Evolution is the Great Apostasy

[Jet Black]

crikey, it seems that back then you couldn't move for countries slipping around the place. One morning it must have been a ten minute walk to work, the next day it could be a two thousand mile round trip. I am glad things have settled down a bit, and we only have to travel a few extra centimetres each year to get to the US. I think it would be awfully confusing for pilots in the modern day and age to lose a country on their trans-atlantic trips.

"b*gger, where did America go? it was here yesterday"

 

[Bruce D McKay Elijah]

Why yes. I like the red-hearing ancient map routine!
It shows . . . (nothing) How inventive!

Anyone can figure out why didn't you post the Piri Reis Map!

To see the Piri Reis Map, just bring up:

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

Here is a brief summary posted there, on some of the most unusual findings about the Piri Reis map:

Scrutiny of the map shows that the makers knew the accurate circumference of the Earth to within 50 miles.

The coastline and island that are shown in Antarctica must have been navigated at some period prior to 4,000 B.C. when these areas were free of ice from the last Ice Age.

The map is thought to be one of the earliest "world maps" to show the Americas. Early scholars suggested that it showed accurate latitudes of the South American and African coastlines - only 21 years after the voyages of Columbus! (And remember, Columbus did NOT discover North America - only the Caribbean!) Writing in Piri Re'is own hand described how he had made the map from a collection of ancient maps, supplemented by charts that were drawn by Columbus himself. This suggests that these ancient maps were available to Columbus and could have been the basis of his expedition.
The "center" of the source map projected from coordinates in what is now Alexandria - the center of culture and home of the world's oldest and largest library until its destruction by Christian invaders.

Elijah

 

[lucaspa]

Got any links? I still don't think it's that they don't WANT to believe, they just don't see any reason believe and therefore respond to what they think is absurd as they do.

Go to www.skeptics.com It goes far beyond that. They trash the science as soon as the science showed them something they didn't like: an effect of intercessory prayer.

For instance, for the Harris et al. paper, they accused the authors of making up the scale used to judge outcome in a coronary ICU solely so they could get positive results. However, if you read the Methods section, you see that the scale was devised ahead of time and the blinded results were sent to the statistician (who was out of state) to evaluate. They had no idea the results were positive until the statistician did the analysis! Blatant lying about the methods and character assassination on the authors. All because they didn't like the results.

The same is done in criticisms of Byrd's paper. One of the most common criticisms is that both groups had outside prayer being conducted and therefore the results were flawed. However, they didn't stop to think what the effects of outside prayer on the control group would be. If they had used their "critical thinking skills", they would have seen that the outsideprayer would have tended to destroy any difference between groups, not make a difference where none existed. So outside prayer cannot account for the difference between groups that Byrd saw.

I burned my lip on a Hot Pocket last week. I prayed every day that it would heal. IT DID! It's all gone now, can't tell I was burned. After 6 days of no answer to my prayer, it healed!

Funny. However, that wasn't a prospective double blind study. Therefore it is anecdotal and, as we have noted in other threads, anecdotal data is often misleading. It is here. When the correct prospective double blind studies were done for patients in a coronary ICU, then there was a difference between the group receiving extra intercessory prayer (you were praying for yourself and, given your personality, I can see several reasons why a deity might not answer your prayers ) did have statistically significantly different outcomes from controls. The Harris et al. study repeated the Byrd study but correcting for the criticisms leveled at it. So now you have replicated data. What do you do? Well, the militant atheists do just what the creationists do when they encounter data the creationists don't like: they dump science!

 

[lucaspa]

Why yes. I like the red-hearing ancient map routine!
It shows . . . (nothing) How inventive!

Anyone can figure out why didn't you post the Piri Reis Map!

To see the Piri Reis Map, just bring up:

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

From the site:
"In 1929, a group of historians found an amazing map drawn on a gazelle skin.
Research showed that it was a genuine document drawn in 1513 by Piri Reis, a famous admiral of the Turkish fleet in the sixteenth century.
His passion was cartography. His high rank within the Turkish navy allowed him to have a privileged access to the Imperial Library of Constantinople.
The Turkish admiral admits in a series of notes on the map that he compiled and copied the data from a large number of source maps, some of which dated back to the fourth century BC or earlier."

Here is a brief summary posted there, on some of the most unusual findings about the Piri Reis map:

Scrutiny of the map shows that the makers knew the accurate circumference of the Earth to within 50 miles.

So? Erasthones figured out the circumference of the earth in the 4th century BC. Piri Reis had access to many maps made later than that discovery.

The coastline and island that are shown in Antarctica must have been navigated at some period prior to 4,000 B.C. when these areas were free of ice from the last Ice Age.

Not necessarily. Look at the coastline of S. America. It is terribly, terribly wrong. What it looks like is that Reis made some judgement calls from conflicting maps and just coincidentally got Antarctica like it is under the ice. Certainly if the map was so accurate then the coastline of S. America would be accurate.

The map is thought to be one of the earliest "world maps" to show the Americas. Early scholars suggested that it showed accurate latitudes of the South American and African coastlines - only 21 years after the voyages of Columbus! (And remember, Columbus did NOT discover North America - only the Caribbean!) Writing in Piri Re'is own hand described how he had made the map from a collection of ancient maps, supplemented by charts that were drawn by Columbus himself. This suggests that these ancient maps were available to Columbus and could have been the basis of his expedition.
The "center" of the source map projected from coordinates in what is now Alexandria - the center of culture and home of the world's oldest and largest library until its destruction by Christian invaders.

Right. So in the library at Constantinople were maps perhaps made by the Vikings (remember, Vikings did journey to Constantinople and served in the Royal Guard). So what's the mystery? Reis made a composit map, got lucky with Antarctica but blew S. America and parts of N. America.

 

[MQTA]

Funny. However, that wasn't a prospective double blind study. Therefore it is anecdotal and, as we have noted in other threads, anecdotal data is often misleading. It is here. When the correct prospective double blind studies were done for patients in a coronary ICU, then there was a difference between the group receiving extra intercessory prayer (you were praying for yourself and, given your personality, I can see several reasons why a deity might not answer your prayers ) did have statistically significantly different outcomes from controls.

Thanks.

When I posted on the many groups I am in that my mother was undergoing open heart surgery, for 3 days people said they were praying for her. Thousands of people, from all over the planet. Didn't help. There were complications from the start and after 9 hours they lost her.

Going to insult my mother now too?

 

[MQTA]

Go to www.skeptics.com It goes far beyond that. They trash the science as soon as the science showed them something they didn't like: an effect of intercessory prayer.

For instance, for the Harris et al. paper, they accused the authors of making up the scale used to judge outcome in a coronary ICU solely so they could get positive results. However, if you read the Methods section, you see that the scale was devised ahead of time and the blinded results were sent to the statistician (who was out of state) to evaluate. They had no idea the results were positive until the statistician did the analysis! Blatant lying about the methods and character assassination on the authors. All because they didn't like the results.

The same is done in criticisms of Byrd's paper. One of the most common criticisms is that both groups had outside prayer being conducted and therefore the results were flawed. However, they didn't stop to think what the effects of outside prayer on the control group would be. If they had used their "critical thinking skills", they would have seen that the outsideprayer would have tended to destroy any difference between groups, not make a difference where none existed. So outside prayer cannot account for the difference between groups that Byrd saw.

Thanks. I read most of that site. I read both sides and what people have to say... most of the time it doesn't really matter in my day to day life anyway. I don't lose sleep over these things. I'm glad you spent all this time researchign and learning these things and are happy to share your findings.

Dump science! I like that. But everyone does that, no matter their beliefs.. they pick and choose whether they see it or not.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

The Piris Reis map does NOT show Antarctica. This is terrible scholarship that has been known for years. The bottom of the map is just the continuation of Brazil to Argentina wrapping around the bottom of the map.

The map is also known for some gross errors in placement and in know way did the drawer of the map know the Earth's circumference to within 50 miles.

 

[lucaspa]

No, it's not true. I, for one, would love it if God existed, and I would certainly be eager to believe if anyone could give me any evidence that he does.

Theists have been giving you evidence for centuries. It's just that you don't accept the evidence as valid. Not that the evidence isn't there.

Look at the last verse in the gospel of John. It states quite clearly that the account is evidence so you will believe.

Several trustworthy people on this Forum have stated that they have personal experiences that convinces them that God exists. That's evidence. But you don't accept the evidence as valid.

So don't give us "there is no evidence" ****. You sound like a creationist. At least be honest with yourself and admit what the situation is.

 

[lucaspa]

Thanks. I read most of that site. I read both sides and what people have to say.

What "both sides"? Did you read the original papers? Or are you just reading the commentaries.

Dump science! I like that. But everyone does that, no matter their beliefs.. they pick and choose whether they see it or not.

And that's the point. Atheists here have been claiming that they will accept evidence if it exists. One of the attributes of deity is that it answers prayers. So, when intercessory prayer is shown to have an effect, what happens? Do the atheists start to change their mind? No. Instead of relinquishing their beleif, they decide science is wrong.

Now, I know creationism does the same thing. However, that doesn't bug me so much because the professional creationists are at least honest in their motivations. However, the people at skeptics.com say they are "critical thinkers" and accept science. Yet as soon as they get data that might go against their beliefs, they stop being critical thinkers and dump science. In their terms, "critical thinking" means only showing theism to be wrong. Apparently you are never to critically think about the atheism.

 

[lucaspa]

Thanks.

When I posted on the many groups I am in that my mother was undergoing open heart surgery, for 3 days people said they were praying for her. Thousands of people, from all over the planet. Didn't help. There were complications from the start and after 9 hours they lost her.

Going to insult my mother now too?

I didn't insult you. You still have anecdotal information, not a scientific study.

On a personal note, you seem to think prayer is a deux ex machina that always works and will always save. What's more, you think that your selfish wishes should be granted. People are mortal. They are going to die sometime. You say there were complications. Physician caused or caused by other medical conditions your mother had? If your mother's body was worn out, are you really sure you should have wanted her to keep living?

In the studies, mortality wasn't changed between groups. Some conditions are just so bad that the person is going to die. What intercessory prayer did was ease the complications for those who were going to live.

 

[lucaspa]

Lastly, I know that if you were a NDE'er, as I am, after having been out of here and into the next dimension of Heaven - you wouldn't waste a single moment in regard to readily receving the word of God!

So you had a personal experience that convinced you God exists. Fine. However, why can't you understand that people who have not had your experience might doubt it?

Now, why in the world did you think the NDE involved a wormhole? It's not your experience that gives us problems, Elijah, it's the illogical jumping to conclusions from that experience.

 

[lucaspa]

Secondly, the issue about the ice caps melting - shows how INVENTIVE the whole camp of evolutionists have been. There is a philosophy prejudicial to relgion, that sets up the wisdom of man in competition with the wisdom of God.

Elijah, WHO CREATED? Who put all the evidence in the physical universe that science studies? Now, who makes the interpretations of the Bible?

What we have is the evidence God placed in His Creation vs the "wisdom" of some men in insisting on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. I'll choose God, thank you.

That is, the system of logic behind evolution was drafted to pre-date every religious text, and so the major points in logic in it, are in fact false.

Excuse me? What system of logic is that?

They have always been false, and I dare say, just do a search on the "Piri Reis Map" and you will actually see the whole artic region at the top of this world - when it had no ice whatsoever!

The map doesn't show this.

If what we think to be true of "geological time" was in fact true - there could be no such map showing what is far beneath the ice in an area.

Yes, there could be such a map, since the map could be coincidence.

accurately depected the Amazon basins of South America and the northern coastline of Antarcita,

The map you showed me did not have an accurate depiction of the Amazon basin.

Evolution then, cannot be true - AND IT IS MELTING AWAY - just as the polar ice caps are "melting away!"

I think you are using "evolution" different from how we are using it. You seem to be using "evolution" as synonymous with science.

If it were true! If it were true! If evolution were indeed true(!) then all we would have to worry about would be the very gradual rise of water level, all over the globe. That conclusion, is in perfect keeping with the dicates of evolutionary logic. Please be aware of that fact! If the whole system of logic is only a fabrication in the first place, however, then we have far more to consider! For one thing, you need only take the time to mentally just try to caculate the tremendous WEIGHT involved, of all that water being moved to other areas of the globe - from where it is now as a stable solid!

And what does a liquid do? It evenly distributes! When the ice cube melts in a glass, does the glass suddenly tip over? Right now the "tremendous weight" is, as you noted, fixed. Why doesn't the earth's orbit wobble? It shoud, by your logic. But when melted the liquid water will simply evenly distribute around the globe, just as it evenly distributes in a glass.

A second, more pressing factor that I see the real problem is the possibility "popping up," is a very sudden massive breaking of the ice that could rapidly leads to a shift in the actual "regular" orbital spin of the planet itself.

Why? According to you, that destabilization of the orbital spin should already be taking place because the ice is in its present position.

Moreover, look at what they are saying now about the ice melting, even on other planets. (I guess the "greenhouse effect" involves a much bigger greenhouse than anyone previously imagined!)

What are "they" saying?

They have not a clue all because the books known as "the Apocrypha" were all taken out.

Science is in trouble because Christians didn't include some books in the Bible?

It was not at the time of the King James Bible, however, as everyone has been led to believe. They stayed in - all the time up till the American Bible Society started sending Bibles to other nations in the early 1800's.

Oh, boy, Elijah, you are now into real fantasy land. The Apocrypha were excluded in the 4th-6th centuries AD.

That is also when the whole scheme of evolutional thinking was drafted into Western Civilization - and then, the rest of the world. If you look at it's orgins, Darwin's own father was a member of the "Lunar Society..." which graduated into "The Royal Society,"

Your history is bad. THe Royal Society was formed long before. Remember, Isaac Newton was a member of the Royal Society. You know, you can look this stuff up on the web. http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Societies/RShistory.html The Royal Society was founded in 1645! Long before Erasmus Darwin was born.

But, let's take another tack. Let's say that the Apocrypah didn't get really knocked out of the Bible.

Have you looked at the Apocrypha? Have you read the Infant Gospel of Thomas? They were left out of the canon for very good theological reasons.

"The earth trembles to its foundations. The sea is stirred to its depths, and its waves are thrown into confusion, and its fish also, at hte presence of the Lord, and the glory of his might. For his right arm that bends the bow is strong, his arrows that he shoots are sharp; they will not miss when they begin to be shot to the ends of the earth. (II Esdras 16:12 Goodspeed ed)

So we have all come down to this. The Bible is the final authority and we are to ignore God's Creation. Not exactly new, Elijah. The only difference is we are supposed to include the Apocrypha, and ignore the really bad theology there!

In other words, I do firmly believe that the new heaven and the new earth - are right around the corrner!

So you are a new end-of-the-worlder. Join Paul and many others thru the history of Christianity. Of course, you can ignore Jesus when he said that only the Father knows the day and hour, but why listen to Jesus when you can read the Apocrypha and listen to you?

You can read more about it in this same forurm in various places where I have discussed what happens when there is a slight shift in the overall system of molecular forces.

You never have answered what these "shifts in molecular forces" are. What are they? Please be specific.

 

[JohnR7]

Now, who makes the interpretations of the Bible?

lucaspa, we have talked about this before. I am surprised that you have forgotten. There are standard common sense guidelines for understanding the Bible. I think if more people would apply those guidelines, it would help them out quite a bit to understand the message in the word of God.

1) You have to ask, who wrote this book. Now I know that liberals try to confuse the issue as to who "really" wrote the book. But to understand the Bible, it is best just to take it at face value.

2) Who is the book written to. This is important, because you have to look at the origional language, and you have to look at the origional intended audience.

3) Once you have established who wrote the Bible and who they were writing to, THEN you can begin to ask: "What is the messge in this for me. What is the message of the Bible for who I am and where I am.

You have to remember, your not the origional intended reader. Also you have to remember, they are NOT talking your language. They are not looking at things from your perspective.

For example, look at Noah. The book was written from Noah's perspective, sitting upon the Ark. It is not a scientific account written from your perspective and where your sitting at. If you had written an account of the flood from where your at, I am sure it would be a totally different account of things then they way they were written from Noah's viewpoint. As well as the perspective of Moses, who is suppose to be the one telling us the story.

Now, what purpose did Moses intend in writting this account for the Hebrew people. What is the meaning for us today. Also, the flood was written from the perspective of what was known about science at the time it was written. We know more today, but that does not make what was written any less accurate, just because we know more about science then they did.

I am sure it is difficult for you, because you did not go to Bible collage, so you do not know how to understand or interpert the Bible. You know how to deal with scientific papers and artical written today. That is a different approach then the approach we learn in Bible school to understand the Bible.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

I am sure it is difficult for you, because you did not go to Bible collage, so you do not know how to understand or interpert the Bible. You know how to deal with scientific papers and artical written today. That is a different approach then the approach we learn in Bible school to understand the Bible.

Hilarious, absolutely hilarious.

*** News just in ***

Most Bible colleges don't agree with each other on interpretation. That is why Bible colleges have pretty much no academic standing in the real world.

*** Bulletin over ***

 

[JohnR7]

The Bible is the final authority and we are to ignore God's Creation. Not exactly new, Elijah.

What kind of a statement is this? You do not really think in your imagination that there is a conflict between the written word of God and the natural record that we find in the world do you? If there is a conflict, it is between truth and man made opinions about the word of God, or man made opinions about the natureal record we find in science.

Of course, you can ignore Jesus when he said that only the Father knows the day and hour

Matthew 24:34,36
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.
[36] "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.

Umm, lucaspa, everyone knows the day and the hour, becasue the event has already taken place. Jesus was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem. That took place in 70 ad. Remember what I told you about how you have to look at who is doing the talking and who they are talking to. Jesus was looking at a event that had not taken place yet. Now, for you and me, we are looking back at a event that has already taken place.

Now, how does this event apply to us. Jesus made it clear that this is a shaddow and a type of what is going to take place at the end of this age that we are living in. From that perspective, yes, we are still looking forward to it, but that does not mean we can not know when this age is going to come to a end. At the time that Jesus was born, there were people who were smart enough, or they were lead by God, so they had a pretty good idea that Jesus was going to be coming into the world and they waited for that event.

 

[ego licet visum]

uh oh, JohnR7 is browsing this thread, be on alert for some of the stupidest things you've ever heard backed up by mounds of nonexistant evidence that John is yet to produce although he clearly stated he had it in his possession.


ah, too late.

Im prolly gonna get nailed for trolling or baiting or something, but I don't care cuz John just has some stupid stupid stupid ideas. At least in one thread he did, maybe hes gotten smarter?

and john, remember you were talking about rock stars that die young or whatever. What about the rolling stones?

 

[JohnR7]

Hilarious, absolutely hilarious.

*** News just in ***

Most Bible colleges don't agree with each other on interpretation. That is why Bible colleges have pretty much no academic standing in the real world.

*** Bulletin over ***

Ok, point taken, but I would not throw the baby out with the bath water. There still are Bible schools you can go to where you can get a good education. Liberal thinking was creeping in, but now the Bible schools are starting to get back to teaching the Bible and providing a good solid education for people.

I will qualify what I say from now on, to say that people who have a good and proper Bible school education, know the basic approach to understanding the Bible. Based on common sense, logic and reason.

Even the best of schools have people who are just not interested to learn the Bible. Darwin went to Bible school and learned a lot about scientific methoid there. To be sure, he had good instructors that were very disappointed when he departed from the faith.

 

[JohnR7]

uh oh, JohnR7 is browsing this thread, be on alert for some of the stupidest things you've ever heard

I maybe stupid when it comes to some of the lower lever learning abilities. But from my perspective some of you people are pretty stupid when you try to get past basic memorization to actually develop upper level learning abilities.

Having said this, please refrain from personal attacks on individuals on this forum. There are adminstrators here to see that personal attackes like this do not take place on this forum.

We are here to discuss the issue, not have flame wars.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Yes, and that common sense, logic and reason leads the intelligent person to conclude the allegorical nature of the Bible and to reject ignorant dogmatic literalism as the left over from the Dark Ages it is.

 

[JohnR7]

Yes, and that common sense, logic and reason leads the intelligent person to conclude the allegorical nature of the Bible and to reject ignorant dogmatic literalism as the left over from the Dark Ages it is.

I do not like a dogmatic approach anymore than the next person. Also, I do not deny that there is a allegorical understanding of the Bible. But the Bible is written on many levels, and to say that it an be understood as a allegory, does not mean that the actual events did not take place.