Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 Answer's to Verlch's sig questions.
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 8

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 02/17/2005 :  02:25:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by David Mc

The entire process ....
You claim accuracy, .....

Faith shouldn't rest upon such dubious "facts." It should rest upon nothing but your heart. Leave the science out of it, 'cause it doesn't fit, and you cannot force it to.

DavidMc wants to discuss the science of the Bible, DaveW. Here is what he asked on the BABB when I told him to come here.The thread title was, "The science of Ghosts and God" and he wrote this in the OP.
quote:
Is there anywhere on the Net where God and Science can be discussed logically without all of the normal, clashing passion?

As a Christian, I believe that God and energy are pretty much the same thing and that intelligence isn't limited to the confines of a bio-mass.

Trying to discuss the possibility of finding a "talking" rock as a life form just won't fit the BA's forum. Yet searching for it is impossible without the brilliance of science.

Try talking with anyone willing to accept the concept that thoughts and memory are energetic forms that can exist outside of a biological host in a cohesive form and soon you're being advised to hum into a crystal to find your answers. *sigh*

So, I'm aching for a board where physical and spiritual sciences co-exist.
I told him TSFN wouldn't give him a free pass and if he just wanted to talk to supporting believers it was the wrong place, but we would discuss the science. I don't think he's looking for just spirituality here. I'll let him speak for himself but I wanted you to know the context before you urged him to keep religion and science separate.
Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/17/2005 02:29:04
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/17/2005 :  05:57:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
I myself, am looking forward to an in-depth and challenging discussion of the Devonian Bunny, the Cambrian Crocodile, and the reason that no H. sapiens fossils have been found in context with the dinosaurs.

And also, why this?
quote:
Mammal-Like Reptiles

As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

David Mc
Skeptic Friend

USA
63 Posts

Posted - 02/17/2005 :  10:20:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send David Mc a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal

DaveMc, I'll let the others discuss early Earth conditions for now but reserve the right to chime in later. You are not only compressing time lines, you haven't explained why God would be telling Moses all this a little less than 200,000 years after early humans left evidence they were here...


God probably told Moses because Moses asked Him.

Moses, according to Exodus and in comparison to the rest of the Bible, had a unique and extraordinary relationship with God. He is the only "Prophet" ever said to have had a face to face confrontation with "I Am That I Am". There are multiple instances where Moses would go off or take aside to converse with Him. That relationship, too, is more friend and council than God and servant.

In present day, our own knowlege of written history only goes back some 5000 years or so (i think). If you're implying that people of Moses era were active in Archaeology I don't know of any evidence for that. There may have been some written record, but the most of the history was probably preserved in lore and songs. It's doubtful that they knew much more that was handed down by their ancestors.

There are two noticeable mentions of other humans. From an english translation of the Torah, http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0101.htm

" 26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let THEM have dominion..." and several more follow in the same instance.

In Genesis 4, Cain is aware that he is being driven out of Eden yet is afraid and says, "...whosoever findeth me will slay me." There is no other mention of others being put out of Eden and no reason for anyone else to leave. Who is it that he is afraid of? The obvious conclusion is that there are other humans, or human species, outside of Eden.

It's understandable that not only did the authors not know of distant places, but they probably didn't care either. Genesis is not written for world history, but for a specific history pertaining to the Israelites. I can't bring to mind any ancient history writings that don't keep a history of anything other than how events pertained to themselves.

Still, consider this. These writings have been in existence as they are for well more than 2000 years (if you don't have a problem believing the Jewish people).

Do you know when the current theory for the formation of the Earth from stellar matter was first proposed. (Other than by Moses, I mean)
Go to Top of Page

David Mc
Skeptic Friend

USA
63 Posts

Posted - 02/17/2005 :  11:03:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send David Mc a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert

quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
Moses did right Genesis 1 after a vision.
Whoa! Where did you come up with that statement? Or is that just your own personal theory?

All the scholars I've heard suggest that god wrote the bible through Moses (and others). There isn't any need to "show" Moses anything, since he technically isn't the author. And certainly god would already know the order of creation, so he has no need to play it out again. So why would he chance a slide show presentation and risk the possibilty of Moses forgetting certain details? Or recalling things incorrectly? Or adding things that weren't there?

Also, where are you getting the idea that early earth was continuously shrouded in a dust cloud?


It's my theory that it was a vision soley based on how it was written. Genesis one is written in the second person, as a witness. Nobody knows exactly how the account was relayed to Moses. My original argument is that the order in which the stars appear, relative to the presence of light on earth, is correct if Moses is relating what he has seen in a vision. Since visions are used as a form of God/man communication throughout the Bible, it's fair to consider that a vision was used here.

At some point in the Earth's formation, heavier gasses must have settle to the gravitational center of the Earth. These are the "waters" deviding from the "waters" in Genesis. The lighter gasses would have formed a cloud barrier above the Earth until they eventually came to the Earth as rain, revealing the stars.
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 02/17/2005 :  11:03:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
Still, consider this. These writings have been in existence as they are for well more than 2000 years (if you don't have a problem believing the Jewish people).

Do you know when the current theory for the formation of the Earth from stellar matter was first proposed. (Other than by Moses, I mean)


So, you're saying that the age of the document or idea is evidence for it's validity?

Then I guess you'd have to accept the Vedic traditions as atleast equally valid as the oldest parts of the Jewish and Christian holy books, if not MORE valid. Since they are atleast as old as, and possibly older than, the Jewish stories.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

David Mc
Skeptic Friend

USA
63 Posts

Posted - 02/17/2005 :  12:10:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send David Mc a Private Message
quote:
You claim accuracy, and now agree that it's too short to be accurate?

Absolutely. It's far too short for detailed accuracy. I only point out that it's in line with the general theoritcal phases.

quote:
The word "cloud" doesn't appear in Genesis (either KJV or NIV) until 9:13. The clouds of gas and dust are described by you, and not by Genesis. I'm unwilling to credit Moses with an "accuracy" due to David Mc.

Correct. If you're not willing to accept that Moses' word "waters" is translated as clouds of gasses, then you won't be able to add much to the discussion. I find them to be gaseous when the "waters" devide from the "waters".

quote:
In other words, you're offering apology at its most extreme: finding some connection between what science tells us and the Bible which simply does not appear in that book at all, and you're abusing the science while you're at it (since under your scheme, plants would have flourished without sunlight).

Apology at this point of creation is necessary, just as it is for "Big Bang" to assume that such compressed matter and/or energy wass possible. I accept that premise without cause when appropriate for discussion.

At the time that plants appear in Moses' account, he refers to grasses and trees. Obviously, in this compressed writing, the clouds have long since thinned enough to allow light from the sun. Yet, on that account, Genesis 1 does insist that the cloud cover is complete and that there is no clear sky through which to see the stars.

If that cloud cover has been either proven or rationally theorized to be impossible, now would be a GREAT time to introduce it.

quote:
Faith shouldn't rest upon such dubious "facts." It should rest upon nothing but your heart. Leave the science out of it, 'cause it doesn't fit, and you cannot force it to.


My faith is secure. This is just science. I'm glad you considered that thought.
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 02/17/2005 :  12:24:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
DavidMc, I will have to add more later but just on the face of your statements, it is very important to distinguish between your hypotheses and statements to which you can point to direct supporting evidence.

Your hypothesis seems to be, the reason the accounts in Genesis are not in line with scientific evidence is that the accounts originate from Moses and how he viewed his 'discussions' with 'God', rather than from 'God' giving Moses a direct command to, "Write this down."

Is this hypothesis supported by any specific verse(s) in the Bible? You really have to stretch an awful lot to support it.

Why would 'God' not have said the lowest creatures each gave rise to higher creatures until you get to man? The Adam and Eve story seems to have no connection to the real world and and couldn't be an interpretation of a description of evolution.

Why wouldn't 'God' have said the Moon was a globe? There are no historical accounts, religious text or otherwise, of the Moon as anything other than a light that I could find prior to about 900 AD. Don't quote me on the date. I'd have to go look at my notes but it was surprisingly late in history. A friend claimed there was a reference to the Earth as a 'globe' in the Bible but when I looked at the verse it really said 'circle'.

How do you explain the rest of the Biblical accounts that are contrary to scientific evidence? The writers miss the boat on the germ theory by a mile.

Go to Top of Page

David Mc
Skeptic Friend

USA
63 Posts

Posted - 02/17/2005 :  12:39:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send David Mc a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by filthy

I myself, am looking forward to an in-depth and challenging discussion of the Devonian Bunny, the Cambrian Crocodile, and the reason that no H. sapiens fossils have been found in context with the dinosaurs.


As soon as this thread dies out, I'm going to get three facts together. Then you, me, and the bunny are going to "throw down", as they say.

For now:
I don't know jack diddly about the rabbit or the croc, but I know the second one.

The Homo Sapiens were digested.
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 02/17/2005 :  12:58:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
The Homo Sapiens were digested.


All of them? I can't do anything but laugh at you now. That's freakin hilarious.

The oldest know H. sapiens fossil is 195K years old.

If H. sapiens lived at the same time as large carnivorous dinosaurs, there would have to be some evidence of them in the fossil record from this time. Obviously, as we have survived as a species, we weren't all digested.

I am always amazed by willfull ignorance.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/17/2005 :  14:54:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc

quote:
Originally posted by filthy

I myself, am looking forward to an in-depth and challenging discussion of the Devonian Bunny, the Cambrian Crocodile, and the reason that no H. sapiens fossils have been found in context with the dinosaurs.


As soon as this thread dies out, I'm going to get three facts together. Then you, me, and the bunny are going to "throw down", as they say.

For now:
I don't know jack diddly about the rabbit or the croc, but I know the second one.

The Homo Sapiens were digested.

Just messin' with ya.

The Devonian Bunny never existed, as there were no mammals in the Devonian.

The Cambrian Croc is also a crock, as there were no reptiles in the Cambrian.

And alas, no dinosaur ever tasted the sweet, succulent flesh of H. Sapiens, as our species was many millions of years away form the Triassic/Jurassic/Cretatious times in which they lived.

If you could prove any of these statements false, the Nobel would be yours.

Of course, vultures, some of the dino's many decendents, get a bit now and then and once a great horned owl whacked a little piece out of my forearm, but the great reptiles never did, as Dude has shown.

What did you think of the Cuffy site?


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 02/17/2005 :  19:21:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal

I told him TSFN wouldn't give him a free pass and if he just wanted to talk to supporting believers it was the wrong place, but we would discuss the science. I don't think he's looking for just spirituality here. I'll let him speak for himself but I wanted you to know the context before you urged him to keep religion and science separate.
You're correct in that I wasn't clear: I urge David Mc not to keep science and religion separate, but only to stop abusing both of them in a bizarre attempt to make them mesh.

There's a fine scientific tradition among the faithful, including Darwin, in which two things are assumed to be true: (1) the stories in the Bible are metaphorical, and (2) the things which exist in the universe carry with them clues as to how God created them. There are brilliant biologists at work today who are studying evolutionary processes in an attempt to find out how God made life on Earth so diverse. There are brilliant cosmologists at work today examining the early universe in an attempt to find out how God made everything.

On the other hand, there are those who twist both religion and science to suit their own needs, whatever they may be.

David Mc wrote:
quote:
Apology at this point of creation is necessary, just as it is for "Big Bang" to assume that such compressed matter and/or energy wass possible.
We've got evidence of the Big Bang. Predictions were made regarding it, which later turned out to be true. For Genesis 1, the only evidence we have is Genesis 1.
quote:
I accept that premise without cause when appropriate for discussion.
Then your argument is circular. A lot of apology is necessary because the Bible isn't clear without a lot of apology.
quote:
At the time that plants appear in Moses' account, he refers to grasses and trees. Obviously, in this compressed writing, the clouds have long since thinned enough to allow light from the sun. Yet, on that account, Genesis 1 does insist that the cloud cover is complete and that there is no clear sky through which to see the stars.
So, you would agree, then, that your version of the account in Genesis 1 is self-contradictory. I find that less than compelling.
quote:
If that cloud cover has been either proven or rationally theorized to be impossible, now would be a GREAT time to introduce it.
Nice way to try to shift the burden of proof, but you won't find many takers here. It is your claim that there were "clouds" which completely obscured the Sun, Moon and stars, while at the same time, extremely complex plant life flourished. You bring forth the scientific evidence which supports your claim.
quote:
My faith is secure. This is just science. I'm glad you considered that thought.
You're not talking science, though. You're trying to bend it to your will. Science is the practice of following the evidence to wherever it leads (even if it sucks rocks), not deciding on a destination and then ignoring the fact that the evidence points in the opposite direction, all the while inventing ad hoc excuses to make it look like you're going the right way.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2005 :  00:18:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
That is much clearer, DaveW.
Go to Top of Page

David Mc
Skeptic Friend

USA
63 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2005 :  09:25:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send David Mc a Private Message
quote:
The Devonian Bunny never existed, as there were no mammals in the Devonian.

The Cambrian Croc is also a crock, as there were no reptiles in the Cambrian.

And alas, no dinosaur ever tasted the sweet, succulent flesh of H. Sapiens, as our species was many millions of years away form the Triassic/Jurassic/Cretatious times in which they lived.

If you could prove any of these statements false, the Nobel would be yours.

Of course, vultures, some of the dino's many decendents, get a bit now and then and once a great horned owl whacked a little piece out of my forearm, but the great reptiles never did, as Dude has shown.

What did you think of the Cuffy site?



I'm glad I didn't know about the bunny
I may have read it wrong, but I poked a Google link that mentioned something about rabbit sized camel in the Devonian. No?

I work nights. My blurry eyes missed that "Cuffy" link.

Have you ever tried positioning a bizarre topic, like Moses, half asleep? It's a nice challenge at times. I delete more than I post.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2005 :  10:04:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc

quote:
The Devonian Bunny never existed, as there were no mammals in the Devonian.

The Cambrian Croc is also a crock, as there were no reptiles in the Cambrian.

And alas, no dinosaur ever tasted the sweet, succulent flesh of H. Sapiens, as our species was many millions of years away form the Triassic/Jurassic/Cretatious times in which they lived.

If you could prove any of these statements false, the Nobel would be yours.

Of course, vultures, some of the dino's many decendents, get a bit now and then and once a great horned owl whacked a little piece out of my forearm, but the great reptiles never did, as Dude has shown.

What did you think of the Cuffy site?



I'm glad I didn't know about the bunny
I may have read it wrong, but I poked a Google link that mentioned something about rabbit sized camel in the Devonian. No?

I work nights. My blurry eyes missed that "Cuffy" link.

Have you ever tried positioning a bizarre topic, like Moses, half asleep? It's a nice challenge at times. I delete more than I post.



This is a skeptic site -- all of the topics tend to be bizaare.

I would like to see that Devonian camel site, or at least the key words used to find it so I can look it up myself. Maybe "Devonian Camel" might work.

Camels are an interesting animal and their fossils have been found in many places. I could be wrong on the number, but I think there are three species living today in SA, as well as the better known Arabian species. And they have been introduced to Australia.

I'll not get into it right now -- time for an old man's nap.


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

David Mc
Skeptic Friend

USA
63 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2005 :  11:49:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send David Mc a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal

DavidMc, I will have to add more later but just on the face of your statements, it is very important to distinguish between your hypotheses and statements to which you can point to direct supporting evidence.

Your hypothesis seems to be, the reason the accounts in Genesis are not in line with scientific evidence is that the accounts originate from Moses and how he viewed his 'discussions' with 'God', rather than from 'God' giving Moses a direct command to, "Write this down."

Is this hypothesis supported by any specific verse(s) in the Bible? You really have to stretch an awful lot to support it.

Why would 'God' not have said the lowest creatures each gave rise to higher creatures until you get to man? The Adam and Eve story seems to have no connection to the real world and and couldn't be an interpretation of a description of evolution.

Why wouldn't 'God' have said the Moon was a globe? There are no historical accounts, religious text or otherwise, of the Moon as anything other than a light that I could find prior to about 900 AD. Don't quote me on the date. I'd have to go look at my notes but it was surprisingly late in history. A friend claimed there was a reference to the Earth as a 'globe' in the Bible but when I looked at the verse it really said 'circle'.

How do you explain the rest of the Biblical accounts that are contrary to scientific evidence? The writers miss the boat on the germ theory by a mile.


Someone asked if I believed that what given to Moses was given to him in a vision. My own personal belief is that it was. I base that on the "biblical fact" that visions were a form of spiritual communication.

You challenged that Moses' account was inaccurate due to an order of progress that had the stars showing up after the Sun when they should have appeared together. But your challenge can't be conclusive if a visual translation was the mode of communication and Moses' "view" of events put him in a postition such that he cannot see the stars because he is below a cloud layer.

Put briefly, "Moses could be right". As long as that possibility exsists, his account cannot be dimissed as an error. That is a tradition of good science, isn't it?

As to why certain things are not described in a more accurate manner, I'm afraid that we're trapped within the confines of a cultural practice on that one. The Jewish people did, and I believe that the Orthodox Jews still do, place a great importance on lineage. The Genesis writing is to the Israelites. It answers (for them) the most basic query. "Where did I come from?"

The "globe": The King James Version was translated in the early 1600's, after Columbus and Magellan. Understanding the stubborn piousness of the Church, any translation after the discovery of a spherical Earth can be brought into question and not offered as "evidence".

I just deleted and endless rant against my brethren for that pious attitude. Thank me for sparing you Basically, it said that we don't appreciate people like you enough.

It could be there, but in my study of the Bible I'm not aware of any striking similarity to a sphereical Earth. Nothing worthy of the title , "evidence". Curves and circles are explainable by simple observation. Unless the Bible can offer a clue to a sphere or an orbital path, I'll have to disagree with your friend.

I'm completely unaware of "germ theory" as it relates to the Bible.

This is your thread. If you would like to turn the discussion in that direction I promise my best effort, if an arguement can be made.

(teasing) go ahead... do it... I dare ya...
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 8 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.5 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000