|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
 Posted - 02/18/2005 : 11:55:53 [Permalink]
|
Filthy,
My endless apologies. The camel I referred to was apparently from the Eocene period. My information came from the amazing source of Google abbreviation. Ever seen a grown man blush? I'll send you a picture. Geesh, I "idioted" right out of the ballpark. |
 |
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 12:39:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
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.
When have I said that the simple age of the document is the focus of my interest?
The original debate is over whether or not this particular document can be considered accurate.
Within the context of this document, however, the age of it is of interest. I AM amazed at how closely it follows the current theory. If anyone isn't, they haven't fully considered just how different the cultural atmosphere was from present, in my opinion.
Subtract God from the equation and Moses is just a guy sitting in a tent (or elsewhere) thinking. Genesis 1 is HIS theory on how the Earth was formed and how everything came to be. Forget "God did this" and "God did that". Simply consider that Moses said that "this happened first, and this happened next."
You do realize, of course, that if he said that God had nothing to do with do these things and God played no part in it, the Israelites would have killed him as a blasphemer.
Break down the language to the knowlege of his time and this document is amazing. Apply the same science to this writing that is applied to any other document in antiquity.
But, "No". God is mentioned, so Moses is summarily tossed onto the junk heap. Is that good science? |
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 12:45:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
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.
Sorry about that one, Dude. Filthy and I are currently engaged in a little bit of fun. 
You're response is understandable. If the Raptors had held out until present, they would have found us much fatter and easier to catch. |
|
|
|
George
New Member
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 13:17:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
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?
I don't think so. “Good science” deals with measurable circumstances. Saying there is a purple planet with “purple people eaters” may be a possibility, but I doubt science would want any part of it. Of course, most scientists would enjoy it if you made a song about it. (Ok, remade the song - a “filk”)
quote:
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?"
It is my understanding, that much was handed down verbally which explains the written style in Pslams. IMO, genealogy could have had many gaps if one allows “begat” to be applied to great-grandchildren in lieu of the immediate descendent. This eliminates the need for a 6000 year old world.
quote:
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.
There is one verse that you might find interesting. 1 Cor 15:52 - In the twinkling of an eye, people who are asleep and people at work will be taken. Astronaut Charles Duke pointed this out to mean the earth must be round. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 13:39:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
Filthy,
My endless apologies. The camel I referred to was apparently from the Eocene period. My information came from the amazing source of Google abbreviation. Ever seen a grown man blush? I'll send you a picture. Geesh, I "idioted" right out of the ballpark.
Not to worry, anyone who doesn't do that now & again is too seldom awake or too heavily medicated to be coherent, and therefore is unworthy of attention.
Just to see what I might find, I ran a google on 'Devonian Camel' and came up with this site. Being rather suprised to find anything at all, I read it until I realized that it was only more of the same-old, same-old that we get in here so often. I wish the Ceationists would come up with something new once in a while. They've gotten terribly dull and repetitive.
But then, I guess they don't have a lot of material to work with.
The Devonian was an amazing time. Forget the dinosaurs, none of them were a patch on Dunkleostous, who could, and doubtless did, chop chunks out of the most ferocious of sharks. It ruled the seas, and it did so toothless! Is that not astounding?
And Dimetrodon, a Late Devonian reptile, had an amazing sail on it's back that is thought to have been a temperature regulator. The name means, 'Two Tooth' and it is thought to be among the first animals to have different types of teeth in their jaws. Sharks first appeared, known mostly from their teeth, as cartledge doesn't fossilize well.
I'd give my left nut, which I'm not using all that much anyway, for a time machine.
Edited to add: Hi George! Welcome to SFN!
 |
"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! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 02/18/2005 13:47:07 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 19:36:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
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.
And why would God grant Moses a vision fraught with inaccuracies? Why would God give Moses a vision from the ground?
quote:
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?
No, because it's possible that the world is flat, and we're all being deceived by Satan.
quote:
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?"
But it doesn't answer it in any way which would assure anyone that it was due to a vision supplied by God.
quote:
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".
That would include all translations and originals of the Bible.
You later wrote:quote:
I AM amazed at how closely it follows the current theory. If anyone isn't, they haven't fully considered just how different the cultural atmosphere was from present, in my opinion.
I don't, because it disagrees with current theory at many points. For another thing, Genesis 1 is written from God's point of view, saying "God saw thus-and-such." It's unbelievable that God couldn't see the stars because of dust localized to Earth.quote:
Subtract God from the equation and Moses is just a guy sitting in a tent (or elsewhere) thinking. Genesis 1 is HIS theory on how the Earth was formed and how everything came to be.
Baloney. Subtract God, and it's likely that the author of Genesis was writing stories passed down orally through generations. And then, the idea that they hadn't been shaped and molded through social and political means is quite ludicrous.quote:
Forget "God did this" and "God did that". Simply consider that Moses said that "this happened first, and this happened next."
And it's quite wrong when thought of that way, no matter how much you apologize for it. Seed-bearing plants didn't exist before bountiful sunlight. As first formed, the Earth was entirely land, and it took time for it to cool to the point where water could condense into puddles, lakes, and oceans. Whales did not exist before land animals.quote:
You do realize, of course, that if he said that God had nothing to do with do these things and God played no part in it, the Israelites would have killed him as a blasphemer.
But all he did was write down their stories.quote:
Break down the language to the knowlege of his time and this document is amazing.
No, it's not. For the reasons above, and then some.quote:
Apply the same science to this writing that is applied to any other document in antiquity.
Okay - look for independent evidence. Gee, it contradicts Genesis 1 in many places. Too bad for Genesis, it appears to be fiction.quote:
But, "No". God is mentioned, so Moses is summarily tossed onto the junk heap.
I certainly hope you're not implying that anyone here on SFN is doing that. It seems, instead, that your arguments have been examined and found lacking in empirical support, even running counter to the theories of modern science at times. That when asked for evidence supporting your apology, you remain silent, does not bolster your case.quote:
Is that good science?
Nope, which is why nobody here is doing it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 20:21:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by George
I don't think so. “Good science” deals with measurable circumstances.
Aw, George, don't "kick me out" of context. Possible theories are regularly held awaiting measurement and/or discovery without being discounted.
quote:
IMO, genealogy could have had many gaps if one allows “begat” to be applied to great-grandchildren in lieu of the immediate descendent.
GREAT point. The Young Earth crowd might hate you for telling me that someday.
quote:
There is one verse that you might find interesting. 1 Cor 15:52 - In the twinkling of an eye, people who are asleep and people at work will be taken. Astronaut Charles Duke pointed this out to mean the earth must be round.
Can you double check that reference. I don't see anything to indicate a round Earth.
|
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 20:40:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
And Dimetrodon, a Late Devonian reptile, had an amazing sail on it's back that is thought to have been a temperature regulator.
Now THAT's something we can go over. Not the reptile, but why is it necessary for evolutionists to assign value to every part of a creatures structure? It could be that the sail was a giant pain in the butt that kept blowing the lizard onto it's side and was nothing more than a mutated dorsal fin. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 20:49:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is my understanding, that much was handed down verbally which explains the written style in Pslams. IMO, genealogy could have had many gaps if one allows “begat” to be applied to great-grandchildren in lieu of the immediate descendent. This eliminates the need for a 6000 year old world.
True. And I might add that there is no independant verification of the existence of these people. The Begats, and I've yet to see a more tedious read, could be all legend.
The Bible is far from a scientific text.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 21:14:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
And Dimetrodon, a Late Devonian reptile, had an amazing sail on it's back that is thought to have been a temperature regulator.
Now THAT's something we can go over. Not the reptile, but why is it necessary for evolutionists to assign value to every part of a creatures structure? It could be that the sail was a giant pain in the butt that kept blowing the lizard onto it's side and was nothing more than a mutated dorsal fin.
Good thought. It could also have been an asset in courting posture as well, and I suspect that it was. Can't verify it, of course, but many reptiles and the distantly related birds of today have features that are used mainly to attract the oppsit sex. The brillent, blue bellies on male swift lizards, displayed during their courting and combat postures, for example. Could the sails have been brightly colored? We'll never know...
But Dimetrodon is far more interesting for it's dentation than it's sail.
It is the human condition to assign values to everything. In the case of Dimetrodon's sail, it is all knowledgable speculation.
|
"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!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 02/18/2005 21:17:36 |
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 21:34:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.And why would God grant Moses a vision fraught with inaccuracies? Why would God give Moses a vision from the ground?
Restating a conclusion does not support an argument. What inaccuracies, or claimed inaccuracies have not already been presented in this thread?
Why wouldn't God give a vision from that perspective? One reason could be to relay creation specific to the Earth and not the Universe.
quote:
No, because it's possible that the world is flat, and we're all being deceived by Satan.
I understand your point, but that's a bad comparison. We have good theory, witness and data to support that the world is not flat. It could be an illusion but that illusion would be nulled in effect since our perceptions and sciences wouldn't be able to overcome it.
quote:
But it doesn't answer it in any way which would assure anyone that it was due to a vision supplied by God.
It doesn't? Genesis gives an account of the formation and habitation of the earth. How does that not answer "Where did I come from?"
A Godless view says that "you" came from a big explosion of something, formed from absolutely nothing, and by random chance.
A Genesis view says that "you" came from something with the intelligence and materials to create.
quote:
That would include all translations and originals of the Bible.
Did you notice the time period of "the 1600's"? The Torah, written and preserved in Hebrew, predates that.
I think the remainder of you're rebuttals have already been argued. |
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 21:56:54 [Permalink]
|
THE GLOBE, BOSS, THE GLOBE!! ("Fantasy Island" reference)
See this link for definitions on the word, "Fermament", used by Moses.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:firmament
Two definitions offered are:
1. celestial sphere, sphere, empyrean, firmament, heavens, vault of heaven, welkin -- (the apparent surface of the imaginary sphere on which celestial bodies appear to be projected)
1. The region of the air; the sky; the heavens.
2. The field or sphere of an interest or activity.
That's not a claim, yet. I've only just now found the definitions. I had always read "Firmament" as space, or sky. The definitions will need a little research.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 22:25:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
Possible theories are regularly held awaiting measurement and/or discovery without being discounted.
Ah! I'm eager to hear then what measurements or experiments you plan on running to support your "suspended" theory. Do tell.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 22:33:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.And why would God grant Moses a vision fraught with inaccuracies? Why would God give Moses a vision from the ground?
Restating a conclusion does not support an argument.
How am I restating any conclusions by asking you direct questions? Why didn't you just answer me?quote:
What inaccuracies, or claimed inaccuracies have not already been presented in this thread?
Well, gee, I haven't gone over your stuff bit-by-bit, as I'm tired of being pedantic tonight. But the fact is, you claim that Genesis 1 is correct when it is taken as being from the point of view of the Earth, and I don't understand why God would offer such a crappy "vision" to anyone, much less a chosen visionary.quote:
Why wouldn't God give a vision from that perspective?
It's your God, you tell me.quote:
One reason could be to relay creation specific to the Earth and not the Universe.
Even then, the order of creation is incorrect, because the stars came first, no matter what, and long before the "gas and dust" of the future Earth was dense enough to block their light. But Genesis doesn't say "God made a bunch of stars, and then one special star, and then Earth."quote:
I understand your point, but that's a bad comparison. We have good theory, witness and data to support that the world is not flat. It could be an illusion but that illusion would be nulled in effect since our perceptions and sciences wouldn't be able to overcome it.
Irrelevant. My point was that science doesn't rest upon "could be."quote:
It doesn't? Genesis gives an account of the formation and habitation of the earth. How does that not answer "Where did I come from?"
I didn't say it didn't answer that question, I said it failed to answer it in such a way that anyone would know the answer came from God. Because A) it gives an incorrect account, regardless of the point of view, and B) it posits nothing which was unambiguously unimaginable to anyone of Moses' day.quote:
A Godless view says that "you" came from a big explosion of something, formed from absolutely nothing, and by random chance.
Sure, A godless view might say that, but such a view would also be incorrect.quote:
A Genesis view says that "you" came from something with the intelligence and materials to create.
So what? Is there something of value in that answer as opposed to any other answer? Is it somehow better than the answers provided by the Hindus, or the !Kung, or the Inuit? Is it better than the current scientific theories?quote:
Did you notice the time period of "the 1600's"? The Torah, written and preserved in Hebrew, predates that.
Did you notice I said "the Bible?" That the Earth was a sphere was known to the Greeks more than two centuries before Jesus allegedly lived.quote:
I think the remainder of you're rebuttals have already been argued.
No, I'm still interested in why you think it's not your job to provide evidence of your claims, and instead think that we should provide evidence of contrary positions (even though we may not hold such views). Also, do you agree that your version of Genesis 1 is self-contradictory? Plus, what evidence do you have that current scientific theories about the formation of the Earth have it as a water-covered globe until continents rose? These are just a few examples of unanswered points. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 06:52:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
David Mc wrote:
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.
Where did these other humans come from? According to Genesis, there was Adam, then Eve, and that was it. They and their children would be the only ones on earth. Was god doing more creating elsewhere? Why didn't he tell Moses about it?
quote:
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.
Not written for world history, except the part about the creation of the entire world?
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
