They've found the "missing link"! Yeah, right!

Status
Not open for further replies.

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
How is that possible?If someone uses a secretary and dictates events that transpired,thats the most accurate way of relaying information.
Um,. no... the most accurate way of conveying information is to go out and obtain the information for yourself.

You seriously underestimate the ancient israelites ability to firstly relay information orally,and secondly keep records.They were meticulous.This is why you can trace Jesus earthly geneology.
Prove it. Prove Jesus geneology is accurate, and that the oral tradition first written down in the time of Moses existed unchanged for the several hundred, if not thousand, years it was orally transmitted.

Thats not the issue.Mans apparent descend from primates isnt the same as God created the heavens.Its only an issue if you think they werent mentally able to cope with a concept that God formed man from beasts,or he formed man from clay.Thats not rocket science.What does the account say? He formed Adam from a beast? or he formed him directly from clay?
I'm discussing the broader scientific information here. But the point you raise is a good one. If Genesis were actually "God's word", it WOULD say that Adam was descended from beasts. Since it doesn't say that, it looks like good evidence Genesis isn't God's word. It DOES, however, look suspiciously like the sort of thing someone with absolutely no scientific understanding of biology would write to explain his place in the world and origin.

Your scientific knowledge regarding primate to man firstly is false,
How so? Be specific.
secondly has nothing to do with the creation of the heavens and thirdly contradicts a straight forward account.
I get that you're automatically gainsaying everything I say... but could you make a small effort to address what I say specifically, rather than just going "nuh uh it isn't" in completely irrelevant fashion? I do you the courtesy of responding to YOUR points specifically...

Covered already.Seems our superior knowledge doesnt stop one from repeating a point.
Well then apparently I found your initial coverage inadequate. Extremely common YEC tactic, for some reason. Make a really bad, broad, generalising straw herring attempt at addressing an incissive point, and then refuse to discuss it further, as though having addressed it in such a stultifying fashion is all that is required, rather than actually attempting to make any rational, coherent specific points.

I prefer to look at it that some things hold true no matter how old they are.
Ladies and gentlemen... the crux of the issue.

All the science in the world will not convince you if you PREFER TO LOOK AT IT in a contrary way.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
you asked me to point out where you are wrong regarding your view that Genesis is a myth.However apart from disputing the age of the earth(i actually agree lol),and some sort of vague hand waving towards common descent,you havent made any to refute apart from asserting that the ancient hebrews werent mentally competent to cope with the awe inspiring truth that God formed man by the process of common descent.

The 1st point doesnt hold up when examined.

Want to keep going?
Tell you what... you go out and find any mature stone or bronze age tribesman, (there are still a few around) and explain to him from first principles just ONE of the basic sciences and its roll in Creation... physics, chemistry, biology... take your pick. Make sure you condense it down to such a form that it can be easily taught in sermon form for religious ceremonies.

Done that?

OK... now, does our stone/bronze age tribesman account of the scientific evidence sound remotely like what we know to be accurate today? Or does it come out sort of a mishmash of magical thinking?
 
Upvote 0

praisejahupeople

Junior Member
Jan 1, 2008
258
15
49
✟7,978.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
Marital Status
Married
Um,. no... the most accurate way of conveying information is to go out and obtain the information for yourself.
Wait God talks to you directly? or through the medium of richard dawkins?Or maybe he conveys the information through something we all can read.You are starting to not make sense.
Prove it. Prove Jesus geneology is accurate, and that the oral tradition first written down in the time of Moses existed unchanged for the several hundred, if not thousand, years it was orally transmitted.
Readers who have researched will know who is right here.How about following some of your own advice and checking it.Instead of typing lies,and getting called on it.
I'm discussing the broader scientific information here. But the point you raise is a good one. If Genesis were actually "God's word", it WOULD say that Adam was descended from beasts. Since it doesn't say that, it looks like good evidence Genesis isn't God's word.
Or what you believe in isnt true.You forgot that option.
It DOES, however, look suspiciously like the sort of thing someone with absolutely no scientific understanding of biology would write to explain his place in the world and origin.
Oh so you do believe in common descent.So we are getting to the nitty gritty here,the bible isnt true.Biology you claim, comprehensively proves we came from apes...Anyone who disputes this is mentally inferior....well at least its better than the hebrews were thick.I think?
All the science in the world will not convince you if you PREFER TO LOOK AT IT in a contrary way.
Contrary to?you?How about im defending what God says,and you are the one following a lie.Did you think of it that way?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rosalila
Upvote 0

Drekkan85

Immortal until proven otherwise
Dec 9, 2008
2,274
225
Japan
✟23,051.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Liberals
Oh so you do believe in common descent.So we are getting to the nitty gritty here,the bible isnt true.Biology you claim, comprehensively proves we came from apes...Anyone who disputes this is mentally inferior....well at least its better than the hebrews were thick.I think?

Ahem. I thought we'd already agreed earlier, not literal does not mean not true. Since you missed my multiple posts on the subject, plus those of several others, I'll put it in an easy to read format:

Not literal does not mean false.
 
Upvote 0

praisejahupeople

Junior Member
Jan 1, 2008
258
15
49
✟7,978.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
Marital Status
Married
Ahem. I thought we'd already agreed earlier, not literal does not mean not true. Since you missed my multiple posts on the subject, plus those of several others, I'll put it in an easy to read format:

Not literal does not mean false.
I havent directed any posts at you.
 
Upvote 0

Drekkan85

Immortal until proven otherwise
Dec 9, 2008
2,274
225
Japan
✟23,051.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Liberals
I havent directed any posts at you.

And that matters to me why? The fact is that you have continued to make an idiotic point that has been refuted many many times - namely that those of us that are theistic evolutionists either:

a) Think the Bible is wrong
b) Think that Genesis is worthless

Both of these have time and time again been addressed. Instead of reading those, incorporating how they work, and growing in your understanding you've chosen to instead mock and insult another poster without foundation. I'm merely bringing this to your attention so you won't continue to make the ridiculous point you did in the future.
 
Upvote 0

praisejahupeople

Junior Member
Jan 1, 2008
258
15
49
✟7,978.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
Marital Status
Married
And that matters to me why?
Guess it doesnt.
The fact is that you have continued to make an idiotic point that has been refuted many many times - namely that those of us that are theistic evolutionists either:
a) Think the Bible is wrong
b) Think that Genesis is worthless
Well ok.I apologise i havent taken any notice of you before.Way to get my attention.
Both of these have time and time again been addressed.
Of course.However not convincingly.Stamping your feet might work though.
Instead of reading those, incorporating how they work, and growing in your understanding you've chosen to instead mock and insult another poster
uh huh.see below please.
you continue to make an idiotic point.
I guess in your self righteous indignation you forgot you typed that.Its ok.
I'm merely bringing this to your attention so you won't continue to make the ridiculous point you did in the future.
Ill consider myself told.We came from primates because you said so.Thread over.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
No actually ebia, as I have shown the speed of the light could not have been constant because of the inconsistent rate of the actual expansion meaning that the light from the farthest star would have to vary because the velocity of that star would vary itself, and that star itself would have to be accelerating at a rate 3 times the speed of the light it has produced which is not constant.
That's not what I even read you as saying before.

So you think you have shown:

  • The velocity of some particular light has changed
  • That change is consistant enough that you can put a rate to that change (ie an accelaration)
  • You can somehow show that the velocity of the star that produced that light has changed at 3 times that accelaration
I certainly missed it if you produced anything like the maths needed to show any of that. I'm also not sure, in itself, what I'm supposed to conclude from it.
What you said originally was:
Maybe I was not clear, star A is accelerating 3 times the speed of light in regards to its own original position, regardless of its relative acceleration from star B.
Which, just to restate, is mathematically gibberish. The speed of light is a speed. It is meaningless to say something accelarates at a speed, or n times a speed.

What your statement here appears to be trying to say very poorly is:
No actually ebia, as I have shown the speed of the light could not have been constant because of the inconsistent rate of the actual expansion meaning that the [speed of] light from the farthest star would have to vary because the velocity of that star would vary itself, and that star itself would have to be accelerating at 3 times the [accelaration] of the light it has produced which is not constant.
Or something. Not that you have shown anything like that. I'm not sure how you could being to show something without first being able to state it. Try not to put acceleration and speed/velocity in the same sentence, it might help.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Drekkan85

Immortal until proven otherwise
Dec 9, 2008
2,274
225
Japan
✟23,051.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Liberals
Guess it doesnt.

Nope

Of course.However not convincingly.Stamping your feet might work though.

Did you not read any of the examples? Things can be non-literal and still be truthful. The import isn't the individual words, but the ideas and concepts those words can convey - both literally and metaphorically.

uh huh.see below please.

I guess in your self righteous indignation you forgot you typed that.Its ok.

Oh no, there's a clear difference. Your point is idiotic, not you. Smart people can say stupid things - and this could very well be an example. On the other hand - you, and others, have directly been attacking professed Christians as "not real Christians" amongst other things. That's the difference between hurling insults at people, and expressing that a thing they said was poorly thought out.

Ill consider myself told.We came from primates because you said so.Thread over.

Oh, I said nothing about coming from primates (though, one should be careful, since we ourselves are primates - at least as far as we've classified species going back pre-Darwin). I was merely addressing the question of Biblical literal-ness and how you and yours have been misportraying the other side of the argument.
 
Upvote 0

praisejahupeople

Junior Member
Jan 1, 2008
258
15
49
✟7,978.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
Marital Status
Married
Did you not read any of the examples? Things can be non-literal and still be truthful. The import isn't the individual words, but the ideas and concepts those words can convey - both literally and metaphorically.
You would need to be able to cross reference scriptures in order to see whether the idea is metaphorical or literal.You would need to look at the actual hebrew word used to get an idea of whats being conveyed.
Have any of you done this,to come to the conclusion that being formed from clay directly from Gods hand,having the breath of life,breathed in adam means anything else?
Or are you just taking a scientific fad which is promoted heavily by naturalists and attempting to mold both?
Oh no, there's a clear difference. Your point is idiotic, not you. Smart people can say stupid things - and this could very well be an example. On the other hand - you, and others, have directly been attacking professed Christians as "not real Christians" amongst other things.
Im attacking the idea.
Oh, I said nothing about coming from primates
Of course you believe this though.
one should be careful,
One should never challenge ideas that run contrary to darwinism.I see.The idea that humans are seperate and higher than animals is of course crazy.
I was merely addressing the question of Biblical literal-ness and how you and yours have been misportraying the other side of the argument.
No,i think ive been pretty accurate.If it conflicts with evolution, the bible is out of date,or can be twisted to somehow fit both ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rosalila
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

praisejahupeople

Junior Member
Jan 1, 2008
258
15
49
✟7,978.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
Marital Status
Married
Tell you what... you go out and find any mature stone or bronze age tribesman, (there are still a few around) and explain to him from first principles just ONE of the basic sciences and its roll in Creation... physics, chemistry, biology... take your pick. Make sure you condense it down to such a form that it can be easily taught in sermon form for religious ceremonies.

Done that?

OK... now, does our stone/bronze age tribesman account of the scientific evidence sound remotely like what we know to be accurate today? Or does it come out sort of a mishmash of magical thinking?

Heh missed this.
I guess the God who created the heavens and the earth,according to you is unable to give an accurate account of what happened.
Praise be to jay gould instead.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
You would need to be able to cross reference scriptures in order to see whether the idea is metaphorical or literal.
Don't be silly. There are lots of clues one needs to look at to see whether an idea is literal or non-literal (or somewhere in between). Sometimes that might include other scriptural references; sometimes it includes comparison with other texts with which it has something in common; sometimes both. And, for that matter, most texts (scriptual or otherwise) are literal at some levels and less or non-literal at other levels. The idea that scripture can be interpreted just by looking at other bits of scripture is nothing but a falacy designed to give a false sense of security - nobody actually does or can do it in practice.


You would need to look at the actual hebrew word used to get an idea of whats being conveyed.
Amongst other things, yes.



Have any of you done this,to come to the conclusion that being formed from clay directly from Gods hand,having the breath of life,breathed in adam means anything else?
But God doesn't literally have hands, no does he literally breath. Yes, I'm formed by God, with his life breathed into me. I don't have to take Genesis 2s highly anthropomophic picture of God as a potter literally to believe that.

Or are you just taking a scientific fad which is promoted heavily by naturalists and attempting to mold both?
Guilt by association is a logical falacy at the best of times.

Of course you believe this though.
So what?

One should never challenge ideas that run contrary to darwinism.I see.
That isn't remotely what he said, and portraying it that way is (at best) misrepresentation.

The idea that humans are seperate and higher than animals is of course crazy.
It's not incompatible with the idea that we are also animals in the scientific sense.

No,i think ive been pretty accurate.If it conflicts with evolution, the bible is out of date,
THE BIBLE IS NOT OUT OF DATE.
Clear enough? Continuing to portay that as our position when we have said otherwise would be lying.


or can be twisted to somehow fit both ideas.
No-one's twisting scripture. At least not on this side of the conversation. Attempts to reconcile the 'facts' Genesis 1 with those of Genesis 2 look a lot like twisting to me, and throwing out the baby with the bath water as well (to mix metaphors), but hey...
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Heh missed this.
I guess the God who created the heavens and the earth,according to you is unable to give an accurate account of what happened.
Praise be to jay gould instead.
It's not an accurate reciepe for fruitcake either, but I don't regard that as a failure on God's part. Clearly you regard God as failure because you can't make a good birthday cake using only the instructions in Genesis.

Genesis 1-11 is a theological prologue to the rest of scripture. The only field of study it tries to be accurate in is theology.
 
Upvote 0

hiscosmicgoldfish

Liberal Anglican
Mar 1, 2008
3,592
59
✟11,767.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
Mr. Sungennis has a B.A. in Religion and an M.A. in Theology. He has no degrees in any branch of the sciences, and he has no advanced degrees in any field.

True.. well Googled.. he is co-author with Robert J Bennett..
 
Upvote 0

hiscosmicgoldfish

Liberal Anglican
Mar 1, 2008
3,592
59
✟11,767.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
I wasn't aware one could rieve a doctorate in "general relativity".

2 questions,

Where was the Ark before the 1970s?

What evidence is there of an "ether"?

It was under some mud. They wrote a book about it.. ‘The Discovery of Noah’s Ark’ by David Fasold. The Turkish Government have the site now as a tourist area.. with a signpost.. Noah’s Ark.. I know that’s no proof, but I find it a bit amusing that Noah’s Ark can be visited on a holiday to Turkey, and everyone still thinks it’s missing.
The evidence for the ether was done first by the Michelson-Morley experiment, and then many other similar experiments over the years. The result was a positive result, very small, but positive. The experiment was done on the understanding that a result would be found, if there was an ether, coinciding with the speed of the earth as it moves around the sun at 66,000 mph. What the experiment in fact showed, was that the earth is stationary, and that the ether moves slowly around the earth. Einstein knew about this of course, but instead of being honest about it, concluded that the result showed that there was no ether, and then continued to develop the theory of relativity, in an attempt to explain the motion of the earth through space.. that’s the simple summary of it. Einstein maintained heliocntrism, and that is why he is eulogised. Relativity has not been proved, and it is not relevant to anything practical, and is not applied to anything.
The difficulty, with quantum theory, in fact demonstrating that the ether exists; and is constructed by a lattice of energy particles, which are more like a stable solid. The idea of particles popping into existence from other dimensions is actually showing a displacement of particles, out from the stable state. Matter is less dense than the ether, and displaces the ether. As nature abhors a vacuum, the ether will try to counteract the effect of the imposing matter, hence gravity.
As I said somewhere.. but I’ve lost where I said it.. if space is expanding, at what point does it expand? On the astronomical level, or on the microscopic level as well?.. obviously not on the microscopic level, as everything would disintegrate, so at what level, and where do you assume to measure it from? It's not something i know.. someone might know.. i'm just curious.. i dont believe the universe is expanding.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
Wait God talks to you directly? or through the medium of richard dawkins?Or maybe he conveys the information through something we all can read.You are starting to not make sense.
Direct observation of nature is what I'm talking about. Perhaps if you tried to follow what others are saying, rather than instantly dismissing anything that contradicts what you want to believe? Hmm?

Readers who have researched will know who is right here.How about following some of your own advice and checking it.Instead of typing lies,and getting called on it.
I beg your pardon? If you think I have lied, accuse me specifically, or apologise and retract.

Or what you believe in isnt true.You forgot that option.
My understanding being flawed is ALWAYS an option. All it will take to get me to admit I am in error is direct, empirical evidence to that effect. Can you say the same?

Oh so you do believe in common descent.So we are getting to the nitty gritty here,the bible isnt true.Biology you claim, comprehensively proves we came from apes...Anyone who disputes this is mentally inferior....well at least its better than the hebrews were thick.I think?
For the nth time, it isn't a matter of the Bible being "untrue", it is a matter of recognising when parts of the Bible are metaphorical. I never claimed anyone is "mentally inferior" either, so, perhaps if you'd actually read what I have to say, rather than making assumptions about what I'm saying, we'd get somewhere?

Contrary to?you?How about im defending what God says,and you are the one following a lie.Did you think of it that way?
Lets make it really, really simple... give me 1 good reason to believe that Genesis is actually what "God says"?
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
Heh missed this.
I guess the God who created the heavens and the earth,according to you is unable to give an accurate account of what happened.
Praise be to jay gould instead.
I'm sure God is more than capable of giving an account beyond human capabilities to understand in terms of its accuracies.

However, he didn't give it to bronze age herdsmen.

Rather than randomly citing "minute of hate" targets like Gould, Dawkins et al, you might actually consider my question?

Please, give me your best impression of how an ancient Hebrew without modern society, technology or education, would describe, say, stellar fusion? Or gravity? Or Hawking Radiation? Or, heck, Genetics?

Pick any significant scientific field and explain to me how the people who wrote Genesis would explain such information if they had access to it?
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
As I said somewhere.. but I’ve lost where I said it.. if space is expanding, at what point does it expand? On the astronomical level, or on the microscopic level as well?.. obviously not on the microscopic level, as everything would disintegrate, so at what level, and where do you assume to measure it from? It's not something i know.. someone might know.. i'm just curious.. i dont believe the universe is expanding.
The universe is indeed expanding on a microscopic level. However, the rate of expansion is very, very small... so on a microscopic scale it is utterly undetectable. The rate at which the universe expands is called the "Hubble Constant", and its precise rate is still a matter of dispute. It is, however, only observable across REALLY big distances... to the point that it is so slight it doesn't even have any appreciable effect between neighbouring galaxies. For example, our nearest neighbour, the Andromeda galaxy, is actually closing with us and is predicted to colide with the Milky Way in about 3.5 billion years. The expansion is only observable at hyper scales, between galactic clusters and super clusters, rather than between individual galaxies.
 
Upvote 0

herev

CL--you are missed!
Jun 8, 2004
13,566
935
59
✟36,100.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How could that be interpretation?

It contains key words that leave no contradiction:

Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast

That is what I guess what you are having a problem with correct?
if you decide to read every word of every line of Genesis 1 and 2 as literal, factual, etc. that IS an interpretation.
the fact that you (general you) can find a way to then ignore the "literal" differences between the two accounts or harmonize them together to make ONE story out of two IS an interpretation.
I am not judging you for making an interpretation--I am concerned that you are lying to yourself when you suggest that you don't interpret (as if that's a bad thing), you just read it for what it says.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LightHorseman
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

herev

CL--you are missed!
Jun 8, 2004
13,566
935
59
✟36,100.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
you asked me to point out where you are wrong regarding your view that Genesis is a myth.However apart from disputing the age of the earth(i actually agree lol),and some sort of vague hand waving towards common descent,you havent made any to refute apart from asserting that the ancient hebrews werent mentally competent to cope with the awe inspiring truth that God formed man by the process of common descent.

The 1st point doesnt hold up when examined.

Want to keep going?
(psst, dude--you're in over your head)
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.