The Return of My Apple Challenge

AV1611VET · Aug 29, 2007

EnemyPartyII said:
Hey, AV, as a side note, some one told me the other day that the KJV mentions steel in the Old Testament, is that true?Isn't that a bit of an anachronism?
[/list]

I don't know, EnemyParty. That's a new one on me. I'll have to check into that.

If so, it certainly wouldn't be an anachronism, as God's Word deals a lot with future events.

For instance, Psalm 22 mentions a crucifixion in detail, hundreds of years before they even knew what a crucifixion was.

Isaiah mentions the universe expanding (or being expanded), long before the Hubble Telescope confirmed it.

And the book of Job mentions a form of electronic communication that encompasses everything from the telegraph to the Internet.

But I'll check on steel --- that has piqued my interest.

UnknownUsername · Aug 29, 2007

EnemyPartyII said:
Actually you can't accurately carbon date anything prior to several thousand years.

There are radiometric dating techniques that DO allow accurate dating of truly ancient fossils, but C14 ain't it

My apologies. It's been some time since I've read up on any sort of anthropology, so I admit it's a bit dusty.

But it still stands, just slightly corrected. What about ancient fossils and/or rocks that we have methods of reliably dating to be extremely old?

AV1611VET · Aug 29, 2007

EnemyPartyII said:
Hey, AV, as a side note, some one told me the other day that the KJV mentions steel in the Old Testament, is that true?Isn't that a bit of an anachronism?
[/list]

I'll check on it --- I have 30 seconds left here.

UnknownUsername · Aug 29, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Observation > debates, argumentation, votes, corrections > new conclusions > observation ... ad infinitum.

Please explain how this is a bad thing?

EnemyPartyII · Aug 29, 2007

UnknownUsername said:
My apologies. It's been some time since I've read up on any sort of anthropology, so I admit it's a bit dusty.

But it still stands, just slightly corrected. What about ancient fossils and/or rocks that we have methods of reliably dating to be extremely old?

AV16VET's contention is that such fossils have all the properties of millions of years of age, but were actually created that way about 6000 years ago.

If you're new at this, FYI it tends to get frustrating, because AV's analysis process is something like

new data in->compare new data to KJV Bible -> discard any data in conflict with KJV Bible ->rebuke everyone else for being foolish enough to use discarded data

UnknownUsername · Aug 29, 2007

I've seen enough of AV to understand the debate practices. But I figure that perhaps by viewing this thread and seeing his irrational arguments and unwillingness to learn, more people will shy away from creationist beliefs.

Yeah, I've got an ulterior motive. So? It's not like AV will actually debate with us, so we've got to find something to occupy our time.

LittleNipper · Aug 29, 2007

UnknownUsername said:
I've seen enough of AV to understand the debate practices. But I figure that perhaps by viewing this thread and seeing his irrational arguments and unwillingness to learn, more people will shy away from creationist beliefs.

Yeah, I've got an ulterior motive. So? It's not like AV will actually debate with us, so we've got to find something to occupy our time.

Tell all the creationists EXACTLY what you mean by evolution.

EnemyPartyII · Aug 29, 2007

LittleNipper said:
Tell all the creationists EXACTLY what you mean by evolution.

the theory explaining biodiversity from common ancestry

FishFace · Aug 29, 2007

AV1611VET said:
The earth, created 6000 years ago with 4.6 billion years of history, is called the Omphalos Hypothesis; which I don't subscribe to.

I contend that the earth was created 6000 years ago with 4.6 billion years of age.

If you can give us one (or more) actual differences between these two ideas, other than in name alone, I will agree that you are not (metaphorically) using an orifice other than your mouth to (metaphorically) talk.

Until then, I am quite confident that the distinction is precisely... none. Anything with history has age, and anything with age has history. Either that, or anything created x years ago has x years of age, and anything with x years of age was created x years ago.
"Age," I am quite confident to say, means exactly the same of one of time of existence and history.

FishFace · Aug 29, 2007

AV1611VET said:
No, actually I think that's circular logic:

The earth shows 4.6 billion years of history because the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago.

That's not circular, that's tautology. You might think the argument begs the question, but that's an entirely different kettle of very old fish, since there's plenty of evidence of history, and by extension, of time in existence.

Skaloop · Aug 29, 2007

AV1611VET said:
For instance, Psalm 22 mentions a crucifixion in detail, hundreds of years before they even knew what a crucifixion was.

I checked Psalm 22. I didn't see any description of a crucifixion. Which verse specifically?

FishFace · Aug 29, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Try getting it right the first time, if that isn't too hard to ask.

You can talk, since you haven't ever got it right - not the first time, or the last time, since those are exactly the same.

Science isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got, so quit whingin' until you find something demonstrably more accurate.

Tomk80 · Aug 29, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Try getting it right the first time, if that isn't too hard to ask.

I know that it is hard for you to accept that we aren't all as arrogant as you are. Unlike in your fantasy world, we have to accept the fact that we will not have all the evidence at our disposal immediately. That new technologies, better observations and new occurences will continue to require old ideas to be rethought.

Reality is that we are not infallable, nor do we have all the evidence immediately. That is why people who actually try to live in reality, instead of a fantasy world made up of their dreams, will change old ideas when new facts come to light.

thaumaturgy · Aug 29, 2007

AV1611VET said:
For instance, Psalm 22 mentions a crucifixion in detail, hundreds of years before they even knew what a crucifixion was.

Ok, gonna call you on this one:

here's what Psalms 22 says:

[bible]Psalm 22:1-31[/bible]

Now, while this certainly contains many of the events listed in the Gospel accounts (written by people who would, in many cases, have been familiar with this exact Psalm), it doesn't appear to specifically describe a crucifixion (unless you believe joints were never disjointed and hands and feet never pierced before crucifixion was invented).

It describes someone who is being tormented.

All you have proven is that the authors of Matthew and Luke had read Psalms. Certainly not a stretch. (Unless you find "literacy" to be supernatural for a writer).

Is that something you think proves something of supernatural import?

Interesting. You set the bar for supernatural precognition pretty low.

The Bellman · Aug 29, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Psalm 22 mentions a crucifixion in detail, hundreds of years before they even knew what a crucifixion was.

Isaiah mentions the universe expanding (or being expanded), long before the Hubble Telescope confirmed it.

And the book of Job mentions a form of electronic communication that encompasses everything from the telegraph to the Internet.

It doesn't do any of these things. What it does do is contain some sufficiently vague and ambiguous text that you, looking at it after the event, can decide that the event is what it was talking about after all. Just like so many other 'prophecies', both biblical and non-biblical. What a shame these 'prophecies' weren't good enough for anyone to use them to actually predict what science would find, huh?

dukeofhazzard · Aug 29, 2007

AV1611VET said:
And the book of Job mentions a form of electronic communication that encompasses everything from the telegraph to the Internet.

I'd love chapter and verse on that one.

thaumaturgy · Aug 29, 2007

dukeofhazzard said:
I'd love chapter and verse on that one.

I believe it is in Job Chpt 43

Job Chpt 43 said:
1 Who is he who sendeth unbidden messages unto my screen? Who commands the phallus to grow to amazing proportions with minimal investment? And using only natural herbs? 2 Canst thou hear the beloved ringtone of the angels as they call unto thee? Whither dost thou dial on the tooth so blue? 3 Or knowest thy in-network calling minutes? The Lord Thy God knowest them. And he provides only Rollover minutes to those who truly believe on him and honor him. Those who fail will be cast into the outer darkness where signal is lost and thou wilt only have 1 bar, maybe less.

dukeofhazzard · Aug 29, 2007

thaumaturgy said:
I believe it is in Job Chpt 43

1 Who is he who sendeth unbidden messages unto my screen? Who commands the phallus to grow to amazing proportions with minimal investment? And using only natural herbs? 2 Canst thou hear the beloved ringtone of the angels as they call unto thee? Whither dost thou dial on the tooth so blue? 3 Or knowest thy in-network calling minutes? The Lord Thy God knowest them. And he provides only Rollover minutes to those who truly believe on him and honor him. Those who fail will be cast into the outer darkness where signal is lost and thou wilt only have 1 bar, maybe less.

I'm seriously laughing so hard I can't breathe. Thanks, I needed that today.

KomissarSteve · Aug 29, 2007

I give this analogy an F.

tanzanos · Aug 30, 2007

KomissarSteve said:
I give this analogy an F.

F can also mean FANTASTIC!
So it depends on what you want to see in the letter F; much like the bible.

The Return of My Apple Challenge

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Senior Veteran

Titleless

Well-Known Member

The Bellman

Guest

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Basileus

tanzanos

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency