Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Excuse me?Now, now. Don't whine.
Alas, your "wailing and gnashing of teeth" is a quaint fantasy.The record shows that I was seeking to avoid a Flood Debate.
I take no pleasure in the wailing and gnashing of teeth when bible skeptics dont get what they expect.
But you kept pushing.
No, The WELL DOCUMENTED unbroken continuity.The alleged unbroken continuity.
The Arc was designed by God.
And WE are waiting for some evidence. Back to you. all we have seen are assertions.
I think they got you right on the money.Because you don't read my posts apparently... but you have a feeling so of course you must be right.
Remember that the same people who found the habilis bones discovered the so called "nutcracker man" presented him as a human species, and was totally mistaken. That find is now universally regarded as being a australopithecine, not at all like a homo erectus. That you don't seem to know all this makes me wonder if you have ever really looked into these finds at all.That's exactly what I was talking about.
You don't reference where you get your data, but keep the story going.
Paranthropus boisei was yet another upright, transitional primate, not "an ape".
Every time you sneakily try to pass off your dishonest stories as evidence of your research, and refuse to show context we can see that you don't have a leg to stand on.
In addition, transitional fossil does not mean direct ancestor. Even Neanderthals aren't really direct ancestors... but they are clear evidence that humans are part of a closely related family with the rest of the apes.
The geological column is not an assertion, It is something that we can all witness.Every presentation of evidence is an assertion.
Im going to continue the Lion IRC Flood defense derail in a new/different thread.
You really don't. Knowledge is demonstrable. To claim it happens you need to be able to demonstrate that it happened. All of the reliable evidence, all of the sciences, tell us that it never happened.Well WE know it did!
Every presentation of evidence is an assertion.
Im going to continue the Lion IRC Flood defense derail in a new/different thread.
I suppose.I'm not "pooh poohing it away."
Egyptology ain't my bag, and I can't give a satisfactory answer to someone who thinks there's an "unbroken continuity of the Egyptian Old Kingdom period" that goes right through the time of the Flood.
Egypt didn't even exist until after the Flood, when Noah's grandson sired the first Egyptian: Mizraim.
There are multiple lines of evidence to support early dates for Egyptian society that go back to and before the date you are taking for a local or universal flood. There are at least two other explanations:
1. World-wide Flood (if it occurred which most scholars of history and science reject) happened earlier than the date you gave. Even many fundamentalists see a flood occurring well before 3000 B.C. because of the wealth of evidence for civilizations such as the Egyptian and Sumerian before that time.
2. If you did take a much later date, the description of the world at the time (flood covering the whole world) referred in ancient near east was the surrounding area. The language was whole world because all they knew of the whole world was a local (although large area) area. They accurately called it the whole world because to them it was. There have been local floods in different parts of the world. Most people don't argue this point, at least to my knowledge.
They (Egypt) have an acceptable chronology back to at least 8000 BCE and quite good to about 3000 BCE. The Genesis account involves names that may have existed in the far distant past that Israel wished to connect to as their national history evolved in and around 600 BCE. One will look in vain for a clear early chronology connecting Israel to great civilizations like Sumer and Egypt other than the odd reference like this one in the Bible and none from outside (that were probably obtained by their interaction with very old civilizations such as Babylon). Many of these early Biblical characters, if they ever existed, were long since mythologized. People who came much later wrote about them from second hand sources. Even someone as late as David (around 1000 BC) has no unambiguous reference from outside the Bible (such as Egypt)
I would recommend you read up on these ancient civilizations to see this. There are lots of good books with a wealth of information and evidence of these civilizations. There is no such similar evidence (almost none) for what is recorded in the Bible, outside the Bible.
Genesis 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
1. I would have to see it in real time with my own eyes. Until then, the Bible rules. So no amount of evidence could seem to convince you away from what you otherwise believe (probably not even a time machine, because you would distrust that it wasn't set up to deceive you!). This is no better than what any religious group could say in defense for believing whatever they believe. Unless one allows information to change ones ideas, they are not following where the evidence leads but simply following dogmatic beliefs (which some Christians criticize other religious groups for doing). I would recommend you take John Loftus' Outsiders Test for Faith if you consider yourself more than just a "yes" person for religion. To the credit of some Christians from the past, they followed the evidence, even though they realized they had to view Genesis as largely mythical.
2. Yes. Ditto my last comment
3. Some things are easy to understand. In the case of what we are discussing, one does not have to be a Rhodes scholar to realize that an empire cannot be up and running, when the empire's founder hasn't even been born yet.Using that logic, why are you a skeptic then? and why do atheists exist? In this case, the character is either mythical, came earlier or never existed at all (made up by Biblical writers). Menes was the first major ruler at about 3000 BC. You are assuming something that has no evidence to support it. Outside the Bible, where is your evidence that Mizraim is the son of Ham, and grandson of Noah, and the founder of Egypt?
If I should doubt the Bible, based on differing opinions on a given subject, then what about the subjects that contain 100% consensus?
There is nothing agreed to by 100% of people.
Such as: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD ...
100% don't agree on this - there are Christians who I've heard disagree with this.
We may differ on other subjects, but every Christian who ever lived, alive today, and will live tomorrow believes the above statement ... without fail.Yes, I know.
Only if you define Christian in such a way as to meet this requirement which is circular. There are Christians who don't believe Genesis and so don't necessarily believe in this statement. Probably most fundamentalist Christians would believe this statement (although there still might be the odd one who doesn't) but this isn't all Christians. As you know my friend, there is precious little to nothing on which 100% of any group of people agree on in life.
Scholars have a blacklist of "unacceptables" that they adhere to without exception.
In a certain social contexts and at certain times this may be true for a short time. But the list of "unacceptables" changes over time. What is unacceptable today may later become acceptable. But scholarly consensus (including fundamentalist Biblical scholarly consensus) changes over time. It is very much like science that tries to develop better understanding and models for given information over time. It is too simplistic to say this about scholars, even fundamentalist Biblical scholars. What is true is that ordinary fundamentalist people, ministers and other groups tend to do this with their beliefs - to allow for a stable worldview and some security in this hectic world. When I was young, the fundamentalist beliefs were quite different than today.
A blacklist, no doubt, forged in the classrooms of higher academia, run by the Muses.
Sorry ... tl;drWith the qualifications I said above, this is true at a given time and place in culture, society and history. This is not necessarily bad and there has to be stability in culture and society. Not any old idea can be entertained from any old group, religion, philosophy or nut. The Christian Church had this power in the past (via the Roman Catholic Church and in some areas, Protestant Churches) but eventually lost it with the rise of science and a modern skeptical secular mindset and move away from religion - when better ideas came along and replaced the bulk of the old Christian worldview. Part of that process was the rise of Protestantism which led to denominations like the Anglicans (directly from Catholicism) and Baptist out of Anglican with influences from other Protestant groups in the 1600's. Most Christian groups have offered some useful ideas for society in the past. However, more and more, the usefulness of Christianity to society has waned to the point of being irrelevant. Science and secular ideas have replaced Christian ideas and explanations in law, ethics, origins, destiny, disease, medicine, psychology and every other important aspect of life. More and more, religion in general and Christianity in particular has become irrelevant, unimportant and even detrimental to modern 21st century society.
In Canada, where I live, there are denominations that are slated to go extinct by 2040 that were the biggest denomination when I was a child (the trend has been a constant decline for the last 50 years). The same will happen in America as it becomes more secular. Already, the writing is on the wall and experts see demographic shifts where the majority of millennials are seeing the church as irrelevant to their lives. There are major "marketing" efforts by Christian groups to attract this next generation but without the same kind of success as in the past. In another generation, the USA will be as secular as Canada was in the 1970's and will be well on its way to a society where former great denominations and churches will be a thing of the past.
I'll sum it up for you:Sorry ... tl;dr
Not quite:I'll sum it up for you:
Religion - Bad.
Science - Good.
I'll sum it up for you:
Religion - Bad.
Science - Good.
Canada - Progressive
US - Eventually will catch up.
Agreed!Not quite:
Religion--rapidly letting itself become irrelevant.
Science--the only available replacement.
Sorry ... tl;dr
Thanks, jacks!I'll sum it up for you:
Religion - Bad.
Science - Good.
Canada - Progressive
US - Eventually will catch up.
And, of course, we know where the Antichrist will come from, don't we?USA - Eventually will catch up to Canada (as Canada is catching up to Europe) in being less religious to what it has been,
Well I didn't mean to be rude.Sorry ... my generation was more than just sound bites ... I keep forgetting this in discussions today
And, of course, we know where the Antichrist will come from, don't we?
(Hint: see Nebuchadnezzar's prophetic dream.)
Well I didn't mean to be rude.
I usually shun walls of text.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?