Intelligent Design isn’t intelligent

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I give no credibility to Christian apologists. Try to find a valid source that supports you.

QV please:



SOURCE

Ushu was the land based city. Tyre was named for what it was a "rock" out on the sea.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ushu was the land based city. Tyre was named for what it was a "rock" out on the sea.

I have a feeling that even academia disagrees with this issue about Tyre never having existed on the mainland.

 

[The Barbarian]

Tyre, built on an island and on the neighbouring mainland, was probably originally founded as a colony of Sidon. Mentioned in Egyptian records of the 14th century bce as being subject to Egypt, Tyre became independent when Egyptian influence in Phoenicia declined. It later surpassed Sidon as a trade centre, developing commercial relations with all parts of the Mediterranean world. In the 9th century bce colonists from Tyre founded the North African city of Carthage, which later became Rome’s principal rival in the West. The town is frequently mentioned in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) as having had close ties with Israel. Hiram, king of Tyre (reigned 969–936), furnished building materials for Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem (10th century), and the notorious Jezebel, wife of King Ahab, was the daughter of Ethbaal, “king of Tyre and Sidon.” In the 10th and 9th centuries Tyre probably enjoyed some primacy over the other cities of Phoenicia and was ruled by kings whose power was limited by a merchant oligarchy.
Tyre | town and historical site, Lebanon

From your source:
The old city, known as Ushu, was founded c. 2750 BCE and the trade centre grew up shortly after. In time, the island complex became more prosperous and populated than Ushu and was heavily fortified. The prosperity of Tyre attracted the attention of King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon who lay siege to the city for thirteen years in the 6th century BCE without breaking their defenses. During this siege most of the inhabitants of the mainland city abandoned it for the relative safety of the island city. Ushu became a suburb of Tyre on the mainland and remained so until the coming of Alexander the Great.

 

[The Barbarian]

I have a feeling that even academia disagrees with this issue about Tyre never having existed on the mainland.

So far, no. But it's true that later Greeks called Ushu "old Tyre." So that confusion is probably responsible for the comment by Herodotus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have a feeling that even academia disagrees with this issue about Tyre never having existed on the mainland.

We went through this once in the past where I found source after source that does so. Even the Bible clearly refers to Tyre as an island. And it admits that Nebuchadnezzar failed. Since the prophecy was against the king of Tyre moving the prophecy over a hundred years down the road is a failed prophesy in itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

And it admits that Nebuchadnezzar failed.

Did you watch the four-minute video?

Nebuchadnezzar didn't fail.

He turned around and walked off, after making Tyre a ghost town.

Alexander the Great came along, and was incensed at the island city's bravado.

He then turned the island city into a ghost town.

Then the Muslim fulfilled the final leg of the prophecy.

Since the prophecy was against the king of Tyre moving the prophecy over a hundred years down the road is a failed prophesy in itself.

Again, the video addressed that.

And it used large font size when it did.

 

[The Barbarian]

Did you watch the four-minute video?

I've found watching videos said to contain evidence is a waste of time. As in this time.

Nebuchadnezzar didn't fail.

He set out to conquer Tyre. He failed.

He turned around and walked off, after making Tyre a ghost town.

From your site:
The prosperity of Tyre attracted the attention of King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon who lay siege to the city for thirteen years in the 6th century BCE without breaking their defenses.

So, no.

Alexander the Great came along, and was incensed at the island city's bravado.

He then turned the island city into a ghost town.

Because Alexander succeeded where Nebuchadnezzar failed.

 

[AV1611VET]

From your source:

So you agree that Tyre was on the mainland?

 

[The Barbarian]

So you agree that Tyre was on the mainland?

Your own source says it wasn't.

From your source:
The old city, known as Ushu, was founded c. 2750 BCE and the trade centre grew up shortly after. In time, the island complex became more prosperous and populated than Ushu and was heavily fortified. The prosperity of Tyre attracted the attention of King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon who lay siege to the city for thirteen years in the 6th century BCE without breaking their defenses. During this siege most of the inhabitants of the mainland city abandoned it for the relative safety of the island city. Ushu became a suburb of Tyre on the mainland and remained so until the coming of Alexander the Great.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you watch the four-minute video?

Nebuchadnezzar didn't fail.

He turned around and walked off, after making Tyre a ghost town.

Alexander the Great came along, and was incensed at the island city's bravado.

He then turned the island city into a ghost town.

Then the Muslim fulfilled the final leg of the prophecy.

Again, the video addressed that.

And it used large font size when it did.

Read the Bible. It is clear that Tyre is the island. Look at the etymology. Again Tyre is the island. Read actual historians and not Wiki articles distorted by Christians. Tyre is the island.

 

[The Barbarian]

To a Biblical literalist, Tyre can't be an island. If the Bible has an error in it, even in something completely unrelated to God's message to us, then for them, an abyss opens and they no longer have any confidence in God at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Read the Bible. It is clear that Tyre is the island. Look at the etymology. Again Tyre is the island. Read actual historians and not Wiki articles distorted by Christians. Tyre is the island.

Did you read Post 359, where I quoted Herodotus saying Tyre was originally built upon the mainland?

According to Herodotus, Tyre was founded around 2750 BC and originally built as a walled city upon the mainland.

Then I gave a quote that said Herodotus is known as the "Father of History"?

 

[tas8831]

A finely graduated chain would be an observable slow gradual change in each link from one major form to another.

Right - and this is addressed further down - and before this thread was ever started. I have asked you about/explained to you why such an expectation is unwarranted. But I guess that flubs up your 'grand argument.

An entire chain but not one requiring every single generation. Just not containing large leaps such as a fish with only fins suddenly having functional legs or a dinosaur with no sail on its back to one with a huge sail.

This goes back to my earlier and oft-repeated question to you and other creationists that make similar arguments - WHY do you think this is a real problem? WHY do you think you should see such a thing?

In order for your position to be valid, we should expect:

1. ALL things that lived had to have fossilized in sufficient numbers that finding them is a reasonable expectation
2. Once the fossils are formed, they should remain in situ, undisturbed, unaffected by geological forces for all time
3. a human should actually have already found them all, examined and classified and catalogued them
4. all physical changes MUST proceed by small gradations
5. all developmental genetic modules must only affect physical features such that any changes occur via small increments

Can you provide a rationale and justification for ANY of those?

As I have presented to you previously - a prime example of how a change in a gene involved with development can make, by your standards, a large leap in a single generation - a mutation in the FGFR-3 gene in humans produces an achondroplastic child - a child with dwarfism. And as I have explained, dwarfism is NOT just being short, but it involves alterations to limb length and proportions, alterations to the cranial skeleton, loss of interphalangeal joints, etc.
All in 'one leap', all at once, in one generation, because of a single point mutation. AND achonroplastic people can reproduce with normal phenotype humans, and some of their offspring will be achondroplastic.


So, let's look at your sail backed dinosaur claim - can you guarantee the following:

1. ALL sail backed dinosaurs and their ancestors fossilized
2. ALL of these fossils have been found
3. It has been shown that there is no developmental genetic process that could have produced the sail in a short period of time

I'm guessing not? So the real question is, what, exactly, are you premising your argument on?

This is especially of interest considering what you write below...

I would prefer the images of the each link be presented for comparison to the previous one and the next one. This type of chain is the only thing that will prove common descent over common creator since both theories expect similarity.

Creation is not a theory, for one. WHY should we expect the same things from creation - things that you just implied refute evolution, in your eyes? If we expect the same thing from creationism, then why aren't you fretting over the fact that we see, according to you, these big leaps instead of fine graduations? Special pleading? Double standards?

We have and explanation for the 'similarity' we see in evolution - in creation, you apparently expect the creator of the entire universe and everything in it to be limited to a handful of variations on some basic designs... Cool...


So, anyway - you have creation as the default - nice fallacious logic.
How about this -

YOU provide all of the fossils/remains from Adam to you. If you cannot, we are on equal footing. And then we look at other evidence, like, say, genetics. Hmmm... I wonder what we will find there.

Look I shouldn't have to be a rocket scientist in order for someone to demonstrate that rockets work. I don't have to be an aeronautics engineer in order to be shown that plane travel is safe. I shouldn't have to have a PhD in genetics or paleontology in order to see evolution happened.

Well, you can SEE rockets, you can SEE airplanes - tell me about the time you saw a gene get expressed.
Tell me about the time you SAW a mutation in the FGFR-3 gene occur, then tell me all about how you SAW how this altered embryonic and fetal development.


No, you don't need a PhD in genetics or paleontology, but it would help if you bothered to try to understand the subjects a little bit before making grand pronouncements in the fields.
It would also help if you held your own position to the same standards you hold everything else. Funny how creationists never, ever, do that.

If evolution was totally, 100% refuted this very day, bible-style creation would STILL be a myth with ZERO actual evidence in its support.

 

[tas8831]

I think you're confusing evolution with consequences of evolution like speciation. As you learned, the major creationist organizations now admit the fact of speciation; some go so far as to admit the evolution of new genera and families. They just claim "it's not real evolution."

Isn't it precious? Around 4 decades ago, most mainstream creationist groups and most lay creationists you'd meet were claiming speciation does not occur (some still do). Jump ahead a decade, and they were trying to find ways to fit all the millions of species on the ark without making themselves look like morons (didn't work). A decade or so later, and mainstream creationists had set up a group to study the evolution within 'Kinds.' And now we are seeing the regression of the creationist, going back to declaring no changes are possible. Or whatever they are doing these days - I mean besides throwing up a YouTube channel and blocking comments on their dopey videos.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you read Post 359, where I quoted Herodotus saying Tyre was originally built upon the mainland?



Then I gave a quote that said Herodotus is known as the "Father of History"?

Yes, and it was from a Wiki article where the source, written in 1923, could not be checked. Nor is there any info about the author to be found. Not a very reliable source. There is no way to see if Herodotus actually made that claim or not. If one looks into the history of Tyre, and studies the reason that Tyre became famous it becomes obvious that Tyre was the island, not the mainland. The Bible describes it that way, history describes it that way, only Christian sources that can't stand to see a contradiction in the Bible try to change that.

This article goes into quite a few of the details:

Biblical Errancy: Ezekiel's Prophecy of Tyre: a failed prophecy

I will see if I can find an article that I read on the city that tells how it was a desired asset long before the attack by Nebuchadnezzar. The island itself was much more defensible than the mainland, which is why the gates of Tyre, that Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to tear down were on the island. The mainland was abandoned when under attack, not just in Nebby's time but both before and after. The rulers would hold up under siege until the attackers got tired of their campaign. And it worked fairly well until Alexander the Great's attack. He brought the land to the island so that it could be effectively attacked, but that was too late for this prophecy.

https://web.archive.org/web/20050406095501/http://i-cias.com/e.o/tyre.htm

 

[Strathos]

This argument is becoming Tyre-ing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, and it was from a Wiki article where the source, written in 1923, could not be checked.

Then nuts to Wiki.

Use the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Tyre, built on an island and on the neighbouring mainland,

SOURCE

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then nuts to Wiki.

Use the Encyclopedia Britannica:



SOURCE

I am fine with that since it supports my claims.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am fine with that since it supports my claims.

We're pickers and choosers, aren't we?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We're pickers and choosers, aren't we?

That appears to be you here. The Bible not only describes Tyre as an island, if you read the full passage you will also see Ezekiel admit that Tyre did not fall. He then made another failed prophecy.