Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[AV1611VET]

Sit down and read the discussion at hand or just leave.

104

 

[Supreme]

MOD HAT ON

Keep it down here guys. Stick to the topic please, and no flaming.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[Nathan Poe]

<self-edit> sorry, Supreme, posted this before I saw your announcement.

Anywho, back to the Gospels -- does anyone want to step up to challenge my notion that they are liturgical interpretations, and not descriptions of historical fact?

 

[sandwiches]

Big deal -- I'm considered a fraud, and so was Jesus.

Yea, and maybe you are a fraud and so was Jesus, if he existed. What's to show us otherwise provided the self-admitted lack of evidence for any of your claims?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yea, and maybe you are a fraud and so was Jesus, if he existed. What's to show us otherwise provided the self-admitted lack of evidence for any of your claims?

Don't bother feeding him -- if he wants to compare himself to Jesus, there's no point in robbing him of what little he has.

Let's try to stay on topic.

 

[sandwiches]

Don't bother feeding him -- if he wants to compare himself to Jesus, there's no point in robbing him of what little he has.

Let's try to stay on topic.

Trudat.

 

[rjc34]

<self-edit> sorry, Supreme, posted this before I saw your announcement.

Anywho, back to the Gospels -- does anyone want to step up to challenge my notion that they are liturgical interpretations, and not descriptions of historical fact?

Hm, I've got this friend (well, barely) who's a youth minister preachy converter type guy who I challenged to prove the existence of god. He tried the transcendental argument for the existence of god (using 'reason' as the subject) which I rejected saying it contained false premises. The argument kind of stalled there, so I said 'alright, for the sake of the argument i'll concede that point for now, so you've proved an intelligence exists... prove it's the christian god'.

Now we're basically into accounts of the resurrection and how that somehow proves Jesus' divinity and the existence of god.

I was wondering if you could post some details about your opinion on the resurrection stories and how I could go about rebutting that argument. (Just so you know this guy outright rejects the fact that we have no first hand accounts of Jesus' existence, and no idea who actually wrote the 4 gospels.

 

[Tiberius]

No. But so called knowledge that directly opposes God must have a source.

Yeah, it's this little thing called reality

That depends. Do you feel some need to claim stuff about it?

You're the one asking me to test something from back then.

Then it is well suited to address evolution.

No, it is typical of creationist ignorance about evolution.

You observe in this state. That is no way to get knowledge of another.

i observe in this state of the functioning laws of the universe? of course, what other laws can be demonstrated to exist?

So why raise it as if you had a point? Be it known that you do not.

My point is that if you are ignorant about quantum mechanics, you do not understand how the basis of the universe works. If you don't know about it, that's your problem. But your ignorance does not alter the fact that quantum mechanics is real and it explains things very well.

I do stoop to conquer at times.

No, it's not conquering. Just rudeness.

Ah, so you know about science. OK.

Self fulfilling delusions can never be verified. Science MUST be verified or else it isn't science. I know about science. You obviously know nothing about it.

ALL evidence available points to this. None of which includes physical only state knowledge of modern so called science.

Then you will have no trouble at all providing verifiable evidence that the laws of nature were at some point in the past significantly different to what they are now. To paraphrase, evidence or GTFO.

In English?? What do you mean by evolution? Granny Bacteria, mother of all life? Or small changes observed in the present? Be clear. If you dare.

I mean biological evolution. Life forms changing over time in order to be suited to their environment. The processes that result in the small changes we see over short time periods are exactly the same as the ones that produce large changes over long time periods.

Geez, you try debating evolution without actually knowing anything about it!

All are incapable of recognizing what is not shown here yet.

So you admit you haven't shown any logic?

OK. Try to sound clever. The thing is, I am not kidding. So called science really has limits.

Only when you clig to myth and fantasy.

Here...as in ..this state.

I am in the state of new South Wales, in Australia. of course that's not what you mean, but you see, you are not c learly explainign what you DO mean. Repeating the same unclear request over and over doesn't make it any clearer.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I was wondering if you could post some details about your opinion on the resurrection stories and how I could go about rebutting that argument. (Just so you know this guy outright rejects the fact that we have no first hand accounts of Jesus' existence, and no idea who actually wrote the 4 gospels.

Ok, so he's got this mental picture of Jesus wandering through Israel with four men following him everywhere, notepads and pencils in their hands, frantically taking notes.

If he doesn't see anything absurd about that, it's going to be an uphill battle. But whether or not Jesus existed isn't the issue -- it's whether or not he actually said or did the things attributed to him.

Spong wrote an outstanding analysis of Matthew's description of the betrayal/arrest/crucifixian narrative -- basically, the Passover seder (which is what the Last Supper was) traditionally starts at suset and lasts 3 hours. matthew one ups this by having the whole string of events happen over 24 hours, broken up nice and neatly (far too neatly to be historical facts) into 8 3-hour blocks.

But that covers everything up to the crucifixion -- if you're looing for the resurrection, I'll have to look into that. You could, of course, point out the glaring inconsistencies in the stories, but most believers take those inconsistencies as a sign of authenticity, not of shenanigans.

Funny -- even on the most basic facts of who saw him and where, the more wrong they are, the more right they claim to be.

 

[dad]

Yeah, it's this little thing called reality

I am happy to be able to authoritatively break the news to you, that there is no reality to the same state past based dream worlds of science. None.

You're the one asking me to test something from back then.

Only if you want to claim you know about it.

No, it is typical of creationist ignorance about evolution.

Then enlighten us howso.

i observe in this state of the functioning laws of the universe? of course, what other laws can be demonstrated to exist?

In this state we have certain laws. They are not known to have existed in the far past.

My point is that if you are ignorant about quantum mechanics, you do not understand how the basis of the universe works. If you don't know about it, that's your problem. But your ignorance does not alter the fact that quantum mechanics is real and it explains things very well.

Well, you are presumptuous and vague. If YOU knew about it you could tell us something relevant about it that you thought we missed!

Self fulfilling delusions can never be verified. Science MUST be verified or else it isn't science. I know about science. You obviously know nothing about it.

A SAME STATE PAST IS not VERIFIED, THEREFORE BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

Then you will have no trouble at all providing verifiable evidence that the laws of nature were at some point in the past significantly different to what they are now. To paraphrase, evidence or GTFO.

What would you like to verify it with???? Present state laws?

I mean biological evolution. Life forms changing over time in order to be suited to their environment.

If evolving and changing was rapid in the former state, as the records indicate, then no great time is involved!

The processes that result in the small changes we see over short time periods are exactly the same as the ones that produce large changes over long time periods.

Prove it.

I am in the state of new South Wales, in Australia. of course that's not what you mean, but you see, you are not c learly explainign what you DO mean. Repeating the same unclear request over and over doesn't make it any clearer.

By state it is meant laws and forces in place.

 

[sandwiches]

A SAME STATE PAST IS not VERIFIED, THEREFORE BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

It's strange that it makes you so angry that science steamrolls right over you despite your protests.

 

[dad]

It's strange that it makes you so angry that science steamrolls right over you despite your protests.

Newsflash: science has not steamrolled over me. Really. It couldn't even Buzz Lightyear over me. It best concern itself with making a better pair of socks for my feet, or a better soap or toilet paper. It is useful in this state, and not applicable in any other.

 

[Tiberius]

I am happy to be able to authoritatively break the news to you, that there is no reality to the same state past based dream worlds of science. None.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Only if you want to claim you know about it.

And why is time travel the only answer? Things that happen in the past actually leave traces behind, y'know.

Then enlighten us howso.

I've already explained it, as have others. You obviously don't listen, so why should I waste my time saying it again?

In this state we have certain laws. They are not known to have existed in the far past.

Given that science has verified that the laws that govern the universe have been in effect since the universe was about three seconds old, I'd say you are wrong.

Well, you are presumptuous and vague. If YOU knew about it you could tell us something relevant about it that you thought we missed!

Oh, this is nice. I've already told you lots about how evolution works and the evidence for it. You refused to pay attention, and now you're getting snarky about it!

A SAME STATE PAST IS not VERIFIED, THEREFORE BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

It is verified by the fact that the traces that have been left behind are exactly as we would expect them to be if the laws back then were the same as the laws today.

What would you like to verify it with???? Present state laws?

I'll tell you what. You've obviously been able to verify that the laws back then were different. Why don't you explain the method you used so the rest of us can try it?

If evolving and changing was rapid in the former state, as the records indicate, then no great time is involved!

And what records are these, and how do they indicate it?

Prove it.

Here you go. Now, you're going to explain that away to maintain your self fulfilling delusion, aren't you?

By state it is meant laws and forces in place.

Huh?

You said that the creation didn't happen here. I said "Here" is earth, where the Bible said creation occured. You then moved the goalposts to say you meant "here as in this state", which now seems to be Dad-speak for "When God created things, the laws were different."

Am I right with this? If so, could you pelase provide a Biblical example of something that occured during creation which violates the known laws of the universe (which would neatly prove that the known laws didn't exist back then).

Newsflash: science has not steamrolled over me. Really. It couldn't even Buzz Lightyear over me. It best concern itself with making a better pair of socks for my feet, or a better soap or toilet paper. It is useful in this state, and not applicable in any other.

If you get sick and the doctor gives you antibiotics, he'd tell you to complete the entire course, even if you get better before then. Would you follow his instructions?

 

[mzungu]

Newsflash: science has not steamrolled over me. Really. It couldn't even Buzz Lightyear over me. It best concern itself with making a better pair of socks for my feet, or a better soap or toilet paper. It is useful in this state, and not applicable in any other.

Yes dear! Some tea perhaps!

 

[TheReasoner]

It's strange that it makes you so angry that science steamrolls right over you despite your protests.

The sad thing is, he's been convinced that a rather bad lie is what his entire raison d'être rests upon. His hope of eternal life, his very reason for living, and actually more than that his reason to believe he's got any value at all. So we come along and shake that foundation. We shake it, and he knows he's wrong. He can't argue against us, so he perceives us as a threat to all that is good because we threaten the lie upon which his reality is based. So, as an all too human response, he makes up more lies to justify his position. We're liars. We're sinful and bad people. Science is a conspiracy to undermine God. Scientists are devil worshippers. It's insane, of course, but I can almost understand it if we look upon it as a psychological illness. And yes, I do consider fanaticism just that. A psychological illness closely related with narcissism.

If we succeed in throwing down his rotten, corrupt basis I have little doubt he'll go through a phase of depression, he might reject God at least for a while. And he might become bitter. Natural responses to having illusions to which one adheres with fanatic fervor torn asunder. Still. I do not want that for him. No more than I want him to continue trying (subconsciously, no doubt) deceiving himself and others.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's strange that it makes you so angry that science steamrolls right over you despite your protests.

I think you'll find it's only the case where science steamrolls over their own sense of self-importance.

In any case, let's not feed them, lest we add more chaff to this thread.

 

[Supreme]

Yes dear! Some tea perhaps!

Indeed. Science is present is EVERYTHING we do- including making cups of tea (or, if you're me, coffee.)

 

[rjc34]

Indeed. Science is present is EVERYTHING we do- including making cups of tea (or, if you're me, coffee.)

Perhaps a delicious cappuccino?

 

[Hespera]

The sad thing is, he's been convinced that a rather bad lie is what his entire raison d'être rests upon. His hope of eternal life, his very reason for living, and actually more than that his reason to believe he's got any value at all. So we come along and shake that foundation. We shake it, and he knows he's wrong. He can't argue against us, so he perceives us as a threat to all that is good because we threaten the lie upon which his reality is based. So, as an all too human response, he makes up more lies to justify his position. We're liars. We're sinful and bad people. Science is a conspiracy to undermine God. Scientists are devil worshippers. It's insane, of course, but I can almost understand it if we look upon it as a psychological illness. And yes, I do consider fanaticism just that. A psychological illness closely related with narcissism.

If we succeed in throwing down his rotten, corrupt basis I have little doubt he'll go through a phase of depression, he might reject God at least for a while. And he might become bitter. Natural responses to having illusions to which one adheres with fanatic fervor torn asunder. Still. I do not want that for him. No more than I want him to continue trying (subconsciously, no doubt) deceiving himself and others.

That is one of the reasons that I long since quit saying anything to him.
I dont much think it could happen but I dont want the responsibility for doing that to someone , if I did succeed.

 

[dad]

And why is time travel the only answer? Things that happen in the past actually leave traces behind, y'know.

Not the same kind we expect if the state was the same. So far you have interpreted all traces as if it were left the one way for no reason.

Given that science has verified that the laws that govern the universe have been in effect since the universe was about three seconds old, I'd say you are wrong.

I know that to be false. The redshift, and etc etc they use to base conclusions (such as the expansion of the universe, distance...etc) cannot be thought of as under our rules, except by faith.

It is verified by the fact that the traces that have been left behind are exactly as we would expect them to be if the laws back then were the same as the laws today.

Lie. One that you will not be able to back up, as any lurker will see.

I'll tell you what. You've obviously been able to verify that the laws back then were different. Why don't you explain the method you used so the rest of us can try it?

Science doesn't know, by any method. So no method is needed, we can read history.

And what records are these, and how do they indicate it?

A different life span is noted in Sumer records...far longer. Spirits living on earth with men are recorded in Egypt. Bible records indicate different light, thermo dynamics, plant growth..etc.

Here you go. Now, you're going to explain that away to maintain your self fulfilling delusion, aren't you?

What does "nacro evolution" have to do with anything??

You said that the creation didn't happen here. I said "Here" is earth, where the Bible said creation occured. You then moved the goalposts to say you meant "here as in this state", which now seems to be Dad-speak for "When God created things, the laws were different."

In others words, games aside, creation week saw different rules in place on this earth. The differences continued on up past the flood to some degree.

Am I right with this? If so, could you pelase provide a Biblical example of something that occured during creation which violates the known laws of the universe (which would neatly prove that the known laws didn't exist back then).

http://splitmerge.webs.com/split.pdf

If you get sick and the doctor gives you antibiotics, he'd tell you to complete the entire course, even if you get better before then. Would you follow his instructions?

Not if he told me to continue talking them in heaven, or if he said he wanted Adam to take them.