Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on October 28, 2015, 09:01:07 AM
-
deleted
-
I realise quite a few Christians believe in the creation story in the Bible to be factual. Out of interest how many on this frum believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old at most?
When I was a young teenager, I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church, I was unfortunate enough to attend, where dinosaurs fitted into his young earth belief. The man said that the deity had put them there as a test of faith! My faith took a serious nose dive after that ludicrous statement!
So it all hinged on dinosaurs and one pastor then?
-
I realise quite a few Christians believe in the creation story in the Bible to be factual. Out of interest how many on this frum believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old at most?
When I was a young teenager, I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church, I was unfortunate enough to attend, where dinosaurs fitted into his young earth belief. The man said that the deity had put them there as a test of faith! My faith took a serious nose dive after that ludicrous statement!
So it all hinged on dinosaurs and one pastor then?
No of course not, but that was when I seriously began to think about the credibility of the faith in general.
-
I'm open to the universe being billions of years old, Floo. The speed of light suggests that it is. But there are many seemingly simple things that need explaining, such as how did the moon get into its present orbit. When I started a thread about this a few years ago, all of the mechanisms suggested by scientists were shown in a YEC article to be impossible.
Dinosaurs are extinct. Evolutionists tell us that birds are their descendants. However, Theropods, the supposed ancestors of birds, "fail as stratomorphic intermediates, occurring much too late in the stratigraphic record to serve as the ancestors of birds" (http://creation.com/bird-evolution-discontinuities-and-reversals). I am a 'dinosaur-to-bird evolution denier' and ditto for apes-to-man, fish-to-amphibians etc. I do recognize microevolution though.
-
I do recognize microevolution though. :)
Yes we all do, but it is light years, separate from evolution.
~TNTW~ ;)
-
I'm open to the universe being billions of years old, Floo. The speed of light suggests that it is.
And other things too like the cosmic microwave background radiation, the rate of expansion of the Universe, the geology of Earth and even evolution.
But there are many seemingly simple things that need explaining, such as how did the moon get into its present orbit.
The current best hypothesis is that the Moon formed as a result of the impact when a Mars sized planet collided with the proto-Earth.
When I started a thread about this a few years ago, all of the mechanisms suggested by scientists were shown in a YEC article to be impossible.
I seriously doubt that. YEC believers are generally incompetent at science.
Dinosaurs are extinct. Evolutionists tell us that birds are their descendants. However, Theropods, the supposed ancestors of birds, "fail as stratomorphic intermediates, occurring much too late in the stratigraphic record to serve as the ancestors of birds" (http://creation.com/bird-evolution-discontinuities-and-reversals).
Do you understand what that even means?
The article, by the way, was published 12 years ago. Since then, more evidence has been found in favour of the link between dinosaurs and birds, not least of which is the fact that many therapods had feathers.
I am a 'dinosaur-to-bird evolution denier' and ditto for apes-to-man, fish-to-amphibians etc. I do recognize microevolution though.
You can deny all you like, but you might as well deny that the Earth is round. You can't change the fact that the Theory of Evolution is true.
-
many therapies had feathers.
If we were truly evolved, we wouldn't have spell-chuckers.
-
The Theory of Evolution might need tweaking a bit as our knowledge continues to increase, but it makes sense whereas the YEC position makes none whatsoever.
-
I'm open to the universe being billions of years old, Floo. The speed of light suggests that it is.
And other things too like the cosmic microwave background radiation, the rate of expansion of the Universe, the geology of Earth and even evolution.
But there are many seemingly simple things that need explaining, such as how did the moon get into its present orbit.
The current best hypothesis is that the Moon formed as a result of the impact when a Mars sized planet collided with the proto-Earth.
When I started a thread about this a few years ago, all of the mechanisms suggested by scientists were shown in a YEC article to be impossible.
I seriously doubt that. YEC believers are generally incompetent at science.
Dinosaurs are extinct. Evolutionists tell us that birds are their descendants. However, Theropods, the supposed ancestors of birds, "fail as stratomorphic intermediates, occurring much too late in the stratigraphic record to serve as the ancestors of birds" (http://creation.com/bird-evolution-discontinuities-and-reversals).
Do you understand what that even means?
The article, by the way, was published 12 years ago. Since then, more evidence has been found in favour of the link between dinosaurs and birds, not least of which is the fact that many therapies had feathers.
I am a 'dinosaur-to-bird evolution denier' and ditto for apes-to-man, fish-to-amphibians etc. I do recognize microevolution though.
You can deny all you like, but you might as well deny that the Earth is round. You can't change the fact that the Theory of Evolution is true.
Junk Post says Theory of Evolution is true..but we have to save the lion/tiger/elephant/and uncle tom cobbly and all because evolution seems to have stopped.
but did it ever start ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm open to the universe being billions of years old, Floo. The speed of light suggests that it is.
And other things too like the cosmic microwave background radiation, the rate of expansion of the Universe, the geology of Earth and even evolution.
But there are many seemingly simple things that need explaining, such as how did the moon get into its present orbit.
The current best hypothesis is that the Moon formed as a result of the impact when a Mars sized planet collided with the proto-Earth.
When I started a thread about this a few years ago, all of the mechanisms suggested by scientists were shown in a YEC article to be impossible.
I seriously doubt that. YEC believers are generally incompetent at science.
Dinosaurs are extinct. Evolutionists tell us that birds are their descendants. However, Theropods, the supposed ancestors of birds, "fail as stratomorphic intermediates, occurring much too late in the stratigraphic record to serve as the ancestors of birds" (http://creation.com/bird-evolution-discontinuities-and-reversals).
Do you understand what that even means?
The article, by the way, was published 12 years ago. Since then, more evidence has been found in favour of the link between dinosaurs and birds, not least of which is the fact that many therapies had feathers.
I am a 'dinosaur-to-bird evolution denier' and ditto for apes-to-man, fish-to-amphibians etc. I do recognize microevolution though.
You can deny all you like, but you might as well deny that the Earth is round. You can't change the fact that the Theory of Evolution is true.
Junk Post says Theory of Evolution is true..but we have to save the lion/tiger/elephant/and uncle tom cobbly and all because evolution seems to have stopped.
but did it ever start ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Well as we are here, and have evolved to be what we are today, I would say a resounding YES! TW are you a YEC?
-
Theory of Evolution is true..but we have to save the lion/tiger/elephant/and uncle tom cobbly and all because evolution seems to have stopped.
I cannot be certain that you are actually asking the question but surely for evolution to occur there must be species for it to follow-on from - that is not very well put is it? I mean how can elephants (etc) evolve if there are no elephants (etc) to evolve into something else?
-
many therapies had feathers.
If we were truly evolved, we wouldn't have spell-chuckers.
Many years ago one of our administrators, typing up a document about certain dumb terminals changed "wand interface" (a plug for attaching a bar code reading wand into a keyboard) into "wank interference" because it wasn't flagged by the spell checker.
Anyway, I fixed "theropods".
-
Junk Post says Theory of Evolution is true..but we have to save the lion/tiger/elephant/and uncle tom cobbly and all because evolution seems to have stopped.
Can you try writing your posts in English?
-
Junk Post says Theory of Evolution is true..but we have to save the lion/tiger/elephant/and uncle tom cobbly and all because evolution seems to have stopped.
but did it ever start ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
It did start, else we wouldn't be here, and it hasn't stopped.
-
Junk Post says Theory of Evolution is true..but we have to save the lion/tiger/elephant/and uncle tom cobbly and all because evolution seems to have stopped.
but did it ever start ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
It did start, else we wouldn't be here, and it hasn't stopped.
I think evolution is an on going process, who knows what humans will be like in centuries to come?
-
Junk Post says Theory of Evolution is true..but we have to save the lion/tiger/elephant/and uncle tom cobbly and all because evolution seems to have stopped.
but did it ever start ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
It did start, else we wouldn't be here, and it hasn't stopped.
I think evolution is an on going process, who knows what humans will be like in centuries to come?
centuries in human evolution are mere sneezes.
-
I think evolution is an on going process, who knows what humans will be like in centuries to come?
Extinct, almost certainly. Almost everything will be extinct. In 50 million years the earth will be dominated by the descendants of some obscure bird or something.
-
Junk Post says Theory of Evolution is true..but we have to save the lion/tiger/elephant/and uncle tom cobbly and all because evolution seems to have stopped.
but did it ever start ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
More smilies, more misunderstanding of evolution. A classic TW post.
Evolution by natural selection is a gradual process taking place over generations. Lions/elephants etc are threatened by the rapid changes in the environment caused by man and by hunting. The threat to their existence has nothing to do with evolution stopping.
-
That's true, Maeght. 100 years ago lions were so numerous in Africa that they were considered vermin. They have been hunted almost to extinction.
-
Lord Richard of the Dawkins says the evlutionists have it right Tw______
Ippy
-
That's true, Maeght. 100 years ago lions were so numerous in Africa that they were considered vermin. They have been hunted almost to extinction.
. . . by American dentists.
-
I think evolution is an on going process, who knows what humans will be like in centuries to come?
Extinct, almost certainly. Almost everything will be extinct. In 50 million years the earth will be dominated by the descendants of some obscure bird or something.
The Discovery programme that I saw suggested intelligent amphibious squids.
-
I realise quite a few Christians believe in the creation story in the Bible to be factual. Out of interest how many on this forum believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old at most?
When I was a young teenager, I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church, I was unfortunate enough to attend, where dinosaurs fitted into his young earth belief. The man said that the deity had put them there as a test of faith! My faith took a serious nose dive after that ludicrous statement!
As I said God created an mature earth. He also made mature adults. At a day old Adam was a man of years.
It seems so weird how people fail to realise that the earths age physically does not represent the age by scientist.
Because the physical age was not the age it took to create it.
-
I realise quite a few Christians believe in the creation story in the Bible to be factual. Out of interest how many on this forum believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old at most?
When I was a young teenager, I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church, I was unfortunate enough to attend, where dinosaurs fitted into his young earth belief. The man said that the deity had put them there as a test of faith! My faith took a serious nose dive after that ludicrous statement!
As I said God created an mature earth. He also made mature adults. At a day old Adam was a man of years.
It seems so weird how people fail to realise that the earths age physically does not represent the age by scientist.
Because the physical age was not the age it took to create it.
And your evidence to substantiate that statement is? The Bible isn't evidence.
-
I realise quite a few Christians believe in the creation story in the Bible to be factual. Out of interest how many on this forum believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old at most?
When I was a young teenager, I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church, I was unfortunate enough to attend, where dinosaurs fitted into his young earth belief. The man said that the deity had put them there as a test of faith! My faith took a serious nose dive after that ludicrous statement!
As I said God created an mature earth. He also made mature adults. At a day old Adam was a man of years.
It seems so weird how people fail to realise that the earths age physically does not represent the age by scientist.
Because the physical age was not the age it took to create it.
It's only weird if you have certain religious beliefs.
-
Moderator:
No doubt African safaris, and hunting in general, is worthy of discussion: but not on a thread about YEC's.
So, could we end this line of discussion in this thread please.
-
I am not sure how YECs calculate their young earth scenario?
-
I am not sure how YECs calculate their young earth scenario?
A random number generator?
-
The classic is Ussher detailed in link but as it makes clear it is not the only one, though they do tend to use similar methodology.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology
-
As I said God created an mature earth. He also made mature adults. At a day old Adam was a man of years.
It seems so weird how people fail to realise that the earths age physically does not represent the age by scientist.
Because the physical age was not the age it took to create it.
MODS Urgent attention please.
The new bullshit filter that you had fitted to the R & E website is faulty. Ask for your money back.
-
As I said God created an mature earth. He also made mature adults. At a day old Adam was a man of years.
It seems so weird how people fail to realise that the earths age physically does not represent the age by scientist.
Because the physical age was not the age it took to create it.
MODS Urgent attention please.
The new bullshit filter that you had fitted to the R & E website is faulty. Ask for your money back.
The SuperBullshitFilter was never designed to deal with the quantities that it is being asked to deal with on the forum - read the bloody guarantee!
-
The classic is Ussher detailed in link but as it makes clear it is not the only one, though they do tend to use similar methodology.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology
Thanks. We live in the 21st century not the 17th, and human knowledge has moved on a pace, which makes a literal interpretation of the Bible well out of date, imo.
-
As I said God created an mature earth. He also made mature adults. At a day old Adam was a man of years.
It seems so weird how people fail to realise that the earths age physically does not represent the age by scientist.
Because the physical age was not the age it took to create it.
Are you really telling us that you actually believe this?
So, am I to accept that you also believe that a mass of people, about the size of the South Yorkshire conurbation, wandered about the Sinai peninisular for about 40 years without leaving a single scrap of evidence?
Not even a single coprolite?
-
As I said God created an mature earth. He also made mature adults. At a day old Adam was a man of years.
It seems so weird how people fail to realise that the earths age physically does not represent the age by scientist.
Because the physical age was not the age it took to create it.
Are you really telling us that you actually believe this?
So, am I to accept that you also believe that a mass of people, about the size of the South Yorkshire conurbation, wandered about the Sinai peninisular for about 40 years without leaving a single scrap of evidence?
Not even a single coprolite?
Wouldn't that be a '' single crap of evidence''?
-
Junk Post says Theory of Evolution is true..but we have to save the lion/tiger/elephant/and uncle tom cobbly and all because evolution seems to have stopped.
but did it ever start ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
A point about the timescales for evolution. Modern lions in Africa and jaguars in central and southern America are supposedly separated by 2-3 million years of evolution. How is it possible that their mutated DNA allows them to hybridize?
-
Junk Post says Theory of Evolution is true..but we have to save the lion/tiger/elephant/and uncle tom cobbly and all because evolution seems to have stopped.
but did it ever start ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
A point about the timescales for evolution. Modern lions in Africa and jaguars in central and southern America are supposedly separated by 2-3 million years of evolution. How is it possible that their mutated DNA allows them to hybridize?
Because "mutate" and "evolve" are two entirely different things.
-
I am not sure how YECs calculate their young earth scenario?
You do it by constructing a time line of Biblical events from the creation of Adam to a historical event that happened in a known year e.g. the fall of Jerusalem. Here is one http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/age.html
If the Bible was inerrant, that would give you the age of the Universe.
-
I am not sure how YECs calculate their young earth scenario?
You do it by constructing a time line of Biblical events from the creation of Adam to a historical event that happened in a known year e.g. the fall of Jerusalem. Here is one http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/age.html
If the Bible was inerrant, that would give you the age of the Universe.
That, Sir, is, if you don't mind me saying so, is a bloody big "if"!
-
I am not sure how YECs calculate their young earth scenario?
You do it by constructing a time line of Biblical events from the creation of Adam to a historical event that happened in a known year e.g. the fall of Jerusalem. Here is one http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/age.html
If the Bible was inerrant, that would give you the age of the Universe.
That, Sir, is, if you don't mind me saying so, is a bloody big "if"!
I don't mind. It's obviously bollocks, but it is how it's done.
-
I think evolution is an on going process, who knows what humans will be like in centuries to come?
Extinct, almost certainly. Almost everything will be extinct. In 50 million years the earth will be dominated by the descendants of some obscure bird or something.
The Discovery programme that I saw suggested intelligent amphibious squids.
Come to think of it, that seems much likelier. They could have 4 legs, 2 arms and 2 wings.
-
Junk Post says Theory of Evolution is true..but we have to save the lion/tiger/elephant/and uncle tom cobbly and all because evolution seems to have stopped.
but did it ever start ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
A point about the timescales for evolution. Modern lions in Africa and jaguars in central and southern America are supposedly separated by 2-3 million years of evolution. How is it possible that their mutated DNA allows them to hybridize?
Lions and Jaguars have a common ancestor and have evolved to be genetically different but are genetically similar enough to interbreed and give jaglion hybrids. Why do you think this shouldn't be possible?
-
Junk Post says Theory of Evolution is true..but we have to save the lion/tiger/elephant/and uncle tom cobbly and all because evolution seems to have stopped.
but did it ever start ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
A point about the timescales for evolution. Modern lions in Africa and jaguars in central and southern America are supposedly separated by 2-3 million years of evolution. How is it possible that their mutated DNA allows them to hybridize?
Lions and Jaguars have a common ancestor and have evolved to be genetically different but are genetically similar enough to interbreed and give jaglion hybrids. Why do you think this shouldn't be possible?
Maeght
Another insomniac?
-
Yes, afraid so.
-
Yes, afraid so.
Commiserations - fellow sufferer.
-
Junk Post says Theory of Evolution is true..but we have to save the lion/tiger/elephant/and uncle tom cobbly and all because evolution seems to have stopped.
but did it ever start ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
A point about the timescales for evolution. Modern lions in Africa and jaguars in central and southern America are supposedly separated by 2-3 million years of evolution. How is it possible that their mutated DNA allows them to hybridize?
Lions and Jaguars have a common ancestor and have evolved to be genetically different but are genetically similar enough to interbreed and give jaglion hybrids. Why do you think this shouldn't be possible?
I don't think it shouldn't be possible. If the most recent common ancestor lived a few thousand years ago it seems possible, but it is surprising if it lived 1.8 mya.
-
Yes, afraid so.
Commiserations - fellow sufferer.
Thanks, same back to you.
-
Junk Post says Theory of Evolution is true..but we have to save the lion/tiger/elephant/and uncle tom cobbly and all because evolution seems to have stopped.
but did it ever start ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
A point about the timescales for evolution. Modern lions in Africa and jaguars in central and southern America are supposedly separated by 2-3 million years of evolution. How is it possible that their mutated DNA allows them to hybridize?
Lions and Jaguars have a common ancestor and have evolved to be genetically different but are genetically similar enough to interbreed and give jaglion hybrids. Why do you think this shouldn't be possible?
I don't think it shouldn't be possible. If the most recent common ancestor lived a few thousand years ago it seems possible, but it is surprising if it lived 1.8 may.
So you don't think it shouldn't be possible yet say it is surprising to you. So personal incredulity. Not realy much of a point then really.
-
I don't think you read what I wrote.
-
I think I did. Perhaps the way you wrote it didn't put across your meaning. So just to clarify
Do you think it is possible?
-
Copy that. To clarify, I think it shouldn't be possible if their most recent common ancestor lived a couple of million years ago.
-
Copy that. To clarify, I think it shouldn't be possible if their most recent common ancestor lived a couple of million years ago.
Thanks for that. So my next question is why shouldn't it be possible?
-
The Theory of Evolution might need tweaking a bit as our knowledge continues to increase, but it makes sense whereas the YEC position makes none whatsoever.
The ToE has been vastly more than tweaked over the years, Floo. Afriend of mine who is a diehard evolutionist tells me that nopt only would Darwin fail to recognise it its current format, but so would many pre-WW2 evolutionists. He reckons it will continue to evolve at an ever-increasing rate over the next few decades.
-
Lord Richard of the Dawkins says the evlutionists have it right Tw______
Ippy
Which is, in and of itself, proof that they haven't, ip. ;)
-
The new bullshit filter that you had fitted to the R & E website is faulty. Ask for your money back.
I'd agree, Trent - its letting the BS you post through ;)
Mods, you really do need to make sure that such rubbish can't make its way onto the board.
-
The irony is that the YEC concept is a YAP - a young aged philosophy. Whilst Ussher is the famous name associated wth it, it only really began to appear in the 16th century AD. As such, any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.
-
any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.
are they though? Really?
-
The irony is that the YEC concept is a YAP - a young aged philosophy. Whilst Ussher is the famous name associated wth it, it only really began to appear in the 16th century AD. As such, any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.
Be careful what you say here. Don't think that the Fathers, for instance, never thought Adam and Eve, as an example from the creation account, as anything other than literal.
-
Copy that. To clarify, I think it shouldn't be possible if their most recent common ancestor lived a couple of million years ago.
Thanks for that. So my next question is why shouldn't it be possible?
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. I will play YEC's advocate and list a few differences between lions and jaguars. Apart from the obvious colour differences:
Jaguars have shorter tails (?due to less tail vertebrae or same number of vertebrae but shorter ones?) shorter legs and no tail spur (unique to lions). Their jaw strength:body size ratio is higher than a lion's.
If there have been say 200,000 generations -as a rough guess based on one every 10 years - since the last common ancestor about 2mya, we might expect to find more differnces between the two species than we actually find. This seems enough time for many more mutations in the genome to occur. So we might expect the kinds of differences we find between a domestic dog and a lion (assuming the evolutionist's position that dogs and cats share a common ancestor).
Adaptation to new environments occurs rapidly- it has to to enable survival.
Probably you will be able to refute all that but it is just to explain why a hybrid after 2 million years would be surprising
-
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. I will play YEC's advocate and list a few differences between lions and jaguars. Apart from the obvious colour differences:
Jaguars have shorter tails (?due to less tail vertebrae or same number of vertebrae but shorter ones?) shorter legs and no tail spur (unique to lions). Their jaw strength:body size ratio is higher than a lion's.
If there have been say 200,000 generations -as a rough guess based on one every 10 years - since the last common ancestor about 2mya, we might expect to find more differnces between the two species than we actually find. This seems enough time for many more mutations in the genome to occur. So we might expect the kinds of differences we find between a domestic dog and a lion (assuming the evolutionist's position that dogs and cats share a common ancestor).
Adaptation to new environments occurs rapidly- it has to to enable survival.
Probably you will be able to refute all that but it is just to explain why a hybrid after 2 million years would be surprising
That is your theory, Spud, but what does the science say about this?
-
I realise quite a few Christians believe in the creation story in the Bible to be factual. Out of interest how many on this forum believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old at most?
When I was a young teenager, I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church, I was unfortunate enough to attend, where dinosaurs fitted into his young earth belief. The man said that the deity had put them there as a test of faith! My faith took a serious nose dive after that ludicrous statement!
As I said God created an mature earth. He also made mature adults. At a day old Adam was a man of years.
It seems so weird how people fail to realise that the earths age physically does not represent the age by scientist.
Because the physical age was not the age it took to create it.
And your evidence to substantiate that statement is? The Bible isn't evidence.
Tlll you have tried it, you can't say that. Show us evidence and concrete proof that the bible isn't evidence. Also prove it isn't evidence that God created a mature earth.
You can't so stop spouting nonsense. You haven't even read the bible.
-
Copy that. To clarify, I think it shouldn't be possible if their most recent common ancestor lived a couple of million years ago.
Thanks for that. So my next question is why shouldn't it be possible?
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. I will play YEC's advocate and list a few differences between lions and jaguars. Apart from the obvious colour differences:
Jaguars have shorter tails (?due to less tail vertebrae or same number of vertebrae but shorter ones?) shorter legs and no tail spur (unique to lions). Their jaw strength:body size ratio is higher than a lion's.
If there have been say 200,000 generations -as a rough guess based on one every 10 years - since the last common ancestor about 2mya, we might expect to find more differnces between the two species than we actually find. This seems enough time for many more mutations in the genome to occur. So we might expect the kinds of differences we find between a domestic dog and a lion (assuming the evolutionist's position that dogs and cats share a common ancestor).
Adaptation to new environments occurs rapidly- it has to to enable survival.
Probably you will be able to refute all that but it is just to explain why a hybrid after 2 million years would be surprising
Thanks for that Spud but I'm afraid that that is full of the personal incredulity that I mentioned above (such as 'This seems' and 'we might expect'). The science does not support what you say or feel. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a scientific theory and lives or dies based on the scientific evidence. You will need to provide some actual scientific evidence which invalidates the theory.
We are not talking about adaption here but changes in the gene pool over many generations due to genetic changes giving an improved chance of those modified genes being passed on to subsequent generations. Most genetic modifications will give no survival advantage and so will not be 'selected'. There is no standard 'rate' of evolution, it depends on environments and survival benefits so it is not at all surprising, if you uderstand the process, that animals such as Lions and Jaguars are similar enough to produce hybrids.
The fact that many species have gone extinct and many are now threatened with extinction shows that the slow evolutionary changes cannot respond rapidly to sudden changes in environment or circumstances.
-
Also prove it isn't evidence that God created a mature earth.
Why don't you prove that God didn't create a mature earth last Thursday.
You can't so stop spouting nonsense.
-
any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.
are they though? Really?
Seb, the New Testament drew on the Jewish Scriptures and most Jews understood the creation story to be allegorical, or at least that is what I have been told by Jewish scholars, who have told me that the structure of the material in Hebrew is exactly what one woud expect from a allegorical piece of writing. I realise that this is largely lost in translation into English, but in Englis there are certain clues - such as the repetitive format of God's daily actions and his deeming them 'good'.
The Jewish writers of the New Testament (the majority of the authors would have been Jewish, even if they were cosmopolitan with it - like Paul) woukd therefore have written their material with that understanding in mind. There is nothing in Jesus' teaching to suggest that they oughtn't to.
As I said, the 'non-literal' reading of the material that Ussher et al exhibit didn't come into being until the 15th and 16th centuries. I understand that something that Martin Luther wrote sparked the idea that eventully blossomed into Ussher's detailed calculations. Exactly what Luther wrote, I'm not sure - I haven't read all his stuff.
-
any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.
are they though? Really?
Seb, the New Testament drew on the Jewish Scriptures and most Jews understood the creation story to be allegorical, or at least that is what I have been told by Jewish scholars, who have told me that the structure of the material in Hebrew is exactly what one woud expect from a allegorical piece of writing. I realise that this is largely lost in translation into English, but in Englis there are certain clues - such as the repetitive format of God's daily actions and his deeming them 'good'.
The Jewish writers of the New Testament (the majority of the authors would have been Jewish, even if they were cosmopolitan with it - like Paul) woukd therefore have written their material with that understanding in mind. There is nothing in Jesus' teaching to suggest that they oughtn't to.
As I said, the 'non-literal' reading of the material that Ussher et al exhibit didn't come into being until the 15th and 16th centuries. I understand that something that Martin Luther wrote sparked the idea that eventully blossomed into Ussher's detailed calculations. Exactly what Luther wrote, I'm not sure - I haven't read all his stuff.
This post reminds me of the Spanish bullfight as the bull charges it's diverted by adept use of the cape, there still seems to be a lot of gored bullfighters.
Oh no that's just a metaphor, oh no it was only a small part of the Middle East that got flooded not the whole of the world, oh no he didn't really walk on water and on and on and on______yea yea yea.
Something like politicians that don't answer the questions or answer with something that has nothing to do with the original question; you're all full of it, I think bullshit is the word.
ippy
-
Thanks for that Spud but I'm afraid that that is full of the personal incredulity that I mentioned above (such as 'This seems' and 'we might expect').
Yes I realize that. Here is perhaps a better example:
http://serious-science.org/60-million-years-is-not-enough-to-keep-two-ferns-apart-2455
Would you say that the reproductive compatibility of such distantly related species is due to punctuated equilibrium- a small degree of rapid evolution followed by a long period of evolutionary stasis?
-
Copy that. To clarify, I think it shouldn't be possible if their most recent common ancestor lived a couple of million years ago.
Just a little bit of Googling would have told you:
Lions can breed with tigers.
Horses can breed with donkeys
Polar bears can breed with grizzly bears.
Dogs can breed with wolves.
Goats can breed with sheep.
Domestic fowl can breed with peafowl.
In most cases, however, their offspring may not be fertile, but sometimes - just sometimes - the union produces something extraordinary ...
-
Hi Harry, yes but if lions and tigers diverged 2 m y a that means 2 m years of evolutionary stasis. No significant change in approx 200,000 generations.
-
This post reminds me of the Spanish bullfight as the bull charges it's diverted by adept use of the cape, there still seems to be a lot of gored bullfighters.
Oh no that's just a metaphor, oh no it was only a small part of the Middle East that got flooded not the whole of the world, oh no he didn't really walk on water and on and on and on______yea yea yea.
Something like politicians that don't answer the questions or answer with something that has nothing to do with the original question; you're all full of it, I think bullshit is the word.
ippy
This reminds me of the wikipedia articles that are written by people who have no understanding of what they are writing about, ippy.
-
Or at least, no changes significant enough to prevent them producing hybrid offspring. The young earth/global flood model explains the data better.
-
Or at least, no changes significant enough to prevent them producing hybrid offspring. The young earth/global flood model explains the data better.
It doesn't, Spud, since the Earth ain't young.
-
Quote from: Hope on Today at 12:35:47 PM
Quote from: Sebastian Toe on October 30, 2015, 09:00:21 PM
Quote from: Hope on October 30, 2015, 06:54:52 PM
any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.
are they though? Really?
Seb, the New Testament drew on the Jewish Scriptures and most Jews understood the creation story to be allegorical, or at least that is what I have been told by Jewish scholars, who have told me that the structure of the material in Hebrew is exactly what one woud expect from a allegorical piece of writing. I realise that this is largely lost in translation into English, but in Englis there are certain clues - such as the repetitive format of God's daily actions and his deeming them 'good'.
The Jewish writers of the New Testament (the majority of the authors would have been Jewish, even if they were cosmopolitan with it - like Paul) woukd therefore have written their material with that understanding in mind. There is nothing in Jesus' teaching to suggest that they oughtn't to.
As I said, the 'non-literal' reading of the material that Ussher et al exhibit didn't come into being until the 15th and 16th centuries. I understand that something that Martin Luther wrote sparked the idea that eventully blossomed into Ussher's detailed calculations. Exactly what Luther wrote, I'm not sure - I haven't read all his stuff.
This post reminds me of the Spanish bullfight as the bull charges it's diverted by adept use of the cape, there still seems to be a lot of gored bullfighters.
Oh no that's just a metaphor, oh no it was only a small part of the Middle East that got flooded not the whole of the world, oh no he didn't really walk on water and on and on and on______yea yea yea.
Something like politicians that don't answer the questions or answer with something that has nothing to do with the original question; you're all full of it, I think bullshit is the word.
ippy
Quote from: ippy on Today at 02:10:56 PM
This post reminds me of the Spanish bullfight as the bull charges it's diverted by adept use of the cape, there still seems to be a lot of gored bullfighters.
Oh no that's just a metaphor, oh no it was only a small part of the Middle East that got flooded not the whole of the world, oh no he didn't really walk on water and on and on and on______yea yea yea.
Something like politicians that don't answer the questions or answer with something that has nothing to do with the original question; you're all full of it, I think bullshit is the word.
ippy
This reminds me of the wikipedia articles that are written by people who have no understanding of what they are writing about, ippy.
Report to moderator Logged
So much better in full, don’t you think Hope?
ippy
-
Thanks for that Spud but I'm afraid that that is full of the personal incredulity that I mentioned above (such as 'This seems' and 'we might expect').
Yes I realize that. Here is perhaps a better example:
http://serious-science.org/60-million-years-is-not-enough-to-keep-two-ferns-apart-2455
Would you say that the reproductive compatibility of such distantly related species is due to punctuated equilibrium- a small degree of rapid evolution followed by a long period of evolutionary stasis?
I wouldn't say. I don't work in the field and see that those who do are debating and studying this in order to find out.
-
Or at least, no changes significant enough to prevent them producing hybrid offspring. The young earth/global flood model explains the data better.
There has still been significant evolution since they 'split' but there are still sufficient similarities to enable interbreeding and the production of infertile hybrids. This really isn't surprising.
Oh, and the Flood model certainly does not explain the data better. if you look at all the data from all scientific fields of investigation the flood doesn't work whereas an old earth and evolution does.
-
any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.
are they though? Really?
Seb, the New Testament drew on the Jewish Scriptures and most Jews understood the creation story to be allegorical, or at least that is what I have been told by Jewish scholars, who have told me that the structure of the material in Hebrew is exactly what one woud expect from a allegorical piece of writing. I realise that this is largely lost in translation into English, but in Englis there are certain clues - such as the repetitive format of God's daily actions and his deeming them 'good'.
The Jewish writers of the New Testament (the majority of the authors would have been Jewish, even if they were cosmopolitan with it - like Paul) woukd therefore have written their material with that understanding in mind. There is nothing in Jesus' teaching to suggest that they oughtn't to.
Whoever wrote Genesis 1 knew it wasn't true. But the later Pharisaic understanding was that God dictated the whole Torah to Moses on Sinai.
Your Jewish friends are taught the official line and peddle the official line. It's a religion, remember.
For an authentic take, see the Book of Jubilees. This was very popular in the 1st century, and many copies were found at Qumran.
It was the rabbis who first calculated the date of the Creation, and they still use it as the basis of Jewish year numbering.
-
I realise quite a few Christians believe in the creation story in the Bible to be factual. Out of interest how many on this forum believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old at most?
When I was a young teenager, I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church, I was unfortunate enough to attend, where dinosaurs fitted into his young earth belief. The man said that the deity had put them there as a test of faith! My faith took a serious nose dive after that ludicrous statement!
As I said God created an mature earth. He also made mature adults. At a day old Adam was a man of years.
It seems so weird how people fail to realise that the earths age physically does not represent the age by scientist.
Because the physical age was not the age it took to create it.
And your evidence to substantiate that statement is? The Bible isn't evidence.
Tlll you have tried it, you can't say that. Show us evidence and concrete proof that the bible isn't evidence. Also prove it isn't evidence that God created a mature earth.
That's not evidence in the modern sense. If the Bible is evidence, then so is the Qur'an, so is the Book of Mormon, so is the Bhagavad Gita and countless others tomes. These works are evidence of the multitudinous beliefs that humans have entertained over the years. Beliefs are not evidence.
-
I realise quite a few Christians believe in the creation story in the Bible to be factual. Out of interest how many on this forum believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old at most?
When I was a young teenager, I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church, I was unfortunate enough to attend, where dinosaurs fitted into his young earth belief. The man said that the deity had put them there as a test of faith! My faith took a serious nose dive after that ludicrous statement!
As I said God created an mature earth. He also made mature adults. At a day old Adam was a man of years.
It seems so weird how people fail to realise that the earths age physically does not represent the age by scientist.
Because the physical age was not the age it took to create it.
And your evidence to substantiate that statement is? The Bible isn't evidence.
Tlll you have tried it, you can't say that. Show us evidence and concrete proof that the bible isn't evidence. Also prove it isn't evidence that God created a mature earth.
That's not evidence in the modern sense. If the Bible is evidence, then so is the Qur'an, so is the Book of Mormon, so is the Bhagavad Gita and countless others tomes. These works are evidence of the multitudinous beliefs that humans have entertained over the years. Beliefs are not evidence.
Exactly!
-
I realise quite a few Christians believe in the creation story in the Bible to be factual. Out of interest how many on this forum believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old at most?
When I was a young teenager, I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church, I was unfortunate enough to attend, where dinosaurs fitted into his young earth belief. The man said that the deity had put them there as a test of faith! My faith took a serious nose dive after that ludicrous statement!
As I said God created an mature earth. He also made mature adults. At a day old Adam was a man of years.
It seems so weird how people fail to realise that the earths age physically does not represent the age by scientist.
Because the physical age was not the age it took to create it.
And your evidence to substantiate that statement is? The Bible isn't evidence.
Tlll you have tried it, you can't say that. Show us evidence and concrete proof that the bible isn't evidence. Also prove it isn't evidence that God created a mature earth.
That's not evidence in the modern sense. If the Bible is evidence, then so is the Qur'an, so is the Book of Mormon, so is the Bhagavad Gita and countless others tomes. These works are evidence of the multitudinous beliefs that humans have entertained over the years. Beliefs are not evidence.
I agree with you and where I can't get my head around with most of these believers, is where they can't get it into their heads that until they can establish the veracity of their various cherished books, it's hardly worth the bother of discussing any of it, unless it's compared to something like, say a Sherlock Holmes stories debating club at least his stories are a bit more interesting.
ippy
-
The thing that gets me about the YEC position, is that it is profoundly cynical. Even if you start with the belief that God created the universe and everything in it, the only way to arrive at a YEC position is to defer entirely to the 'evidence' of scripture and it's supposed literal truth. This essentially labels thousands (millions?) of scientists as liars in the process and God as intentionally misleading mankind. It is a view of the world in its worst possible light. It is a miserable and shameful doctrine.
The usual apologist answer is if course that scientists are not liars... Just simply wrong. But that is disingenuous to the extreme if you ask me and a denial of the possibility of truth.
I've personally been challenged on this point before as my job involves geology and fossils etc, although I'm not a researcher or academic. One fundamental problem this particular YEC had was that if the account of creation was not literally true then the fall of Adam never really happened. And if there was no fall then there was no reason for Jesus to come. Again, I found this a small way of looking at Christianity. It seemed to substitute a universal idea about the human condition with a circumstantial one, robbing the bible of much of its potential to inspire hope.
Whatever. It's not like I give a shit anyway. Basically it's just wilful ignorance.
-
I've personally been challenged on this point before as my job involves geology and fossils etc, although I'm not a researcher or academic. One fundamental problem this particular YEC had was that if the account of creation was not literally true then the fall of Adam never really happened. And if there was no fall then there was no reason for Jesus to come. Again, I found this a small way of looking at Christianity.
Maybe small, but this person was right. A stopped clock is right twice a day and even someone utterly clueless in other respects can stumble upon the truth accidentally. Their chain of reasoning in this case was sound. No Adam (there wasn't), no Fall (there wasn't), no sin (there isn't) ... Christianity is skinned, boned and gutted by reality.
-
Of course. Whatever you say Shaker.
-
Shaker
The reality is, there is sin. Most visibly in Iraq and Syria these days, but present in everyone. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8
-
Shaker
The reality is, there is sin.
That's not reality. It's just a belief some people have.
You really ought to learn the difference.
Most visibly in Iraq and Syria these days, but present in everyone. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8
Wibble.
-
I realise quite a few Christians believe in the creation story in the Bible to be factual. Out of interest how many on this forum believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old at most?
When I was a young teenager, I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church, I was unfortunate enough to attend, where dinosaurs fitted into his young earth belief. The man said that the deity had put them there as a test of faith! My faith took a serious nose dive after that ludicrous statement!
As I said God created an mature earth. He also made mature adults. At a day old Adam was a man of years.
It seems so weird how people fail to realise that the earths age physically does not represent the age by scientist.
Because the physical age was not the age it took to create it.
And your evidence to substantiate that statement is? The Bible isn't evidence.
Tlll you have tried it, you can't say that. Show us evidence and concrete proof that the bible isn't evidence. Also prove it isn't evidence that God created a mature earth.
That's not evidence in the modern sense. If the Bible is evidence, then so is the Qur'an, so is the Book of Mormon, so is the Bhagavad Gita and countless others tomes. These works are evidence of the multitudinous beliefs that humans have entertained over the years. Beliefs are not evidence.
The New Testament, in particular, contains multiple eyewitness accounts of Christ. They passed the ultimate lie detector- persecution- so we know their testimony is true and that Creation is under Christ's authority. He claimed to be from God and vindicated that claim by doing the things God told Adam He had done, that is, creating by speaking things into being. Christ spoke and the wind died down, the paralytic stood up, etc. So Christ vindicated the creation account.
He confirmed that Adam was the first human, Abel the first martyr, and he upheld Genesis 2 as history (Mt 19:5). He claimed to have the authority to choose whether to rest on the Sabbath or to work. This suggests that He is upholding Genesis 1 where God decided to rest. His creation of mature wine from water, without grapes, vindicates Genesis 1 because it tells us he is able to create something that is already mature, and so (apart from not accepting the fact that He is in very nature God), Sassy is right.
It reminds me of the narrator at the end of Bod: "the Hippos were right. Were you?"
-
But why? Why does creation contradict itself?
-
The New Testament, in particular, contains multiple eyewitness accounts of Christ. They passed the ultimate lie detector- persecution- so we know their testimony is true
What persecution are you referring to Spud?
-
That's not evidence in the modern sense. If the Bible is evidence, then so is the Qur'an, so is the Book of Mormon, so is the Bhagavad Gita and countless others tomes. These works are evidence of the multitudinous beliefs that humans have entertained over the years. Beliefs are not evidence.
The New Testament, in particular, contains multiple eyewitness accounts of Christ. They passed the ultimate lie detector- persecution- so we know their testimony is true and that Creation is under Christ's authority. He claimed to be from God and vindicated that claim by doing the things God told Adam He had done, that is, creating by speaking things into being. Christ spoke and the wind died down, the paralytic stood up, etc. So Christ vindicated the creation account.
He confirmed that Adam was the first human, Abel the first martyr, and he upheld Genesis 2 as history (Mt 19:5). He claimed to have the authority to choose whether to rest on the Sabbath or to work. This suggests that He is upholding Genesis 1 where God decided to rest. His creation of mature wine from water, without grapes, vindicates Genesis 1 because it tells us he is able to create something that is already mature, and so (apart from not accepting the fact that He is in very nature God), Sassy is right.
I'd beg to differ, Mr PotatoHead.
You might consider it evidence, but it is not evidence in the modern sense.
If you got ill and went to the doctor you'd expect a prescription for some pharmaceutical that you could fairly trust, knowing that it had been tested on animals most likely first, and then through several years of clinical trials to establish its efficacy and to identify any side effects. That testing regime produces the evidence required by our regulatory bodies that our medicines are safe, authentic and effective; that they are not quack products.
Ancient writings do not anywhere near approach this level of verification. If you want to believe them it is a matter of faith, not evidence. If you got ill, would you go to your doctor, or would you trust some ancient remedy found incised on a stone tablet from the Iron Age ?
-
The New Testament, in particular, contains multiple eyewitness accounts of Christ.
No it doesn't contain any.
They passed the ultimate lie detector- persecution- so we know their testimony is true and that Creation is under Christ's authority.
Who passed the ultimate lie detector test? The other characters in the Jesus story?
He claimed to be from God
Even if we had a recording of an interview with Jesus claiming he is God, it doesn't mean he really was.
-
The New Testament, in particular, contains multiple eyewitness accounts of Christ.
Allegedly, Spud - how do you know they are true.?
They passed the ultimate lie detector- persecution- so we know their testimony is true
This isn't a test, and no you don't know that their testimony is true: you just want it to be true, which isn't the same thing at all.
and that Creation is under Christ's authority. He claimed to be from God and vindicated that claim by doing the things God told Adam He had done, that is, creating by speaking things into being. Christ spoke and the wind died down, the paralytic stood up, etc. So Christ vindicated the creation account.
Claims Spud: nothing more, and obviously spurious ones given the nature of the claims.
He confirmed that Adam was the first human, Abel the first martyr, and he upheld Genesis 2 as history (Mt 19:5). He claimed to have the authority to choose whether to rest on the Sabbath or to work. This suggests that He is upholding Genesis 1 where God decided to rest. His creation of mature wine from water, without grapes, vindicates Genesis 1 because it tells us he is able to create something that is already mature, and so (apart from not accepting the fact that He is in very nature God)
Then he got it wrong or lied, or of course this is all just humans being humans in a time and place where myths had more currency in the absence of knowledge. Your credulity is getting in the way of your thinking, since 'Adam' clearly wasn't the 'first human' so that all the stuff built on that myth remains just mythic: an interesting ancient tale but no more than that.
Sassy is right.
The evidence, as opposed to ancient myth, says otherwise.
You are taking the Bible far too literally!
-
Then he got it wrong or lied, or of course this is all just humans being humans in a time and place where myths had more currency in the absence of knowledge. Your credulity is getting in the way of your thinking, ...
And your evidence for this claim is ...?
The evidence, as opposed to ancient myth, says otherwise.
So, are you saying that you have evidence that no-one else has ever produced in the history of mankind, Gordon?
-
Then he got it wrong or lied, or of course this is all just humans being humans in a time and place where myths had more currency in the absence of knowledge. Your credulity is getting in the way of your thinking, ...
And your evidence for this claim is ...?
The evidence, as opposed to ancient myth, says otherwise.
So, are you saying that you have evidence that no-one else has ever produced in the history of mankind, Gordon?
You need to read Spud's post: he is the one claiming miracles and I'm simply pointing out that people tell lies, which is known human behaviour. I've often asked how you guys who blithely accept miracle stories how you have assessed the risk of fabrication, so that you don't look hopelessly credulous: I've yet to see an answer to my question.
As to your second point Spud agreed with Sass's YEC view, which is of course nonsense given the evidence to the contrary, which I pointed out.
-
Then he got it wrong or lied, or of course this is all just humans being humans in a time and place where myths had more currency in the absence of knowledge. Your credulity is getting in the way of your thinking, ...
And your evidence for this claim is ...?
The evidence, as opposed to ancient myth, says otherwise.
So, are you saying that you have evidence that no-one else has ever produced in the history of mankind, Gordon?
You need to read Spud's post: he is the one claiming miracles and I'm simply pointing out that people tell lies, which is known human behaviour. I've often asked how you guys who blithely accept miracle stories how you have assessed the risk of fabrication, so that you don't look hopelessly credulous: I've yet to see an answer to my question.
As to your second point Spud agreed with Sass's YEC view, which is of course nonsense given the evidence to the contrary, which I pointed out.
Gordon your mind is in the stone age along with all of your cohorts.
Lets go back to the time of Nero.-----Nero speaks he says one day man will have a box in his living room and it will show pictures from 1000
miles away.
Gordon the backs man of clan stuck in the mud says to his fellow egg heads impossible miracles like that don't happen,we are so super in intelligence and brains.That no intelligence could be above us.
Have fun Gordon evolution=insanity :)
~TW~
-
Insanity is a rather good description of that post of yours, ~TW~. It's the sort of incoherent, disconnected, jumbled-up, rambling word salad that you see in the severely mentally ill.
-
Sassy is right.
Hang on, are we going for the Omphalos theory now? Flood Geology rejected?
-
Gordon your mind is in the stone age along with all of your cohorts.
Lets go back to the time of Nero.-----Nero speaks he says one day man will have a box in his living room and it will show pictures from 1000
miles away.
Gordon the backs man of clan stuck in the mud says to his fellow egg heads impossible miracles like that don't happen,we are so super in intelligence and brains.That no intelligence could be above us.
Have fun Gordon evolution=insanity :)
~TW~
Why thank you, TW, for illustrating the sheer idiocy of YEC-ism more powerfully than I could ever have hoped to do by myself.
-
Gordon your mind is in the stone age along with all of your cohorts.
Lets go back to the time of Nero.-----Nero speaks he says one day man will have a box in his living room and it will show pictures from 1000
miles away.
Gordon the backs man of clan stuck in the mud says to his fellow egg heads impossible miracles like that don't happen,we are so super in intelligence and brains.That no intelligence could be above us.
Have fun Gordon evolution=insanity :)
~TW~
Why thank you, TW, for illustrating the sheer idiocy of YEC-ism more powerfully than I could ever have hoped to do by myself.
Gordon turn your brain on.Your view and your mates is,you Humans are the height of intelligence across the universe.
Evolution is an accident trial and error,yet it as produced you yet, evolution which we do not understand displays intelligence which you say does not exist.
::) ::) ::) ::)
You know nothing except you hope God does not exist because one day and it could be tomorrow he will catch up with you.
~TW~
-
Gordon your mind is in the stone age along with all of your cohorts.
Lets go back to the time of Nero.-----Nero speaks he says one day man will have a box in his living room and it will show pictures from 1000
miles away.
Gordon the backs man of clan stuck in the mud says to his fellow egg heads impossible miracles like that don't happen,we are so super in intelligence and brains.That no intelligence could be above us.
Have fun Gordon evolution=insanity :)
~TW~
Why thank you, TW, for illustrating the sheer idiocy of YEC-ism more powerfully than I could ever have hoped to do by myself.
Gordon turn your brain on.Your view and your mates is,you Humans are the height of intelligence across the universe.
Evolution is an accident trial and error,yet it as produced you yet, evolution which we do not understand displays intelligence which you say does not exist.
::) ::) ::) ::)
You know nothing except you hope God does not exist because one day and it could be tomorrow he will catch up with you.
~TW~
If the deity does exist it might not be too thrilled by the sort of behaviour you display, which is a right turn off where the faith is concerned!
-
Gordon turn your brain on.Your view and your mates is,you Humans are the height of intelligence across the universe.
I don't think I've ever made that claim: it would be a daft one to make, for obvious reasons.
Evolution is an accident trial and error,yet it as produced you yet, evolution which we do not understand displays intelligence which you say does not exist.
Evolution is an unguided process, where natural selection is currently the best explanation we have for how it 'works' - intelligence, as we refer to it, may be a consequence of evolution but it isn't part of the process.
You know nothing except you hope God does not exist because one day and it could be tomorrow he will catch up with you.
Since 'God' isn't a serious proposition it worries me not a jot - I'll take my chances.
-
TW
You know nothing except you hope God does not exist because one day and it could be tomorrow he will catch up with you.
How much do you worry about the JU JU monster being the real god, and catching up with you?
I suspect you do not give it a moments thought.
Perhaps, now you can understand why atheists do not worry about your mythical unevidenced god as well.
-
Or at least, no changes significant enough to prevent them producing hybrid offspring.
There has still been significant evolution since they 'split' but there are still sufficient similarities to enable interbreeding and the production of infertile hybrids. This really isn't surprising.
If I'm not mistaken:
Creationists and Evolutionists would agree that the significant evolution that has produced the lions and tigers we have today, happened rapidly. From what I have read, there are various 'panthera' fossils which show a more punctuated evolution from the common ancestor than a gradual evolution.
Evolutionists say that short periods of rapid evolution were followed by hundreds of thousands of years of stasis (no evolutionary change); creationists say the changes occurred at some point during the last 6000 years.
The question for evolutionists is: realistically, what effect would a million-odd years of post-'split' in-breeding have on the two species' ability to hybridize? Is it reasonable to believe that they could still hybridize after such a long time? Do we have any way of measuring this?
It seems that evolutionists see the geological record and assume that such a great length of time has not affected their ability to hybridize, when actually there is no method by which we can predict the effect of this time, since we can only observe and measure changes that occur over hundreds of years.
-
Or at least, no changes significant enough to prevent them producing hybrid offspring.
There has still been significant evolution since they 'split' but there are still sufficient similarities to enable interbreeding and the production of infertile hybrids. This really isn't surprising.
If I'm not mistaken:
Creationists and Evolutionists would agree that the significant evolution that has produced the lions and tigers we have today, happened rapidly. From what I have read, there are various 'panthera' fossils which show a more punctuated evolution from the common ancestor than a gradual evolution.
Evolutionists say that short periods of rapid evolution were followed by hundreds of thousands of years of stasis (no evolutionary change); creationists say the changes occurred at some point during the last 6000 years.
The question for evolutionists is: realistically, what effect would a million-odd years of post-'split' in-breeding have on the two species' ability to hybridize? Is it reasonable to believe that they could still hybridize after such a long time? Do we have any way of measuring this?
It seems that evolutionists see the geological record and assume that such a great length of time has not affected their ability to hybridize, when actually there is no method by which we can predict the effect of this time, since we can only observe and measure changes that occur over hundreds of years.
Of course we cannot observe the changes directly over such long time periods and so have to use a variety of methods to construct a timeline of events. The geological record is just one of a great range of different measurements over a wide range of disciplines which indicate an old earth. If you establish an old earth using these methods then the fact that hybridization now occurs demonstartes that it is possible after such long periods after a split - so the question of hybridisation isn't the key question. The key question really is does the evidence from a wide range of disciplines support a great age for the earth, and the answer is yes. There is no reason why hybridization folloing eaither a gradual evolution or puntuated evolution is impossible from what I can tell so unless this was shown this does not invalidate the idea of an old earth. You need to show scientific evidence that it isn't possible - as I mentioned earlier.
-
I am not an expert on this subject, far from it. However, a couple of considerations:
1 Lions and tigers are at the top of the food chain and tend to live in areas where there has not been great climatic change. There would, therefore, be little evolutionary pressure on them for their genotypes to diverge greatly.
2 It would appear that having the same the number of chromosomes is important in hybridisation. Lions and tigers each have 38. Dogs, wolves, jackals, coyotes and dingos each have 78.
Humans have 46 but gorillas have 48. Even though gorillas are very closely related to humans this incompatibility prevents hybridisation.
-
:) Evolution is impossible it is that easy.
~TW~
-
:) Evolution is impossible it is that easy.
~TW~
You mean the creation myth in the Bible isn't possible! ;D
-
:) Evolution is impossible it is that easy.
~TW~
In your case? Yes.
But that's just yet another example of why relying on personal experience is such a bad form of evidence.
-
I would think that hybridization provides a strong argument for evolution. It happens with closely related species, or those which have recently diverged. An example can be found with the ordinary duck, or mallard, which can hybridize with a number of other duck species, e.g. the pintail, or the American black duck.
But it's unlikely that a mallard would hybridize with a heron, for example, since they are more distant genetically and ecologically.
One might ask how creationists explain hybrids, and the block on some hybrids - I suppose they can say that it pleases God!
-
Incredible documemtary on big cats made by Chris Packham:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04fmg8d
-
I am not an expert on this subject, far from it. However, a couple of considerations:
1 Lions and tigers are at the top of the food chain and tend to live in areas where there has not been great climatic change. There would, therefore, be little evolutionary pressure on them for their genotypes to diverge greatly.
2 It would appear that having the same the number of chromosomes is important in hybridisation. Lions and tigers each have 38. Dogs, wolves, jackals, coyotes and dingos each have 78.
Humans have 46 but gorillas have 48. Even though gorillas are very closely related to humans this incompatibility prevents hybridisation.
A zenkey: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/28/1062050609625.html
This is a donkey (62 chromosomes)/zebra (44 chromosomes) hybrid. The zoo had bred two zenkeys previously but they did not survive past a few months. But this one shows that animals with different chromosome numbers can hybridize. A more common example is the mule (63), which is a horse (64)/donkey (62) hybrid. A female puma (38) and male ocelot (36) produced 4 litters in the 1980s.
-
Thank you Spud. One live's and learns. No doubt Sriram will blame epigenetics.
However, it is not evidence that The King of the Fairies in the Sky commanded the creation of the universe on a Sunday evening in 4004BCE.
-
But did the King of Fairies in the Sky make a giraffe in his shed one Sunday afternoon, cos he was bored, and he thought that long necks would be fashionable this year? Anyway, giraffes caught on, and soon, they were all over the place.
(Just So Stories, mk. II).
-
But did the King of Fairies in the Sky make a giraffe in his shed one Sunday afternoon, cos he was bored, and he thought that long necks would be fashionable this year? Anyway, giraffes caught on, and soon, they were all over the place.
(Just So Stories, mk. II).
Just your level of reading, eh, children's nonsense stories?
-
Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.
~TW~
-
Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.
~TW~
If you could kindly show on this thread where anyone (apart from yourself) has explicitly said that 'nothing=something'?
If you cannot, then the only clown here could only be .....you!
Now, run off and rejoin your circus and leave the adults to talk amongst themselves.
::)
-
Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.
~TW~
What does your clown suit look like TW? ;D
-
Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.
~TW~
What does your clown suit look like TW? ;D
Floo you and your mates should read this.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296
It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.
~TW~
-
Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.
~TW~
What does your clown suit look like TW? ;D
Floo you and your mates should read this.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296
It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.
~TW~
It is not the evidence that changes anything - it is your bare-faced bias and blinkered mind in the way you read the evidence that allows you to reject it.
If you were a scientist of note instead of a gullible christian you would see that! But you aren't and you won't.
-
Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.
~TW~
What does your clown suit look like TW? ;D
Floo you and your mates should read this.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296
It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.
~TW~
That isn't any sort of evidence! ::)
-
Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.
~TW~
What does your clown suit look like TW? ;D
Floo you and your mates should read this.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296
It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.
~TW~
Let's consider this quote from your article:
The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the world’s population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology
For those who can't be arsed to read the article, c is the number of each person has (actually, it is given as 2c per couple), d is the number of generations each person lives on average and n is the number of generations after the start.
The first error is that they call something a constant when even they admit it "fluctuate at different times in history". These people have no clue about such basic things as constants and variables.
To be honest, that's as far as we needed to go to debunk the whole article, but let's carry on:
Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2
That's a number they pulled out of their arses and is actually very high. There have been many periods in history when c was less than 1, for instance, the Black Death caused the population of Europe to drop by between a third and a half. Having made a guess, they try to compute the population of the Earth and come up with a ridiculous number. Well of course they did, their input parameters were just guesses.
In fact if we look at population figures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
assuming a generation of 20 years, even now at a period of relatively high population growth c is only 1.1.
In short, your article is utter bollocks.
To reinforce the point, according to the article's figures and numbers, under the creation scheme, at the time of the pyramid building phase of Egypt there were fewer than 100,000 people on the whole planet.
Next time, TW, try using the brain that you think God gave you.
-
any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.
are they though? Really?
Seb, the New Testament drew on the Jewish Scriptures and most Jews understood the creation story to be allegorical, or at least that is what I have been told by Jewish scholars, who have told me that the structure of the material in Hebrew is exactly what one woud expect from a allegorical piece of writing. I realise that this is largely lost in translation into English, but in Englis there are certain clues - such as the repetitive format of God's daily actions and his deeming them 'good'.
The Jewish writers of the New Testament (the majority of the authors would have been Jewish, even if they were cosmopolitan with it - like Paul) woukd therefore have written their material with that understanding in mind. There is nothing in Jesus' teaching to suggest that they oughtn't to.
As I said, the 'non-literal' reading of the material that Ussher et al exhibit didn't come into being until the 15th and 16th centuries. I understand that something that Martin Luther wrote sparked the idea that eventully blossomed into Ussher's detailed calculations. Exactly what Luther wrote, I'm not sure - I haven't read all his stuff.
Now Hope, if it was actually allegorical and not literally true, then TW would not be able to give you this evidence, would he?
Therefore your Jewish scholars must have been mistaken?
You Christians should know that!
Floo you and your mates should read this.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296
It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.
~TW~
-
Now Hope, if it was actually allegorical and not literally true, then TW would not be able to give you this evidence, would he?
Therefore your Jewish scholars must have been mistaken?
You Christians should know that!
What evidence is it that ~TW~ has given us? An idea on the internet that is based on 14th century thinking?
It's ironic that it's appearance seems to coincide with the early development of modern science ;)
-
Now Hope, if it was actually allegorical and not literally true, then TW would not be able to give you this evidence, would he?
Therefore your Jewish scholars must have been mistaken?
You Christians should know that!
What evidence is it that ~TW~ has given us? An idea on the internet that is based on 14th century thinking?
Why don't you ask him?
-
The irony is that the YEC concept is a YAP - a young aged philosophy. Whilst Ussher is the famous name associated wth it, it only really began to appear in the 16th century AD. As such, any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.
Hoppity, re: #119, this link says that ancient Jewish rabbis believed the creation account should be taken as literal:
http://creation.com/ancient-jewish-view-of-creation
For example, the first letter of the Bible is 'beth', which is a back-wards C-shape. Quoting from the link:
In the same manner that the letter beth is closed on all sides and only open in front, similarly you are not permitted to inquire into what is before, or what was behind, but only from the actual time of Creation.
-
Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.
~TW~
What does your clown suit look like TW? ;D
Floo you and your mates should read this.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296
It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.
~TW~
Let's consider this quote from your article:
The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the world’s population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology
For those who can't be arsed to read the article, c is the number of each person has (actually, it is given as 2c per couple), d is the number of generations each person lives on average and n is the number of generations after the start.
The first error is that they call something a constant when even they admit it "fluctuate at different times in history". These people have no clue about such basic things as constants and variables.
To be honest, that's as far as we needed to go to debunk the whole article, but let's carry on:
Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2
That's a number they pulled out of their arses and is actually very high. There have been many periods in history when c was less than 1, for instance, the Black Death caused the population of Europe to drop by between a third and a half. Having made a guess, they try to compute the population of the Earth and come up with a ridiculous number. Well of course they did, their input parameters were just guesses.
In fact if we look at population figures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
assuming a generation of 20 years, even now at a period of relatively high population growth c is only 1.1.
In short, your article is utter bollocks.
To reinforce the point, according to the article's figures and numbers, under the creation scheme, at the time of the pyramid building phase of Egypt there were fewer than 100,000 people on the whole planet.
Next time, TW, try using the brain that you think God gave you.
Junk Post you need to go away and find a box with nothing in it and sit and watch it,when you see signs of evolution give us a call.
~TW~
-
Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.
~TW~
What does your clown suit look like TW? ;D
Floo you and your mates should read this.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296
It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.
~TW~
Let's consider this quote from your article:
The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the world’s population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology
For those who can't be arsed to read the article, c is the number of each person has (actually, it is given as 2c per couple), d is the number of generations each person lives on average and n is the number of generations after the start.
The first error is that they call something a constant when even they admit it "fluctuate at different times in history". These people have no clue about such basic things as constants and variables.
To be honest, that's as far as we needed to go to debunk the whole article, but let's carry on:
Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2
That's a number they pulled out of their arses and is actually very high. There have been many periods in history when c was less than 1, for instance, the Black Death caused the population of Europe to drop by between a third and a half. Having made a guess, they try to compute the population of the Earth and come up with a ridiculous number. Well of course they did, their input parameters were just guesses.
In fact if we look at population figures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
assuming a generation of 20 years, even now at a period of relatively high population growth c is only 1.1.
In short, your article is utter bollocks.
To reinforce the point, according to the article's figures and numbers, under the creation scheme, at the time of the pyramid building phase of Egypt there were fewer than 100,000 people on the whole planet.
Next time, TW, try using the brain that you think God gave you.
Junk Post you need to go away and find a box with nothing in it and sit and watch it,when you see signs of evolution give us a call.
~TW~
Clown. ::)
-
Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.
~TW~
What does your clown suit look like TW? ;D
Floo you and your mates should read this.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296
It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.
~TW~
Let's consider this quote from your article:
The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the world’s population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology
For those who can't be arsed to read the article, c is the number of each person has (actually, it is given as 2c per couple), d is the number of generations each person lives on average and n is the number of generations after the start.
The first error is that they call something a constant when even they admit it "fluctuate at different times in history". These people have no clue about such basic things as constants and variables.
To be honest, that's as far as we needed to go to debunk the whole article, but let's carry on:
Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2
That's a number they pulled out of their arses and is actually very high. There have been many periods in history when c was less than 1, for instance, the Black Death caused the population of Europe to drop by between a third and a half. Having made a guess, they try to compute the population of the Earth and come up with a ridiculous number. Well of course they did, their input parameters were just guesses.
In fact if we look at population figures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
assuming a generation of 20 years, even now at a period of relatively high population growth c is only 1.1.
In short, your article is utter bollocks.
To reinforce the point, according to the article's figures and numbers, under the creation scheme, at the time of the pyramid building phase of Egypt there were fewer than 100,000 people on the whole planet.
Next time, TW, try using the brain that you think God gave you.
Junk Post you need to go away and find a box with nothing in it and sit and watch it,when you see signs of evolution give us a call.
~TW~
Clown. ::)
Sorry, but I disagree - clowns are funny, not terminally pathetic!
-
Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.
~TW~
What does your clown suit look like TW? ;D
Floo you and your mates should read this.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296
It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.
~TW~
Let's consider this quote from your article:
The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the world’s population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology
For those who can't be arsed to read the article, c is the number of each person has (actually, it is given as 2c per couple), d is the number of generations each person lives on average and n is the number of generations after the start.
The first error is that they call something a constant when even they admit it "fluctuate at different times in history". These people have no clue about such basic things as constants and variables.
To be honest, that's as far as we needed to go to debunk the whole article, but let's carry on:
Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2
That's a number they pulled out of their arses and is actually very high. There have been many periods in history when c was less than 1, for instance, the Black Death caused the population of Europe to drop by between a third and a half. Having made a guess, they try to compute the population of the Earth and come up with a ridiculous number. Well of course they did, their input parameters were just guesses.
In fact if we look at population figures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
assuming a generation of 20 years, even now at a period of relatively high population growth c is only 1.1.
In short, your article is utter bollocks.
To reinforce the point, according to the article's figures and numbers, under the creation scheme, at the time of the pyramid building phase of Egypt there were fewer than 100,000 people on the whole planet.
Next time, TW, try using the brain that you think God gave you.
Junk Post you need to go away and find a box with nothing in it and sit and watch it,when you see signs of evolution give us a call.
~TW~
Clown. ::)
Sorry, but I disagree - clowns are funny, not terminally pathetic!
I have never been keen on clowns, they creeped me out as a kid! But I agree they are not terminally pathetic!! ;D
-
Junk Post you need to go away and find a box with nothing in it and sit and watch it,when you see signs of evolution give us a call.
I see you didn't take my advice to use your brain. TWat least you could try reading it.
-
Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.
~TW~
What does your clown suit look like TW? ;D
Floo you and your mates should read this.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296
It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.
~TW~
Let's consider this quote from your article:
The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the world’s population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology
For those who can't be arsed to read the article, c is the number of each person has (actually, it is given as 2c per couple), d is the number of generations each person lives on average and n is the number of generations after the start.
The first error is that they call something a constant when even they admit it "fluctuate at different times in history". These people have no clue about such basic things as constants and variables.
To be honest, that's as far as we needed to go to debunk the whole article, but let's carry on:
Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2
That's a number they pulled out of their arses and is actually very high. There have been many periods in history when c was less than 1, for instance, the Black Death caused the population of Europe to drop by between a third and a half. Having made a guess, they try to compute the population of the Earth and come up with a ridiculous number. Well of course they did, their input parameters were just guesses.
In fact if we look at population figures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
assuming a generation of 20 years, even now at a period of relatively high population growth c is only 1.1.
In short, your article is utter bollocks.
To reinforce the point, according to the article's figures and numbers, under the creation scheme, at the time of the pyramid building phase of Egypt there were fewer than 100,000 people on the whole planet.
Next time, TW, try using the brain that you think God gave you.
Junk Post you need to go away and find a box with nothing in it and sit and watch it,when you see signs of evolution give us a call.
~TW~
Clown. ::)
Sorry, but I disagree - clowns are funny, not terminally pathetic!
I have never been keen on clowns, they creeped me out as a kid! But I agree they are not terminally pathetic!! ;D
A bit like magicians, thanks very much but I've seen one.
ippy
-
So if the earth is only 6/10000 years old as the YECs claim, is god playing silly beggars by creating the impression it is actually millions of years old?
-
So if the earth is only 6/10000 years old as the YECs claim, is god playing silly beggars by creating the impression it is actually millions of years old?
Billions, not millions.
But the answer to your question is yes.
-
I do recognize microevolution though. :)
Yes we all do, but it is light years, separate from evolution.
~TNTW~ ;)
Yes ~TW~, but we don't count what you say about evolution because you're a king size prat.
ippy
-
Yeah, but king-sized prats evolved from micro-prats, via the principle of gigantism.
-
Yeah, but king-sized prats evolved from micro-prats, via the principle of gigantism.
D'you know I didn't know that, I'm impressed.
Regards ippy
-
D'you know I didn't know that, I'm impressed.
Regards ippy
I thought a king-size prat was a herring. 8)
-
That's SClupeidae.
-
So does Floo believe God exists or just believe in resurrecting dead threads?
-
It's an interesting thread. The subject comes up on forums frequently so why start a new thread when one already exists.
The idea that life might have evolved was first mentioned as early as the 4th century CE by St Augustine, who wrote that God probably only created very simple life forms and that these developed over time.
-
The idea that life might have evolved was first mentioned as early as the 4th century CE by St Augustine, who wrote that God probably only created very simple life forms and that these developed over time.
He might have mentioned it (citation needed btw) but he came to the conclusion that God created everything simultaneously in an instant.
-
Oh right, well he changed his mind then :D. His prerogative.
-
I thought a king-size prat was a herring. 8)
Barcelona airport.
ippy
-
Barcelona airport.
ippy
¿Qué? ???
You've done it again, Ippy! Remember I am an old man with little knowledge of modernisms.
-
Barcelona-El Prat Airport Leonard
(How do you get your question marks upside down or is it a gay thing? TA)
-
Barcelona-El Prat Airport Leonard
(How do you get your question marks upside down or is it a gay thing? TA)
Silly me! I was looking for some connection with herrings! :-[
I am using a Spanish keyboard. :)
-
(How do you get your question marks upside down or is it a gay thing? TA)
Hi Brownie,
To print ¿ try holding down the left alt key and then type 0191 on the numbers keyboard.
If that doesn't work, have a look at this page :-
http://symbolcodes.tlt.psu.edu/accents/charmap.html
-
So if the earth is only 6/10000 years old as the YECs claim, is god playing silly beggars by creating the impression it is actually millions of years old?
If he left it as gases where would Adam have lived and how would he have eaten?
I thought it would be obvious why he created an earth millions of years old. The same reason he created the man an adult many years old. Neither could have survived or supported life could it?
-
If he left it as gases where would Adam have lived and how would he have eaten?
I thought it would be obvious why he created an earth millions of years old. The same reason he created the man an adult many years old. Neither could have survived or supported life could it?
Oh dear! ::)
-
¿Qué? ???
You've done it again, Ippy! Remember I am an old man with little knowledge of modernisms.
Prat aeropuerto, Barcelona.
ippy
-
The Bible is historically accurate, in fact, many historians use it as historical fact. How can you say it isn't evidence?
This gobsmackingly crazy comment was posted on another forum in reply to one of my posts! :o
-
There is history in the Bible floo, in fact it can be divided up into sections (as theologians do), Wisdom Literature, Historical and.....something else, forget what for the moment :-[. In its entirety it cannot be read a historical as it is a faith document but some of it is historical.
-
There is history in the Bible floo, in fact it can be divided up into sections (as theologians do), Wisdom Literature, Historical and.....something else, forget what for the moment :-[. In its entirety it cannot be read a historical as it is a faith document but some of it is historical.
Can you list the historical bits?
-
There is history in the Bible floo, in fact it can be divided up into sections (as theologians do), Wisdom Literature, Historical and.....something else, forget what for the moment :-[. In its entirety it cannot be read a historical as it is a faith document but some of it is historical.
Sorry Brownie, but I think that you committed a typo on the last word of your post above - it should be spelt "hysterical"!
-
Can you list the historical bits?
Not too much which can be proven to be historically true, but there are a few details which have corroboration from other sources. Check up on the Prism of Sennacheririb (There is also the Taylor Prism, another Assyrian artefact which gives similar details of events mentioned in the Bible.)
-
Oh right, well he changed his mind then :D. His prerogative.
Trouble is, he changed his mind over some very important points. At one time, he admonished Christian believers for not getting scientifically informed, with the result that they were made to look stupid when they talked with pagans. Later he seemed to think that faith was all that was necessary, and one shouldn't bother with details of the physical world (beyond those necessary for staying alive).
-
Can you list the historical bits?
1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles are written as history and are widely regarded as having some basis in fact.
Daniel is written as prophecy but can be thought of as a historical source for the period in which it was written (the second century BCE).
-
Trouble is, he changed his mind over some very important points. At one time, he admonished Christian believers for not getting scientifically informed, with the result that they were made to look stupid when they talked with pagans. Later he seemed to think that faith was all that was necessary, and one shouldn't bother with details of the physical world (beyond those necessary for staying alive).
Well he was a bit of a....wotsit. Not my favourite of ecclesiastical people.
-
I wonder if these people believe in biblical stuff in spite of the lack of supporting evidence, what and how many other unlikely things they could be so easily persuaded to think are a part of normal every day life?
ippy