Whales are not fish: Nephesh

Tiberius · Oct 24, 2011

Jazer said:
That is a very rare copy error. The printing press came out around 500 years ago. So for 3,000 years the Bible was copied by hand. What you point out is the miracle that there are not more copy errors than just this one. They are very very rare. Thanks that you bring this up because this helps to show just how accurate and true the Bible is after 3500 years. Not in a state of decay but alive and more real then ever.

What about the original Dead Sea Scrolls we have? Don't they indicate that the Bible we have today has changed very little?

And you don't really think that the example I posted was the only example of a contradiction within the Bible do you? There are tons of them.

Jazer said:
Of course the point is that Science makes up a lot of stories about the past. Just like Saint Nicholas was a real person. But they wanted to make up their own story about a Santa Claus. When it comes to cranking out stories and myths science is the true winner. No doubt because it is a lot easier to make up a story than to be faithful to stick to the truth.

My goodness, you couldn't be more wrong.

I'll tell you what. If you can show me something of a scientific nature that is accept as truth by the scientists who work in the field in which it applies and yet this thing is based on pure speculation, I'll leave this site and never come back.

Jazer · Oct 24, 2011

Tiberius said:
And you don't really think that the example I posted was the only example of a contradiction within the Bible do you? There are tons of them.

I do not think so. I have been around these boards for a while and no one has ever come up with anything of any significance. But give it your best shot and see what you can come up with. There are only so many pratts out there to go around so I do not think you will find much.

If you can show me something of a scientific nature that is accept as truth by the scientists who work in the field in which it applies and yet this thing is based on pure speculation

There is nothing pure in science. When I was a kid people were impressed when something was 99.9% pure. Now with nanotechnology they can filter out a billioneth of a partical. But that is still not 100% pure.

Tiberius · Oct 24, 2011

Jazer said:
I do not think so. I have been around these boards for a while and no one has ever come up with anything of any significance. But give it your best shot and see what you can come up with. There are only so many pratts out there to go around so I do not think you will find much.

Do you think speculation counts as a refutation?

There is nothing pure in science. When I was a kid people were impressed when something was 99.9% pure. Now with nanotechnology they can filter out a billioneth of a partical. But that is still not 100% pure.

Are you deliberately distorting what I said or is it accidental?

Jazer · Nov 5, 2011

Tiberius said:
If you can show me something of a scientific nature that is accept as truth by the scientists who work in the field in which it applies and yet this thing is based on pure speculation

What about the myth that small horses evolved into big horses. They even created pictures to go along with their myth. Now that we have DNA the little horses to big horse evolution turns out NOT to be true, just another myth that science created for itself. So we have the old theory and the new theory. Just like we have Darwinism and Neo Darwinism and even Post Neo Darwinism as myth after myth is proven not to be true.

Aeneas · Nov 5, 2011

Jazer said:
What about the myth that small horses evolved into big horses. They even created pictures to go along with their myth. Now that we have DNA the little horses to big horse evolution turns out NOT to be true, just another myth that science created for itself. So we have the old theory and the new theory. Just like we have Darwinism and Neo Darwinism and even Post Neo Darwinism as myth after myth is proven not to be true.

It's called "scientific advancement". Creationists often have this problem of assuming that science is dogmatic, like religion, so when science corrects itself as time goes by they jump on it with the gleeful assumption that it is some sort of weakness or problem while the rest of us shrug in bemusement.

Jazer · Nov 5, 2011

Aeneas said:
when science corrects itself

Sooner or later everything gets corrected. The earth is not the center of the universe, that has been corrected. The theory of gravity has been corrected. So this is not a question of IF, the question is when will a better theory come along that better explains what is currently known. The best Science can do is present the best theory that best explains the known data. Sometimes necessity is the mother of invention and the new theory is not discovered until the old theory becomes so obsolete so as not to be able to get the job done anymore. The wheel remained pretty much the same for 4,000 years. But with the engine came faster speed and the need to improve upon the wheel and invent a new one.

Tiberius · Nov 6, 2011

Jazer said:
What about the myth that small horses evolved into big horses. They even created pictures to go along with their myth. Now that we have DNA the little horses to big horse evolution turns out NOT to be true, just another myth that science created for itself. So we have the old theory and the new theory. Just like we have Darwinism and Neo Darwinism and even Post Neo Darwinism as myth after myth is proven not to be true.

The horses of the past didn't evolve into the horses of today? And this has been scientifically proven? You got a source for this, because I won't accept it until you provide me with evidence. And damn good evidence too.

USincognito · Nov 6, 2011

Jazer said:
What about the myth that small horses evolved into big horses.

That's a myth?

Jazer said:
They even created pictures to go along with their myth.

They who? The paleontologists who uncovered actual fossils of extinct horse species?

Jazer said:
Now that we have DNA the little horses to big horse evolution turns out NOT to be true, just another myth that science created for itself.

When did that happen?

Jazer said:
So we have the old theory and the new theory.

Sorry, no. Socrates is not green.

Jazer said:
Just like we have Darwinism and Neo Darwinism and even Post Neo Darwinism as myth after myth is proven not to be true.

Why do you just make stuff up?

cupid dave · Nov 6, 2011

Tiberius said:
And you don't really think that the example I posted was the only example of a contradiction within the Bible do you? There are tons of them.

But I have seen everyone of them explained, and the issue reduced to the matter of reading comprehension and research.

The matter of translaters making errors is another issue, of course.
The Hebrew word used for the Englisg translation that speaks of "whales" is really a food example.

The whales in Genesis1 seems more to apply to large animals in general, even dinosaurs.

cupid dave · Nov 6, 2011

Jazer said:
Sooner or later everything gets corrected. The earth is not the center of the universe, that has been corrected. The theory of gravity has been corrected. So this is not a question of IF, the question is when will a better theory come along that better explains what is currently known. The best Science can do is present the best theory that best explains the known data. Sometimes necessity is the mother of invention and the new theory is not discovered until the old theory becomes so obsolete so as not to be able to get the job done anymore. The wheel remained pretty much the same for 4,000 years. But with the engine came faster speed and the need to improve upon the wheel and invent a new one.

Yeah...
And the same thing has happened among the Theologians who have been trying to make rational sense out of many things hard to understand in Genesis.

This is why we see so many denominations in Christianity and Judaism, even Islam.

Wiccan_Child · Nov 7, 2011

Jazer said:
What about the myth that small horses evolved into big horses. They even created pictures to go along with their myth. Now that we have DNA the little horses to big horse evolution turns out NOT to be true, just another myth that science created for itself. So we have the old theory and the new theory. Just like we have Darwinism and Neo Darwinism and even Post Neo Darwinism as myth after myth is proven not to be true.

So, to summarise, you're whining because scientists are doing what they always do: discard old ideas and adapt to new data. You're whining because science is doing what it does best: moving forward.

Some days you make it too easy, Jazer.

cupid dave · Nov 7, 2011

Wiccan_Child said:
So, to summarise, you're whining because scientists are doing what they always do: discard old ideas and adapt to new data. You're whining because science is doing what it does best: moving forward.

Some days you make it too easy, Jazer.

LOL

On the other hand, you and he whine because theology has been doing the same, albeit slower, and now the way I have explained the next adjustment.

Wiccan_Child · Nov 7, 2011

cupid dave said:
On the other hand, you and he whine because theology has been doing the same, albeit slower,

Actually, it hasn't. It doesn't make predictions, it doesn't accrue data, and it only adapts to new data that science brings in. Theology is dead, and has nothing to show for itself.

cupid dave said:
and now the way I have explained the next adjustment.

I have no idea what this sentence means. Hey, aren't you the guy who couldn't understand the difference between a 'solar' (zenith-to-zenith) and 'sideral' (full 360° rotation) day?

SkyWriting · Nov 7, 2011

Wiccan_Child said:
So, to summarise, you're whining because scientists are doing what they always do: discard old ideas and adapt to new data. You're whining because science is doing what it does best: moving forward.Some days you make it too easy, Jazer.

It's the best take on being wrong, thinking wrong, and getting caught wrong.
Like so many, they call it "moving forward" and "scientific progress".
Many times, the more wrong.....the more "The system is working". That's rich.

But it gets better. Often the new data is replaced later. So the changes defended are sometimes just as wrong as well.

SkyWriting · Nov 7, 2011

Jazer said:
Sooner or later everything gets corrected. The earth is not the center of the universe, that has been corrected. The theory of gravity has been corrected.

I disagree. The earth may not be the MASS center of the universe, but we really don't have a good handle on that either.

If I were to state that you are the center of the universe would I be referring to your mass center about which you would pivot if weightless? Not likely.

No we have no good idea what the mass center of the universe is. But the Earth IS the moral center, the population center, and the only source of life in the Cosmos. Based on the evidence anyway. It really is the center in any way that counts.....unless you just consider mass.

As for the theory of gravity, if a full understanding can be found in square 10, I thinks we're still on square 1.

Wiccan_Child · Nov 7, 2011

SkyWriting said:
It's the best take on being wrong, thinking wrong, and getting caught wrong.
Like so many, they call it "moving forward" and "scientific progress".
Many times, the more wrong.....the more "The system is working". That's rich.

Indeed. I'd be happy to elaborate on how science advances, and how these disproofs are the fundamental unit of scientific progress.

SkyWriting said:
But it gets better. Often the new data is replaced later. So the changes defended are sometimes just as wrong as well.

Actually, it's not, not without good reason. As an example, I'm sure you heard the resent furore over the 'neutrinos travel at FTL speeds' findings. What the media didn't report was that this isn't the only measurement of neutrino speeds we have: there are other, more accurate measurements on record. So we have two pieces of conflicting data, one in agreement with Relativity, one which makes little sense in reality. Surprise surprise, the newer, unchecked result is less reliable than the older, more solid data.

Data only changes for two reasons: refinement, and retroactive discovery of experimental error. Piltdown Man is a prime example: it was taken to be a real hominid skull and placed accordingly. Over the years, newer skulls and bones were discovered, and Piltdown Man's place was increasingly peculiar and hard to reconcile, being shoved to the sidelines. Eventually, scientists went back and re-examined the evidence using newer techniques - and, lo and behold, it was found to be a fraud.

The best part of this story is that it bolsters the argument for evolution, contrary to why Creationists often cite it. It was because it didn't fit in with all the other fossils that were being discovered that scientists thought to go back over it carefully.

SkyWriting said:
I disagree. The earth may not be the MASS center of the universe, but we really don't have a good handle on that either.

If I were to state that you are the center of the universe would I be referring to your mass center about which you would pivot if weightless? Not likely.

Well, what else? His brain? His feet? Which part would be the centre point?

SkyWriting said:
No we have no good idea what the mass center of the universe is.

Really? Where?

SkyWriting said:
But the Earth IS the moral center, the population center, and the only source of life in the Cosmos. Based on the evidence anyway. It really is the center in any way that counts.....unless you just consider mass.

The evidence is largely silent, as we have no idea what morals or populations or life exists out there in the universe. We cannot say the Earth is the moral centre of the universe, any more than we can say a house consists of a single room because we've yet to fully explore it.

SkyWriting said:
As for the theory of gravity, if a full understanding can be found in square 10, I thinks we're still on square 1.

Perhaps, but that doesn't invalidate the usefulness of accuracy of square 1 - it's better than anything that's come before it.

Huram Abi · Nov 7, 2011

Wiccan_Child said:
I have on idea what this sentence means. Hey, aren't you the guy who couldn't understand the difference between a 'solar' (zenith-to-zenith) and 'sideral' (full 360° rotation) day?

This is the exact response we should expect to creationists who cry wolf regarding what "science says."

Jazer · Nov 7, 2011

Wiccan_Child said:
Some days you make it too easy, Jazer.

Yep, because some days I spend way to much time on here.

SkyWriting · Nov 7, 2011

Originally Posted by SkyWriting - But the Earth IS the moral center, the population center, and the only source of life in the Cosmos. Based on the evidence anyway. It really is the center in any way that counts.....unless you just consider mass.

The evidence is largely silent, as we have no idea what morals or populations or life exists out there in the universe. We cannot say the Earth is the moral centre of the universe, any more than we can say a house consists of a single room because we've yet to fully explore it.

Yes we can.
The evidence to support your daydream is 100% silent.
The facts fully support my stand are 100% solid.
I don't deny that we have trillions of dollars leftover to keep looking for worms and grubs in other star systems.
But scientists have come to the conclusion that other intelligent life is
A. too far away for us to get a message there and back before our sun goes out
or
B. Will kill us just because.
So I'm puzzled over your love affair with our enemies, or grubs, or people who will all be dead before we hear from them again.

Wiccan_Child said:
...Eventually, scientists went back and re-examined the evidence using newer techniques - and, lo and behold, it was found to be a fraud. The best part of this story is that it bolsters the argument for evolution, contrary to why Creationists often cite it. ...

You've illustrated how and why fraud is ignored in the first place. I covered how twisted peoples views are on how good fraud is and needed an example. Thanks. You seem to ignore the causes for fraud in science and I'm sure would like to blame creationists and religion.
Give it your best shot.

Split Rock · Nov 8, 2011

SkyWriting said:
It's the best take on being wrong, thinking wrong, and getting caught wrong.
Like so many, they call it "moving forward" and "scientific progress".
Many times, the more wrong.....the more "The system is working". That's rich.

But it gets better. Often the new data is replaced later. So the changes defended are sometimes just as wrong as well.

Yeah, its not like science has progressed to the point where you can communicate with people all over the world instantaneously via a computer and something like the internet. Or keep your food from spoiling in something like a refrigerator. Or fly across the country in a few hours in an airplane. Or wash your clothes and dry them in a machine. Or heat leftovers in a microwave oven in a few minutes instead of half an hour. Yeah... I really wish science actually worked.

Whales are not fish: Nephesh

Well-Known Member

Jazer

Guest

Well-Known Member

Jazer

Guest

Well-Known Member

Jazer

Guest

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

cupid dave

Guest

cupid dave

Guest

Contributor

cupid dave

Guest

Contributor

The Librarian

The Librarian

Contributor

Huram Abi

Guest

Jazer

Guest

The Librarian

Conflation of Blathers

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency