Ever the Expert

[Aron-Ra]

So why not just accept His story, and give God the credit for His awesome creation?

Because we don't have "his story". All we have is a handful of interconflicting religious tomes, including the Bible, which are all man-made epic compilations of unrelated fables that have all been proven false, and which are all dead wrong about damned near everything back-to-front. For one thing, the Bible says that the Earth is covered by a giant crystal dome with windows in it that let in the rain. It also says there is water above this dome instead of the void of space, and that night is spread out over it like a curtain, or a tent, in reference to the star-studded cloak originally attributed to the Zoroastrian god, Mithra. The Bible also says that the Earth is a flat disk fixed upon pillars, and that it does not move. The Earth is also said to be the oldest thing in the whole of the universe. There is no question but that none of these claims are true. It is also a certain fact that many existing cultures were already established, all with different written and spoken languages prior to the construction of your tower of Babel, a project which was apparently abandoned in the 18th century BCE. There are also glaring contradictions and inconsistencies throughout the Bible; talking animals, animated golems, misrepresented characters, magic spells that don't work, and other absurdities too ridiculous to consider. It is also a certain fact that there was never any global flood, and that one simply couldn't have happened the way the Bible describes. But there is significant evidence that while the rest of the world remained dry, the Tigris-Euphrates flood plain was part of a brief, isolated flood of approximately 15 cubits (22 feet) over flood depth roughly 4900 years ago, just as the previously polytheist myths of Semitic ancestry detail in the oldest verifiable syllabic texts known to man. It is also a demonstrable fact that humans are apes and Old World monkeys just as surely as we are also vertebrate mammals and eukaryote animals.

So there is no evidence of any kind, nor any sort of reliable testimony, or anything from any source anywhere to imply that your magic invisible god even exists. But by your own admission, we do know that evolution happens, and there is an impressive amount of evidence which can only imply descent from an evolutionary common ancestor. But no matter how you look at it, the Bible is still wrong, and that's still a certainty whether we ever evolved or not.

 

[Ondoher]

Science is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Which is the basis of biology, which is "the science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. It includes botany and zoology and all their subdivisions."

Evolution from a Creationist/Biblical literalist perspective is science to the extent that it studies living organisms and determines how species have splintered from orginially created species. i.e The kinds of plants and animals that God created, originally, and the species that survived the global flood. The result of this definition of evolution as a science would get you a precise generic picture of what animals ((including man) were like when they walked off the ark. (Of course, you have already tuned me out, haven't you.)

The evolution you call science where the tree of life is described all the way back to a hypothetical original ancester is more a kin to history. The evolutionist is using scientific methods to classify historical events (fossils) so that a explanation how its kind evolved from its original ancestor can be derived. But no matter how scientific your methods are, the evidence available to you won't let you get past the fact that your explanation is just a story.

So why not just accept His story, and give God the credit for His awesome creation?

You did not seem to specify which part of the scientific method was skipped. Care to try again?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because we don't have "his story". All we have is a handful of interconflicting religious tomes, including the Bible, which are all man-made epic compilations of unrelated fables that have all been proven false, and which are all dead wrong about damned near everything back-to-front.

What we have is your opinion that we have a handful of interconflicting religious tomes which are man-made and wrong. I find it interesting that many of those who have actually studied ancient middle eastern religions do not share your viewpoint.

For one thing, the Bible says that the Earth is covered by a giant crystal dome with windows in it that let in the rain.

Chapter and Verse please?

It also says there is water above this dome instead of the void of space, and that night is spread out over it like a curtain, or a tent, in reference to the star-studded cloak originally attributed to the Zoroastrian god, Mithra.

Again you are citing a challenged view that Mithra is the same deity as spoken of in Zoroastrianism. The most contemporary experts in the field doubt this to be true. Regardless, the star-studded cloak pictured in your earlier photo and what you are giving as an example of "borrowing" is dated after Christ I believe, and is not Biblical in meaning but astrological in intent. Rather than determining the actual meaning behind the rendering, people have mistakenly put Biblical meaning to this image. This happens quite a lot. Skeptics put Biblical or Christian meanings into other religious dipictions which in reality do not mean what they are claiming that they mean.

The Bible also says that the Earth is a flat disk fixed upon pillars, and that it does not move.

No it doesn't.

The Earth is also said to be the oldest thing in the whole of the universe.

No, it doesn't.

There is no question but that none of these claims are true.

Of course they are wrong and they are not claims that the Bible makes.

It is also a certain fact that many existing cultures were already established, all with different written and spoken languages prior to the construction of your tower of Babel, a project which was apparently abandoned in the 18th century BCE. There are also glaring contradictions and inconsistencies throughout the Bible; talking animals, animated golems, misrepresented characters, magic spells that don't work, and other absurdities too ridiculous to consider.

There are parts of the Bible that you feel are contridictory or inconsistant. Magic spells? I don't remember this you might want to give me that chapter and verse as well.

It is also a certain fact that there was never any global flood, and that one simply couldn't have happened the way the Bible describes. But there is significant evidence that while the rest of the world remained dry, the Tigris-Euphrates flood plain was part of a brief, isolated flood of approximately 15 cubits (22 feet) over flood depth roughly 4900 years ago, just as the previously polytheist myths of Semitic ancestry detail in the oldest verifiable syllabic texts known to man. It is also a demonstrable fact that humans are apes and Old World monkeys just as surely as we are also vertebrate mammals and eukaryote animals.

I ask you, if it was only a local flood in the Tigris-Euphrates flood plain, then why are there flood stories across the globe?

So there is no evidence of any kind, nor any sort of reliable testimony, or anything from any source anywhere to imply that your magic invisible god even exists.

Yes, there is. It just so happens that you just aren't convinced of its reliability.

But by your own admission, we do know that evolution happens, and there is an impressive amount of evidence which can only imply descent from an evolutionary common ancestor. But no matter how you look at it, the Bible is still wrong, and that's still a certainty whether we ever evolved or not.

A common ancestor does not conflict with the Bible.

 

[Randall McNally]

I ask you, if it was only a local flood in the Tigris-Euphrates flood plain, then why are there flood stories across the globe?

Perhaps because the Tigris-Euprhates area isn't the only flood plain on the planet?

 

[mark kennedy]

Because we don't have "his story". All we have is a handful of interconflicting religious tomes, including the Bible, which are all man-made epic compilations of unrelated fables that have all been proven false, and which are all dead wrong about damned near everything back-to-front.

That is wrong on so many levels it is hard to respond but lets take this as far as it goes...

For one thing, the Bible says that the Earth is covered by a giant crystal dome with windows in it that let in the rain. It also says there is water above this dome instead of the void of space, and that night is spread out over it like a curtain, or a tent, in reference to the star-studded cloak originally attributed to the Zoroastrian god, Mithra.

The Bible has said nothing of the sort, it does describe the Bible as a shere long before we knew that we were living on a globe. There is water above the earth and that is part of the ecoshphere we live in. Now I don't know what to tell you about Zorastrain gods that you are fond of but that is what I managed to glean from you discusion so far.

The Bible also says that the Earth is a flat disk fixed upon pillars, and that it does not move.

I am going to need the chapter and verse on that if you dont mind.

The Earth is also said to be the oldest thing in the whole of the universe.

Again I am going to have the reference you are refering to because it sounds like a lot of off the all nonsense to me.

I really don't know what to tell you about the other rationalizations you have contrived but thanks for trying.

So there is no evidence of any kind, nor any sort of reliable testimony, or anything from any source anywhere to imply that your magic invisible god even exists. But by your own admission, we do know that evolution happens, and there is an impressive amount of evidence which can only imply descent from an evolutionary common ancestor. But no matter how you look at it, the Bible is still wrong, and that's still a certainty whether we ever evolved or not.

The evidence is all around you and you refuse to look at it. We know, if we are aware that evolution happens, but do we really know that we have a common ancestor? Or do we realize that we have a common creator? Rationalize away but God isn't going anywhere.

 

[Aron-Ra]

What we have is your opinion that we have a handful of interconflicting religious tomes which are man-made and wrong.

Each of the books of the Bible is attributed to a human author. So it is not my opinion that it is man-made. And each of the claims below are indeed wrong, so the Bible cannot be literally correct.

I find it interesting that many of those who have actually studied ancient middle eastern religions do not share your viewpoint.

That's the auto-deceptive power of faith for you.

For one thing, the Bible says that the Earth is covered by a giant crystal dome with windows in it that let in the rain.

Chapter and Verse please?

The Bible says that the Earth is covered by a giant crystal dome in Genesis 1:6-8. These are some of the same verses that mention there being water above the firmament also. The Greek word, "firmament" literally refers to a solid dome or vault. Genesis 1:20 elaborates on the vault concept. That is a crystaline or crystal-like structure is explained in Ezekiel 1:22. Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 explain that there are windows in it, to let in the water from above the firmament.

It also says there is water above this dome instead of the void of space, and that night is spread out over it like a curtain, or a tent, in reference to the star-studded cloak originally attributed to the Zoroastrian god, Mithra.

Again you are citing a challenged view that Mithra is the same deity as spoken of in Zoroastrianism. The most contemporary experts in the field doubt this to be true. Regardless, the star-studded cloak pictured in your earlier photo and what you are giving as an example of "borrowing" is dated after Christ I believe, and is not Biblical in meaning but astrological in intent. Rather than determining the actual meaning behind the rendering, people have mistakenly put Biblical meaning to this image. This happens quite a lot. Skeptics put Biblical or Christian meanings into other religious dipictions which in reality do not mean what they are claiming that they mean.

Regardless, the heavens are not stretched out like a curtain or a tent, (as the Bible asserts) in the manner suggested by Mithra's cloak. The slightest contemplation of the cosmos should demand a much different wording than what we find in the Bible.

The Bible also says that the Earth is a flat disk fixed upon pillars, and that it does not move.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. Haven't you read it? Daniel 4:11 and Matthew 4:8 both speak of circumstances which would be impossible on a globe, and could only occur on a flat surface. The Earth is describe as a map laid out on a table. Ezekial, Isaiah, and Revelations all speak of the four "corners" of the Earth, when really that word is mistranslated there. The word, "kanaph" more accurately translates as "extremities", "quadraints", or "quarters", and refers to a map being divided North to South, East to West. The word, chuwg [Strongs] in Isaiah 40:22 can be translated as a circle, which in context with everything else would imply a disk. But a more accurate contextual translation would be "compass", again implying a map of sorts. The pillars of the Earth are mentioned in 1st Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6, and Psalms, where they are described as the "foundations of the Earth", that will not permit the Earth to move, unless God wants to move it for some special occasion.

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
--Cardinal Bellarmino, Galileo's trial, 1615

The Earth is also said to be the oldest thing in the whole of the universe.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does. In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. But he didn't bother to create the sun or the moon, or any of the billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, etc., until four days later.

There is no question but that none of these claims are true.

Of course they are wrong and they are not claims that the Bible makes.

Yes it does.

It is also a certain fact that many existing cultures were already established, all with different written and spoken languages prior to the construction of your tower of Babel, a project which was apparently abandoned in the 18th century BCE. There are also glaring contradictions and inconsistencies throughout the Bible; talking animals, animated golems, misrepresented characters, magic spells that don't work, and other absurdities too ridiculous to consider.

There are parts of the Bible that you feel are contridictory or inconsistant.

There are a great many parts of the Bible that can't be reconciled with the rest of the Bible, yes. Then there are also points like Judas dying two different ways, with him buying a field with his blood money in one version, and in the other he gave it back, and the Pharisees bought the field. Then there are other little idiocies like God saying he would remove the people of Amelek from history, except that his own scribes recorded the event, ensuring that they would be remembered after all.

Magic spells? I don't remember this you might want to give me that chapter and verse as well.

Of course. In the book of Numbers, chapter 5, verses 11-28, a priest may concoct a vile potion that, (with an added enchantment) may induce an abortion, once he forces the potion down her throat, bringing on a terrible 'feminine' infection. Priests could perform forced abortions this way in order to determine a woman's faithfulness to her husband. Basically, if she is pregnant, and the child is lost, it wasn't his, and she was cheating on him. Pure genius.

My favorite spell in the Bible is in Leviticus 14. What makes it so amusing to me is that all five of the ancient elements, the points of the pentacle, (air, water, wood, Earth, and life) are included in the ritual, which counts as a black magic spell since it requires the taking of a life in order to work. Water must be run through an earthenware bowl, and a bird must be killed and bled into the bowl. Then a wooden wand is dipped in the blood, and used to sprinkle the bird's blood all over the subject of the spell. Then a second bird must also be sprinkled by the wand, and released into an open field, which is the part that involves the air since the bird cannot light immediately. This was supposed to cure infestations like scabies or lice. Of course, an added ritual to the spell involved shaving the subject, washing his clothes, and keeping him in isolation, which never should have required any magic wand dipped in bird's blood, or a bloodied bird released into the air. This was elemental witchcraft by definition, hocus pocus sorcery.

I ask you, if it was only a local flood in the Tigris-Euphrates flood plain, then why are there flood stories across the globe?

Because lots of places have flooded really badly at different times in history, and these are very memorable events. But among all the world's flood stories, the only ones that match each other are the ones from that area; the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Akkadians all had similar versions of it, that were all echoed in the Bible. But in the Greek version, there were many survivors who made it to high ground. In another version, only two people survived, and they made it by hiding in a floating clam shell. In the Chinese version, a defeated warrior threw a tantrum and accidentally tore a hole in the firmament, which let in the water from above, and the naga-goddess, Nu-kua had to come and fix the hole in the sky, and dam up the deluge to save her many subjects. There are many different flood myths from around the world, from cultures that were already there, and remained there since it happened. But the whole world was never flooded all at once, and the way the Bible tells it, it couldn't have been. For one thing, Sumer went through a period of many intense civil wars almost immediately after that event, and the first of the pyramids was erected within a couple hundred years at most. And not only should there not have been enough people around to build one in Egypt, but more were going up in China at the same time!

If you want to discuss the global flood myth by itself, we can. Because its probably the easiest thing in the whole Bible to disprove, and I know several creationists who would agree with me on that.

So there is no evidence of any kind, nor any sort of reliable testimony, or anything from any source anywhere to imply that your magic invisible god even exists.

Yes, there is. It just so happens that you just aren't convinced of its reliability.

Fine. What is it?

A common ancestor does not conflict with the Bible.

Now its your turn to explain. How does it not?

 

[Aron-Ra]

The evidence is all around you and you refuse to look at it.

Right back atcha.

We know, if we are aware that evolution happens, but do we really know that we have a common ancestor? Or do we realize that we have a common creator?

The important point is that we do know that evolution happens. And we also know for absolutely certain that at least some levels of taxonomy really do equate to a biological relationship, and probably all of them do. But we have no reason to believe creation happens. In fact, we have no reason to believe in anything supernatural at all, and that includes gods. But we do have all those other indicators in the fossil record, and in our own genes, etc., -to indicate that we are all interrelated, and not some magically-animated mud golem from an old pagan myth. You want me to believe otherwise? Give me a reason to.

Rationalize away but God isn't going anywhere.

God doesn't have to go anywhere. Just because the Bible is wrong doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. And that's probably why most Christians are evolutionists and most evolutionists are Christians. That's also probably why there is a "Christians only" evolution vs creationism board. Since you can't seem to distinguish the concept of common ancestry from that of material atheism, then perhaps you should be posting there, and not here?

 

[Jet Black]

Or do we realize that we have a common creator?

what evidence do you think there could be that we do not have a common creator?

 

[awstar]

You did not seem to specify which part of the scientific method was skipped. Care to try again?

Perhaps, "distorted" would be a better word than "skipped"

When the "scientist" refuses to consider the other explanation of why fossils are as they are when building his tree of life diagrams based on observing his fossils and genomes (or what ever he does) to see whether it evolved UP from a single ancestor, or evolved DOWN from a group of "perfect" species -- perfect meaning complete in design.

And not only refuses to consider the other explanation in building his story about evolution of life, but finds judges who will outlaw the discussion of the other explanation in our schools, just because the second explanation happens to be validated by a history written by a nation of people who claim to have been chosen by God for the purpose of revealing Himself through them.

Then I think evolution science has lost its credibility as a science. But that's only my opinion. Thank you for asking me to share it with you.

 

[kingreaper]

Perhaps, "distorted" would be a better word than "skipped"

When the "scientist" refuses to consider the other explanation of why fossils are as they are when building his tree of life diagrams based on observing his fossils and genomes (or what ever he does) to see whether it evolved UP from a single ancestor, or evolved DOWN from a group of "perfect" species -- perfect meaning complete in design.

the reason that isn't considered is that thingas like genetic evidece point to all species being related, not just pockeyts of relatedness

If that was even to be considereed, the ERV evidence would definitely put humans in the same baramin as the other great apes

 

[Jet Black]

When the "scientist" refuses to consider the other explanation of why fossils are as they are when building his tree of life diagrams based on observing his fossils and genomes (or what ever he does) to see whether it evolved UP from a single ancestor, or evolved DOWN from a group of "perfect" species -- perfect meaning complete in design.

interesting. so what testable characteristics would you expect to see from this "evolved down" from a groups of "perfect" species that you would not be able to find in "evolved up from a single ancestor"* and what would the single ancestor model predict that the multiple ancestors would not? In short, how would you propose differentiating the two. You also suggest the existance of "perfect" ancestors. well how do we determine what perfection is. Would it be possible to identify these ancestral groups and if so, how?




*Woese(2002) indicates that this may not be possible as a result of horizontal gene transfer between species amongst our most distant ancestors, rendering the earliest ancestors an ancestral group rather than an individual

 

[TheUndeadFish]

When the "scientist" refuses to consider the other explanation of why fossils are as they are when building his tree of life diagrams based on observing his fossils and genomes (or what ever he does) to see whether it evolved UP from a single ancestor, or evolved DOWN from a group of "perfect" species -- perfect meaning complete in design.

But the order in which fossils are found simply does support this. I suppose you'd want these "prefect" species to be things like an original dog species, and a cat species, and a crocodile species, and so on. When looking at the fossil record, you can probably trace all dog-like animals so a single species. But that species has further ancestors, which trace back further. Go back a while and you find that cats and dogs have a common ancestor. But that can't be the perfect starting species because it too has ancestors. Go back far enough and all mammals have an ancestor. Further back, reptiles and mammals have a common ancestor. And further still, all vertebrates.

There simply aren't multiple separate trees of ancestry from "prefect" creatures appearing out of nowhere at the same time. But there is a single tree of ancestry for everything.

And then you add on genetic analysis (as already mentioned) which agrees with this tree built from the fossil record.

Perfect species and such might have been considered 150 years ago, but such a drastic alternative is no longer considered because the evidence is stacked against it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm back.

Of course. In the book of Numbers, chapter 5, verses 11-28, a priest may concoct a vile potion that, (with an added enchantment) may induce an abortion, once he forces the potion down her throat, bringing on a terrible 'feminine' infection. Priests could perform forced abortions this way in order to determine a woman's faithfulness to her husband. Basically, if she is pregnant, and the child is lost, it wasn't his, and she was cheating on him. Pure genius.

Below is the passage. It says nothing about abortion. The vile potion of which you speak is Holy water and dust from the temple. I am sure that if mud were to cause an abortion the abortion debate would be null and void, as women would simply go to their back doors and grab some dust mix it with water and wa-la no baby. Unless it is the blessing that causes the abortion but again, it doesn't say anything about abortion. It also doesn't say anything about a great female infection. What it says is that if she has not defiled herself (adultry) then the "spell" will not make her barren but if she has it will and she will suffer exclusion from the community. But and this is the point that is most important, if she is not defiled (her belly becoming destended then her husband is then ridiculed and faces great mockery from his jealousy. This ritual is sometimes referred to as "the jealousy ritual" for good reason. In that culture a woman didn't have legal standing and a man could accuse her unrightly of adultry and throw her away. This was a safe guard against that action. It was the woman's only protection. Men were unlikely to make unwarrented accusations in fear of the ridicule they might receive should it be proven false against their wives.



11The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 12Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: If any mans wife has gone astray and broken faith with him 13in that a man has had carnal relations with her unbeknown to her husband, and she keeps secret the fact that she has defiled herself without being forced, and there is no witness against her 14but a fit of jealousy comes over him and he is wrought up about the wife who has defiled herself; or if a fit of jealousy comes over one and he is wrought up about his wife although she has not defiled herself 15the man shall bring his wife to the priest. And he shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. No oil shall be poured upon it and no frankincense shall be laid on it, for it is a meal offering of jealousy, a meal offering of remembrance which recalls wrongdoing. 16The priest shall bring her forward and have her stand before the Lord. 17The priest shall take sacral water in an earthen vessel and, taking some of the earth that is on the floor of the Tabernacle, the priest shall put it into the water. 18After he has made the woman stand before the Lord, the priest shall bare the womans head ( See note at Lev. 10.6.) and place upon her hands the meal offering of remembrance, which is a meal offering of jealousy. And in the priests hands shall be the water of bitterness ( Meaning of Heb. uncertain )that induces the spell. ( Meaning of Heb. uncertain ) 19The priest shall adjure the woman, saying to her, If no man has lain with you, if you have not gone astray in defilement while married to your husband, be immune to harm from this water of bitterness that induces the spell. 20But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and have defiled yourself, if a man other than your husband has had carnal relations with you 21here the priest shall administer the curse of adjuration to the woman, as the priest goes on to say to the woman may the Lord make you a curse and an imprecation among your people, as the Lord causes your thigh to sag and your belly to distend; ( Meaning of Heb. uncertain ) 22may this water that induces the spell enter your body, causing the belly to distend and the thigh to sag. And the woman shall say, Amen, amen! 23The priest shall put these curses down in writing and rub it off into the water of bitterness. 24He is to make the woman drink the water of bitterness that induces the spell, so that the spell-inducing water may enter into her to bring on bitterness. 25Then the priest shall take from the womans hand the meal offering of jealousy, elevate the meal offering before the Lord, and present it on the altar. 26The priest shall scoop out of the meal offering a token part of it and turn it into smoke on the altar. Last, he shall make the woman drink the water. 27Once he has made her drink the water if she has defiled herself by breaking faith with her husband, the spell-inducing water shall enter into her to bring on bitterness, so that her belly shall distend and her thigh shall sag; and the woman shall become a curse among her people. 28But if the woman has not defiled herself and is pure, she shall be unharmed and able to retain seed. 29This is the ritual in cases of jealousy, when a woman goes astray while married to her husband and defiles herself, 30or when a fit of jealousy comes over a man and he is wrought up over his wife: the woman shall be made to stand before the Lord and the priest shall carry out all this ritual with her. 31The man shall be clear of guilt; but that woman shall suffer for her guilt.

My favorite spell in the Bible is in Leviticus 14. What makes it so amusing to me is that all five of the ancient elements, the points of the pentacle, (air, water, wood, Earth, and life) are included in the ritual, which counts as a black magic spell since it requires the taking of a life in order to work. Water must be run through an earthenware bowl, and a bird must be killed and bled into the bowl. Then a wooden wand is dipped in the blood, and used to sprinkle the bird's blood all over the subject of the spell. Then a second bird must also be sprinkled by the wand, and released into an open field, which is the part that involves the air since the bird cannot light immediately. This was supposed to cure infestations like scabies or lice. Of course, an added ritual to the spell involved shaving the subject, washing his clothes, and keeping him in isolation, which never should have required any magic wand dipped in bird's blood, or a bloodied bird released into the air. This was elemental witchcraft by definition, hocus pocus sorcery.

Again this is due to a lack of understanding of what this presents. This is as many rituals a symbolic representation of Christ's death and resurrection. This is a interpretation of this ritual below.

http://w3.byuh.edu/academics/religion/muhlestk/leper.htm

Because lots of places have flooded really badly at different times in history, and these are very memorable events. But among all the world's flood stories, the only ones that match each other are the ones from that area; the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Akkadians all had similar versions of it, that were all echoed in the Bible.

That is not true, there are similiar flood stories in Austrailian aboriginal culture and as many as 200 to 300 different cultures have flood stories that share at least two to three aspects of the flood.

If you want to discuss the global flood myth by itself, we can. Because its probably the easiest thing in the whole Bible to disprove, and I know several creationists who would agree with me on that.

Me personally, I haven't an informed opinion and lack sufficient knowledge on the subject to discuss it.

Fine. What is it?

I tried to go back and find what this was referring to but I can't find it.

Now its your turn to explain. How does it not?

Same thing here, sorry. Tooooo mannnnny pagggggeeeeessssss.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Yes, the authors that wrote down the words are human but those same humans who wrote down those words many times did not even understand what they were writing. They held wrote the words but many times they were unaware of what meaning they held.

You make false claims and then call them wrong.

No I don't. But you just did when you said that the Biblical authors had no idea what they were saying. That comment was unsupported by anything, and in the context of the rest of their works, as well as the works of there ancestors and their neighbors, there is no reason to believe your comment is true. You have just made a false claim where I still have not.

So unless the experts in the field agree with you they are deceived?

If they base thier conclusions on evidence, then they are based on logic and reason, and their positions will be tentative based on reason also. If they base their positions on faith instead, then they will do as you, and rationalize as desperately as they need to without ever considering that they should change their mind on anything. They will even lie to themselves and others if they have to, because faith is defined as a position that will not change no matter what the facts are.

The Bible says that the Earth is covered by a giant crystal dome in Genesis 1:6-8.

6God said, Let there be an expanse in the midst of the water, that it may separate water from water. 7God made the expanse, and it separated the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse. And it was so. 8God called the expanse Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.


I don't see a crystal dome mentioned here, do you?

Yes. I thought I made it clear that the firmament/expanse being a giant dome or vault in the sky was a common belief at the time, not just with the Hebrews but even with some of their distant neighbors as far away as China.

But we don't look to the Greek wording when we want to find the original intent or word meaning for the Bible but we look at the wording in Hebrew. In the Hebrew translations the word firmament is expanse.

It doesn't matter since the same image is expressed. But there are several places in the Bible where words are translated for their flow in prose more than their actual meaning. So these should be considered (and reconsidered) when trying to understand the original intent.

Genesis 1:20? How does this elaborate on the vault conception:

20God said, Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and birds that fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.

Because the expanse mentioned here also has not only the clouds in it, but the sun, the moon, and the stars also. Then above the sun and the stars is the barrier of the "expanse", and above that is water. Anyone who understood the cosmos or the sky as they really were wouldn't have explained these this way.

This image is not in the Bible. This is someone's interpretation of what the early Hebrews believed which has nothing to do with the Bible.

But it does have something to do with the Bible. It is an illustration of the way the Bible describes the expanse you're talking about. And when you read the Bible, you find that it really does support this image, and never contradicts it.

As far as Mithra's cloak, I have stated repeatedly that the image of the cloak was dated after Isaiah which was the example you gave to show the connection.

That image, (the painting in the Mithraeum) was just barely more recent than Jesus. But the belief was not, as I have already shown you. And it wouldn't matter if it was, because the night sky is still not spread out like a curtain or a tent.

In this specific chapter, it is more poetic than scientifically exact. It was meant that way.

So when there are places in 100% infallible Bible that don't make sense, it is because those passages weren't meant to, or the authors had no idea what they were saying. Any excuse will work as long as you can avoid the inevitable admission that many of their claims were wrong, and based on the limited knowledge and common beliefs of the Bronze age.

I am sorry that it wasn't written for your satisfaction.

Had it been the "word of God", it would have been.

In my opinion, the way it is written fits quite well with the reality of what we find in our universe.

I don't even think that is your real opinion. Because the Bible's descriptions certainly don't fit anything we find in the real universe.

Are you mistaken on the chapter and verse? Daniel 4:11 is about his dream.


11 He cried aloud, and said thus: Hew down the tree, and cut off its branches, shake off its leaves, and scatter its fruit; let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from its branches. 12 Nevertheless leave the stump of its roots in the earth, even in a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth; 13 Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him. 14 The matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the holy ones; to the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the lowest of men.

No. I said this passage described a circumstance which would be impossible on a globe, and could only occur on a flat surface. And Daniel's dream does that, which can only imply that Daniel believed the Earth to be flat, as everyone else did at the time.

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

This time you have given an example that at least on the surface seems to be making your point. But even if this spoke of a flat surface, anyone in their right mind would not think that all the kingdoms of the world could be seen on an exceedingly high mountain. They must have most certainly been giving a symbolic rendering to the event.

But they did believe that it was possible to view all of the kingdoms of the Earth from a great height. Since no one then ever thought man could fly, then the only way to convey this image was with a mountain of great height. But God's countanance over the map of the world, the compass of the Earth was clearly expressed also.

We know that Satan is the ruler of this world and that this speaks to that.

What a silly thing to say! We don't 'know' any such thing. Niether do we have any reason to believe that. In fact, I would say that we have a lot of good reasons to believe that isn't true at all.

What's really sad here is what is going on in this story is missed by all the believers. What evil has Satan really done? Especially compared to the evils God has done! All Satan did, his only crime, was to try to reason with Jesus. That's it. That's why he is Ahriman the opposer, HaShai'tan, the opposer of faith. He is trying to reason with believers, and that is a capitol crime in the mind that is based on faith.

None of you even realize who your devil was supposed to be. Anyone who tries to reason with believers is said to be Satan, including me.

Please when you give examples would you give the exact chapter and verse. I have so little time that when I have to go and look each of these up to see what they actually say I don't have time to respond.

We know in this day and age that the earth is a globe but we still use the four directions to navigate it. I don't find this alarming at all and I most certainly don't feel that speaking about North, South, East or West means flat.

Because the Bible says these four extreme quarters can all be seen at once from a great height, and that the whole of this map-like Earth is mounted on pillars, like a table, and covered with a domicile firmament such as could not exist on a sphere.

22 It is He that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in;

The whole chapter is in poetic form but even with that a circle does not necessarily mean disk.

It must be so convenient to dismiss line after line as "poetic" whenever they don't make sense in context. But this passage does not and cannot refer to a sphere either, since God is now able to view the whole of the Earth from his great height. This image was popularly believed at one time, as illustrated by the 15th Century monk, Hieronymus Bosch. On the cover panels of the Garden of Earthly Delights, Bosch painted the world as a flat disk, beneath a glass firmament, with God sitting in countanance above it all, just as is described in Isaiah. So the impression given by the wording of the Bible has lead Christians to this same impression, which is another reason to believe that it is not the wording of God, but of men who (as you say) didn't know any better when they wrote it.

Then Job answered and said: 2 Of a truth I know that it is so; and how can man be just with God? 3 If one should desire to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one of a thousand. 4 He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength; who hath hardened himself against Him, and prospered? 5 Who removeth the mountains, and they know it not, when He overturneth them in His anger. 6 Who shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

Pillars of the earth or pillars of the temple? We don't know here.

Look also for mention of "the foundations of the Earth", another concept that fits my illustration, but which is inapplicable to the sphere that the Earth really is.

This is as far as I have time for. I will try to get back later.

I'm looking forward to it. Don't forget to post your reply to my earlier post too. I'm still waiting for that one.

 

[william jay schroeder]

Aron ra can you explain the rather small amount of mud in the ocean if the earth is millions of years old. the lack of helium in the atmosphere. Helium from decaying organisms over a billion years would be pretty large. lack of stone age skelotons sense the were around prosumily for 100,000 years before evolving to the now human, and the amount of dinosaurs found wich supposedly were around millions of years before them. the strata are to tightly bent with out cracking, which makes them needing to be soft at the time.

 

[icebreaker]

Perhaps others (even myself) are guilty of doing the same, however the difference I notice with the evolutionists, is that we tend to put forth a significant amount of evidence and analysis of the evidence, and this is something I think is lacking from the creationist side.

Jet.

We are both guilty of just being biased and not wanting to hear what the other side has to say.

I see alot of posts that are just cut and paste from talk origins just like im sure alot of creationists use our webpages such as AIG and ICR

 

[kingreaper]

Aron ra can you explain the rather small amount of mud in the ocean if the earth is millions of years old.

Ever heard of plate tectonics? subduction? etc.

the lack of helium in the atmosphere.

Helium can escape from the upper atmosphere

Helium from decaying organisms over a billion years would be pretty large.

What organism uses helium? its a noble gas, totally unreactive

lack of stone age skelotons sense the were around prosumily for 100,000 years before evolving to the now human,

The stone age WAS HUMANS

Fossilisation is relatively rare

and the amount of dinosaurs found wich supposedly were around millions of years before them.

fossilisation is a rare event, and preservation of fossils is equally rare

the strata are to tightly bent with out cracking, which makes them needing to be soft at the time.

If you bend rocks slowly enough over millions of years they will slowly bend, if you apply large force at once they will crack, many objects behave like this

 

[Vance]

Here is the information on Helium:





The young-Earth argument goes something like this: helium-4 is created by radioactive decay (alpha particles are helium nuclei) and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth's gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than two hundred thousand years, therefore the Earth is young. (I believe this argument was originally put forth by Mormon young-Earther Melvin Cook, in a letter to the editor which was published in Nature.)

But helium can and does escape from the atmosphere, at rates calculated to be nearly identical to rates of production. In order to "get" a young age from their calculations, young-Earthers "handwave away" mechanisms by which helium can escape. For example, Henry Morris says:

"There is no evidence at all that Helium 4 either does, or can, escape from the exosphere in significant amounts." ( Morris 1974, p. 151 )​

But Morris is wrong. Surely one cannot "invent" a good dating mechanism by simply ignoring processes which work in the opposite direction of the process which the date is based upon. Dalrymple says:

"Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2 /sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss." ( Dalrymple 1984, p. 112 )

From TO
​

 

[Mistermystery]

We are both guilty of just being biased and not wanting to hear what the other side has to say.

I'm sorry, but I listen constanly to you guys points, and I've heard them all before in the short time I've been here. It's like a broken record that keeps on playing.

I see alot of posts that are just cut and paste from talk origins just like im sure alot of creationists use our webpages such as AIG and ICR

I demand that you take that back. I only use talk origins when dealing in the same pratts over and over. Like your post above yours. I for one try to invest time into my responces, and investegate which is true or if it can be falsified. Look for the quiet thread on the first page if you want to know what I mean.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Aron ra can you explain the rather small amount of mud in the ocean if the earth is millions of years old.

Yes. The "Insufficient Seafloor Mud" argument, (that there is a constant rate of accumulation of seafloor mud on ocean floors, and that in three billion years the mud would reach a thickness of some kilometers) doesn't recognize that deposition rates aren't constant, and that Earth's existing ocean basins are "among its youngest features," ranging from recent at the crests of midoceanic ridges to as old as Jurassic, some 150 million years in age; certainly not billions of years. The Earth is dynamic, . I am a science major, studying historical geology, and the first thing you have to realize about the Earth is that it is dynamic -with old sea basins being uplifted, or recycled in transduction, and new basins being formed over hundreds of millions of years. However the "missing mud" which creationists say evolution demands actually can be found in numerous places, such as the Mentawai Islands near Sumatra.
[source: New Mexicans for Science and Reason]

the lack of helium in the atmosphere. Helium from decaying organisms over a billion years would be pretty large.

This is another PRATT, (Point Refuted A Thousand Times) and I suspect it is not one of your genuine concerns, but rather something you're parroting from one of your creationist resources. So it would only be appropriate for me to respond in kind, if so many others hadn't already addressed this.

lack of stone age skelotons sense the were around prosumily for 100,000 years before evolving to the now human,

We now have the fossil fragments of a few thousand individuals from a few million years ago to about the date you're talking about. So I don't see why you call it a "lack" of fossils. Nor do I know why you think any of those within the last few hundred thousand years aren't human. Can you explain that?

a

nd the amount of dinosaurs found wich supposedly were around millions of years before them.

Some 750 species so far, with new ones found all the time. What about them? And what about all the other paleofauna out there? Like the pelycosaurs and cynodonts? How do you explain them? What about the fossil anapsids that came prior to the dinosaurs? Turtles on the half shell, or with no shell at all, and teeth, but still obviously turtles. How do you explain devonian stegocephalians? Fish with lungs, feet, and toes? Or the subsequent amphibians which still retain thier gills, and even the ray bones of their ancestral fishy tails? This is to say nothing of all the different species of pterosaur, and all the transitions we know of leading to elasmosaurs, mosasaurs and ichthyosaurs. I'm studying paleontology, so I already know about a thousand more species than you'll likely ever hear of.

the strata are to tightly bent with out cracking, which makes them needing to be soft at the time.

No sir. Metamorphic rock can bend, and I've seen strata where it has been bent severely. But it must be bent very slowly, which is why Young Earth Creationism can't account for it.

Now let me ask you this; why do you argue for a young Earth? Why do you reject all the collective genius of all the peer-reviewed scientists, including every last one of the Nobel laureates, choose instead to follow small time charlatans like Morris, Hovind and Gish, who can all be refuted so soundly and so easily? None of them can even explain why you're an ape! And speaking for yourself, without parroting from creationist quote mines and propaganda mills, can you tell me what is your real contention? Because I don't think you really care about any quantity of mud or gasses, and wouldn't even consider changing your mind based on such things anyway no matter what. So what do you really care about? And what could I show you that really would change your mind? And why?