
I heard they actually want to teach creationism in some schools in the US. That's like stepping 200 years back in development.
-
Originally posted by storch
of course no one within the scientific community interprets evidence in anything other than pure and true objectivity.
By definition if they don't they are not using "Science".
-
Oh I forgot.. If the Ark story is correct, all of human kind also died in the flood except the few specimen that made it in the ark.
Watch out who you call an inbred next time. :rofl
http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/flood.html
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Does DNA research support the flooding? If every animal species today would have been created from just two animals it would show serious genetic damage due to inbreeding.
I'm curious how they managed to build a total animal population (planet wide, mind you) from just 2 base animals at the time when populations of 200 are considered to be hopelessly extinct due to constant inbreeding.
All land based animals all in one spot, majority of them predators to eachothers, carnivores would be eating eachothers like crazy with no available source for food.
Over half of the animals would have been eaten long before they hit shore. And we haven't even touched the issue of how the animals finally got into remote places like Australia etc.
Now which theory was more logical in the end? :D
You look at it too simplistically
It could also show evolution as we know it.
This would also explain some of the physical appearance of early man.
Hmm how do zoo's manage to keep the carnivores from eating the non carnivores? Guess they might have to keep them separate huh? And Many of these carnivores can and do go for days without eating.
not to mention many of these carnivores could have been young thus reducng the risk and space needed to house them. Even a baby lion isnt much of a threat to a full grown gazele Also Many of the animals could have gone into a state of hibernation.
I hear some animals like Bears are known to do that from time to time
Plus the vast majority of the remaining 63% of the ark would have undoubtedly been used to store food
As for the animals on other continents.
Remember it is widely believed that at one time all the continents were interconnected. But even throwing that aside I personally never claimed the entire world was covered in water but there is geological evidence the majority of it did experience a cataclysmic flooding event.
So there may have been some areas that were not flooded out. And in all probability that would be the case.
thisis a classic case of taking the wording of the bible too literally.
remember this was written a very long time ago and had to be put down in such a way that people might be able to comprehend what was being said. in their day they still beleived the world was flat and their concept of "world" was a bit different then we think of it today.
Animals naturally tend to head to higher ground as has been seen in the recent tsunami.
Now that would reduce the space needed on the ark even more.
And even that aside. They could have simply Swam there.
There are animals, polar bears for example that have been known to swim hundreds of miles at a time and birds that fly even father.
So its not like its outside the realm of possibility
-
Swim for either 40 days and 40 nights like the other version of the flood states or 150 days like the other? I'd like to see that land animal that does it.
Do you have any kind of grasp of how many insects there are on this planet? The ark would have been filled with different species of insects alone before any mammals could think to enter.
The animals in the zoo are indeed kept apart from eachothers and in captivity. I've never seen a zoo half smaller than a modern cruise ship, though.
When the animals were unloaded from the ark, someone would have had to keep them in captivity and nurture them for lets say, 200-300 years untill the populations grew enough to support natural breeding and resisitivity to predators. So for each pair of animals they would have had to buid containments, have maybe 3-4 persons doing full time job to feed and care the animals while at the same time of course do farming on a ground that was just days before swept with salt water. Afterall they couldn't eat _any_ of the animals they had onboard without putting them extinct immediately.
Animal gets sick? Bad luck, extinct. Leg broken? Same. A bug gets squashed by an elefant? Oops extinct.
The whole story defies reason.
-
lmao the only thing that defies reason is your line of reason. Mainly because your not using any.
You keep thinking in rather simplistic and narrow terms and refusing to look as a broader scope of possibilities.
Your also not giving the animals and their abilities and natural tendencies their due.
A Lion for example wont attack a herd of animals if its not hungry.
Animals also hibernate for long periods of time. Some species of frog have been known to hibernate for years
Animals in general have also shown the ability to reproduce rather quickly its usually only under human influence they develop problems.
The earth itself has shown its ability to rejuvenate itself faster then we humans had thought possible in spite of all sorts of things happening to it
I've put forth explanations.
By Swim I meant to other continents. Not that they could have swam for 40 days and nights etc.
And I've also stated that in all probability the ENTIRE earth probably wasn't flooded in spite of what the bible says. But even if it was
I've already put forth there was more then enough room to house all the animals that needed to be out of the water to survive. In fact there would have been enough room to house twice that many and still have room left over.
Insects have and still do survive rather well in extremely adverse conditions. Including extreme temperature and climate changes
So its safe to say the bugs could have taken care of themselves.
And Zoos usually have areas for the animals and people to roam around in.
The Ark wasn't built for roaming. It only had to house them.
why would they have needed people to nurture them for the populations to grow?
They had after all managed to reproduce and populate the earth rather well all on their own without human help before that. Why would they suddenly need our help afterwards. that line of thinking reeks of nothing more then human arrogance.
I've put forth other reasonable explanations as to how they could have been housed and cared for. Can you say hibernation? There I knew you could.
And as stated before there was an abundance of space left over for stores of food not to mention what the sea could produce which if memory serves correct was a quite popular way of getting food back in those days. So they didnt need to eat any of the animals on board.
Perhaps none got sick, broke a leg or was squashed.
Not out of the realm of reason.
But even if they had that's not to say none didn't go extinct. Animals go extinct every day.
Its obvious these haven't...yet.
Now Im not going to say that everything in the bible is 100% accurate in a literal sense.
It probably isnt and at best in alot of ways its as incomplete much as science is.
But I will say alot of what is in the bible is supported by science and vise versa
As well as if not probable certainly possible in both camps.
I dont see why one has to constantly be at odds with the other. Ive rarely ever witnessed anything that was black or white one way or the other. I dont think it that way either with the bible or science but probably somewhere inbetween
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Oh I forgot.. If the Ark story is correct, all of human kind also died in the flood except the few specimen that made it in the ark.
Watch out who you call an inbred next time. :rofl
http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/flood.html
hate to burst your bubble of sarcasm but
Ummm studies have shown that DNA certainly does trace all of mankind back to a common ancestor.
so yea we are all the product of inbreeding
no wait that a lie. I enjoyed bursting it
:D
-
Drediock that common ancestor was the first homo sapiens from which evolution started. One person altered the genetic pattern permanently as he/she mated with homo erectus or whatever the base population was at time.
During the ark human race already had civilization and technology. That's hundreds of thousands to millions years later.
-
I never believed a todays person could still believe in creation, I've been proven wrong.
That explains a lot of the cause and effect of religious fundamentalism today.
Drediock you say that a lion won't attack a herd of animals unless he's hungry. A simple question: What did the lions eat along with all the other animals and most importantly, who controlled and fed all the tens of thousands of species of animals?
15 And God spake unto Noah, saying,
16 Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons’ wives with thee.
17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.
18 And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him:
19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.
20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
Noah had an interesting family - His family consisted of blacks, asians, caucasians, indians, aborigins.. Just to name a few. That doesn't even touch the logistical problems they would have had to collect all the species from all around the planet with no knowledge of even combustion engines, let alone jet aircraft. The animals would die of old age before they could be transported across continents (or a unified continent if the event supposedly happened that long ago, 300-500 million years ago, way before homo sapiens existed.)
One family controlling, feeding and raising several thousands of different animal species, many of which are inherently agressive to eachothers, not to mention dangerous to human with no crop, firewood, accomodation, help, training, medicine just to name a few.
Noah would get a pretty high-price job as a zoo-keeper for sure.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
The animals would die of old age before they could be transported across continents...
Are you suggesting that animals are non-migrate-ory?
One family controlling, feeding and raising several thousands of different animal species, many of which are inherently agressive to eachothers, not to mention dangerous to human with no crop, firewood, accomodation, help, training, medicine just to name a few.
Noah would get a pretty high-price job as a zoo-keeper for sure.
He may have had some divine guidance and help... Vegetarian species could eat the stores of feed, meat eaters could consume milk from cattle and fish gathered from the rising sea.
At least that is how it was explained to me when I asked the same questions.
However using logic to argue faith is a fruitless endeavour.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
By definition if they don't they are not using "Science".
that is my very point, they don't and it's not.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Swim for either 40 days and 40 nights like the other version of the flood states or 150 days like the other? I'd like to see that land animal that does it.
There is a land animal that stays at sea for 40 days or better...
(http://7art-screensavers.com/screenshots/bears/polar-bear-with-the-snow-on-the-nose.jpg)
Its latin name is Ursus Maritimus (Sea Bear)
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Well let's turn it the other way. What kind of scientific evidence can you find that actually supports creationist outlook in any way? There are an abundance of evidence pointing to the opposite direction.
well let's go yet another 180 to the starting point. origin.
Theorists have long held the belief that before big bang (BB) there was nothing. this creates a problems for the evolutionary physicists, actually some fairly serious problems.
Let's look at one theory. prior to BB the universe would have had an infinite density and temperature. ponder that a bit.
another problem is that no known physics applies to the earliest moments of the universe.
but wait at last a solution. there is a physicist (who's name escapes me but I'll look it up if anyone challenges me on this) with the european laboratory for particle physics proposing that the universe existed prior to BB in a state just large enough not to require infinite density or temperature. He claims that the universe was about one millimeter across and existed in this condition for "a very long time". he described this as being in it's "simplest state" which he calls "the state of triviality".
that pretty much sums up he and most of his colleagues to me.
the simple answer can be found in the book of genesis.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Now which theory was more logical in the end? :D
One is theory, one is not in my viewpoint.
Since you seem to be a guy that wants to quote studies, etc, how about the recent study to calcualte the odds that your evoultion theory could have happened?
I cannot quote the exact numbers but it was in the millions to one odds that it could not have taken place.
You also seem to be a guy that likes to ask a lot of questions , but does not answer any given to you, so I will let you reference and look up the study just as you suggested others to do when you first came into this thread.
-
However using logic to argue faith is a fruitless endeavour.
That is very much true, my friend.
I never had a slightest need to explain anything with a higher force. I'm not bothered at all with questions like why are we here, where did all this come from etc.
Therefore I have no need to be religious. My perception of world is based on logic and study. Some others rely on faith.
However no argument can change the fact that if religious fanatics had thier way, we'd still live in our villages on a earth-centric universe in strict fear of God and the inquisition.
Interesting read about the history of distortion, lies and corruption of science created by religion:
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/
Especially the part: http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/creation/final-effort.html
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Seagoon,
Thanks for the reply. I suppose it really should have gone in another thread but your eloquent reply about the bible earlier piqued my interest. It's unusual to have a bible scholar here. This is not meant as a slight to those who study the bible on their own or as part of their religious study.
The 2 volumes I was referring to were the King James version and the Dueay (sp??)(I know it's pronounce dooway but don't know how to spell it. :)) version. I guess one is related directly to the common bible found in most Protestant Denominations versus what is normally associated with the Roman Catholic Church. This of course brings up the debate on the "editing" that was done to make the King James version different from the other earlier version.
Hi again Maverick,
If you want to start another thread on bible translations, I'd be willing to offer up what little I can.
The translation you are referring to is the Douay-Rheims which as you said is a specifically Roman Catholic (RC) translation. The name comes from the cities in which most of the translation work took place. It owed its origins to the RC desire to counter the outpouring of Protestant translations of the Bible into English at the time of the Reformation, and in particular the tremendously influential "Geneva Bible." The first edition was published 3 years before the King James Version (KJV), although the bibles had no relation. The original versions of the Douay-Rheims (hereafter DR) and the KJV also substantially differed in that the DR was a translation of Jerome's Vulgate Latin translation of the Greek (and therefore a translation of a translation) while the KJV was for the most part a translation of what is now known as the Textus Receptus edition of the Greek.
Later versions of the DR were revised to include more direct translations from the original Koine Greek (the language the New Testament scriptures were originally written in) and todays most commonly used English DR (the 1899 American version) is much closer than the original printing to the Greek. However, if you want to see the abiding influence of theolgy on translation in this version take a look for instance at Heb. 10:12 which in the DR is:
"But this man, offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God"
The translation implies an ongoing never ending sacrifice, but the Greek, is outos de mian uper amartiwn prosenegkas qusian eis to dianekes ekathisen ev dexia tou theou which translated into the English is: "but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God" which is a big theological difference.
Anywho, like I said if you want to discuss bible translation and exegesis and whatnot in a separate thread, I'd be willing to do so.
- SEAGOON
-
(http://www.dragonmarsh.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/darwin_fish.jpg)
-
In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight."
- J. Gresham Machen
"G-Dammit where's the beer I ordered?" (overheard just before the fight broke out.)
-
Siaf__csf, just something to consider. The biblical stories that you are arguing against were written in a context that was viable and comprehensible to the audience. Their 'world' was limited to the area around them. The 'world' that was flooded could very well be just a small area to us. 'Every creature' could just as well be every creature that they knew about in their small geographical surroundings.
Literal translations of the bible will always lead to concrete arguments against it. What you need to understand is that the scriptures are either alegories, or stories of limited perspective.
2000 years from now people will think we were idiots. Self centered and unable to grasp the reality of the universe. Remember that in the early 1900's, scientists declared that they had discovered all there was to discover, and that scientific research was a waste. They were very wrong.
Alternate views are the way to go when it comes to analyzing anything. The damned good book isn't an exception.
tired, drunk, browbeaten Lazerus.l :cool:
-
Lazerus the reason why the book is the way it is now is because it was written by humans during decades, mostly based on ancient mythology which was translated to christianism. Just as christmas celebration was originally a pagan tradition untill christians adopted it.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Lazerus the reason why the book is the way it is now is because it was written by humans during decades, mostly based on ancient mythology which was translated to christianism. Just as christmas celebration was originally a pagan tradition untill christians adopted it.
did you know that textual archeological discoveries have been analysised by skeptics attemping to prove your very point and have only been forced to report at how amazingly consistent the bible has been translated throughout time?
you are far off base with these biases. do a little research of your own and try to prove your point convincingly.
-
Do me a favour and read the near century old analysis by ANDREW DICKSON WHITE
LL.D. (Yale), L.H.D. (Columbia), PH.DR. (Jena) (Late President and Professor of History at Cornell University)
He digs into the several inconsistensies within the bible. After you read the quite long article, return here and make your claim again.
You miss the point totally as I was not talking about the translations and/or copies but the actual writing process of the original.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Lazerus the reason why the book is the way it is now is because it was written by humans during decades, mostly based on ancient mythology which was translated to christianism. Just as christmas celebration was originally a pagan tradition untill christians adopted it.
I don't buy that. But you gotta admit, at least folks are nicer to each other at that time of the year. :D
Les
-
I know it's only internet but here goes:
http://www.didyouknow.cd/xmas/xmashistory.htm
-
Originally posted by Leslie
I don't buy that. But you gotta admit, at least folks are nicer to each other at that time of the year. :D
Les
Actually today's style of Christmas celebration is one point I have to at least semi agree with Siaf on. It is the collection of various cultures that make up how we currently celebrate it.
I imagine a couple hundred years form now it will be even more different still.
But I gave up debating the subject with him as he provides little compelling logical arguments for himself that cant be shown an alternative is at the very least possible.
And refuses to see or I should say consider obvious alternative possibilities that even my 8 year old daughter could think of for herself
And when alternative views or explanations are possible he just comes up with some other "but how about" or repeats the same thing you just debunked.
His best effort in our discussion at a logical and reasonable debate was to provide a link to a site which whose views has no claim of legitimacy or respectability or about as much claim as "The national Inquirer" or "Star Magazine"and whose primary concern seems to be that of getting rid of Bush.
In short it could have been written by anybody including himself and he points to it as though all in it were absolute fact when in reality its just a blog he happens to agree with that could have as I said been written by anyone.
As for myself I am far from a bible thumper and have no claims of being so.
I do however try to look at all possibilities and dont see the world as black or white.
I believe Creation and Evolution are both correct in some aspects and both wrong in others. I believe they in reality co exist. Or at least the possibility thereof
As for the odds against evolution. We all know that sometimes odds are beaten and simply because the "odds" are vastly against something happening doesn't mean it wont or didnt
If the odds are lets say 100 billion to 1 and there are 101 billion planets in the universe well then I'd say that its probably happened on one of those planets.
And just because something is beyond our current comprehension doesnt mean it wont or cant happen.
For example Try telling someone from ancient times we would be able to one day fly to the moon. or talk to someone thousands of miles away in an instant by talking into a little box in your hand and what do you think the reaction would be? What kind of odds do you think they would give you on that happening?
Even as recently as a little over 100 years ago a news reporter once said something along the lines of "To think a man can build a machine he can fly in the air on is as rediculous as thinking one can strap themselves to a rocket and fly to the moon"
I believe "Gods image" or Gods true image is a spiritual one and not physical, therefore evolution or natural adaptation through changing climate, inbreeding crossbreeding of species etc and that spirit is passed on regardless of physical appearance is not only possible but IMO probable.
These are what I see as possabilities.
But there will always be some that have such tunnelvision can only see black or white and refuse to even consider other possibilities that no amount of reasonable or logical debate will ever change many of these peoples opinions no matter what.
Siaf is obviously one of these types,while not alone as Im sure there are plenty on the creation side that are the same way. Therefore prolonged and continued debate is pointless.
Thank goodness all of mankind isnt like that or we would still be living in caves.
-
In short it could have been written by anybody including himself and he points to it as though all in it were absolute fact when in reality its just a blog he happens to agree with that could have as I said been written by anyone.
Heh, the good thing about Bible is that you can open it up and verify every point made in the 'blog' as you call it. I dare you to do it.
It's interesting that you call the website of 'the center for the study of complex systems' the national inquirer or star magazine.
But I gave up debating the subject with him as he provides little compelling logical arguments for himself that cant be shown an alternative is at the very least possible.
You actually claimed that the flood theory was backed up by science. By that I guess you refer to the ice age and the resulting flooding. There's only one problem with that - the timeperiods don't match even by far. It's all covered also in the White writing. Please read it before you attack me.
What I see here is sudden panic and a resulting character attack when you suddenly realize you have no counter arguments to give as the text I provided was very thorough. Denial has been also characteristic through the history of theology. Nothing new there.
The 'how about' part was just an attempt to turn the discussion over to force you to think the issue in an irregular way. Break out the learned pattern and use your own brain for a change.
And refuses to see or I should say consider obvious alternative possibilities that even my 8 year old daughter could think of for herself
I can see how an 8 year old can think that way. You however should have progressed from that level.
If I can provide you with blatant inconsistencies and paradoxes in the scripture you're basing your faith on, doesn't that make you at least think and do research or is the blind faith still overcoming reason?
The comments like 'look at the birds and the trees, how can it be' sounds unbelievably naive and outright childish to me. It proves that the said person never questioned anything he was religiously taught in his life. Or simply just couldn't think complex enough.
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/
Please read it.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Do me a favour and read the near century old analysis by ANDREW DICKSON WHITE
LL.D. (Yale), L.H.D. (Columbia), PH.DR. (Jena) (Late President and Professor of History at Cornell University)
He digs into the several inconsistensies within the bible. After you read the quite long article, return here and make your claim again.
You miss the point totally as I was not talking about the translations and/or copies but the actual writing process of the original.
yawn.... yes yes the clever Mr. White. a rabid antitheotic academic, first president of something or other no?. where is he today?
do you know that the phophesies made in the Bible are 100% inerrant?
go read up on that then come back with a response.
-
where is he today?
Umm.. he died 1918. You didn't even bother to check who he is. Typical.
go read up on that then come back with a response.
I suggest you take the time to read the link I provided. It's very thorough and covers the whole issue far better than I ever could.
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/
-
Originally posted by storch
that is my very point, they don't and it's not.
And you are wrong... a trifecta.
-
do you know that the phophesies made in the Bible are 100% inerrant?
According to this link they're not. Again something that you can easily verify using your own bible.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Heh, the good thing about Bible is that you can open it up and verify every point made in the 'blog' as you call it. I dare you to do it.
It's interesting that you call the website of 'the center for the study of complex systems' the national inquirer or star magazine.
You actually claimed that the flood theory was backed up by science. By that I guess you refer to the ice age and the resulting flooding. There's only one problem with that - the timeperiods don't match even by far. It's all covered also in the White writing. Please read it before you attack me.
What I see here is sudden panic and a resulting character attack when you suddenly realize you have no counter arguments to give as the text I provided was very thorough. Denial has been also characteristic through the history of theology. Nothing new there.
The 'how about' part was just an attempt to turn the discussion over to force you to think the issue in an irregular way. Break out the learned pattern and use your own brain for a change.
I can see how an 8 year old can think that way. You however should have progressed from that level.
If I can provide you with blatant inconsistencies and paradoxes in the scripture you're basing your faith on, doesn't that make you at least think and do research or is the blind faith still overcoming reason?
The comments like 'look at the birds and the trees, how can it be' sounds unbelievably naive and outright childish to me. It proves that the said person never questioned anything he was religiously taught in his life. Or simply just couldn't think complex enough.
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/
Please read it.
I was referring to OUR debate and this link in particular
http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/flood.html
And that text was nothing more then a blog
No panic here at all. I have provided plenty of "counterarguements" and easily debunked your points half the time nothing more then common sense and general common knowledge in our debate. You were the one not providing anything even remotely resembling logic and saying "the carnivores would eat the other animals" repeatedly is not what I consider a logical argument. Trying to disguise it now by saying it was an attempt to make me "think for myself" is pure BS and you, I, and everyone here knows it.
If you paid attention to what I wrote you would see I was thinking for myself and exploring all possibilities including the possibility the story of the Ark is true at least in part.
As for my 8 year old. Even she could tell you that if you wanted to gather Carnivorous and therefore dangerous animals without risk to yourself or other animals that you might want to get the young ones. Its safer both to you and the other animals, Takes up less space and requires less food to maintain.
I have also maintained that it is possible and probable that not the entire globe was flooded.
But just for chuckles to provide at random a counter link for you..
Evidence of a worldwide flood (http://www.ucgportland.org/popups/gn0307d.html)
"Another recent discovery that could have a relation to the inundation of the Gulf of Mexico is the finding by geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman of the sudden flooding of the Black Sea basin around 6,000 to 7,000 years ago (according to their dating). "The salt water," says Smithsonian magazine, "poured through the deepening channel, creating a waterfall 200 times the volume of Niagara Falls. In a single day enough water came through the channel to cover Manhattan to a depth two times the height of the [former] World Trade Center, and the roar of the cascading water would have been audible at least 100 miles away"
You can provide all the inconsistencies you want and probably get me to agree with you on many of them without any argument whatsoever.
I dont base my thoughts on faith, or the bible, or science alone but I do as I have said see how both can coincide with one another on many issues. I have also put down and described the Bible as being "vague, mistranslated and incomplete". Just as science often is.
I also believe it is not 100% accurate or for that matter truthful.
If I did I'd insist the moon generates its own light.
I am not going by blind faith but by reason, logic and taking into consideration all possibilities.
You on the other hand refuse to see any other possibility other then the black or white view you have. Just by that accusation tells me you have not an iota of a clue what my "faith" is
As for attacking your character.
One has to have character before it can be attacked.
I haven't seen any evidence of that thusfar
I only see someone who insist on viewing things through a stationary and narrow tube and not seeing anything outside that tube refuses to believe other things could possibly exist.
Very much like the Roman Church and many bible thumpers used to and still do to a certain extent.
-
© 2003-2005 United Church of God • Portland Oregon
:rolleyes:
there was a major period of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago, with a peak about 11,600 years ago.
4,300 years described in the Bible as the time of the biblical Flood.
There's inconsistencies even in that very short text - i.e. people find evidence which they alter according to thier own religious needs.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
According to this link they're not. Again something that you can easily verify using your own bible.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html
they constantly repeat themselves...at the start they make there point, and all the supporting verses in one go, later they start giving each supporting verse its own number
-
Darwinian evolution is impossible. It would take 12 billion years for the simplest microbe to form under laboratory conditions. What makes you think life was spontanious? How did life start, after all that is the unknown factor, though academic scientists can't answer that question. Even the co-founder of Darwinian evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, acknowledged a Creator.
Les
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
According to this link they're not. Again something that you can easily verify using your own bible.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html
did adam die? prophesy fulfilled. death begins at birth since the fall of man. so go the rest of those examples. fools clutching at straws in order to deny the existance of the creator. they need to have their own will be supreme as opposed to submitting to the will of the creator. age old story with many twists but a stark ending.
I don't need to look up Mr. White. his paper is required reading for anyone interested in apologetics. anyway this doesn't work face to face and it doesn't work on the internet either. I gave it up face to face long ago and I suppose I'll give it up here as well. for what ever reason you and millions of others have decided to flippantly dismiss the cure to what ails all of mankind. that you and others don't believe doesn't mean you are right (see Mr. White).
the thing is this. I'm 100% certain that what the Bible teaches (and the entire volume points to it) about our relationship with the creator is real. therefore when my day to stand before the creator arrives I don't need to pay my bill. Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior has picked up my tab. How will you pay for yours I wonder? I hope for your sake that you are correct and that I'm wrong.
-
It would take 12 billion years for the simplest microbe to form under laboratory conditions. What makes you think life was spontanious?
the generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.
With the same logic drediocks website used to explain a few thousand years error in radiometric dating, the earth could aswell be 20 billion years old (if indeed radiometric timing is no longer accurate after 4000 years as was claimed by the church in your link. Don't say now that the link you just posted wasn't credible.
-
fools clutching at straws in order to deny the existance of the creator.
Pick a random spot and prove it inaccurate.
therefore when my day to stand before the creator arrives I don't need to pay my bill.
I thought it was called the judgement day. Are you saying you can do whatever you wish as long as you believe?
It speaks volumes that you don't either dare or bother to read the extremely interesting analysis of history by Mr.White.
That is again a proof that you're not interested in the truth.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Darwinian evolution is impossible. It would take 12 billion years for the simplest microbe to form under laboratory conditions. What makes you think life was spontanious? How did life start, after all that is the unknown factor, though academic scientists can't answer that question. Even the co-founder of Darwinian evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, acknowledged a Creator.
Les
Silly math Leslie..
What are the chances that I would meet someone named leslie on the web? If you take the same random event hypothesis the chances are:
26*26*26*26*26*26
or 1 in 308,915,776 if the internet were invented the day I was born, and I were to meet someone new every day it would take me 846,344 years to meet you. Clearly this is impossible and you don't exist.
sorry.
-
False Prophecies, Broken Promises, and Misquotes in the Bible
The prophets prophesy lies in my name.--Jer.14:14
Genesis
1. God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17
2. As a punishment for killing Abel, God says Cain will be "a fugitive and a vagabond." Yet in just a few verses (4:16-17) Cain will settle down, marry, have a son, and build a city. This is not the activity one would expect from a fugitive and a vagabond. 4:12
3. God promises Abram and his descendants all of the land of Canaan. But both history and the bible (Acts 7:5 and Heb.11:13) show that God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. 13:15, 15:18, 17:8, 28:13-14
4. How long was the Egyptian captivity? This verse says 400 years, but Ex.12:40 and Gal.3:17 say 430 years. 15:13
5. "In the fourth generation they [Abraham's descendants] shall come hither again." But, if we count Abraham, then their return occurred after seven generations: Abraham, Issac (Gen.21:1-3), Jacob (Gen.25:19-26), Levi (Gen.35:22-23), Kohath (Ex.6:16), Amramn (Ex.6:18), and Moses (Ex.6:20). 15:16
6. God promises Abram's descendants the land of Canaan from the Nile to the Euphrates. But according to Acts 7:5 and Heb.11:13 God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. 15:18
7. God promises to make Isaac's descendents as numerous as "the stars of heaven", which, of course, never happened. The Jews have always been, and will always be, a small minority. 26:4
8. God renames Jacob twice (32:28, 35:10 ). God says that Jacob will henceforth be called Israel, but the Bible continues to call him Jacob anyway (47:28-29). And even God himself calls him Jacob in 46:2. 32:28, 35:10
9. God calls Jacob Jacob, though he said in Gen.32:28 and 35:10 that he would no longer be called Jacob but Israel. 46:2
10. The tribe of Judah will reign "until Shiloh," but Israel's first king (Saul) was from the tribe of Benjamin (Acts 13:21), and most of the time after this prophecy there was no king at all. 49:10 God promises to bring Jacob safely back from Egypt, but Jacob dies in Egypt (Gen.47:28-29) 46:3
11. Contrary to the prophecy in 48:21, Joseph died in Egypt, not Israel. Gen.50:24
Exodus
12. God promises to cast out many nations including the Canaanites and the Jebusites. But he was unable to fulfill his promise. 33:2
13. In this verse God says he will write on the stone tablets, but in 34:27 he tells Moses to do the writing. 34:1
Deuteronomy
14. God promises to cast out seven nations including the Amorites, Canaanites, and the Jebusites. But he was unable to fulfill his promise. 7:1
15. God says that the Israelites will destroy all of the peoples they encounter. But according to Joshua ( 15:63, 16:10, 17:12-13) and Judges (1:21, 27-36, 3:1-5) there were some people they just couldn't kill. 7:24
16. Those who do as God says will never be infertile (neither will their cows!) and will never get sick. 7:14-15
17. Prophets and dreamers are to be executed if they say or dream the wrong things. 13:1-5
18. False prophets are to be (you guessed it) executed. How do you know who is a false prophet? By whether or not their predictions come true. (Watch out Jehovah's Witnesses!) 18:20
19. God promises to "destroy these nations before thee." That he didn't keep his promise see Jos.15:63, 16:10, Jg.1:21, 1:27-36, and 3:1-5. 31:3-6
Joshua
20. God promises to give Joshua all of the land that his "foot shall tread upon." He says that none of the people he encounters will be able to resist him. But later we find that God didn't keep his promise, and that many tribes withstood Joshua's attempt to steal their land. 1:3-5
21. Joshua tells the Israelites that God will "without fail" drive out the Canaanites and the Jebusites. But later, the Bible tells us that he could not drive them out. 3:10
22. This verse says that Ai was never again occupied after it was destroyed by Joshua. But Nehemiah (7:32) lists it among the cities of Israel at the time of the Babylonian captivity. 8:28
23. God promised the Israelites that he would drive out all the inhabitants of the lands they pass through. But this verse shows that he didn't keep his promise since he couldn't drive out the Jebusites. 15:63
24. "And they drave not out the Canaanites." Once again God fails keep his promise to destroy all the people the Israelites encounter. 16:10
25. The Israelites, contrary to God's promises to them, could not drive out the Canaanites. 17:12-13
26. Joshua tells Manasseh that he will be able to drive out the Canaanites, but it turns out (see Jg.1:27-28) that he couldn't do it. 17:17-18
27. According to these verses, God fulfilled his promise to give the Israelites all of the lands that they encountered. But in several places the Bible tells us that these promises were not kept. 21:43-45
Judges
28. God promised many times that he would drive out all the inhabitants of the lands they encountered. But these verses show that God failed to keep his promise since he was unable to drive out the Canaanites. 1:21, 27-30
29. God promised many times that he would drive out all the inhabitants of the lands they encountered. But these verses show that God failed to keep his promise since he was unable to drive out the Canaanites. 3:1-5
2 Samuel
30. God says that Solomon's kingdom will last forever. It didn't of course. It was entirely destroyed about 400 years after Solomon's death, never to be rebuilt. 7:13, 16
1 Kings
31. God puts a "lying spirit" in the mouth of his prophets. 22:22
2 Kings
32. God promises Josiah that he will have a peaceful death. But Josiah's death was anything but peaceful. (2 Kg.23:29-30, 2 Chr.35:23-24) 22:20
33. In Jeremiah (34:4) God tells Zedekiah that he will die in peace and be buried with his fathers. But this verse and Jer.52:10-11 say that he died a violent death in a foreign land. 25:7
2 Chronicles
34. That Solomon was the wisest and richest king to ever live is undoubtedly an exaggeration. Therefore it is also a false prophecy. 1:12
35. God puts lies into the mouths of his prophets and speaks evil about people. 18:21-22
36. Josiah died from an arrow wound in battle, not "in peace" as is promised in 2 Kg.22:20. 35:23
Psalms
37. Misquoted in Heb.10:5-6. 40:6
38. Misquoted in Mt.13:35. 78:2-3
39. "I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations." But the Davidic line of Kings ended with Zedekiah; there were none during the Babylonian captivity, and there are none today. 89:3-4, 34-37
Isaiah
40. God told Isaiah to tell Ahaz, the King of Judah, not to be concerned about Rezin (the king of Syria) or Pekah (the king of Israel). But according to 2 Chr.28:5-6 "God delivered him [Ahaz] into the hand of the king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter." 7:5
41. The King James Version mistranslates the Hebrew word "almah", which means "young woman" as "virgin". (The Hebrew word, "bethulah", means "virgin".) In addition, the young woman referred to in this verse was living at the time of the prophecy. And Jesus, of course, was called Jesus -- and is not called Emmanuel in any verse in the New Testament. 7:14
42. These verses falsely predict that Babylon will never again be inhabited. 13:19-20
43. This verse prophesies that Damascus will be completely destroyed and no longer be inhabited. Yet Damascus has never been completely destroyed and is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities. 17:1
44. The river of Egypt (identified as the Nile in RSV) shall dry up. This has never occurred. 19:5
45. This verse predicts that there shall be five cities in Egypt that speak the Canaanite language. But that language was never spoken in Egypt, and it is extinct now. 19:18
46. These verses predict that the Egyptians will worship the Lord (Yahweh) with sacrifices and offerings. But Judaism has never been an important religion in Egypt. 19:18-21
47. These verses predict that there will be an alliance between Egypt, Israel, and Assyria. But there has never been any such alliance, and it's unlikely that it ever will since Assyria no longer exists. 19:23-24
48. "The priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink." You can't even trust a drunken prophet anymore. 28:7
49. Misquoted in Rom.9:33. 28:16
50. "The light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold." Well, this is one prophecy that will never come true. Since the moon has no light of its own, but only reflects that of the sun, it could never shine like the sun. And the sun will not, at least not while there are humans to see it, shine 7 times as bright as it does now. 30:26
51. "Henceforth there shall no more come into thee [Jerusalem] the uncircumcised and the unclean." But many uncircumcised people have visited and occupied Jerusalem after this prophecy was made. 52:1
52. Nations that do not serve Israel will perish. 60:12
Jeremiah
53. Jeremiah prophesies that all nations of the earth will embrace Judaism. This has not happened. 3:17
54. Apparently, prophets that preach good news and tidings anger God. So he will kill them. 5:12-13
55. "The prophets prophesy falsely." Unfortunately, we're not told how to differentiate between the true and false prophets. 5:31
That's less than 1/3 of the false prophesies as listed at http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Pick a random spot and prove it inaccurate.
I thought it was called the judgement day. Are you saying you can do whatever you wish as long as you believe?
er.... I did. the very first one.
I'm not sure about the whole judgement day thing. My sins, past and future are forgiven. can I do whatever I want? why ...YES!!! of course I can. But I have a little friend, or wait it is it a big friend? well let's see. he occupies the whole of the universe but yet he indwells my heart. so which is it? part of that indwelling is that day by day I improve in my relationship with him, so that while I'm still a sinner it is less so. my biggest sin at this point I think is in my relationship with other people which I am to love across the board, warts and all. I don't. I'm rather ashamed to admit that but it's true. The holy spirit is still working within me. maybe one day I'll care whether you do finally enter into an eternal relationship with that creator which you deny. but as it stands currently, honestly I don't. terrible. simply terrible. that puts me the very worst category of all Christians types. That is cause to wonder whether I'm really a Christian at all. I'm trying to care but sadly I don't.
-
I'm honored you would wait that long to meet me MT. Nice to see you again.:p
Les
-
Heh Storch it's disappointing to see that you fail to fulfill the role you put yourself into.
Then to quotes:
As for my 8 year old. Even she could tell you that if you wanted to gather Carnivorous and therefore dangerous animals without risk to yourself or other animals that you might want to get the young ones. Its safer both to you and the other animals, Takes up less space and requires less food to maintain.
For an 8 year old it's natural to be naive. A child can easily think that you can have a family of what, 12-24 people grouping several _thousands_ of species together, let alone raising them up which means nurturing them. Let's see. Let's give you a benefit of a doubt and say there's 1000 people in Noah's family and there were space for everyone in the ark.
If we take the most optimistic timescene presented in the Bible (40 nights/days opposed to 150) and we calculate these 1000 people would need a rashion of 100 grams of food and 200 grams of fresh water per day. Animals not included. That would mean they'd have to stack 4 tons of food and 8 tons of water for the people alone for the duration of the trip. No, people do not hibernate if that was your next suggestion. That's quite a chunk of food 4000 years ago btw.
If they had the very optimistic 1000 people and had to raise even 60 000 different species of animals from scratch, they'd have to build barns for roughly at least third of them to contain natural tendencies to eat eachothers. They would have 0,4 hours of time each day to care an individual species of animal. During that time they'd have to feed them, clean the barn etc. while at the same time start a functional agriculture, build housing for the people etc. Naturally they don't have 24 hours per day as I calculated in the example but let's not let that bother at this point.
If we're again optimistic and think that you could somehow take care and grow up such a number of animals it would take from a couple days to 10 years before the animals could reproduce. Since animal population grows exponentially compared to human reproduction rate the workload would become all the more impossible as the animal population would double. At that time we're at two males, two females situation. A pessimist would say that animals rarely even breed in captivity, but let's leave that too out of the equation.
Considering a survivable population in habitable enviroment (which earth after massive flood obviously wasn't) would b e in 1000 range or more.. Just face it.
-
"If we take the most optimistic timescene presented in the Bible (40 nights/days opposed to 150) and we calculate these 1000 people would need a rashion of 100 grams of food and 200 grams of fresh water per day. Animals not included. That would mean they'd have to stack 4 tons of food and 8 tons of water for the people alone for the duration of the trip. No, people do not hibernate if that was your next suggestion. That's quite a chunk of food 4000 years ago btw. "
rainwater is drinkable...the people can eat fish (yeah, fishing was pretty big back then)
-
Fair enough. What about the animals.
If the non-carnivores would be numbered to about 30 000 species or so (which again, very optimistic), you think they'd survive on fish, too?
Also even if they collected all of the water that rained on the ark and managed to collect it without contaminating it with f.e. seawater, it wouldn't be enough to supply the thousands and thousands of inhabitants.
That brings me to the next issue - waste management. There would be probably a few tons of dung produced each day along with urine inside the ark. Again with 1000 people they'd have to work 24/7 just to remove the dung.
And I stress the real problems would begin only after they touched ground and the repopulation time begun.
The Bible says this event took place roughly 4000 years ago. So if all of Noahs family were israelites and not multiracial, evolution would be pretty fast indeed. Population growth rate should be quite fast to multiply to the current amount of humans, not to mention the rate of evolution considering that israelites evolved to all the different races there are today.
Someone could calculate how many children 1000 people would need per average per year in order to populate the earth to the present 6500000000 persons (with no mortality whatsoever.)
-
I think Siaf is webmaster for Triple6.net. :D
-
Originally posted by vorticon
rainwater is drinkable...the people can eat fish (yeah, fishing was pretty big back then)
If it rained all that time and the rainwater was drinkable, all the fish would be dying - the sea would be seriously less salty, and all the freshwater fish would be dying too - far too salty for them. You might get away with Salmon, I'm not too sure about how they cope with the osmosis problem. But it also means Noah had to have fish tanks for all the fish.
The whole ark story as it stands in the bible is absolute pants: logistically and physically impossible. It's a fairy tale. The genesis creation myth is absolute pants too, but no particular shame there: all creation myths are absolute pants.
That's not to say creationists are wrong, mind you - I have been convinced by their arguments over the years to the point where I agree with them: they really are people who haven't evolved at all. ;)
-
Saif, Saif, Saif the logistical problems you cite in the account of the great flood don't even cause me to ponder. If there was one incident that would cause me pause it could be found in Joshua chapter 10.
All your other examples are nothing compared to that. I believe every word of it so save your questions.
As I said. you win. hurray for you. You had better hope you are right though. eternity is, well......eternal.
I no longer wish to engage you or others on this topic. I'm a five point Calvinist now.
-
The point of my using my 8 year old as an example wasnt about being nieve it was about even an 8 year old being able to see and reason other obvious answers and possible solutions.
Your just trying to twist and distort my statements to suit yourself
And you refuse to see any other point or possibility then what you've made your own mind up on and everytime someone does make a valid counterpoint you either dismiss it, Or point to evidence that is as inexact as the very stuff you critisize,or simply change your point with a new "yea but"
Therefore debating this subject with you is as pointless as trying to hold a logical discussion with a brick
And thus I bow out of this discussion with only the following words.
Nobody knows for sure which is true and which is not.
Its all a matter of which you choose to believe.
I do know however that some strange things have been known to happen in nature things that can be theorized but not absolutely explained
The following link is such an example. What's even more amazing is she did it 5 more times with 5 others after this calf was killed.
Heart of a Lioness (http://www.douglas-hamilton.com/films/lioness/index.htm)
Adios
-
it was about even an 8 year old being able to see and reason other obvious answers and possible solutions.
There's a very simple reason for that - your daughter doesn't have the faintest idea of the ordeal in question. Or the simple impossibility to gather all species in one place at one time even with modern technology.
Your daughter can't be blamed for believing in faerytales at the age of 8. Her father on the other hand can and should.
I know for a fact that Noah didn't start the human race/animal kingdom from scratch with his ark.
This is obvious to anyone with half a brain. Along with that story the rest of the Bible loses it's credibility (not that it needs the story to do it.)
You're right that it's better to stop the discussion here as it's painfully obvious that you can't look at the subject objectively. So you can all remain in fear of unknown and I'll just happily continue my life without having to worry about judgement day.
:rolleyes:
-
Neutron image of Mars. Blue areas represent water/ice under the soil.
(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0409/neutronMars_odyssey_c1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
I know for a fact that Noah didn't start the human race/animal kingdom from scratch with his ark.
Well thank you Professor Obvious. The human race/animal kingdom was started way before the ark.
I believe you can safely say that we have all changed our mind on the subject since you did such an impressive job of explaining it so well.
I mean the point you made about the bible being translated by humans over a long period of time so that it couldn`t possibly be correct, then proving it with blogs from the intardnet pretty well wraps it up. I just wonder who wrote those intelligent and well thought out pieces of garbage. That must mean if people are not capable of translations and writing, it must have been aliens. Case solved.
If that weren`t enough, the snappy , intelligent comebacks would have sewed it up.
An example According to this link they're not.
. Geez, if it was on the Intardnet there is no possible way it could be wrong. :rofl
-
I'm sure you have a bible to check the claims out yourself Jackal. It couldn't be simplier than that. Now whose the tard?
You've kept the article of Ph.Dr. White pretty quiet haven't you?
I mean the point you made about the bible being translated by humans over a long period of time so that it couldn`t possibly be correct
Again you failed to understand totally even what you're replying to. I was saying that the Bible contains ancient mythologies which were adopted (i.e. translated) to christianity. The people claimed to have written certain scriptures could not have written them due to time overlaps, not to mention that the legends have been found in scriptures preceding the Bible which means they were not invented/written by the people they're claimed to.
You rave about the 'blog' even though it, again, presented you only with references to the Bible that you can check and verify yourself at any time. You're laughing at your own denial if anything.
The human race/animal kingdom was started way before the ark.
Umm.. if the flood didn't downright kill every man, woman and animal on this planet according to Bible, why on earth did Noah have to build the ark in the first place? Yeah I know, logic isn't your strong point.
You're contradicting your inerrant source of information.
Genesis 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
That was just 4300 years ago according to the Bible.
-
You know slick, I wouldn`t go so far to say that you are a total moron because at least one person thinks you are pretty sharp. Yourself.
I would, however, go as far to say that you are just imbellic enough to believe everyone besides yourself is.
There seems to be one very important indgredient that you have seen fit to pass over again and again in your mindless drivel.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Umm.. if the flood didn't downright kill every man, woman and animal on this planet according to Bible, why on earth did Noah have to build the ark in the first place? Yeah I know, logic isn't your strong point.
And I know that contradicting your self in your own post is your strongest point.
and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
I`m assuming you can read what you posted and comprehend it at the same time. Am I giving you too much credit here?
-
1. The great flood stories probably stem from the quick flooding of the Black Sea area through the Bosporus.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html
2. Evolution is a fact. Try to enjoy the fact that we know how to describe the wonderful bounty of nature and how it came to be.
3. We didn't come from monkeys, we came from starfish. (If this seems wrong to you, maybe some research would be good.)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
We didn't come from monkeys, we came from starfish. (If this seems wrong to you, maybe some research would be good.)
You may have come from starfish, not me.... I came from primordial ooze.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You may have come from starfish, not me.... I came from primordial ooze.
And not very long ago either........
:p
-
I have discovered that ooze is a grease based substance.
(http://pics.drugstore.com/prodimg/77036/200.jpg)
Dawn (R) cleaned it off rather well.
-
Good job!! Now maybe some shampoo and creme rinse for that mop in your avatar! :p
-
My publicist said that that photo was worth millions in publicity. It only took three hours at the stylist, a night in the tank, and three weeks at Betty Ford and it almost made up for being in that bomb "Hulk".
-
Hi Siaf_Csf,
As I was reading through your list I was reminded of a fellow who said to me 'Jesus said "Man shall not live by bread alone" when bread is the staple diet of many cultures.' My comment at the time was, "I think you've missed his point..."
Anyway, regardless of whether you actually believe the testimony of the bible, these examples aren't following the narrative - even, and I stress this point - if you view the bible simply as literature. Let me give you a few examples of what I mean.
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
False Prophecies, Broken Promises, and Misquotes in the Bible
The prophets prophesy lies in my name.--Jer.14:14
God here was condemning the false prophets who propped up the corrupt Kingdom of Judah assuring them they would have peace and prosperity despite the Lord's assurances through true prophets like Jeremiah, that they would be conquered by Babylon and brought into captivity. Jeremiah 6:13-14 " "Because from the least of them even to the greatest of them, Everyone is given to covetousness; And from the prophet even to the priest, Everyone deals falsely. They have also healed the hurt of My people slightly, Saying, 'Peace, peace!' When there is no peace."
Genesis
1. God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17
[/b]
Prior to the coming of the curse that resulted from Adam and Eve breaking God's commandment, death did not exist in the world. The promise was true, when you eat of it, you will die. And so they did, they took, and death entered into the world. The tree was a test, a probation, don't eat and live forever, eat and face the consequences of the curse of Gen. 3 - death, sin, and hardship. God could have destroyed them at once, but his intention was still to populate and eventually redeem the earth (see Gen. 1:22, Gen. 3:16)
Anyway, that's just the first two comments. Some of the rest seem to suffer from the fact that the compiler doesn't seem to realize that the Apostles in the NT are quoting the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament from memory, thus he says for instance in #37 that Heb.10:5-6. misquotes Psalm 40:6. As Psalms Commentator Dr. Robert Rayburn points out: "The author understands the citation of Psalm 40:6–8 in verses 5–7 to be prophetic of Christ. The author takes the phrase a body you prepared for me from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Masoretic Text, as referring to the body the Son of God assumed at his incarnation, the human nature in which he obeyed God and died in his people’s place (2:14; 5:8; cf. John 6:38; Phil. 2:7–8). The citation is perfectly suited because it compares the Levitical sacrifices unfavorably with the work of Christ." Others suffer from bad quotations or exegesis like #11 which fails to realize that Gen. 48:21 was a blessing - "but God will be with you, and bring you back to the land of your fathers" not a prophesy and as it turns out his body was returned to rest with his fathers when the Israelites were freed from captivity. Whoever the compiler is, I hope no one in a service industry ever said "Be with you in just a minute." his likely response when they got to him, was "LIAR!"
Now if you want (and I really don't want to do this, and sense most others don't as well) I am willing to go through the list and point out the problems which each citation if you think that will help. But I wonder would that prove anything? As the proverb says, "any stick will do to beat a dog." If your presupposition is that the bible can't be true because of what it teaches, what will it accomplish to argue over individual verses seriatim?
I recently had a conversation with a relative who was saying "I can't believe that the Bible is the word of God because of issue X" So we discussed issue X to the point where he conceded that issue X wasn't really a problem after all. 10 seconds later it was "I can't believe that the Bible is the word of God because of issue Y." Finally we finished with me saying "look that's really what the Apostles wrote, they believed it, they died for that belief, the question is, do you believe what they wrote is true?" For most, including my relative, the answer is no. That was certainly the case with me for many years, and no amount of evidence to the contrary was going to shift my presuppositions.
So Siaf, if it'll really advance the conversation, I'll do the legwork, but if not we both probably have a lot of work to get to.
- SEAGOON
-
(http://www.drwob.com/lisa/images/life_on_mars.gif)
:D
-
So Siaf, if it'll really advance the conversation, I'll do the legwork, but if not we both probably have a lot of work to get to.
Seagoon, please don't. It's clear to me that you've dedicated your life to the cause you firmly believe in and I can only respect that. So it would be merely a waste of your time for you to start explaining the verses one by one (I believe there were hundreds of examples.) It would be an act of futility as it would not change my opinnion.
I'm just teasing Jackal at this point to see if he finally realises that the flood story in the Bible is simply impossible to have happened the way he believes it was. Even if that won't happen, I'll still get a few chuckles out of it.
-
I`m assuming you can read what you posted and comprehend it at the same time. Am I giving you too much credit here?
Well duh maybe I really meant everyone on the planet _except_ Noah and his family? Maybe?
Next time put Drediocks 8-year old to translate the text to you, she seems smarter than you. Drediock, you should be proud of her. :D
One surviving family = starting human kind from scratch. Now which part you failed to understand there?
-
Siaf,
You seem to be missing a point here. No one forces you to believe as they do. No one makes you conform to their particular religious beliefs. Why do you feel it is your job to ridicule their belief? If you do not believe, that is your perogative. What is not your perogative is to demean or belittle a person simply because you do not share their belief.
In the end, no matter what you believe, you will know the truth after you pass on.
-
LOL..can you imagine the stir if they found ancient structures, and inside was a plaque on the wall of the Ten Commandments?
-
What is not your perogative is to demean or belittle a person simply because you do not share their belief.
Maverick I'm just pointing out serious flaws in the scriptures that any adult should realize immediately. I was told the scriptures were inerrant. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
I'm just teasing Jackal at this point to see if he finally realises that the flood story in the Bible is simply impossible to have happened the way he believes it was. Even if that won't happen, I'll still get a few chuckles out of it.
Well slick that would be a little hard for you to do since you have absolutely no way of knowing how I believed it happened. :D
Proud you are gettin a few chuckles out of puttin in text and proving yourself ignorant and uninformed on the subjects that you have discussed from the beginning of this thread because I have been finding it hilarious to watch you make an utter fool of yourself. I`m a firm believer in automation and you are a prime example of that. All that needs to be done with you is add fuel (read that as bait) and you are off and running, full tilt to prove just how little you actualy know instead of what you think you know.
Also , once again, I`d like to say how interesting it was to watch you squirm and dance around that one very important indgredient of the subjects you have discussed.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Take a year of college biology, that will suck the religion out of ya.
7th year of elementary school did same to me :D
-
Also , once again, I`d like to say how interesting it was to watch you squirm and dance around that one very important indgredient of the subjects you have discussed.
Dance and squirm? Which subject?
-
that would be a little hard for you to do since you have absolutely no way of knowing how I believed it happened.
Actually that's correct, you didn't post much on the subject. In fact, the only thing you posted was that you didn't believe in evolution and then progressed to make totally empty comments on a discussion where you obviously had nothing to contribute to.
It was my mistake to assume you were one of those who think Bible is inerrant.
-
One mistake shouldn`t mean that much to ya. Seems to be the norm for you.
-
Instead of punching those sarcastic comments try contributing some.
What's your stance to the ark story?
Wait, you probably won't dare to make any comment at all. It's hard to make mistakes if you do nothing but judge others. :D
What do you refer to with the dance and squirm? Or are you afraid to answer that too.
-
Hello again Siaf,
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Seagoon, please don't. It's clear to me that you've dedicated your life to the cause you firmly believe in and I can only respect that. So it would be merely a waste of your time for you to start explaining the verses one by one (I believe there were hundreds of examples.) It would be an act of futility as it would not change my opinnion.
I'm just teasing Jackal at this point to see if he finally realises that the flood story in the Bible is simply impossible to have happened the way he believes it was. Even if that won't happen, I'll still get a few chuckles out of it.
Ok, my sincere thanks for being so honest about it. I have to admit that my heart really wasn't in it. To tell the truth, this thread has expanded into too many different sub-arguments for me to follow and respond to without my head hurting. I'm one of those guys who has difficulty walking and chewing bubblegum at the same time so when a thread begins to look this way I generally bow out.
A few random responses though:
1) A far wiser man than I warned me a long time ago the folly of trying to be an expert in too many fields, and I've already witnessed too many pastors making fools of themselves by attempting to be amateur scientists and politicians. As R.B. Kuiper put it so well:
"Just because the preaching of the Word is so great a task the church must devote itself to it alone. For the church to undertake other activities, not indissolubly bound up with this one, is a colossal blunder, because it inevitably results in neglect of its proper task. Let not the church degenerate into a social club. Let not the church go into the entertainment business. Let not the church take sides on such aspects of economics, politics, or natural science as are not dealt with in the Word of God. And let the church be content to teach special, not general revelation. Let the church be the church."[/b]
So whenever I blunder into discussing aspects of non-historical general revelation, and science in particular I have to do so acknowledging that I am a complete bumpkin and that this doesn't fall under the commission I am given in Matthew 28:19-20.
But a few points regarding the Ark from Gen. 6. The Ship itself was fairly immense, about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high with multiple decks. I don't personally rely on General Revelation to "prove" special revelation - thus I don't heave a sigh of relief when I find Jesus mentioned by the contemporary Jewish/Roman historian Josephus, but it is worth noting that both historians and other archaeologists have found evidence of other ancient vessels of immense proportion, so the idea that "no wooden ship could be so large" is groundless. It's also worth noting that the pyramids are also technically impossible given what moderns believe the ancients were capable of doing, yet they exist.
As to the worldwide flood, both Sumerian and Babylonian accounts chronicle their own version of the flood, but ultimately I'll admit that I believe it because I trust the biblical account and not because I am credulous, but because I trust the author. the universal Flood is mentioned as a fact by Christ in Luke 17:26-27, by the author of Hebrews in Heb. 11:7 and by Peter in 1 Peter 1:3:20 & 2 Peter 2:5, so this isn't just a quaint little narrative from the OT Christians can take or leave.
2) On to Science (village idiot hat on). Regarding Darwinian evolution, even the late Stephen J. Gould (a noted atheist and famous prof. of Geology, Biology and the history of science)himself noted in his essay "Darwinian Fundamentalism" the distressing tendency to make this paradigm the new unshakable faith of the period. He and his peers, for instance, criticized the willingness of education establishments to continue teaching portions of Darwinian evolution that had long since been scrapped and their unwillingness to embrace modern theories such as the "wonderful monster" concept of change via simultaneous rapid mutations. In fact, although he held creationists in utter contempt, he too was embarassed by the tendency of text-book publishers to print pictures of hypothetical "transitional life forms" that no fossil evidence has ever uncovered and which are biologically untenable.
For instance, Gould and his colleagues were only too well aware that a structure in-between an arm and a wing that was actually neither, made for a life-form that even under the concept of "survival of the fitest" would be "deleted." As most modern paleontologists point out, we have fossil arms and we have fossil wings, we have fossil arms and fossil flippers, but no transitional forms in between. They've generally given up on searching for biologically untenable "links" so the modern explanation for this is usually rapid mutation. I.E. Mamma lizard gives birth to a bird, said bird finds another similar mutant and the bird species begins. Christians of course say simply Special Creation, i.e. God made Lizards and God made birds. Which is of course laughed at, but then again it is also being laughed at by people who prefer the idea of UFO tinkering with human development to the idea of a creator.
In Creation, it really is a case of "Ex Nihilo, Nihil Fit" - From nothing, nothing comes If at one time there really was nothing, there would still be nothing today. Even the big bang theory doesn't explain the generation of the matter that exploded. Matter is not self-generated.
Either you have a creator who has revealed himself to his creation via general and special revelation, or you are still left with the unanswered childs question: "Where did everything come from." and the depressing answer "I don't know" (or worse, the existentialists "I can't know" or the nihilists "Stupid flabby child! Nothing exists!")
PS: Vorticon, I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who bursts out laughing at the "my doctor has forbidden me to push" point in Thomas the Tank Engine - my kids look at me like I'm crazy.
I mean when I do that... you know, laugh at Thomas the Tank Engine.
Ok, they think I'm crazy most of the time.
- SEAGOON
-
Common sense, do what it will, cannot avoid being surprised occasionally. The object of science is to spare it this emotion and create mental habits which shall be in such close accord with the habits of the world as to secure that nothing shall be unexpected.
Anything undeterminable by nature (no pun) is a waste of braintime.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
But a few points regarding the Ark from Gen. 6. The Ship itself was fairly immense, about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high with multiple decks. I don't personally rely on General Revelation to "prove" special revelation - thus I don't heave a sigh of relief when I find Jesus mentioned by the contemporary Jewish/Roman historian Josephus, but it is worth noting that both historians and other archaeologists have found evidence of other ancient vessels of immense proportion, so the idea that "no wooden ship could be so large" is groundless. It's also worth noting that the pyramids are also technically impossible given what moderns believe the ancients were capable of doing, yet they exist.
thats it? 450x75x45, that doesnt sound large enough to hold 2 of everything, food for all of them, remember ceratin species will only eat certain food, (Koalas for example)Heck that is not that much larger than an old victory ship. I also wonder how 8 people could feed so many animals every day. Predatory animals would kill off the herbivores in quick time after they were released. Unless Noah took enough food to keep the carnivores happy until the other animals had time to get their numbers up. what would that take a few generations so 40 or more years. Hope its got a big cargo hold.
But what gets me the most is he only took family members so that means if its true we are all related to each other can anyone say incest.(he took his wife and his 3 sons and their wives) gross.Please correct me if this is wrong I would like to be wrong about this part especially but that is my read on it.
-
Seagoon I don't know where you got the 'no wooden vessel could be so large' claim - it wasn't from me at least.
What I was trying to say is that if this event did occur merely 4300 years ago, there would be no way that we'd have a population this large today (without even thinking about the racial versatility if we're supposed to be all Noah's descendents.)
Same applies to animal population.
The fact that no transitional forms have been discovered through fossils is indeed weird. Then again, how many millionths of a percent of all animals that lived fossilized not to mention were found by archeologists.. The lack of fossile discovery in itself proves nothing.
Then again, there's no absolute evidence pointing that creation couldn't possibly be true so it's pretty much academic. Although in my opinnion every fact so far points to the way of evolution instead of creation. At the very least if there was indeed creation, there has been evolution after that. Most likely humans will never really know the ultimate answers to things like this. Those who are puzzled think about it, others do research. I never felt the need to find an answer to questions like 'why am I here' or 'where did all this come from.'
But what gets me the most is he only took family members so that means if its true we are all related to each other can anyone say incest.(he took his wife and his 3 sons and their wives) gross.Please correct me if this is wrong I would like to be wrong about this part especially but that is my read on it.
You're correct. The bible was written on a time when nobody knew the word 'political correctness.' It has texts which severely undermine female rights, violence, incest and more.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Seagoon I don't know where you got the 'no wooden vessel could be so large' claim - it wasn't from me at least.
I think there is some kind of theory or law that any wooden vessel over 200 feet leaks profusely.
-
It seems it's called 'hogging' basically the wooden structure flexes too much which will eventually break the ship.
But to be honest, the size of the ship would be the least of the problems.
-
The fact that no transitional forms have been discovered through fossils is indeed weird. Then again, how many millionths of a percent of all animals that lived fossilized not to mention were found by archeologists.. The lack of fossile discovery in itself proves nothing.
But how could a fish move from the sea to land? Lets ask our buddy, muddy the mud-skipper who loves land.
(http://photos3.worldisround.com/photos/2/340/53.jpg)
-
I wonder if hats are tasty? There ought to be a few eating them right now.
-
Seagoon,
Now that this has progressed to this point I have a couple questions.
First you mentioned you believe the bible because of the author. In this regard are you implying of a single author for the entire volume, both old and new testament. Are you speaking metaphorically or specifically? Please note this is not in any way a dig at yourself or your faith, it's an attempt to discuss some items that were brought up in a philosophy socialogy classes back in college.
Secondly, how literaly should the bible be taken in detail? I know that is a broad spectrum question but it leads to other questions I have had rattling in my skull for some time. I prefer a scholarly discussion vs the usual prosletyzing type of discussion.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
First you mentioned you believe the bible because of the author. In this regard are you implying of a single author for the entire volume, both old and new testament. Are you speaking metaphorically or specifically?
I would think that Seagoon believes that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as well as the other writers where but pens in the hand of the master rather than authors.
But I could be way off.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
What do you refer to with the dance and squirm? Or are you afraid to answer that too.
Heehee... coming from someone who has been avoiding it like a rattlesnake , that`s not even a good attempt. You can address it or continue to overlook it.
-
Answer the question, please.
-
You answer it. You are the one who keeps dancing around it.
-
Rofl! Are you retarded or what?
It's a simple question. Answer it. I have no idea what you're talking about.
-
Sorry, I didn`t get the memo stating it was "Make A Poor Excuse For A Troll`s Life Easier" day.
You can either address it or keep dancing around it. Kicking and screaming is not gonna help ya. The page links are still gonna work.
-
Heh so you don't even know what you're talking about. Figures.
-
Up to you.
Don`t see how you could possibly make any bigger fool of yourself than you allready have.
Do ya hold your breath and point when you are having them tantrums also?
-
It's amazing how petrified you're on giving even one straight answer in the whole discussion. You must have a mental defect. You thrive on passing judgement to others but can't answer to anything yourself in fear of revealing how dumb you are.
Am I right?
Ahh.. that requires an answer. :rolleyes:
-
Keep dancing and squirming.
I love the "Mommy make the bad man stop" types.
-
Hey Jacko, some nice people at http://www.nmha.org/ would love to have a chat with you. :D
Where is that repressed anger coming from? Is it that you're not okay with your homosexuality or what?
-
Your text is beginning to take on falsetto
tones and your dancing has still not improved.
You have at least finaly narrowed it down to two choices.........
1. You will continue to deny the fact that you know what I`m talking about. (You can read that as brain dead).
Or
2. You are trying to prove what I stated earlier in the thread. That being, that you are ignorant and uninformed on the subjects you are so lamely trying to express knowledge of when there is none on your part.
Either way it boils down to the same thing.
I`ll leave you to it for a while so you can work on them snappy come backs. Maybe find a few more links like the one above.
-
Jacko you seriously should follow the link because you need it.
Any normal person would have answered the question.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
My publicist said that that photo was worth millions in publicity. It only took three hours at the stylist, a night in the tank, and three weeks at Betty Ford and it almost made up for being in that bomb "Hulk".
almost.
he was good in northfork though. a redeeming performance.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Any normal person would have answered the question.
Yea, anyone with knowledge on the subject would. So why are you avoiding the issue so strongly?
BTW....before I go for a while I thought I might tell ya that you need some new material in the "snappy comeback" department.
Stuff such as these l`il gems of yours are a tad bit stale slick.
Are you retarded or what?
You must have a mental defect
Hey Jacko, some nice people at http://www.nmha.org/ would love to have a chat with you
See a trend developing here?
But Hey...at least they help establish your mentality level to at least playground status.
It also helps to support your kicking and screaming, in text, tantrums.
Gotta love it.
-
So Jackle are you going to answer the question or not?
Whats that? ...........No.
Oh I see you'd rather start ranting on about some other BBs user and questioning their manhood etc.
No problem you carry on then. Siaf I would give up up if I were you.
Now I'm off to see if hats are tasty. Before I recommend them to the creationists
:rofl :rofl :rofl
(http://habitatnews.nus.edu.sg/news/chekjawa/ria/photos/r331.jpg)
-
Nice try Zulu....well not really.
You are still a guuurrrrly mon.
-
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
:rolleyes:
-
Ive seen some threads hijacked but this one isss wwaaayyy out there! fricking thread soooooo hijacked! im thinking some of you guys ar terrorists!
-
Muahahahaaaaa!
Caught that did ya? :D
-
Maverick,
If it's ok with you, I'm going to answer your question in a new thread entitled "Responses to Maverick". I'm going to bail out of this thread as it seems to be unraveling at an ever advancing pace.
Abandon thread! Abandon thread!
:(
- SEAGOON
-
Agreed and done.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Sorry, I didn`t get the memo stating it was "Make A Poor Excuse For A Troll`s Life Easier" day.
You can either address it or keep dancing around it. Kicking and screaming is not gonna help ya. The page links are still gonna work.
lol Im confused too.. Whats new? haha Really though, wtf are you talking about?? What is he dancing around??