dinosaurs on the ark and other scientific facts [Archive]

boutons_

01-09-2007, 11:12 AM

tlongII

01-09-2007, 11:30 AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/Raquel_welch_1millionyearsbc.jpg

I'd hit it.

Phenomanul

01-09-2007, 12:26 PM

"Meaning that only a pair of <large animals>"

... a single breeding pair is sufficient to parent and salvage a species? The unavoidable inbreeding of their children wouldn't be species-condemning, be a too-limited gene pool?

Is there any evidence (as opposed to "theological historians believe") or experiments that show a single breeding pair is sufficient:

a) for survival of the <animal (mammal)> species?and

b) provoke the basis for widely diverse speciation (dogs, foxes, dingoes, coyotes, jackals etc...)?

Canines are all interfertile... that should be sufficient proof. Proof of what exactly??.... that our genomes are highly complicated and contain vast genetic wealth beyond what we typically observe and beyond the simple linear, genetic code we see on the outside. Case in point would be to consider that the so called 'dead zones' in DNA actually contribute to the bookmarking of active genes. If they were any longer or any shorter by one base pair the active gene stored in the codon segment would be misread and rendered useless. Another detail widely missed and underrated is the fact that several gene segments code for multiple proteins all determined by how another gene segment is instructed to decode them. That means that there are literally 100's of billions of gene combinations in every genome and that we've only scratched the surface of this transcribing phenomenon. As an example, if gene segment A is known to produce protein/enzyme A that doesn't mean that segment A only codes for said protein. If spurred about by certain biological pathways (as carried and dictated by other gene segments), gene segment A may also code for proteins B through Z, and this doesn't include the effect of gene recombinations. In laymen's terms; our genetic wealth is greater and far more complicated than conveyed by its simple linear code. Genomes contain phenotypic traits that may never be or are rarely manifested by a species' genotype. Or a laymen example would be to consider that this very paragraph can be reconstructed into hundreds of different sentences simply by scrambling the letters therein - each to be deciphered by different filters.

All in the less-than-10,000 years since Noah's flood?

Why not? How many dog 'species' have been created in the past millenium... how 'bout the last 100 years?

I thought "Christians" were dead-set against speciation since it would confirm Satanic evolution? Did not God create all species a little while ago, (was it on Tuesday or Wednesday?) just as they exist today?

Unguided speciation as the proof of evolution... and guided adaptation are two different concepts.

But no, I'm not responsible for you misinterpreting a whole slew of positions on the matter - particularly my own.

If I don't believe in Noah, his Ark,and the Great Flood, can I still a Christian and not go to Hell?
Can you be a Christian if you've rejected the evangelistic message of Jesus? Now that would be the more pressing and significant question to be asking.

I highly respect your graceful admission, your mature, reflective open-mindedness that dinosaurs sailing around with Noah on his wooden super-tanker would be "debateable". :lol

"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

i.e. All history is debateable.

"1 Million Years B.C" was on cable TV this morning. It showed Racquel Welch and dinosaurs running around together. Is this movie shown in "Christian" schools? Was this a "Christian" financed propaganda project, or was it just a bunch of "Hollywoods Jews" trying make a buck in the furry loincloth/bra+dinosaur genre?

Am I just starting shit? Maybe, maybe not. :)

You are entitled to think what you want... as long as you don't go around presuming to know exactly why it is I believe what I do..... that is unless I've already stated my position.

theroc5

01-09-2007, 12:48 PM

No one likes you.
jesus does...its kinda funny how people hate christians because they think christians judge to much, when they judge just the same if not more..every one has sinned there for every one is going to hell enless you take jesus as your lord and savior..for we all fall short of the glory of God..only way to get in the gates of heaven is accepting Him.theres many proofs of that in the bible,for instance john 3:16 states For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

boutons_

01-09-2007, 02:32 PM

"No one likes you."

This from the "Christian" who said he/she/it wants to fight me over forum postings, and wants my mother dead.

"All history is debateble"

Who's talking "soft" history.

Isn't the subject "hard" science that 10s of 1000s of scientists over 100+ years have agreed to call "hard" (until hard evidence proves otherwise)?

johnsmith

01-09-2007, 02:48 PM

ChumpDumper

01-09-2007, 02:53 PM

How did the kangaroos get back to Australia?

johnsmith

01-09-2007, 02:55 PM

How did the kangaroos get back to Australia?

They swam.......duh.

Phenomanul

01-09-2007, 03:26 PM

boutons_

01-09-2007, 03:33 PM

"Well even that is debateable isn't it?"

Show me your hard, scientific evidence for Genesis' cosmology.

ChumpDumper

01-09-2007, 03:34 PM

Here we go....

Phenomanul

01-09-2007, 03:35 PM

How did the kangaroos get back to Australia?

What? You don't know?

They filled their pouches with hot air and floated over to the continent.

Some of the heavier ones drifted there by sea.

ChumpDumper

01-09-2007, 03:36 PM

What? You don't know?

They filled their pouches with hot air and floated over to the continent.

Some of the heavier ones drifted there by sea.There were only two though.

How did the air stay hot?

polandprzem

01-09-2007, 03:47 PM

The flood was not on the whole earth

Bob Lanier

01-09-2007, 03:57 PM

Kangaroos are naturally an aquatic species. It was only after the fall of marsupials (circa 1670) that they lost the ability to swim - although some of the more spiritually attuned of them can still roo-paddle. But Satan gave them multiple vaginas and pronged penises in exchange for being limited to land, so it's not like it turned out all bad.

Marklar MM

01-09-2007, 03:59 PM

Dinosaurs are fake.

Bob Lanier

01-09-2007, 04:01 PM

Just like Salma's breasts. (http://www.goodplasticsurgery.com/archives/006726.html)

T Park

01-09-2007, 04:05 PM

if dinosaurs are fake, wtf are those things in the ground?

johnsmith

01-09-2007, 04:05 PM

Just like Salma's breasts. (http://www.goodplasticsurgery.com/archives/006726.html)

Look real to me.

Bob Lanier

01-09-2007, 04:10 PM

Satan uses dinosaurs as a tool of deception. (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/behemoth.html)

Actually, The dinosaurs lived for at least a few centuries after the Flood, but probably never in the great numbers that there once had been. No one knows exactly when they finally died out. (http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-fate1.html) Indeed, here is some evidence that a few dinosaurs and great marine reptiles could still be alive, teetering on the edge of extinction. (http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-site1.html)

In any case, it's not as interesting a topic of discussion as it might seem, since At this point, there is no proof that any of the dinosaurs were as mean and dangerous (http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-feroc.html).

Mixability

01-09-2007, 04:10 PM

if dinosaurs are fake, wtf are those things in the ground?

the leftover bones from your last meal at KFC.

Phenomanul

01-09-2007, 04:12 PM

"Well even that is debateable isn't it?"

Show me your hard, scientific evidence for Genesis' cosmology.

Could it be proven even if I showed you any....

No.

Neither can statements suggesting that GOD played no hand in the Universe's Creation. I don't believe that this belief can be disproven anymore than what you want can be proven.

Phenomanul

01-09-2007, 04:15 PM

There were only two though.

How did the air stay hot?

From heat dissipated as a result of the high metabolism generated by digesting their huge stores of fat.

:spin

BTW who says marsupials made their move to Australia right after the flood?

ChumpDumper

01-09-2007, 04:24 PM

BTW, when did they then? Why are they only there?

tlongII

01-09-2007, 04:30 PM

What if God was one of us?

Phenomanul

01-09-2007, 04:31 PM

BTW, when did they then? Why are they only there?

The fact is that they are there.... Who knows when they arrived as the date cannot be proven either way.

:reading

How are the Dingoes of that continent able to breed with the Coyotes on ours?

j-6

01-09-2007, 04:31 PM

BTW, when did they then? Why are they only there?

I blame the dingos.

Bob Lanier

01-09-2007, 04:31 PM

Isn't he Jessica Alba?

What if God were a ewe?

ChumpDumper

01-09-2007, 04:35 PM

The fact is that they are there.... Who knows when they arrived as the date cannot be proven either way.:lmao

Which part of Noah's story can be proven either way?
How are the Dingoes of that continent able to breed with the Coyotes on ours?Because the kangaroos kick them when they try to mate with them.

Extra Stout

01-09-2007, 05:26 PM

Could it be proven even if I showed you any....

No.

Neither can statements suggesting that GOD played no hand in the Universe's Creation. I don't believe that this belief can be disproven anymore than what you want can be proven.
False dichotomy: creation science or atheism.

And please tell me you are kidding around about the kangaroos and the hot air.

LaMarcus Bryant

01-09-2007, 06:49 PM

Canines are all interfertile... that should be sufficient proof. Proof of what exactly??.... that our genomes are highly complicated and contain vast genetic wealth beyond what we typically observe and beyond the simple linear, genetic code we see on the outside. Case in point would be to consider that the so called 'dead zones' in DNA actually contribute to the bookmarking of active genes. If they were any longer or any shorter by one base pair the active gene stored in the codon segment would be misread and rendered useless. Another detail widely missed and underrated is the fact that several gene segments code for multiple proteins all determined by how another gene segment is instructed to decode them. That means that there are literally 100's of billions of gene combinations in every genome and that we've only scratched the surface of this transcribing phenomenon. As an example, if gene segment A is known to produce protein/enzyme A that doesn't mean that segment A only codes for said protein. If spurred about by certain biological pathways (as carried and dictated by other gene segments), gene segment A may also code for proteins B through Z, and this doesn't include the effect of gene recombinations. In laymen's terms; our genetic wealth is greater and far more complicated than conveyed by its simple linear code. Genomes contain phenotypic traits that may never be or are rarely manifested by a species' genotype. Or a laymen example would be to consider that this very paragraph can be reconstructed into hundreds of different sentences simply by scrambling the letters therein - each to be deciphered by different filters.

Why not? How many dog 'species' have been created in the past millenium... how 'bout the last 100 years?

Unguided speciation as the proof of evolution... and guided adaptation are two different concepts.

But no, I'm not responsible for you misinterpreting a whole slew of positions on the matter - particularly my own.

Can you be a Christian if you've rejected the evangelistic message of Jesus? Now that would be the more pressing and significant question to be asking.

"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

i.e. All history is debateable.

You are entitled to think what you want... as long as you don't go around presuming to know exactly why it is I believe what I do..... that is unless I've already stated my position.

:wakeup
Another ridiculously supercilious hegamboa post that reminds us of his credentials and his arrogance.

Phenomanul

01-09-2007, 06:59 PM

False dichotomy: creation science or atheism.

Semantics... He was debating whether or not historical accounts were debateable... and attempted to create 'soft' and 'hard' modifiers to suit the argument. I was suggesting, much as Napoleon had suggested before... that all history is debateable. Although in context of his quote, he was attempting to change the perspective of how history would view his legacy.

That off note aside, I'm attempting to show that not everything is subjectable to hard proof. For example, if I said something an hour ago and no one was around to hear it could I prove that it was ever said in the first place? The fact that I couldn't prove it wouldn't necesarily mean that I was lying or that the event never took place. In fact, the event would leave little to no physical evidence that it had ever occurred. But again, that wouldn't make the assertion false. As silly as that illustration may be, it's one that the scientific community can't ignore. Can they really prove from a single tooth that a particular hominid species is a predecessor to homo sapiens? What scientific basis is used to conclusively make that claim? Or can they prove that the Oort Cloud exists even though insufficient evidence has been given to show that it functions as Jon Oort described? BTW the Oort Cloud theory attempts to refute why bright comets exist while accommodating the old-age universe theory... Without the cloud, bright comets would simply not exist in said model (they would run out of the ice that produces bright tails in such a long span of time ~4.6 billion years old).

Anyhow I realize one need not be a Creationist to believe in a GOD created universe. At the same time I happen to believe in the supernatural... the supernatural, by definition, is not subjectable to the 'natural' laws that define and constrain the Universe and everything therein.

And please tell me you are kidding around about the kangaroos and the hot air.

:lol
Of course.... I was trying ChumpDumper's style of sarcasm... Somehow I failed in its delivery.

PixelPusher

01-09-2007, 06:59 PM

Phenomanul

01-09-2007, 07:01 PM

:wakeup
Another ridiculously supercilious hegamboa post that reminds us of his credentials and his arrogance.

^^^ And another weak post that reminds us of your useless trolling.

:sleep :sleep :sleep

tlongII

01-09-2007, 07:01 PM

Semantics... He was debating whether or not historical accounts were debateable... and attempted to create 'soft' and 'hard' modifiers to suit the argument. I was suggesting, much as Napoleon had suggested before... that all history is debateable. Although in context of his quote, he was attempting to change the perspective of how history would view his legacy.

That off note aside, I'm attempting to show that not everything is subjectable to hard proof. For example, if I said something an hour ago and no one was around to hear it could I prove that it was ever said in the first place? The fact that I couldn't prove it wouldn't necesarily mean that I was lying or that the event never took place. In fact, the event would leave little to no physical evidence that it had ever occurred. But again, that wouldn't make the assertion false. As silly as that illustration may be, it's one that the scientific community can't ignore. Can they really prove from a single tooth that a particular hominid species is a predecessor to homo sapiens? What scientific basis is used to conclusively make that claim? Or can they prove that the Oort Cloud exists even though insufficient evidence has been given to show that it functions as Jon Oort described? BTW the Oort Cloud theory attempts to refute why bright comets exist while accommodating the old-age universe theory... Without the cloud, bright comets would simply not exist in said model (they would run out of the ice that produces bright tails in such a long span of time ~4.6 billion years old).

Anyhow I realize one need not be a Creationist to believe in a GOD created universe. At the same time I happen to believe in the supernatural... the supernatural, by definition, is not subjectable to the 'natural' laws that define and constrain the Universe and everything therein.

:lol
Of course.... I was trying ChumpDumper's style of sarcasm... Somehow I failed in its delivery.

Dude, you are crazy.

E20

01-09-2007, 07:02 PM

Just like Salma's breasts. (http://www.goodplasticsurgery.com/archives/006726.html)
You know damn well that yourself and all the other guys in this thread would fuckign hit that shit like it's a pie right out the stove on Thanksgiving.

Phenomanul

01-09-2007, 07:04 PM

Dude, you are crazy.

Why? Just cause I happen to have a dissenting minority opinion. Spare me the pity.

Buddy Holly

01-09-2007, 07:08 PM

Dinosaurs can't be real, for god sakes, the universe is only 6,000 years old.

Phenomanul

01-09-2007, 07:10 PM

:lmao at the assumption of a worldwide flood that precludes the debate about whether dinosaurs live before or after it.

If you guys simply dismiss geology out of hand, and believe dinosaur bones are tools of the devil, why bother trying to convince other people of a "scientific" validity to your bible stories?

READ Sarcasm....

I don't believe Mr. Lanier was stating that as his personal belief.

Dinosaurs existed. I've never said any different. So I also happen to believe in Noah's flood. Big deal.

tlongII

01-09-2007, 07:22 PM

Why? Just cause I happen to have a dissenting minority opinion. Spare me the pity.

Dude, I don't pity you. I said you are crazy.

Phenomanul

01-09-2007, 07:24 PM

Dude, I don't pity you. I said you are crazy.

Whatever.... Spare me your derision. I have my reasons for believing what I do... And no, I don't expect everyone else to follow suit. You are entitled to believe what you may.

exstatic

01-09-2007, 07:41 PM

I blame the dingos.
A Dingo's got my baby!!
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/chamberlain/crynews.jpg

LaMarcus Bryant

01-09-2007, 09:03 PM

Dinosaurs existed. I've never said any different. So I also happen to believe in Noah's flood. Big deal.

when will someone sig this

Buddy Holly

01-10-2007, 12:05 AM

Whatever.... Spare me your derision. I have my reasons for believing what I do... And no, I don't expect everyone else to follow suit. You are entitled to believe what you may.

I take it Will Ferrell dressed as Jesus visited you during a coke binge?

DarkReign

01-10-2007, 09:30 AM

Most people don't even realize that the biological classification of 'kind' does not equate to the modern taxidermical classification of 'species'...

Mosts theological historians believe that the biblical classification is most similar to to the modern classification of 'family' or 'genus'. Meaning that only a pair of wolves would be required to represent/salvage most of the Canine world (wolves, dogs, foxes, dingoes, coyotes, jackals etc...).

As for dinosaurs being on the ark... the uncertainty of 'dinosaur' species still alive at the time would render the concept debateable.

Excellent response. I started reading thinking "Here we go again..." only to be pleasantly surprised.

:tu

DarkReign

01-10-2007, 09:34 AM

...and then I read the rest of the thread.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:52 AM

when will someone sig this

:reading
When your IQ cracks 3 digits come back and play.....

Otherwise get your weak takes out of here, this isn't the troll forum.

:wakeup

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:57 AM

...and then I read the rest of the thread.

People can't stand the fact that I can simultaneously believe in Noah's flood and biological adaptation. As for the matter of whether or not the dinosaurs were around by then... who knows -- that's what's debatable. Again, am I not allowed a dissenting opinion?

Samurai Jane

01-10-2007, 10:29 AM

tlongII

01-10-2007, 10:59 AM

People can't stand the fact that I can simultaneously believe in Noah's flood and biological adaptation. As for the matter of whether or not the dinosaurs were around by then... who knows -- that's what's debatable. Again, am I not allowed a dissenting opinion?

The existence of humans and dinosaurs were seperated by at least 65 million years. This has been "proven" by various methods of radio-carbon dating of fossils. I guess I would have to understand what your understanding of Noah's flood was. That's another thing though...as I think a flood of global proportions is a physical imposssibility.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 11:26 AM

No way concievable the Ark being real. When are people going to realize is all just a bunch of stories.

It can't be proven either way can it? So why are you so sure it's just a story? The flood has roots in Mesopotamia in the story of Gilgamesh, it also has roots in Australia in old Aboriginees' tales (well before 'white' man interefered with their history), and of course in the Moses account of Noah.

Funny how the Ararat mountain range where Noah's Ark is believed to have settled is considered the terracenter of the earth. Coincidence? I think not. The mean distance from said mountain range to dry land everywhere else on earth finds its minimum there. If the area of the region were defined as being bounded by a 100 mile square, or 10,000 square miles, the statistical probability of landing in that location would be roughly 1 out of 19,340 -- hardly a given. That GOD dispersed the animals from the most centralized location on the planet speaks volumes of His purpose. Furthermore, there was no way that Moses could have known that the Ararat mountains held this distinction.

I don't expect Noah's ark to be found, nor do I hinge my belief of this Biblical account on physical evidence of the ark's existence. For one, I know that GOD does not typically reveal Himself with physical proof. There is a great deal of faith involved. Could you imagine how easy it would be for GOD to show up and say, "Here I am, believe me now?" But that's not how He works. The subtleties of His handiwork are still present in our Universe. Sometimes we just choose not to see.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 11:31 AM

The existence of humans and dinosaurs were seperated by at least 65 million years. This has been "proven" by various methods of radio-carbon dating of fossils. I guess I would have to understand what your understanding of Noah's flood was. That's another thing though...as I think a flood of global proportions is a physical imposssibility.

Most people don't realize that carbon dating only works for samples younger than 50,000 years... using Carbon dating to extrapolate the age of anything older than that figure is a scientific fraud...

But then again, most people don't really question the 'scientific community'.

tlongII

01-10-2007, 11:52 AM

Most people don't realize that carbon dating only works for samples younger than 50,000 years... using Carbon dating to extrapolate the age of anything older than that figure is a scientific fraud...

But then again, most people don't really question the 'scientific community'.

What you say is true to a point. Carbon dating works for samples under 70,000 years. I probably shouldn't have stated radio-carbon dating in my original point. Older samples are identified by radiometric dating involving the use of isotope series such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years.

I refer you to the following link.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 11:56 AM

Thats not how he works because he's not real. Faith became faith because a changing and growing culture couldn't figure out how to do the right thing without purpose and reason. The average person just can't comprehend life without purpose, thus religion is spawned to great bounds. Seriously it would be total madness if people realized they didn't have to do the right thing. Chaos would ensue if societies around the world knew they didn't have to answer to a higher person. Its a matter of control.

Lots of stories and tales and myths and not one shread of anything. As far as the moutain goes, its only one of 3 or 4 places the Ark was presumed to rest at.

I'll put it this way. I don't doubt that some of the stories from the bible are based on actual events but some of the more outlandished claims are clearly fiction. There is far more proof that its all BS than it is real. Plus common sense should really clear it up. Too bad society is so warped over thousands of years to see we are only worshipping Gods because we aren't capable living life for what it is......just life. No more no less no greater place no pearly gates no after life. We are nothing more than highly advanced ants er apes.

Things change things advance its the nature of the living organism, nothing magical about it.

WARNING I RAMBLED TOO MUCH

Fair enough.... that is your opinion.

BTW Moses wrote down Ararat Mountains. 10,000 sqaure miles is an adequate concession.

boutons_

01-10-2007, 12:45 PM

Believing in The Deluge is no big deal, given that real scientists have discovered evidence of 100s of cataclysmic events, even within near-historical times.

Does anybody believe that The Deluge resulted in a Hollywoodian, Waterworld of a completely submerged planet?

Believing that Noah taking _his_ animals on his boat had any impact on species survival is Bible-thumping bullshit. He lived in a time where nearly everybody was a farmer (or maybe even before agriculture and husbandry were developed). His boat trip impacted his livelihood as a farmer, but had no impact on the entire planet's species survival.

Believing LITERALLY, without "interpretation", taking as HARD EVIDENCE, that "On God's instructions, Noah built an ark and took into it one male and one female of each of the world's animals" is ridiculous, hilarious Bible-thumping bullshit.

DarkReign

01-10-2007, 12:46 PM

People can't stand the fact that I can simultaneously believe in Noah's flood and biological adaptation. As for the matter of whether or not the dinosaurs were around by then... who knows -- that's what's debatable. Again, am I not allowed a dissenting opinion?

You and I reached an understanding quite some time ago. What I meant by the comment was more an indictment against the direction of the thread.

Club posters dont know you (and many others) have hunted, killed, skinned, gutted, butchered, cooked, eaten, digested and shit this conversation out 1000x before.

jman3000

01-10-2007, 02:15 PM

People would lie, cheat, steal, kill a million times more than they do now.

People of all religions use it to justify doing those things in the first place... my opinion is whether God exists or not... does it really hurt to try to follow the 10 commandments and try to be a better person?

i went to catholic sunday school for 14 years...and i still consider myself agnostic more than anything else.

DarkReign

01-10-2007, 02:18 PM

religion != spirtuality

johnsmith

01-10-2007, 02:18 PM

religion != spirtuality

DR, please copy and paste the post you made in the political forum in regards to the discussions about religion.

Best post ever.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 03:02 PM

Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood?
by John Morris, Ph.D.

One of the strongest evidences for the global flood which annihilated all people on Earth except for Noah and his family, has been the ubiquitous presence of flood legends in the folklore of people groups from around the world. And the stories are all so similar. Local geography and cultural aspects may be present but they all seem to be telling the same story.

Over the years I have collected more than 200 of these stories, originally reported by various missionaries, anthropologists, and ethnologists.

While the differences are not always trivial, the common essence of the stories is instructive as compiled below:

Is there a favored family? 88%
Were they forewarned? 66%
Is flood due to wickedness of man? 66%
Is catastrophe only a flood? 95%
Was flood global? 95%
Is survival due to a boat? 70%
Were animals also saved? 67%
Did animals play any part? 73%
Did survivors land on a mountain? 57%
Was the geography local? 82%
Were birds sent out? 35%
Was the rainbow mentioned? 7%
Did survivors offer a sacrifice? 13%
Were specifically eight persons saved? 9%

Putting them all back together, the story would read something like this:

Once there was a worldwide flood, sent by God to judge the wickedness of man. But there was one righteous family which was forewarned of the coming flood. They built a boat on which they survived the flood along with the animals. As the flood ended, their boat landed on a high mountain from which they descended and repopulated the whole earth.

Of course the story sounds much like the Biblical story of the great flood of Noah's day. The most similar accounts are typically from middle eastern cultures, but surprisingly similar legends are found in South America and the Pacific Islands and elsewhere. None of these stories contains the beauty, clarity, and believable detail given in the Bible, but each is meaningful to their own culture.

Anthropologists will tell you that a myth is often the faded memory of a real event. Details may have been added, lost, or obscured in the telling and retelling, but the kernel of truth remains. When two separate cultures have the same "myth" in their body of folklore, their ancestors must have either experienced the same event, or they both descended from a common ancestral source which itself experienced the event.

The only credible way to understand the widespread, similar flood legends is to recognize that all people living today, even though separated geographically, linguistically, and culturally, have descended from the few real people who survived a real global flood, on a real boat which eventually landed on a real mountain. Their descendants now fill the globe, never to forget the real event.

But, of course, this is not the view of most modern scholars. They prefer to believe that something in our commonly evolved psyche forces each culture to invent the same imaginary flood legend with no basis in real history. Instead of scholarship, this is "willful ignorance" of the fact that "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:5,6).

boutons_

01-10-2007, 03:50 PM

"John Morris, Ph.D"

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=type&ID=3

... quit fucking up kids with your Bible-thumper bullshit and rather, go fuck yourself. :lol

leemajors

01-10-2007, 06:04 PM

purple monkey dishwasher after centuries of oral tradition and various translations.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 06:25 PM

What you say is true to a point. Carbon dating works for samples under 70,000 years. I probably shouldn't have stated radio-carbon dating in my original point. Older samples are identified by radiometric dating involving the use of isotope series such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years.

I refer you to the following link.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

How many of those isotopes do you ingest in your diet? Or what parent isotope do we ingest that would decay into the others???

The reason carbon dating works on flora and fauna is because most organisms share a relatively constant Carbon 14 intake rate, or a relatively constant C14/C12 ratio. Assuming no more Carbon 14 is accumulated after an organism dies, this rate/ratio serves as a reference point that then allows for the starting amount of said isotope in any given organism to be calculated. From the starting amount, and the readily available Carbon 14 decay rate, the age of organisms can then be estimated. If it only works for organisms 50-90K years old, how is it we can use the method to approximate the age of animals far older than that figure? And by orders of magnitude greater than the tolerance provided by the isotope? The fact of the matter is that fossils are not dated with Carbon 14... as your correctly suggested.

However, all the other isotopes you mentioned only work for calculating the age of rocks and shouldn't even be used to estimate the age of organisms. Why then would a fossil even be subjected to tests with these other isotopes? There is no reference rate available for the starting quantity of strontium, rubidium, lead, thorium etc... in organisms. Especially one that would be considered constant, such as the one that is available for Carbon 14.

In fact, paleontologists can rarely use these other isotopes as a way of measuring the age of the fossils themselves and are instead relegated to measuring the age of the rocks that surround the fossils. This age is then used as a substitutionary representation the age of the fossilized organism. What is telling is the fact that the age of the fossil as dictated by Carbon 14 decay vastly differs from the age of the rock as determined by these other isotopes. In fact, all fossils can all be dated as being within the range provided by Carbon 14. As in: all the fossils are younger than let on by the scientific community.

So yes, results are routinely published as determined by this mixed bag of other isotopes, even though the fossils themselves were not directly aged by the isotope in question. How is that even ethically correct; how is that not a fraudulent conclusion?

Again most people don't realize what they are looking at when others interpret all the data to suit their own agendas. Paleontologists who dare voice their disagreement with the prevailing fossil dating method are branded as traitors to their field and their credibility quickly dismissed. Some objectivity... huh?

Furthermore, Argon-potassium and argon-argon dating is flawed in the sense that according to the assumptions foundational to potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rocks, there should not be any daughter radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in rocks when they form. When measured, all 40Ar* in a rock is assumed to have been produced by in-situ radioactive decay of 40K within the rock since it formed. However, it is well established that volcanic rocks (e.g. basalt) contain excess 40Ar*, that is, 40Ar which cannot be attributed to either atmospheric contamination or in-situ radioactive decay of 40K. This excess 40Ar* represents primordial Ar carried from source areas in the earth's mantle by the parent magmas; it is inherited by the resultant volcanic rocks, and thus has no age significance.

However, are all other rocks in the earth's crust also susceptible to "contamination" by excess 40Ar* emanating from the mantle? If so, then the K-Ar and Ar-Ar "dating" of crustal rocks would be similarly questionable.

Here is an excerpt from a paper I found:

When muscovite (a common mineral in crustal rocks) is heated to 740°-860°C under high Ar pressures for periods of 3 to 10.5 hours it absorbs significant quantities of Ar, producing K-Ar "ages" of up to 5 billion years, and the absorbed Ar is indistinguishable from radiogenic argon (40Ar*). In other experiments muscovite was synthesized from a colloidal gel under similar temperatures and Ar pressures, the resultant muscovite retaining up to 0.5 wt% Ar at 640°C and a vapor pressure of 4,000 atmospheres. This is approximately 2,500 times as much Ar as is found in natural muscovite. Thus under certain conditions Ar can be incorporated into minerals which are supposed to exclude Ar when they crystallize.

Noble gases from the mantle (and the atmosphere) migrate and circulate through the crust, so there should be evidence of excess 40Ar* in crustal rocks. Noble gases in CO2-rich natural gas wells confirm such migration and circulation—the isotopic signatures clearly indicate a mantle origin for the noble gases, including amounts of excess 40Ar* in some CO2-rich natural gas wells exceeding those in mantle-derived mid-ocean ridge basalts. In fact, the quantities of excess 40Ar* in the continental crust can be as much as five times that found in such mantle-derived mid-ocean ridge basalts, strongly implying that excess 40Ar* in crustal rocks and their constituent minerals could well be the norm rather than the exception.

I could go on and on.... about the observed Helium quanitities in our crust; and how Helium's diffusivity rate would negate the existence of billion year old models of earth. Or perhaps by providing the following simple illustration:

The ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms decreases by a factor of 2 every 5730 years. After 20 half-lives or 114,700 years (assuming hypothetically that earth history goes back that far), the 14C/12C ratio is decreased by a factor of 2^20, or about 1,000,000. After 1.5 million years, the ratio is diminished by a factor of 2^(1,500,000/5730), or about 1079. This means that if one started with an amount of pure 14C equal to the mass of the entire observable universe, after 1.5 million years there should not be a single atom of 14C remaining! Routinely finding 14C/12C ratios on the order of 0.1-0.5% of the modern value—a hundred times or more above the AMS detection threshold—in samples supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is therefore a huge anomaly for the old-age framework.

BTW the AMS method is the latest approved Carbon dating method. It's instrumentation improved the sensitivity of the raw measurement of the 14C/12C ratio from approximately 1% of the modern value to about 0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from about 50,000 years to about 90,000 years.

Anyhow, I don't presume to know whether the earth is 1 billion, 4.5 billion, 10,000 or 6,000 years old. I just want others to understand that there is much we 'think' we know that is really much more vague than we are led on to believe.

Buddy Holly

01-10-2007, 06:27 PM

Pheno, do you believe dinosaurs existed millions of years ago?

Do you believe in Jesus and God and the bible?

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 06:31 PM

"John Morris, Ph.D"

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=type&ID=3

... quit fucking up kids with your Bible-thumper bullshit and rather, go fuck yourself. :lol

:rolleyes Real mature there. Is that your cop-out argument?

I never said I endorsed ICR's complete spectrum of views. Your mistake if that was your assumption.

Whatever. By now I think most people here ignore your takes. You can't ever back them up without completely flipping out.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 06:39 PM

Pheno, do you believe dinosaurs existed millions of years ago?

Do you believe in Jesus and God and the bible?

Easy. I believe dinosaurs existed. As to their age (you haven't been paying attention); read above.

And yes, I believe in GOD the Father... Ya Ha Va He (Yahweh), JESUS the Son and the HOLY SPIRIT.

Furthermore, I believe these truths as written in the Bible.

LaMarcus Bryant

01-10-2007, 06:51 PM

So how does all the carbon dating and isotope information explain to us how there was actually a flood?

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 06:54 PM

Furthermore, I believe these truths as written in the Bible.

As written by man and translated and edited numerous times.

MannyIsGod

01-10-2007, 06:55 PM

Theres a lot of interesting research done into the actual history behind the stories in the bible and how they came about. The reality is that most of the stories have roots in real world situations of some sort. Thats not to say that the stories played out exactly as the bible says they did, but that rather that they are symbolic representations of beliefs or occurrences.

IE: The story of Cain and Abel is really a story that is meant to prop up the hunter/nomadic lifestyle of certain tribes of the age as opposed to the real story of Adam and Eve. That is why God was unhappy with Cain's offering and happy with Abel's offering.

I admit Hector, that I find it very that someone of your intelligence believes what they do. Not that you believe in God, but rather that you take a literal interpretation of certain events (Noah's flood for example) rather than much likely and simple explanations.

I don't believe in the super natural, because the super natural is a crutch for what cannot be explained. If God does exist, then I think 'super natural' is an incorrect term.

LaMarcus Bryant

01-10-2007, 06:56 PM

God was working within every translator and editor.

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 06:57 PM

Jesus built my hot rod.

tlongII

01-10-2007, 06:57 PM

How many of those isotopes do you ingest in your diet? Or what parent isotope do we ingest that would decay into the others???

The reason carbon dating works on flora and fauna is because most organisms share a relatively constant Carbon 14 intake rate, or a relatively constant C14/C12 ratio. Assuming no more Carbon 14 is accumulated after an organism dies, this rate/ratio serves as a reference point that then allows for the starting amount of said isotope in any given organism to be calculated. From the starting amount, and the readily available Carbon 14 decay rate, the age of organisms can then be estimated. If it only works for organisms 50-90K years old, how is it we can use the method to approximate the age of animals far older than that figure? And by orders of magnitude greater than the tolerance provided by the isotope? The fact of the matter is that fossils are not dated with Carbon 14... as your correctly suggested.

However, all the other isotopes you mentioned only work for calculating the age of rocks and shouldn't even be used to estimate the age of organisms. Why then would a fossil even be subjected to tests with these other isotopes? There is no reference rate available for the starting quantity of strontium, rubidium, lead, thorium etc... in organisms. Especially one that would be considered constant, such as the one that is available for Carbon 14.

The reason the other isotopes work for estimating the age of the organisms is because we find rock that is older below the organism and rock that is newer above the organism. Simple concept really.

In fact, paleontologists can rarely use these other isotopes as a way of measuring the age of the fossils themselves and are instead relegated to measuring the age of the rocks that surround the fossils. This age is then used as a substitutionary representation the age of the fossilized organism. What is telling is the fact that the age of the fossil as dictated by Carbon 14 decay vastly differs from the age of the rock as determined by these other isotopes. In fact, all fossils can all be dated as being within the range provided by Carbon 14. As in: all the fossils are younger than let on by the scientific community.

We already agreed that Carbon 14 can't be used to date the older fossils so I don't know why you even bring this up. This is akin to a false positive.

So yes, results are routinely published as determined by this mixed bag of other isotopes, even though the fossils themselves were not directly aged by the isotope in question. How is that even ethically correct; how is that not a fraudulent conclusion?

Again most people don't realize what they are looking at when others interpret all the data to suit their own agendas. Paleontologists who dare voice their disagreement with the prevailing fossil dating method are branded as traitors to their field and their credibility quickly dismissed. Some objectivity... huh?

Furthermore, Argon-potassium and argon-argon dating is flawed in the sense that according to the assumptions foundational to potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rocks, there should not be any daughter radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in rocks when they form. When measured, all 40Ar* in a rock is assumed to have been produced by in-situ radioactive decay of 40K within the rock since it formed. However, it is well established that volcanic rocks (e.g. basalt) contain excess 40Ar*, that is, 40Ar which cannot be attributed to either atmospheric contamination or in-situ radioactive decay of 40K. This excess 40Ar* represents primordial Ar carried from source areas in the earth's mantle by the parent magmas; it is inherited by the resultant volcanic rocks, and thus has no age significance.

However, are all other rocks in the earth's crust also susceptible to "contamination" by excess 40Ar* emanating from the mantle? If so, then the K-Ar and Ar-Ar "dating" of crustal rocks would be similarly questionable.

Here is an excerpt from a paper I found:

I could go on and on.... about the observed Helium quanitities in our crust; and how Helium's diffusivity rate would negate the existence of billion year old models of earth. Or perhaps by providing the following simple illustration:

The ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms decreases by a factor of 2 every 5730 years. After 20 half-lives or 114,700 years (assuming hypothetically that earth history goes back that far), the 14C/12C ratio is decreased by a factor of 2^20, or about 1,000,000. After 1.5 million years, the ratio is diminished by a factor of 2^(1,500,000/5730), or about 1079. This means that if one started with an amount of pure 14C equal to the mass of the entire observable universe, after 1.5 million years there should not be a single atom of 14C remaining! Routinely finding 14C/12C ratios on the order of 0.1-0.5% of the modern value—a hundred times or more above the AMS detection threshold—in samples supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is therefore a huge anomaly for the old-age framework.

BTW the AMS method is the latest approved Carbon dating method. It's instrumentation improved the sensitivity of the raw measurement of the 14C/12C ratio from approximately 1% of the modern value to about 0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from about 50,000 years to about 90,000 years.

Anyhow, I don't presume to know whether the earth is 1 billion, 4.5 billion, 10,000 or 6,000 years old. I just want others to understand that there is much we 'think' we know that is really much more vague than we are led on to believe.

LaMarcus Bryant

01-10-2007, 06:58 PM

jesus built my car
it's a love affair
mainly jesus and my hot rod

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 06:59 PM

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
all of a sudden, I found myself in love with the world
so there was only one thing that I could do
was ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long

tlongII

01-10-2007, 07:00 PM

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 07:00 PM

Midget and LaMarcus.... go back into your troll cave.

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 07:01 PM

Midget and LaMarcus.... go back into your troll cave.

Suck my balls.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 07:02 PM

As written by man and translated and edited numerous times.

Ummmmm Genesis was written in Hebrew... and read as such.

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 07:03 PM

Ummmmm Genesis was written in Hebrew... and read as such.

You can read Hebrew?

LaMarcus Bryant

01-10-2007, 07:08 PM

Ummmmm Genesis was written in Hebrew... and read as such.

So you're telling me the original version in Hebrew was written down as the stories within happened? How was this possible? Surely there are no errors in oral myths passed down generation to generation....the simple fact that god told them these stories made all story tellers remember it 100% accurately. They were probably even smarter than you when it comes to religious credentials.+

Spurminator

01-10-2007, 07:08 PM

You guys act like each translation of the Bible is translated from the version directly before it.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 07:09 PM

The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock's age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.

Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only1% or so.

The false positive you alluded to earlier is the crux of the argument. Carbon dating the fossils directly (since they are the actual organism) reveal that they are all young. It doesn't matter what 'geologic' layer they happen to be unnearthed from.

In fact the repetition you claim above is also not as linear as suggested by your argument... there is so much scatter to the data that definitive conclusions should not even be presented. Oh and geologic layers above aren't always younger than each subsequent layer below. Again the statistical anomaly for the high prevalence of this phenomena would render any linear correlation of this concept highly suspect.

Have any of you even been on a Paleontology expedition? They are highly fascinating and very revealing. I completely stumped my guide. He really didn't realize how warped (subjective) his training had been.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 07:10 PM

You can read Hebrew?

Somewhat.... I've taken a few courses.... I'd consider myself a beginner on the written language.

MannyIsGod

01-10-2007, 07:11 PM

As for many cultures having flood stories....

The birthplaces of civilizations usually have something in common. They all seem to start in very fertile river valleys. These locations are fertile because they are in the flood plains. Its easy to see how when a huge river such as the Mississippi or the Nile floods, how much actually area it occupies. Its not the same as when the Guadalupe overflows its banks, its MASSIVE. Obviously most of these cultures would have experienced these floods.

Also, coastal cultures were very much at risk for tsunami. We all saw how massive that looked as well.

The reason almost every culture in this world has a flood story of some sort is because floods are very common.

LaMarcus Bryant

01-10-2007, 07:11 PM

You guys act like each translation of the Bible is translated from the version directly before it.
Also, because these stories came from the jewish/christian/muslim god, the translators were automatically made incapable of making careless mistakes whilst translating.

But Hegamboa does not believe in "directionless" errors in translation, just read one of his 10000 word posts about how god was behind them.

Therefore, we can conclude that all errors made in translating the bible were directly intended by the jewish/christian/muslim god him(her?)self, and Hegamboa is once again owning us at an argument he always owns us at.

MannyIsGod

01-10-2007, 07:12 PM

You guys act like each translation of the Bible is translated from the version directly before it.Well, that is what happens with stories that are passed down from generation to generation. You're not arguing that Genesis was put down in writiting the first time it was told are you?

tlongII

01-10-2007, 07:18 PM

The false positive you alluded to earlier is the crux of the argument. Carbon dating the fossils directly (since they are the actual organism) reveal that they are all young. It doesn't matter what 'geologic' layer they happen to be unnearthed from.

No it doesn't. The fact that these impossibly young dates were calculated is partially how it was determined that carbon-14 couldn't be used to date specimens over 70 thousand years old.

In fact the repetition you claim above is also not as linear as suggested by your argument... there is so much scatter to the data that definitive conclusions should not even be presented. Oh and geologic layers above aren't always younger than each subsequent layer below. Again the statistical anomaly for the high prevalence of this phenomena would render any linear correlation of this concept highly suspect.

Have any of you even been on a Paleontology expedition? They are highly fascinating and very revealing. I completely stumped my guide. He really didn't realize how warped (subjective) his training had been.

Spurminator

01-10-2007, 07:23 PM

Well, that is what happens with stories that are passed down from generation to generation. You're not arguing that Genesis was put down in writiting the first time it was told are you?

According to the Christian belief it was written down by Moses.

But that's not really what I was talking about, and I may have been completely off topic... I was referring to various translations/versions in the past 1900 years.

tlongII

01-10-2007, 07:27 PM

Radio carbon dating is good for, at the extremes, up to about 70,000 years. Any use of it to date anything suspected to be older will produce a date of about that. It would be stupid to use a measuring tool that is only 50 units long to attempt to measure 100,000 unit long thing.

The physics demands that this be the limit. Up to that limit C14 dating has been well calibrated with various independent approaches.

If one were stupid enough, or dishonest enough, to submit samples of suspected great age for C14 dating one would get back nonsense numbers.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 07:29 PM

Let me put it this way....

Moses wrote the first five books of the current Biblical cannon (at least it is believed he wrote all five), the Pentateuch of the Hebrew Torah.

There are so many details that Moses (or any author) would have no way of knowing unless he was being guided from above. I'm pretty sure that no one kept references of the geneologies all the way to Adam. Particularly because most of the people that lived before Noah's flood lived to ages all but impossible to attain in the post-flood world (In fact GOD himself capped man's age at 120 years right after the flood). How then would Moses know that Methuselah was 969 years old (I'm pretty sure even Methuselah himself had lost count), or that Adam lived to be 935 years old? I'm not even sure Moses realized that Methuselah himself died the very year of the flood.

Why even present such factual statements? If all that was needed was a simple "Methuselah or so and so lived to be a ripe old man." The fact is that they are significant in the context of the Messianic prophecy of JESUS Christ. Furthermore, why would these ridiculous ages not strike the reader as odd?

There is much about the Bible that renders all concept of coincidences null.

tlongII

01-10-2007, 07:29 PM

The following contains some quotes from a creationist article and rebukes of them...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every book on human evolution still maintain that rhodesian man (homo rhodesiensis) existed about 200000 years ago. Radiocarbon dating yielded an age of roughly 10000 years. (Science Vol 144, pg 1000). This implies that this fossil is the remains of someone who died because of the great flood.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we follow the link to check what t he article actually says it states that the bones dated were "animal bones" - and that there is "no clear-cut relation between these bones and the skull of Homo rhodesienus"

A clear case of misrepresentation.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the summer of 1931, Gustav Riek excavated a newly discovered archaeological site in a small cave in southwestern Germany called Vogelherd. He and his team recovered several hominid bones and remarkable artifacts, such as a carved ivory horse, mammoth and bison, which he dated to t he Aurignacian (35000 years ago). These
were recently carbon dated to be between 3,900 to 5,000 years old. (Refer Geotimes, 2004 September)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again following the link we find a clear misrepresentation

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The new dates on the human bones do not call into question the age of the archaeological material (which was previously radiocarbon-dated to the Aurignacian period), Smith says. He, Conard and third author Peter Grootes thus conc luded that Neolithic humans unknowingly buried their dead near the entrances to Vogelherd Cave amidst relics of times long gone, and that is why Riek found the bones stratigraphically located next to older artifacts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(emphasis mine)
So we find t hat it is only the bones which have been redated - and that carbon dating CONFIRMED the age of the artifacts.

And this is just silly

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If evolutionists are right in maintaining that life started a few billion years ago, 99% of fossils would yield a radiocarbon date of more than 10000 years. But according to radiocarbon databases, more than 90% of fossils have an age less than 10000 years

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The carbon dating databases will ONLY include items that have been carbon dated. Most fossils are k nown to be too old to be usefully carbon dated and so the process will simply not be applied to them. Thus the claim must be false since we will not have carbon dates for anything more than a small proportion of fossils - and that biased towards those th ought to be young enough to give a useful date.

PixelPusher

01-10-2007, 07:30 PM

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 07:31 PM

There are so many details that Moses (or any author) would have no way of knowing unless he was being guided from above.

Or being guided by opium and a vivid imagination.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 07:32 PM

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 07:34 PM

The story of Noah's flood was lifted and adapted from an early mesopotamian flood myth, during the Babylonian exile.

Funny how the Babylonian exile occurred well over 800 years after the time of Moses, and yet the texts directly tie Adam to Abraham.

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 07:35 PM

You are way in over your head if all you are using is google....

What are you using for your tidbits of knowledge? God's word?

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 07:40 PM

What are you using for your tidbits of knowledge? God's word?

I'm just saying that trying to build an argument simply by rushing to google's aid is not solid ground -- fool's gold to be exact.

I've studied this topic extensively over the past 4 or 5 years. No disrespect to tlongII of course.

And no, I'm not suggesting that my current views are all correct or unmovable. Discusions with Smeagol, Extra Stout, FWD, scott, and DR have allowed me to reassess certain positions.

PixelPusher

01-10-2007, 07:41 PM

Funny how the Babylonian exile occurred well over 800 years after the time of Moses, and yet the texts directly tie Adam to Abraham.
That's faulty logic. You're assuming for a fact that Moses wrote all of genesis and that it wasn't amended by jewish scribes over the centuries, much as the Assyans (sp?) included and excluded certain stories in Dead Sea Scrolls when compared to the modern Torrah or Old Testament. You can get anything to line up when you write it after the fact.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 07:48 PM

That's faulty logic. You're assuming for a fact that Moses wrote all of genesis and that it wasn't amended by jewish scribes over the centuries, much as the Assyans (sp?) included and excluded certain stories in Dead Sea Scrolls when compared to the modern Torrah or Old Testament. You can get anything to line up when you write it after the fact.

I knew you would say that.... The significance doesn't lie in the "a priori" statement, or texts, but in the fact that the geneological count between Adam and Abraham, Abraham and King David, and King David to JESUS all number 14. How would the post Babylonian Jews known exactly how to revert the texts without affecting that significant detail? It may seem coincidental, or superfluous, but it is highly telling of GOD's sense of timing.

tlongII

01-10-2007, 07:51 PM

I'm just saying that trying to build an argument simply by rushing to google's aid is not solid ground -- fool's gold to be exact.

I've studied this topic extensively over the past 4 or 5 years. No disrespect to tlong of course.

And no, I'm not suggesting that my current views are all correct or unmovable. Discusions with Smeagol, Extra Stout, FWD, scott, and DR have allowed me to reassess certain positions.

Of course I use Google for specific examples. It would be far too time consuming otherwise. I'm not in over my head whatsoever. I believe you have studied the topic for the past 4 or 5 years. Unfortunately, I also believe you have partaken in these studies with a bias.

You should Google more often.

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 07:51 PM

It may seem coincidental, or superfluous, but it is highly telling of GOD's sense of timing.

Why can't you believe it's coincidental? Why must it be God's "sense of timing? If God is responsible for this coincidence, is God responsible for all coincidences?

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 07:53 PM

Google>>God's Word

PixelPusher

01-10-2007, 07:54 PM

I knew you would say that.... The significance doesn't lie in the "a priori" statement, or texts, but in the fact that the geneological count between Adam and Abraham, Abraham and King David, and King David to JESUS all number 14. How would the post Babylonian Jews known exactly how to revert the texts without affecting that significant detail? It may seem coincidental, or superfluous, but it is highly telling of GOD's sense of timing.
More faulty logic. Jewish scribes who lived in the time of the Babylonian exile lived AFTER King David, so lining it up wouldn't be all that difficult. And Jesus's supposed lineage to King David was ascribed by early Christian writers who lived, suprise, AFTER Jesus of Nazereth.

You're gonna have to do better than using a contrived geneology to prove the age of the earth.

MannyIsGod

01-10-2007, 07:59 PM

LaMarcus Bryant

01-10-2007, 08:00 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 10 (9 members and 1 guests)
LaMarcus Bryant, MannyIsGod, UtownSpur, PixelPusher, Phenomanul, tlongII, Shelly, jav, sa_butta

hmmm i wonder what mother wunderkind has to say about god creating the book my parents keep in their living room.

BTW--Is it just me or do hegamboa's posts about this subject remind you of that South Park episode on Mormonism?

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 08:10 PM

Of course I use Google for specific examples. It would be far too time consuming otherwise. I'm not in over my head whatsoever. I believe you have studied the topic for the past 4 or 5 years. Unfortunately, I also believe you have partaken in these studies with a bias.

You should Google more often.

I've done enough to understand the concepts of all affected fields (Biology, Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Geology, Ocean Science, Material Science, Astronomy, Physics, Nuclear Physics, Paleontology, Cosmology, Climatology, Anthropology, Molecular Biology, Study of Consciousness, Philosophy, etc...) Plus, I am fluent in 3 languages, and an avid historian... Ironic, considering I absolutely hate politics...

Googleling for data isn't bad, or unwarranted when the concepts you are looking for are understood. Sometimes, however it feels as if people here google simply because they can't defend their position well enough that they feel inclined to support their arguments by using other peoples'. Again, this in itself is not necessarily bad. What's bad is when people enter a topic, with an "I told you so attitude," not having their ducks in order and then pretend like they knew what they were talking about all along... I'm not necesarily accusing you of employing this coy, however every one of these threads has always led to someone attempting to fool me with said method. The context of their posts however, provides sufficient proof that they don't really understand what they are talking about.

More often than not I can find errors in other people's scientific conclusions when given the data. Most scientists aren't even well rounded enough to even offer up opposition. Biased... perhaps. Honest?? Completely. And that is what keeps me going in this pursuit to 'enlighten' others. While that may not be the best verb (some may see it as arrogant), it still represents part of what I do in these threads... I try and show others the reasoning behind the concepts on the 'other side'.... Most; are too completely brain-washed by concepts they have rarely questioned. In fact, I'm pretty certain that half of those offering opposition in this very thread... struggled to attain A's in their Chemistry, Physics, and Biology classes. They simply assume that what they have managed to learn 'must be' true. They wouldn't understand it any other way. They don't realize that they too are religiously attached to their beliefs.... albeit their religion is science.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 08:17 PM

More faulty logic. Jewish scribes who lived in the time of the Babylonian exile lived AFTER King David, so lining it up wouldn't be all that difficult. And Jesus's supposed lineage to King David was ascribed by early Christian writers who lived, suprise, AFTER Jesus of Nazereth.

You're gonna have to do better than using a contrived geneology to prove the age of the earth.

Whatever, be my guest to feel whatever you want. But just so you know; the oldest hebrew texts were written before the babylonian exile. Not after. Which I'm sorry to say renders your contrived solution as null.

Furthermore, I never stated that the geneologies themselves proved a young earth model. I simply stated that the generational count was significant in that structure is given where none was needed. I don't believe the early councils that gathered the canons even realized this detail. You do realize that people continue to find amazing 'coincidences' in the Bible that few if any have ever found? Not all has been revealed.

j-6

01-10-2007, 08:19 PM

Midget and LaMarcus.... go back into your troll cave.

Well, thay are quoting a Ministry...

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 08:20 PM

I'm out.... I have to get home to watch the Denver/Spurs Game.

Peace.

BuddyHolly

01-10-2007, 08:23 PM

People once thought the earth was flat, not for a "hot minute" or a couple of weeks or a few years, but for hundreds upon hundreds.

Phe, you've been a live for how long? And you think you know the exact history of earth, humans, universe, etc because of nothing more than glorified Harry Potter books?? If you were born and those books told you that in order to get into heaven you had to stick your thumb up your anus, guess where your thumb would be at this moment. :drunk

PixelPusher

01-10-2007, 08:36 PM

Whatever, be my guest to feel whatever you want. But just so you know; the oldest hebrew texts are dated to before the babylonian exile. Not after. Which I'm sorry to say renders your contrived solution as null.
Care to explain that statement? The oldest known Hebrew scriptures are the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating from 250 B.C. - 65 A.D. That means the oldest piece of scripture known was written at least three centuries after the Babylonian exile.

Furthermore, I never stated that the geneologies themselves proved a young earth model. I simply stated that the generational count was significant in that structure is given where none was needed. I don't believe the early councils that gathered the canons even realized this detail. You do realize that people continue to find amazing 'coincidences' in the Bible that few if any have ever found? Not all has been revealed.
They didn't have to have an agreed upon number they all had to stick to, since the ~6000 years old hypothesis was arrived upon long after all the books of the Torrah/Bible had been written and settled. Literalist interpretations of the Bible are a relatively modern phenomenom, mostly a reactionary response to science. Early Rabbis and scholars were more concered with the lessons and meanings of the Genesis stories and gave little or no thought to the "scientific accuracy" of these stories; they simply assumed they were accurate, the way you do.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 08:59 PM

leemajors

01-10-2007, 09:03 PM

Judaism had a strong oral tradition before whoever wrote the Torah did so - to assume that no one embellished much or added whatever to that oral tradition is ridiculous.

PixelPusher

01-10-2007, 09:03 PM

Most scientists aren't even well rounded enough to even offer up opposition.
And so a lone dedicated specialist finds himself at a loss against a jack-of-all-trades; except that "jack" gets to cherry pick the bits and pieces from this or that subject, and lacks any deep comprehension of any of them.

Marklar MM

01-10-2007, 09:11 PM

http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-3/folsom-street-fair-dinosaur.jpg

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:11 PM

Care to explain that statement? The oldest known Hebrew scriptures are the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating from 250 B.C. - 65 A.D. That means the oldest piece of scripture known was written at least three centuries after the Babylonian exile.

Ahh you assume no one at the library of Alexandria had access to these scrolls. Unfortunately the fires that ravaged the library also destroyed some very precious texts hebrew texts (according to some Jewish sources from the Museum in Jerusalem).

They didn't have to have an agreed upon number they all had to stick to, since the ~6000 years old hypothesis was arrived upon long after all the books of the Torrah/Bible had been written and settled. Literalist interpretations of the Bible are a relatively modern phenomenom, mostly a reactionary response to science. Early Rabbis and scholars were more concered with the lessons and meanings of the Genesis stories and gave little or no thought to the "scientific accuracy" of these stories; they simply assumed they were accurate, the way you do.

Again I don't jump off a cliff and attempt to assert that the age of the earth is ~6,000 years old... I simply haven't precluded the possibility that that the statement is true.

Believing in GOD has nothing to do with proof and everything to do with spirituality... the two are mutually exclusive concepts when you think about it.

LaMarcus Bryant

01-10-2007, 09:13 PM

Well, thay are quoting a Ministry...

Thats why its so funny :lmao

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 09:14 PM

Another weak take from BH.

Your stupid "God told them what to write" is weak as hell. Don't talk shit about other people's arguments being weak. You make me ashamed about being from Corpus.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:17 PM

And so a lone dedicated specialist finds himself at a loss against a jack-of-all-trades; except that "jack" gets to cherry pick the bits and pieces from this or that subject, and lacks any deep comprehension of any of them.

Seeing how you are referring to me; I don't know how you can make such a claim without knowing who I am.

And no, I'm not about to list my degrees or my credentials. The context of my posts should be sufficient enough. If you can't see the level of understanding from said context that is not my fault. And it's not even a matter of boasting. It is what it is; I aced all my classes... why should I be penalized for that?

bigzak25

01-10-2007, 09:21 PM

every one of you will ask for God's forgiveness on your deathbed...'just in case'.

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 09:21 PM

I aced all my classes... why should I be penalized for that?

You aced all your classes in Douchism.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:21 PM

Your stupid "God told them what to write" is weak as hell. Don't talk shit about other people's arguments being weak. You make me ashamed about being from Corpus.

:lol :lol :lol

Speak about being ashamed for cohabiting the same city...

You are the most vulgar, disgusting, distasteful, insensitive, person I have ever had the misfortune of meeting on a board. The fact that you gloat about it and parade it... is even more disturbing.

OWNED.

PixelPusher

01-10-2007, 09:21 PM

Ahh you assume no one at the library of Alexandria had access to these scrolls. Unfortunately the fires that ravaged the library also destroyed some very precious texts hebrew texts (according to some Jewish sources from the Museum in Jerusalem).
Of course Hebrew scriptures were written down before the Babylonian exile, that's not the point...the point is those scripture had to be rewritten, and rewritten, and rewritten...and argued over (rabbinical tradition)...and commented on...and rewritten....and rewritten...

Pointing to a pile of ashes does not prove your arguement.

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 09:22 PM

every one of you will ask for God's forgiveness on your deathbed...'just in case'.

I won't. On my deathbed, I'm asking for a beer.

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 09:24 PM

:lol :lol :lol

Speak about being ashamed for cohabiting the same city...

You are the most vulgar, disgusting, distasteful, insensitive, person I have ever had the misfortune of meeting on a board. The fact that you gloat about it and parade it... is even more disturbing.

OWNED.

You should meet me in person. I'm far more vulgar and distasteful than I am on this board. I gloat about it because vulgarity is the talent I have been blessed with. I know exactly what I am and I have no problem with it.

And that statement didn't own me. I know what I am bitch.

bigzak25

01-10-2007, 09:25 PM

you say that now....

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 09:26 PM

you say that now....

I will say it when I'm dying. I don't believe in your "magic man in the sky". I have no fear when it comes to death. I know exactly where my spirit is going when I die and it isn't going to your fictional heaven or hell.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:30 PM

Of course Hebrew scriptures were written down before the Babylonian exile, that's not the point...the point is those scripture had to be rewritten, and rewritten, and rewritten...and argued over (rabbinical tradition)...and commented on...and rewritten....and rewritten...

Pointing to a pile of ashes does not prove your arguement.

No... but you are assuming they purposely changed parts of the story that would otherwise have no significance in the context of their smaller picture --- because the bigger picture wasn't revealed to each individual author; only small fragments here and there. Consider the fact that the full canon, including the highly profetic book of the Appocalypse (Revelations) was not yet complete.

You are also assuming that the church council that compiled the canon knew exactly what to change to suit their needs. I believe that most of them really couldn't see or understand all of the structural bookmarks that populate the bible and give it continuity as a whole... they were more concerned with including texts that they felt were divinely inspired works and rejecting those that weren't. New nuances are found in the bible every single year.... that's why people study the texts.

Edit: Made the argument clearer considering that yesterday (when the post was initially written) my attention was divided between the thread and the Spurs Game.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:31 PM

I will say it when I'm dying. I don't believe in your "magic man in the sky". I have no fear when it comes to death. I know exactly where my spirit is going when I die and it isn't going to your fictional heaven or hell.

Be prepared to be surprised then.

PixelPusher

01-10-2007, 09:31 PM

It is what it is; I aced all my classes... why should I be penalized for that?
I've aced every English Lit class I've ever taken (HS and College). I suppose I could go up to scholar with a doctorate in Classical Greek literature and make wild assertions about Emily Bronte, and if he weren't all that familiary with Bronte, they might let those comments pass on without comment. That doesn't make me a better scholar then him.

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 09:32 PM

No... but you are assuming they purposely changed parts of the story that would otherwise have no significance in the context of the bigger picture --- one they could not see considering the full canon, including the highly profetic book of the Appocalypse (Revelations) was not yet complete. You are also assuming that the council that gathered the canon knew exactly what to change to suit their needs. I believe that most of them really couldn't see all of these structural bookmarks that populate the bible and give it continuity as a whole... and not the individual texts that comprise the canon. New nuances are found in the bible every single year.... that's why people study the texts.

People study the texts because they have been taught from birth to believe every word the bible says. Any cynicism is considered blasphemy.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:32 PM

Dang it!!!!!

Let me watch the game in peace!!!

bigzak25

01-10-2007, 09:32 PM

i didn't say i believed in heaven or hell or even God.

i said that everyone will ask for forgiveness...'just in case'.

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 09:33 PM

Be prepared to be surprised then.

Why should I be surprised? Because you are right and I'm wrong? What proof do you have that you are right?

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 09:35 PM

i didn't say i believed in heaven or hell or even God.

i said that everyone will ask for forgiveness...'just in case'.

I won't ask for forgiveness because I've done nothing wrong in my mind. And even if you do think I will ask for forgiveness, why should I want someone who has never shown me proof of their existence for forgiveness? It's like asking Fonzie to forgive me for going against all he stood for.

LaMarcus Bryant

01-10-2007, 09:35 PM

And no, I'm not about to list [. . .] my credentials.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:lmao

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:36 PM

I've aced every English Lit class I've ever taken (HS and College). I suppose I could go up to Classical Greek scholar and make wild assertions about Emily Bronte, and if he weren't all that familiary with Bronte, they might let those comments pass on without comment. That doesn't make me a better scholar then him.

No... but you would at least be prepared or qualified to enter discussions with him/her. Not every one is perfect and not all opinion is a truthful fact. I'm pretty sure if you talked to that scholar long enough (granted of course you were qualified in his/her field of expertise) that you would find an error or two in their concepts/statements or assertions.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:37 PM

Why should I be surprised? Because you are right and I'm wrong? What proof do you have that you are right?

I am wrong so be it.

But if you are wrong............ ouch.

LaMarcus Bryant

01-10-2007, 09:38 PM

Funny how noone alive can ever disprove hegamboa's precious credentialed beliefs

We have to die to discover if he was right or not

PixelPusher

01-10-2007, 09:38 PM

No... but you are assuming they purposely changed parts of the story that would otherwise have no significance in the context of the bigger picture --- one they could not see considering the full canon, including the highly profetic book of the Appocalypse (Revelations) was not yet complete. You are also assuming that the council that gathered the canon knew exactly what to change to suit their needs. I believe that most of them really couldn't see all of these structural bookmarks that populate the bible and give it continuity as a whole... and not the individual texts that comprise the canon. New nuances are found in the bible every single year.... that's why people study the texts.
except these "structures" and "nuances" are created by the reader after the fact. This is like arguing with a numerologist who's desperately trying to show you how a disparate collection of numbers add up to prove a prophesy.

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 09:40 PM

I am wrong so be it.

But if you are wrong............ ouch.

What if you are wrong? What if the fucking stupid ass Muslims are right about everything. Than you are as fucked as I am. Do you acknowledge that shit you stupid fucking Christian?

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:41 PM

except these "structures" and "nuances" are created by the reader after the fact. This is like arguing with a numerologist who's desperately trying to show you how a disparate collection of numbers add up to prove a prophesy.

Structure points to order... whether we see it after the fact does not change that fact. Order is a sign of purpose and plan. Simple really.

No other book spanning such extensive history is as extremely structured as the bible.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:42 PM

What if you are wrong? What if the fucking stupid ass Muslims are right about everything. Than you are as fucked as I am. Do you acknowledge that shit you stupid fucking Christian?

Reading comprehension 101:

I believe I stated "SO BE IT"....

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 09:45 PM

Reading comprehension 101:

I believe I stated "SO BE IT"....

If you knew shit about reading comprehension you would know that the Bible is a literary work. Full of symbolism, metaphors and other non-literal stories. But you take it literally so who needs a reading comprehension class?

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:45 PM

Funny how noone alive can ever disprove hegamboa's precious credentialed beliefs

We have to die to discover if he was right or not

Your takes haven't even been a challenge....

Funny how your obsession with my identity can give you no edge in debunking my core beliefs. You have to do better than that. Good luck!

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 09:46 PM

Do you hate mormons Phenomanul?

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:46 PM

If you knew shit about reading comprehension you would know that the Bible is a literary work. Full of symbolism, metaphors and other non-literal stories. But you take it literally so who needs a reading comprehension class?

Ironic.

You assume to know what I believe about the bible.

PixelPusher

01-10-2007, 09:46 PM

Structure points to order... whether we see it after the fact does not change that fact. Order is a sign of purpose and plan. Simple really.

No other book spanning such extensive history is as extremely structured as the bible.
Order can exist without a plan, often it is dictated by the laws of physics or evolution.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:47 PM

Do you hate mormons Phenomanul?

I don't hate anybody.... I do find some individuals rather irritating.

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 09:47 PM

Ironic.

You assume to know what I believe about the bible.

From your arguments you believe every fucking word. That's why I assume.

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 09:48 PM

Ironic.

You assume to know what I believe about the bible.

Additionally, there is nothing ironic about it. Please learn the definition of irony before labeling statements as ironic.

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 09:48 PM

I don't hate anybody.... I do find some individuals rather irritating.

So you find mormons irritating?

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:51 PM

Order can exist without a plan, often it is dictated by the laws of physics or evolution.

No not really. Laws were contrived with a purpose. Only the supernatural is unbounded by said constraints.

Chaotic unguided evolution (i.e. order without a plan) is a scientific fantasy with little basis. Purpose begets order. Order is the manifestation of purpose; not the other way around.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:52 PM

So you find mormons irritating?

No. Only you and LaMarcus Bryant.

As in... Your trolling style is irritating, confuscating, and does not add any value to the thread.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:53 PM

From your arguments you believe every fucking word. That's why I assume.

Then go back and read again.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:55 PM

Additionally, there is nothing ironic about it. Please learn the definition of irony before labeling statements as ironic.

Ironic that you would throw the definition of a literary work into the argument as a point of argumentation.

Ironic that you don't even respect the book as a literary work.

Ironic that you would even believe said arguments would add any weight to your overall argument...

Not all irony is based on the literary meaning of the word, in the context of Homerian Ironies/Tragedies or greek usage.

midgetonadonkey

01-10-2007, 09:56 PM

No. Only you and LaMarcus Bryant.

As in... Your trolling style is irritating, confuscating, and does not add any value to the thread.

Who the fuck says I'm trolling? I'm stating my opinion just like your stupid ass is doing right now.

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 09:59 PM

Who the fuck says I'm trolling? I'm stating my opinion just like your stupid ass is doing right now.

Then why the stupid leading questions???

"Do you hate mormons"....

Phenomanul

01-10-2007, 10:01 PM

Now let me watch the game in peace!!!!!

PixelPusher

01-10-2007, 10:02 PM

No not really. Laws were contrived with a purpose. Only the supernatural is unbounded by said constraints.

Chaotic unguided evolution (i.e. order without a plan) is a scientific fantasy with little basis. Purpose begets order. Order is the manifestation of purpose; not the other way around.
This is where we'll have to end our discussion, as I find the Theories (capitalized to indicate the scientific definition of Theory) of the vast majority of Biologists to be more coherent and credible, and your statement indicates you've already made up your mind on this subject.

METALMiKE

01-10-2007, 10:19 PM

What if God smoked cannabis?

tlongII

01-10-2007, 10:35 PM

No not really. Laws were contrived with a purpose. Only the supernatural is unbounded by said constraints.

Chaotic unguided evolution (i.e. order without a plan) is a scientific fantasy with little basis. Purpose begets order. Order is the manifestation of purpose; not the other way around.

I don't believe evolution is necessarily chaotic or unguided. Evolution comes about as flora and fauna adapt to environmental changes. Genetic changes are somewhat chaotic and unguided in of themselves, but the changes that give the animal or plant a strategic advantage in their environment are passed on to their offspring and result in evolutionary changes.

tlongII

01-10-2007, 10:39 PM

FYI = Phenomanul is clearly well educated. I actually find his posts rather interesting although somewhat misguided.

ShoogarBear

01-11-2007, 01:03 AM

I can't read this whole thread.

I just hope that somewhere in here someone has said:

"How long can you tread water? Hahahahaha . . . "

Phenomanul

01-11-2007, 09:27 AM

except these "structures" and "nuances" are created by the reader after the fact. This is like arguing with a numerologist who's desperately trying to show you how a disparate collection of numbers add up to prove a prophesy.

I should have brought this 'nuance' to your attention yesterday.

Jews don't believe in the Trinitarian concept. Agree.

So why would the Jewish Canon be populated with Trinitarian prophesy if it wasn't in their best interest to present it as such. Why didn't they change it to suit their needs? Specifically the core beliefs of Judaism...

For example, why does the hebrew text refer to GOD in the plural tense whenever GOD says, "let Us make man in our own image". That clearly foreshadows a belief that Jews don't particularly endorse. The passage itself remains untouched to this day. Why? Unlike your argument that claims that people have willingly changed the meaning of the texts iteration upon iteration. The fact of the matter is that you all would be unable to accept the bible if you all knew that the translative integrity of the texts has been retained beyond belief. Are there passages which have been altered through the course of time? Sure... but can the message of the bible as a whole be rendered null by changes here or there? NO. This message is too unique, simple and yet fortified by 1000's of passages found throughout the bible.

This is where we'll have to end our discussion, as I find the Theories (capitalized to indicate the scientific definition of Theory) of the vast majority of Biologists to be more coherent and credible, and your statement indicates you've already made up your mind on this subject.

Right... because clearly you haven't made up your mind on the matter.

Look, it's not about trying to change what you believe or don't believe, it's about trying to expose you to different perspectives and the reasoning behind them. Not just a simple "Because GOD said so"....

BTW many molecular biologists I know believe in the existence of GOD based on the amazing design and purpose found in the unique DNA molecule. Don't be fooled into thinking that all biologists or astronomers are agnostic/atheistic. They may not believe in the Judeo-Christian GOD per sé... but they acknowledge that life could not have arisen without the guided purpose provided by a supernatural being.

DarkReign

01-11-2007, 10:15 AM

FYI = Phenomanul is clearly well educated. I actually find his posts rather interesting although somewhat misguided.

Youre not alone. Some people tend to lean against him for no other reason than his beliefs. That they conflict with their own. And that bothers alot of people. But the argument is always framed well, and if you stay polite and professional, the discussion can be highly engaging.

By request from johnsmith...

Kill em all, let God sort em out.

These threads are some of the more meaningless, self-indulgent, ego-stroking propoganda recitals this board will ever see.

From one post to the next, neither person has any desire to hear or listen, just spout belief and villify the surrounding hedonists.

Preach on, drive on, see you in the hereafter.

Obviously not universally applicable, but all the same I guess.

DarkReign

01-11-2007, 10:16 AM

Look, it's not about trying to change what you believe or don't believe, it's about trying to expose you to different perspectives and the reasoning behind them. Not just a simple "Because GOD said so"....

:tu Ah, the lost meaning of "discussion" and its merits for a forum.

leemajors

01-11-2007, 10:30 AM

Phenomanul

01-11-2007, 10:56 AM

three is a very important and powerful number in any number of religions, past and present. the egyptians held three sacred, and egyptian symbolism and numerology had a profound impact on both Solomon and Judaism in general - Chiram, who helped Solomon build his temple (and was THE master builder), had his workmen divided into three groups - Entered Apprentices, Fellow-Craftsmen, and Master Masons. You could easily argue that Christianity co-opted this Trinitarian structure from Judaism, and ultimately Egyptian symbolism/numerology. (if you haven't read Manly P. Hall's excellent book, The Secret Teachings of All Ages it's a great read.)

The point was that Judaism doesn't endorse the Trinity. And yet the Hebrew texts all the way back to Genesis retain Trinitarian foreshadowing. And how that fact would partially negate the accusation that people/translators/authors have changed the texts to suit their agendas.

leemajors

01-11-2007, 11:05 AM

The point was that Judaism doesn't endorse the Trinity. And yet the Hebrew texts all the way back to Genesis retain Trinitarian foreshadowing. And how that fact would partially negate the accusation that people/translators/authors have changed the texts to suit their agendas.

if all the foreshadowing is as flimsy as the word Us, it's not much of a negation. :lol

Phenomanul

01-11-2007, 11:10 AM

if all the foreshadowing is as flimsy as the word Us, it's not much of a negation. :lol

No... that's just the second of about 60 Trinitarian references in the Christian 'Old Testament' (i.e. the Jewish Canon)....

And listing them would be counterproductive as you would probably get caught trying to refute each one individually while losing sight of the more significant point: that they don't add value to the Jewish belief system and yet they've managed to remain in the texts.

leemajors

01-11-2007, 11:13 AM

Phenomanul

01-11-2007, 11:20 AM

regardless, it has been said only a truly intelligent person can hold apparently contradicting beliefs and be at peace. personally, i don't think the use of the word Us in that situation is any sort of foreshadowing unless whoever wrote is down wasn't much of an author.

"Us" conjugates with "Our" in that same sentence... It wasn't a translative error. It was written as such, because that's the way it was inspired. Furthermore, (and the point that you keep brushing aside) the phrase actually contradicts the JEWISH belief that JESUS (or the other entity being referenced) cannot also be GOD, since only GOD is GOD. And yet they keep printing the phrase as such. The allegation, if you remember, was that people have changed the sacred texts to make them fall in line with their belief structure. This or the other ~60 references have not been changed because translative integrity has managed to supercede interpretative agendas -- again negating the accusation. It's not as flimsy as you would want it to be when all things are considered.

johnsmith

01-11-2007, 11:23 AM

Us conjugates with Our in that same sentence... It wasn't a translative error. It was written as such, because that's the way it was inspired. Furthermore, (and the point that you keep brushing aside) the phrase actually contradicts the JEWISH belief that JESUS (or the other entity being referenced) cannot also be GOD, since only GOD is GOD. And yet they keep printing the phrase as such. The allegation, if you remember, was that people have changed the sacred texts to make them fall in line with their belief structure. This or the other ~60 references have not been changed because translative integrity has managed to supercede interpretative agendas -- again negating the accusation. It's not as flimsy as you would want it to be when all things are considered.

Did you guys hear about the banana in the sky?

Phenomanul

01-11-2007, 11:27 AM

Well, I'm out for now.... I have to work....

leemajors

01-11-2007, 11:30 AM

Phenomanul

01-11-2007, 12:54 PM

it doesn't contradict shit unless you are desperate to believe it does. how about this - God was conversing with some of the seraphim and used the word Us. even if it is not a translative error the link to foreshadowing is flimsy - as far as Jews are concerned the new testament is not related to their sacred text. Some other religion co-opted their text and claimed it was the precursor to theirs. it's beyond arrogant to assume something like that.

I guess you haven't studied the progression of the actual books in the hebrew canon.

You have no idea of the types of references I'm talking about. Some are prophetic, some bear linguistic connotations, some are allegorical, some are historical (as would be the references to geneologies), some are symbolic, some are structural and others are direct. Again the bigger picture wasn't available to every individual author that contributed a 'book'/scroll to their society.... In fact some of the books were written without the foresight to know that the scrolls would eventually get included or compiled as part of a greater book. Yet they complement each other in so many ways...

leemajors

01-11-2007, 02:49 PM

Again the bigger picture wasn't available to every individual author that contributed a 'book'/scroll to their society.... In fact some of the books were written without the foresight to know that the scrolls would eventually get included or compiled as part of a greater book. Yet they complement each other in so many ways...

sounds like an editor at work. in your case, you believe it to be a higher power - that's not necessarily true at all, but there's nothing wrong with believing that. people see a set of circumstances or occurrences, references, and attempt to make the evidence fit a pattern they see. that doesn't mean it's there. a word changed here or there can have a marked effect, and any one person overseeing a compilation would undoubtedly make sure it was consistent throughout if they really cared about what they were doing. i don't need a deep understanding of the hebrew canon to understand that.

Phenomanul

01-11-2007, 03:15 PM

sounds like an editor at work. in your case, you believe it to be a higher power - that's not necessarily true at all, but there's nothing wrong with believing that. people see a set of circumstances or occurrences, references, and attempt to make the evidence fit a pattern they see. that doesn't mean it's there. a word changed here or there can have a marked effect, and any one person overseeing a compilation would undoubtedly make sure it was consistent throughout if they really cared about what they were doing. i don't need a deep understanding of the hebrew canon to understand that.

Your assumption again is that someone or a group of people purposely changed the texts. I'm suggesting that this is something that would be considered highly sacriligious by any rabbinical scholar and hence avoided. Translative errors are one thing... editorial changes are quite another. In fact that is a grave and serious accusation of Jewish integrity. If editorial changes had been occurring all along as you claim then all Trinitarian references would have surely faded from the canon. Too many controversies could be swiftly subdued if certain passages didn't exist but the fact of the matter is that they do exist.

leemajors

01-11-2007, 03:21 PM

Your assumption again is that someone or a group of people purposely changed the texts. I'm suggesting that this is something that would be considered highly sacriligious by any rabbinical scholar and hence avoided. Translative errors are one thing... editorial changes are quite another. In fact that is a grave and serious accusation of Jewish integrity. If editorial changes had been occurring all along as you claim then all Trinitarian references would have surely faded from the canon. Too many controversies could be swiftly subdued if certain passages didn't exist but the fact of the matter is that they do exist.

i'm not accusing rabbinical scholars of anything, but you can misconstrue all you want.

Phenomanul

01-11-2007, 03:33 PM

i'm not accusing rabbinical scholars of anything, but you can misconstrue all you want.

If the shoe fits (from the cultural context of the allegation)......

leemajors

01-11-2007, 04:42 PM

If the shoe fits (from the cultural context of the allegation)......

i was speaking of the christian bible as a whole, and you took it to mean merely the Jewish old testament because of my comment at the end.

Phenomanul

01-11-2007, 07:15 PM

i was speaking of the christian bible as a whole, and you took it to mean merely the Jewish old testament because of my comment at the end.

The Christian Bible and the Jewish Bible don't differ with regards to the translation of the Hebrew texts, i.e. the Old Testament. Again, the point stands.

leemajors

01-11-2007, 07:29 PM

The Christian Bible and the Jewish Bible don't differ with regards to the translation of the Hebrew texts, i.e. the Old Testament. Again, the point stands.

in my mind, us will never equal trinity. it implies plurality, but you assuming that to mean the trinity. implication is not fact, it's completely open to subjective interpretation. you choose to interpret it as negation of the jewish belief that jesus cannot be god. i think that's a wack interpretation with a flimsy subjective base.

Phenomanul

01-11-2007, 07:48 PM

in my mind, us will never equal trinity. it implies plurality, but you assuming that to mean the trinity. implication is not fact, it's completely open to subjective interpretation. you choose to interpret it as negation of the jewish belief that jesus cannot be god. i think that's a wack interpretation with a flimsy subjective base.

Yeah... that along with the other 60 or so references. :rolleyes But whatever... it's all in the overall context... one you are conveniently choosing to ignore, or rather one you have no clue about.... Your argument severely lacks the contextual basis that would even allow for the plausibility of considering it as valid to be correct. Seraphims???? They just came in for a sentence and then disappeared??? :huh

The plurality that is applied to the subject (Us, Our) bounding the verb (make) would imply that plural entities performed the action... I don't envision a seraphim (or any other celestial being for that matter) as having the creative or supernatural power for creating a being such as man. The grammar in Hebrew doesn't allow for the clause to be interpreted any other way. A plural entity created man, not a singular one... And the poignant statement again is the fact that Jewish scholars have not done away with this, or other similar phrases...

tlongII

01-11-2007, 07:58 PM

leemajors

01-11-2007, 09:53 PM

Yeah... that along with the other 60 or so references. :rolleyes But whatever... it's all in the overall context... one you are conveniently choosing to ignore, or rather one you have no clue about.... Your argument severely lacks the contextual basis that would even allow for the plausibility of considering it as valid to be correct. Seraphims???? They just came in for a sentence and then disappeared??? :huh

The plurality that is applied to the subject (Us, Our) bounding the verb (make) would imply that plural entities performed the action... I don't envision a seraphim (or any other celestial being for that matter) as having the creative or supernatural power for creating a being such as man. The grammar in Hebrew doesn't allow for the clause to be interpreted any other way. A plural entity created man, not a singular one... And the poignant statement again is the fact that Jewish scholars have not done away with this, or other similar phrases...

you still have nothing connecting us and our to the trinity. it's speculation. just like my wild statement about seraphim. i don't disagree with the implication of plurality, i just think it's stupid to assume it's referring to the holy trinity just because the new testament has been tacked on to the old. if god is truly infinite, he can have manifold manifestations. it's pure conjecture to state it's foreshadowing of the trinity based on semantics.

Phenomanul

01-12-2007, 01:01 AM

you still have nothing connecting us and our to the trinity. it's speculation. just like my wild statement about seraphim. i don't disagree with the implication of plurality, i just think it's stupid to assume it's referring to the holy trinity just because the new testament has been tacked on to the old. if god is truly infinite, he can have manifold manifestations. it's pure conjecture to state it's foreshadowing of the trinity based on semantics.

All the references paint this picture... for the sake of the discussion we've only just covered this one (the second such reference).

Belief in Biblical truths is about an understanding of the revelation of who GOD is, His purpose, His plan, His attributes.... and how we fit into that plan. The entire bible paints this glorious picture throughout the Hebrew texts... as well as through the Gospels and the rest of the 'New Testament'. The whole, however, contains more grandeur than any of the individual texts could ever hope to provide by themselves. You may feel inclined to attribute this complimentary relationship to editorial handiwork. So be it. But that would suggest that even the most ancient new testament letters or documents around (dated to a couple of centuries after Christ) would also have been changed. Oddly enough, many of the nuances you choose to disregard were discovered, or noticed, centuries afterward. Yet somehow no one went back to correct the few ancient documents that the Vatican holds in their archives. The fact of the matter is you have already made up your mind on the matter.

My goal isn't to try to convince you to adopt my views or to try to dissuade you from your own... But while you may criticize my alleged stubborness to budge from my beliefs, you do not realize you are on the same boat.

You (or anyone else for that matter) never bothered to question why the explicit mention of the Ararat mountains as the biblical settling place for Noah's ark, is significant from the perspective of purpose and intent. Again, the odds that the dispersion of animals sent to ''replenish the earth" would occur at the earth's terracenter is 1 out of 19,400... again, hardly a given... You may say coincidence... I see purpose.

No editorial handiwork, (not even at the time that the King James Version of the bible was published) could have had access to the computational power required to determine that the Ararat Mountains held this highly significant distinction. Believe what you will.

Phenomanul

01-12-2007, 01:11 AM

Apparently Phenomanul doesn't believe that man evolved from ape-like creatures. My opinion is that the fossil record indicates otherwise. Of course he doesn't believe any fossils are more than 70,000 years old. That, of course, is crazy talk.

If you want to believe that we evolved from apes... feel free to do so.

You are however correct in that I don't harbor that same belief. And no, I don't have the free time or the will power to explain my position from scratch all over again.

If you want to see my reasoning... you'll find it here, as it was discussed extensively:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48166&highlight=evolution

tlongII

01-12-2007, 12:02 PM

If you want to believe that we evolved from apes... feel free to do so.

You are however correct in that I don't harbor that same belief. And no, I don't have the free time or the will power to explain my position from scratch all over again.

If you want to see my reasoning... you'll find it here, as it was discussed extensively:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48166&highlight=evolution

Never mind. I don't really want to read your opinion on why no fossils are over 70,000 years old. That is just an absolutely a ridiculous stand to have. You seem like an intelligent person, but your views on the fossil record are wack.

Phenomanul

01-12-2007, 12:52 PM

Never mind. I don't really want to read your opinion on why no fossils are over 70,000 years old. That is just an absolutely a ridiculous stand to have. You seem like an intelligent person, but your views on the fossil record are wack.

Because I'm pretty sure you've measured their age and understand all the intricacies of the methods being used. Don't let others do all the thinking for you.

Besides, I somewhat expected a dismissive response on your part considering that the particular thread I linked is rather long.

But fossils were only a small course of that discussion... the uniqueness of DNA, the constraints posed by bio-molecular kinetics, the amazing sensitivity of the Physical Constants of this universe and how they allow for our existence were all topics of discussion. Oh yeah and Random Guy's malaligned use of statistical probability.

But consider this; no naturally occuring fossilization processes are found in nature today, or in recent history. Scavenging and decay would have to quickly be removed from the equation for the process to even begin. And an animal would have to immediately be buried (completely) for it to be preserved. How then can we explain the existence of tens of thousands of fossils? Many mixed around.... Furthermore, it's interesting to note that many animals were preserved in anatomical positions or situations suggesting that their death was sudden (As in the case of woolly mamoths families that were found with food still in their mouths)...

In 1976, the complete fossil skeleton of a baleen whale was uncovered in Lompoc, California, crossing many geological layers (apparently “millions of years” of strata)? And no one asks the obvious question?

Fossil trees are often found in a position where a single fossil occupies many geologic layers at the same time. These are referred to as “polystrate fossil trees.” Are we supposed to believe that these trees died and remained partly buried for thousands or millions of years until they became completely buried and fossilized? I would like for someone to prove it to me by showing me a tree that was alive 10,000 or 20,000 years ago and is mostly (but not completely) buried in an upright position today.

A flood, which would cause massive amounts of earth movement, is a much better explanation for the unique placement of both of these fossil types. For example, the whale above that died or was killed could get temporarily stuck in an upright position and quickly buried. The same thing could happen to a tree.

Put simply, trees broken off during a flood would float until they became water-logged. Then, the denser (and larger diameter) root end of some of the trees would sink lower in the water, putting those trees in an upright position... Later, after completely sinking, the now upright trees would be buried in sediment. This happened to many trees when Mount St. Helens erupted. Any scuba diver in Spirit Lake (next to Mount St. Helens) can find many half-buried, upright trees (not stumps) in the bottom of the lake today.

But again believe what you will... keep on accepting everything you were fed in High School as unquestionable.

tlongII

01-12-2007, 01:18 PM

Because I'm pretty sure you've measured their age and understand all the intricacies of the methods being used. Don't let others do all the thinking for you.

Besides, I somewhat expected a dismissive response on your part considering that the particular thread I linked is rather long.

But fossils were only a small course of that discussion... the uniqueness of DNA, the constraints posed by bio-molecular kinetics, the amazing sensitivity of the Physical Constants of this universe and how they allow for our existence were all topics of discussion. Oh yeah and Random Guy's malaligned use of statistical probability.

But consider this; no naturally occuring fossilization processes are found in nature today, or in recent history. Scavenging and decay would have to quickly be removed from the equation for the process to even begin. And an animal would have to immediately be buried (completely) for it to be preserved. How then can we explain the existence of tens of thousands of fossils? Many mixed around.... Furthermore, it's interesting to note that many animals were preserved in anatomical positions or situations suggesting that their death was sudden (As in the case of woolly mamoths families that were found with food still in their mouths)...

In 1976, the complete fossil skeleton of a baleen whale was uncovered in Lompoc, California, crossing many geological layers (apparently “millions of years” of strata)? And no one asks the obvious question?

Fossil trees are often found in a position where a single fossil occupies many geologic layers at the same time. These are referred to as “polystrate fossil trees.” Are we supposed to believe that these trees died and remained partly buried for thousands or millions of years until they became completely buried and fossilized? I would like for someone to prove it to me by showing me a tree that was alive 10,000 or 20,000 years ago and is mostly (but not completely) buried in an upright position today.

A flood, which would cause massive amounts of earth movement, is a much better explanation for the unique placement of both of these fossil types. For example, the whale above that died or was killed could get temporarily stuck in an upright position and quickly buried. The same thing could happen to a tree.

Put simply, trees broken off during a flood would float until they became water-logged. Then, the denser (and larger diameter) root end of some of the trees would sink lower in the water, putting those trees in an upright position... Later, after completely sinking, the now upright trees would be buried in sediment. This happened to many trees when Mount St. Helens erupted. Any scuba diver in Spirit Lake (next to Mount St. Helens) can find many half-buried, upright trees (not stumps) in the bottom of the lake today.

But again believe what you will... keep on accepting everything you were fed in High School as unquestionable.

OH PUHLEEEAZE!!!

Regarding the Lompoc, CA whale:

The source of this myth comes from an article by someone named Russel written in 1976. If Creationists took the time to investigate this claim they would have discovered that the story lacked some very important information and took liberty with the facts. The whale skeleton was not found in a vertical position, but was actually lying at an angle 40 to 50 degrees from horizontal. Also, while the whale lied at an angle, it was actually horizontal to the strata bedding which at one time was the sea floor on which whale fell after its death. These facts were confirmed by inquiring with the people at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History who excavated the whale. Of course Creationists have conveniently left this point out.

tlongII

01-12-2007, 01:22 PM

But hey! Don't let facts get in the way of your argument!

Phenomanul

01-12-2007, 02:51 PM

But hey! Don't let facts get in the way of your argument!

Hit and miss.... I'm physically incapable of being involved in everything. I'll concede on that point considering I quoted it from memory and really hadn't looked into it. If what you say is true, it will no longer be a point of discussion for me. But that's OK... you make it sound like my beliefs were hinged strictly on that story.

And please continue to disregard the rest of the post. You really do have a one track mind. I'm surprised... considering no sheep are involved. I guess you must have gotten caught up thinking you had a 'smoking barrel' argument to rest your case on. Not really.

Can you google explanations for the fossilized trees that cut across multiple geologic strata... Such petrified forrests have been found in Australia, Arizona, Europe, Siberia and Botswana. Or explain to me why you feel the precise magnitudes of physical constants is nothing to be amazed at; were they any different; life would simply not exist.

SpursWoman

01-12-2007, 03:06 PM

Extra Stout

01-12-2007, 03:24 PM

Can you google explanations for the fossilized trees that cut across multiple geologic strata... Such petrified forrests have been found in Australia, Arizona, Europe, Siberia and Botswana.
There are instances of un-fossilized trees buried within multiple layers of sediment. Examples would be in the vicinity of volcanic eruptions where trees are buried under lahar flows, in alluvial deltas where sedimentation is relatively rapid, or in swamps where trees live partially submerged, and even partially buried in sediment.

Or explain to me why you feel the precise magnitudes of physical constants is nothing to be amazed at; were they any different; life would simply not exist.
You're falling into that false dichotomy again of Creation Science/Atheism.

tlongII

01-12-2007, 04:40 PM

Hit and miss.... I'm physically incapable of being involved in everything. I'll concede on that point considering I quoted it from memory and really hadn't looked into it. If what you say is true, it will no longer be a point of discussion for me. But that's OK... you make it sound like my beliefs were hinged strictly on that story.

And please continue to disregard the rest of the post. You really do have a one track mind. I'm surprised... considering no sheep are involved. I guess you must have gotten caught up thinking you had a 'smoking barrel' argument to rest your case on. Not really.

Can you google explanations for the fossilized trees that cut across multiple geologic strata... Such petrified forrests have been found in Australia, Arizona, Europe, Siberia and Botswana. Or explain to me why you feel the precise magnitudes of physical constants is nothing to be amazed at; were they any different; life would simply not exist.

That's precisely why you should Google more often. The ability to store information in your mind and use it during ad-hoc discussions does not make you superior in the art of debate on a message board. You must use the tools at your disposal. You'll never be able to memorize everything that can be Googled. Of course if you think Google was created by a group of anti-Creationists I can understand your reluctance.

tlongII

01-12-2007, 04:42 PM

BTW, do you believe in plate tectonics?

Phenomanul

01-12-2007, 05:03 PM

There are instances of un-fossilized trees buried within multiple layers of sediment. Examples would be in the vicinity of volcanic eruptions where trees are buried under lahar flows, in alluvial deltas where sedimentation is relatively rapid, or in swamps where trees live partially submerged, and even partially buried in sediment.

Ahhh yes... but they are not 10,000+ years old or living while another layer gets deposited.... Furthermore, each subsequent layer is not considered to span 100,000+ years.... much less millions of years.

There is no evidence for stumps that belong to trees that are 100's much less thousands of years old that then get buried by several sedimentary layers in intervals spanning millions of years.

In the case of volcanic lahar flows (an example I'd already provided when I mentioned Spirit Lake) the trees are buried in one swift blow; hence the entire layer can be dated as belonging to the same era. No known mechanism exists that can explain how millions of years can go by while preventing the exposed section of any tree from decaying. This is especially true in swampy marshes or the alluvial deltas you referenced in your rebuttal. These areas are inhabited by 100's of different organisms who use decomposition as their primary dietary means. Evidence for this phenomenon is abundant. Just take a trip to the Mississippi Delta and see for yourself.

In addition, volcanic flows provide the type of representative catclysm that could explain the formation of fossils in the first place. It is not a slow process spanning millions of years... it is a very rapid, cataclysmic one (i.e. one like a global flood). A detail that often gets overlooked is that some of the trees unearthed from lahar flows, such as the one in Spirit Lake, are beginning to show signs of fossilization! As you probably already know the lahar flow itself consists mostly of mud, gravel, rocks, some large boulders and other organic debris...not lava - which obviously would burn the tree, not preserve it... But lahar flows themselves don't explain a multiple strata effect. That could only be produced from a slower sedimentation process that is governed by the dissengagement/deposition of materials as accorded by their density.

You're falling into that false dichotomy again of Creation Science/Atheism.

No.... it's a discussion of young earth vs. old earth. And as I have stated multiple times, I don't preclude one theory or the other from being true. I simply don't accept the mainstream 'evidence' of an old earth as being a given, or 'full-proof'. Others may accept it cause they have to or because they've never really understood the issues. One thing is for sure; few if ever really question the data.

Phenomanul

01-12-2007, 05:15 PM

That's precisely why you should Google more often. The ability to store information in your mind and use it during ad-hoc discussions does not make you superior in the art of debate on a message board. You must use the tools at your disposal. You'll never be able to memorize everything that can be Googled. Of course if you think Google was created by a group of anti-Creationists I can understand your reluctance.

Hardy har har.... no, I use google all the time. I simply don't like using it in the middle of an argument with an "A-ha.... see, I told ya so" attitude - and then act like I knew about some obscure detail all along. It rubs off with a stench of ignorance.

Much like my concession earlier on the Lompoc whale blunder. If I'm wrong about something, so be it. I'll accept my error and move on... I won't argue against something if it is clearly definitive. That's just it however... mostly everybody assumes that modern scientific viewpoints are completely full-proof; and that Mr. tlongII would be a gross over-statement of the truth.

Phenomanul

01-12-2007, 05:24 PM

BTW, do you believe in plate tectonics?

Clearly, the continents as shown by SpursWoman's neat picture (and addition to the thread) is the smoking barrel picture that they were once connected. They are an almost perfect jigsaw puzzle.

The prevaling theory, of course assumes that tectonic drifting occurred over millions of years... I don't know if scientists can claim however, that the current tectonic drift rate is representative of the rates in the past. Magnetic polar reversal adds volumes of supporting data but even this polar shift is not clearly understood. It is a somewhat erratic phenomenon with very little predictability with the possible exception of the sign bearing period preceding the magnetic reversal itself. Again, a hardly predictable phenomenon.

I'll try to explain my view later tonight as I have many things to do at work right now.

tlongII

01-12-2007, 05:30 PM

Hardy har har.... no, I use google all the time. I simply don't like using it in the middle of an argument with an "A-ha.... see, I told ya so" attitude - and then act like I knew about some obscure detail all along. It rubs off with a stench of ignorance.

Much like my concession earlier on the Lompoc whale blunder. If I'm wrong about something, so be it. I'll accept my error and move on... I won't argue against something if it is clearly definitive. That's just it however... mostly everybody assumes that modern scientific viewpoints are completely full-proof; and that Mr. tlongII would be a gross over-statement of the truth.

Of course they aren't full-proof. People in science themselves admit this. Thoeries are constantly being tweaked and adjusted as new evidence comes to life. That's one of the beauties of science. I'm not a scientist myself, but I consider myself relatively intelligent. My brother is a scientist. My sister is a chemical engineer. And my dad has a PhD in engineering. I'm just an MBA with a BS in Accounting, but I've had quite a bit of math and science. Took a class in anthropology too. Loved it.

angel_luv

01-12-2007, 05:32 PM

Well I guess you can call it an opinion.

I'm not sure its something that can be debated one way or the other. 2+2=4 isn't an opinion.

How would society act if there was no reprocussion for peoples actions? Where would this world be if there wasn't some higher power to answer too, a power that keeps us good and our conscience fresh and working? A power that represents good vs evil.

Answer:

People would lie, cheat, steal, kill a million times more than they do now. It just seems obvious to me. Religion = rules to life. Take away the rules and what happens? Its not shocking we have religion whats shocking is that all this time later with nothing of value for proof, people still "believe" instead of realizing that we need to be good just to be good....free of religion.

I am a very late comer to this thread, but I found this interesting.

So my question back- where did the idea of having a Higher Power to answer to originate?

tlongII

01-12-2007, 05:38 PM

I am a very late comer to this thread, but I found this interesting.

So my question back- where did the idea of having a Higher Power to answer to originate?

I believe it originated from human need to explain the unexplainable. The idea has been around for thousands of years.

angel_luv

01-12-2007, 05:40 PM

MannyIsGod

01-12-2007, 05:46 PM

I am a very late comer to this thread, but I found this interesting.

So my question back- where did the idea of having a Higher Power to answer to originate?Do you mean where did the idea of god come from? Thats a pretty difficult question to answer in one post but I believe the basic premise is that it arose from a need to explain and rationalize the actions of the world. When people don't know how something came to be or how it is, they usually look for an explanation. In many cultures this has taken different forms.

I dont' have the attention span to read over the entire thread and I'm sure I've read much of it before in other threads either way. I do want to go back and address something that I believe is a very flawed piece of logic that Phenomanal uses and it is probably symbolic of other such leaps of faith.

Hector mentoined that the only way Moses would know the geneology of the Jews was if God told him. That right there is a highly flawed logic. You can believe that if you wish, and while I'm not an expert on true biblical archeaology, but is there even physical proof that moses actually exsist much less that he was the actual author of those books of the bible? Secondly, if there is such proof, in the absence of information to assume that the only way this could be would be for some type of supernatural communication is horrible science.

And thats fine if you want to believe things based on faith and faith alone, but Hector tries to present his views in a very intelligent (and he does) and scientific manner to which this does not lend itself to.

angel_luv

01-12-2007, 05:47 PM

I believe it originated from human need to explain the unexplainable. The idea has been around for thousands of years.

But what influenced the conscience? If people were meant to live with no responsibility, why the inate need for order and accountability?

angel_luv

01-12-2007, 05:55 PM

MannyIsGod

01-12-2007, 06:00 PM

Also interesting.

Why does it follow that the workings of an All powerful God would make sense to us? And furthermore, Christians believe The Bible is God's testimony to them.
Why would any author purposely confuse people by writing things as fact if they were meant to be taken figuratively?Unfortunetly, there is no physical proof that I am aware of that the bible is God's word to man. Once again, if you believe that based on faith and faith alone, then there's not much to discuss in this matter. But if you want to use the physical world to prove that the Bible is God's word to Man, then I'm afraid you will be unable to do so.

There is proof that the writtings that were supposed to be taken as fact are actually based upon folk stories and myths.

I am sure that what the ancient Greeks, Mesopotamians, and countless other cultures wrote was meant to be taken as fact as well, but as far as I know there is no physical evidence for the god Jupiter.

MannyIsGod

01-12-2007, 06:05 PM

Manny- I hope that you are unintentionally implying that faith is separate from intelligence.

Unlike many scientific theories, God's account of Creation has remained in tact since it's original publication.

And since I believe God is the Creator of the world and is the Author of the Bible, it only makes sense that I take His Word about what happened.Scientific theories are ever changing. That is not a flaw of those theories, that is to point out that a theory based on science is simply as good as the information we have at the time of that theories formation. Scientific theories are not the end all be all but rather an attempt to piece together piece of a puzzle and provide the picture while gathering pieces. Of course the picture changes as new things come along.

Your second statement is false. The Chrisitian story of creation has never been proven. Whlie it hasn't been disproven, science does not work to disprove.

For instance, no one can scientificly prove that I am not God himself, yet that doesn't make it scientific fact.

Your last statment is fine, but that is a faith based statment, not a scientific one.

Spurminator

01-12-2007, 06:10 PM

I believe it originated from human need to explain the unexplainable.

To me, what you've said here is an example of attempting to explain the unexplainable.

Perhaps man's doubt of God arose from the human need to rebel from authority and/or seek earthly pleasures without guilt.

Mere speculation, of course, and I don't think any point of view is less logical than the other.

Phenomanul

01-12-2007, 06:18 PM

Hector mentoined that the only way Moses would know the geneology of the Jews was if God told him. That right there is a highly flawed logic. You can believe that if you wish, and while I'm not an expert on true biblical archeaology, but is there even physical proof that moses actually exsisted much less that he was the actual author of those books of the bible?

Secondly, if there is such proof, in the absence of information to assume that the only way this could be would be for some type of supernatural communication is horrible science.

You're right... spirtual matters are not science; but naturalists such as yourself want a 2+2=4 answer to everything in life. Some things, however, "don't lend themselves to that type of proof", as a parphrase of your comment below.

The problem (with the nature of this thread) is that you all keep insisting that belief in such things requires proof, that is necesitates physical evidence. You wouldn't be content with any other answer; so I, like others, try and provide perspective that lack of physical proof does not necessarily mean that biblical events never took place. Observations and phenomena in our world today allow for the possibility that certain biblical truths hold merit... the problem with these however, is that many are quick to brush these inconveniences aside (most are blissfully unaware that they even exist).

Furthermore, in the case of the scriptures, you all have continually insinuated that people have purposely changed the text's meaning over the years. That people have deliberately tried to confuse the masses by using a GOD as their means. And while that last statement bears a cup of truth - it only applies to those who used said route as a twisted means for obtaining power. But consider this: Hebrew prophets had no power. They were usually meek, starved individuals with nothing to gain. And yet a chunk of GOD's revelation was made possible by their role.

Besides if the scriptures, GOD's Word, were completely fabricated... they would lack the power to transform and heal. But apparently no amount of anecdotes would budge you from accepting this claim either. Your mind, like that of others around here, may already be made up.

And thats fine if you want to believe things based on faith and faith alone, but Hector tries to present his views in a very intelligent (and he does) and scientific manner to which this does not lend itself to.

So somehow Faith is subservient to intelligence??? Is the spiritual entity worth any less than the physical one?

Sure... I believe the evangelistic message on faith alone. I definitely don't need proof. But why would that make me less of an individual than someone who has rationally come to the conclusion that there is no GOD on lack of proof?

angel_luv

01-12-2007, 06:18 PM

Unfortunetly, there is no physical proof that I am aware of that the bible is God's word to man. Once again, if you believe that based on faith and faith alone, then there's not much to discuss in this matter. But if you want to use the physical world to prove that the Bible is God's word to Man, then I'm afraid you will be unable to do so.

There is proof that the writtings that were supposed to be taken as fact are actually based upon folk stories and myths.

I am sure that what the ancient Greeks, Mesopotamians, and countless other cultures wrote was meant to be taken as fact as well, but as far as I know there is no physical evidence for the god Jupiter.

I agree with you as far as that faith cannot be separated from the equation.

But everything operates on some measure of trust. You believe ( I'm assuming) that the world is round and yet you have never been to outer space to see for yourself that it is so.

There was a time when such a belief was considered ridiculous by man and science and they were proven wrong.

In that light, can you be fully comfortable to dismiss the Bible as nonsense?

angel_luv

01-12-2007, 06:21 PM

Scientific theories are ever changing. That is not a flaw of those theories, that is to point out that a theory based on science is simply as good as the information we have at the time of that theories formation. Scientific theories are not the end all be all but rather an attempt to piece together piece of a puzzle and provide the picture while gathering pieces. Of course the picture changes as new things come along.

Your second statement is false. The Chrisitian story of creation has never been proven. Whlie it hasn't been disproven, science does not work to disprove.

For instance, no one can scientificly prove that I am not God himself, yet that doesn't make it scientific fact.

Your last statment is fine, but that is a faith based statment, not a scientific one.

I refer you to my lastest post. :)

You should be in debate Manny. I don't agree with your views but they are very well expressed.

MannyIsGod

01-12-2007, 06:30 PM

You're right... spirtual matters are not science; but naturalists such as yourself want a 2+2=4 answer to everything in life. Some things, however, "don't lend themselves to that type of proof", as a parphrase of your comment below.

The problem is you all keep insisting that belief in such things requires said proof. You wouldn't be content with any other answer; so I try and provide perspective that lack of physical proof does not necessarily mean that biblical events never happened. Observations and phenomena in our world today allow for the possibility that certain biblical truths hold merit... the problem with these however, is that many are quick to brush these inconveniences aside (most are blissfully unaware that they even exist).

Furthermore, in the case of the scriptures, you all have continually insinuated that people have purposely changed the text's meaning over the years. That people have deliberately tried to confuse the masses by using a GOD as their means. And while that last statement bears a cup of truth - it only applies to those who used said route as a twisted means for obtaining power. But consider this: Hebrew prophets had no power. They were usually meek, starved individuals with nothing to gain. And yet a chunk of GOD's revelation was made possible by their role.

Besides if the scriptures, GOD's Word, were completely fabricated... they would lack the power to transform and heal. But apparently no amount of anecdotes would budge you from accepting this claim. Your mind, like that of others around here, may already be made up.

So somehow Faith is subservient to intelligence??? Is the spiritual entity worth any less than the physical one?

Sure... I believe the evangelistic message on faith alone. I definitely don't need proof. But why would that make me less of an individual than someone who has rationally come to the conclusion that there is no GOD on lack of proof?Don't assume that because I don't buy into the Christian belief system I do not have a spiritual side. I won't accept the way things are presented in the Christian bible on faith because they don't make sense to me. The ideas presented through Christianity on what God is and how he has done do not present themselves as what I belive spirtuality to be.

In that light, I need proof of those events to believe them.

As far as faith being subservient to intelligence, everyone is allowed to value specific ideas and characteristics as they wish. I unintentionally implied that one cannot have faith if they are intelligent. Thats obviously not the case because you put a lot of your eggs in the faith basket and are obviously intelligent. (Did you like that? Forget debate as Veronica suggests, I should go into diplomacy. :lol )

leemajors

01-12-2007, 06:33 PM

There was a time when such a belief was considered ridiculous by man and science and they were proven wrong.

In that light, can you be fully comfortable to dismiss the Bible as nonsense?

actually, in classical antiquity most learned people believed the earth to be round. if anything, the Catholic Church (namely Augustine) vehemently opposed this view. Most middle age textbooks supported the view the earth was round, but the romantic conception of the middle ages still dominated.

MannyIsGod

01-12-2007, 06:35 PM

I agree with you as far as that faith cannot be separated from the equation.

But everything operates on some measure of trust. You believe ( I'm assuming) that the world is round and yet you have never been to outer space to see for yourself that it is so.

There was a time when such a belief was considered ridiculous by man and science and they were proven wrong.

In that light, can you be fully comfortable to dismiss the Bible as nonsense?I feel perfectly comfortable dismissing the Bible and the churches that go along with it. I see far more evidence for the evolution of the bible from stories of the cultures in the regions it came from than for it being the word of God.

I see a very flawed aspect to the stories presented in the Bible and the way those stories have been used and manipluated through history. I see what in essence a tool for control and rules, not a spiritual guide. The thought that spirituality has rules is a thought that makes no sense to me. The thought of a heaven where I would go based upon whether or not I had premarital sex or whether or not I worship someone or whether or not I ask for forgiveness is something that is far from spiritual to me.

The bible simply doesn't make spiritual sense to me.

MannyIsGod

01-12-2007, 06:35 PM

actually, in classical antiquity most learned people believed the earth to be round. if anything, the Catholic Church (namely Augustine) vehemently opposed this view. Most middle age textbooks supported the view the earth was round, but the romantic conception of the middle ages still dominated.I believe she was simply making the point that I believe in something I have not seen for myself.

leemajors

01-12-2007, 06:38 PM

I believe she was simply making the point that I believe in something I have not seen for myself.

i know, i was just pointing out that it was mainly the Church opposed to the view, not the learned community.

angel_luv

01-12-2007, 06:41 PM

I believe she was simply making the point that I believe in something I have not seen for myself.

Thank you, I was.

Now that we have both clearly expressed our views, any further clarification would be redundant.
This is where I bow out. *Curtsey* :)

tlongII

01-12-2007, 06:45 PM

But what influenced the conscience? If people were meant to live with no responsibility, why the inate need for order and accountability?

Ants live with order and accountability. I doubt they have a conscience though.

tlongII

01-12-2007, 06:46 PM

MannyIsGod

01-12-2007, 06:47 PM

Ants live with order and accountability. I doubt they have a conscience though.You realize you're playing right into their hands, right?

angel_luv

01-12-2007, 06:49 PM

Ants live with order and accountability. I doubt they have a conscience though.

Ants were designed by God. :)
According to the Bible, humans are the only part of creation given free choice and hte right to live otherwise than how they were desinged to.

angel_luv

01-12-2007, 06:53 PM

Okay, I really am leaving now. :)

tlongII

01-12-2007, 06:58 PM

Ants were designed by God. :)
According to the Bible, humans are the only part of creation given free choice and hte right to live otherwise than how they were desinged to.

Ants evolved, like all other earthly creatures, from a primordial soup that existed in the sea. From a collective viewpoint, all fauna live to perpetuate their particular species and dominate their landscape. Humans are no different. Humans have the intellect however, to create catastrophe. Just as one pride of lions will try to eliminate or absorb another pride of lions, groups of humans will try to eliminate other groups of humans. Unfortunately, humans have achieved the power to wipe out nearly everything else as well.

midgetonadonkey

01-12-2007, 07:48 PM

Ants evolved, like all other earthly creatures, from a primordial soup that existed in the sea. From a collective viewpoint, all fauna live to perpetuate their particular species and dominate their landscape. Humans are no different. Humans have the intellect however, to create catastrophe. Just as one pride of lions will try to eliminate or absorb another pride of lions, groups of humans will try to eliminate other groups of humans. Unfortunately, humans have achieved the power to wipe out nearly everything else as well.

That type of thinking will have you sent straight to hell. Fucking blasphemer. Science = blasphemy

LaMarcus Bryant

01-12-2007, 08:55 PM

Structure points to order... whether we see it after the fact does not change that fact. Order is a sign of purpose and plan. Simple really.

Actually this statement coming from someone supposedly well versed in quantum physics sounds pretty stupid. I know you have the forum's greatest scientific and religious credentials but it can easily be argued that the entire concept of order is something that our human minds are naturally inclined to impose upon our surroundings.

Order is a sign of purpose and plan? I think you need to read up on some ancient philsophy for 3-4 years in addition to your scientifically religious studies.

LaMarcus Bryant

01-12-2007, 08:57 PM

Who the fuck says I'm trolling? I'm stating my opinion just like your stupid ass is doing right now.
:lmao
this genius thinks that me and you telling him noah's flood was bull shit is a troll post, yet he's seriously trying to convince people that it was real based on the BIBLE

and my takes are weak....why dont we start a poll asking if noah's flood was real

Extra Stout

01-12-2007, 09:38 PM

Ahhh yes... but they are not 10,000+ years old or living while another layer gets deposited.... Furthermore, each subsequent layer is not considered to span 100,000+ years.... much less millions of years.

There is no evidence for stumps that belong to trees that are 100's much less thousands of years old that then get buried by several sedimentary layers in intervals spanning millions of years.
I would ask you to cite one instance where a "polystrate" upright tree trunk has penetrated multiple sedimentary layers, where the layers in that immediate vicinity were considered by mainstream geologists to have spanned hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

The roots don't count, since of course roots can penetrate the soil.

Extra Stout

01-12-2007, 09:40 PM

:lmao
this genius thinks that me and you telling him noah's flood was bull shit is a troll post, yet he's seriously trying to convince people that it was real based on the BIBLE

and my takes are weak....why dont we start a poll asking if noah's flood was real
If we are allowed to consider that the Flood was the transformation of the Great Euxine Lake into the Black Sea c. 5400 B.C., then sign me up.

Phenomanul

01-12-2007, 10:02 PM

Actually this statement coming from someone supposedly well versed in quantum physics sounds pretty stupid. I know you have the forum's greatest scientific and religious credentials but it can easily be argued that the entire concept of order is something that our human minds are naturally inclined to impose upon our surroundings.

Order is a sign of purpose and plan? I think you need to read up on some ancient philsophy for 3-4 years in addition to your scientifically religious studies.

Wow a real take... after what? Months of deliberation?

Anyhow... my statement stands.

And I'm glad you brought up quantum physics... I'll use it to explain why that philosophical circular logic of yours doesn't make any sense with regards to the structure of the Universe. It's not how we perceive it... order existed well before the first human ever did!

Order in the cosmos arises from a very intricate balance of universal parameters. The weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the Coulombic electrical constant, (about 15 constants in all) etc.... If any one of these constants were slightly different. This universe could not have 'been created' (or in your case 'come into existence') the way it was. If the weak nuclear force had been greater... atoms such as C, N, H, and O would be immensely and extremely rare... all of those atoms are of course the biological backbone of organic compounds and hence of biological organisms... ahem... LIFE (in the non-consciousness sense of the word). More importantly, Hydrogen would be so rare that stars could not exist. Without stars no planet would be able to 'create', harbor, or sustain life.

If the gravitational constant had been greater, again by ever so slightly, "The Big Bang" would have expanded for a couple of years and then quickly collapsed on itself. The fact of the matter is that these constants were flawlessly 'set', a sign of design. Most astronomers are aware of this cosmic sensitivity but instead are willing to accept the notion that this universe is somehow the causality of infinite 'Big-Bangs'... In essence, they recognize just how amazingly unique our universe is and recognize that they need an infinite amount of 'tweaked' universes in order to validate the existence of our own. Our 'physical constant' combination is more than just the result of chance. It is the language of existence. It defines the succesive language of math. That is ORDER.

Phenomanul

01-12-2007, 10:04 PM

I would ask you to cite one instance where a "polystrate" upright tree trunk has penetrated multiple sedimentary layers, where the layers in that immediate vicinity were considered by mainstream geologists to have spanned hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

The roots don't count, since of course roots can penetrate the soil.

You couldn't have made my search any harder.... :p:

Ever been to the petrified forest in Arizona??? I suggest a visit if you feel you need to "see it to believe it" with your own eyes...

Phenomanul

01-12-2007, 10:24 PM

Unfortunetly, there is no physical proof that I am aware of that the bible is God's word to man. Once again, if you believe that based on faith and faith alone, then there's not much to discuss in this matter. But if you want to use the physical world to prove that the Bible is God's word to Man, then I'm afraid you will be unable to do so.

There is proof that the writtings that were supposed to be taken as fact are actually based upon folk stories and myths.

I am sure that what the ancient Greeks, Mesopotamians, and countless other cultures wrote was meant to be taken as fact as well, but as far as I know there is no physical evidence for the god Jupiter.

I'm still wondering what mythical combination of folklore and legend would render the statistical anomaly held by the Ararat mountain range as credit to purpose. Or why would the name of a mountain range stand to this very day after so many thousands of years - Even labeled as such on the earliest known maps of the region?? The Bible simply could have read, "and Noah settled his ark on a mountain where they waited for the waters to recede". But no, the clause is explicit.

The fact of the matter is that no myth could have produced such a particular location on earth at random; much less by name. And that the localized area would 1000's of years later be determined as the most terracentric spot on earth. One that would facilitate the re-distribution of animals on earth. Again... PURPOSE.

Extra Stout

01-12-2007, 10:30 PM

You couldn't have made my search any harder.... :p:
Your argument hinges upon the existence of such fossils.

Ever been to the petrified forest in Arizona??? I suggest a visit if you feel you need to "see it to believe it" with your own eyes...
The Petrified Forest does not prove your hypothesis.

LaMarcus Bryant

01-12-2007, 10:38 PM

Wow a real take... after what? Months of deliberation?

Anyhow... my statement stands.

And I'm glad you brought up quantum physics... I'll use it to explain why that philosophical circular logic of yours doesn't make any sense with regards to the structure of the Universe. It's not how we perceive it... order existed well before the first human ever did!
And who/what decided that there was order before humans? Who passed on this information? How was this information passed on to the first human to decide this?
Circular, eh?

Order in the cosmos arises from a very intricate balance of universal parameters. The weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the Coulombic electrical constant, (about 15 constants in all) etc.... If any one of these constants were slightly different. This universe could not have 'been created' (or in your case 'come into existence') the way it was. If the weak nuclear force had been greater... atoms such as C, N, H, and O would be immensely and extremely rare... all of those atoms are of course the biological backbone of organic compounds and hence of biological organisms... ahem... LIFE (in the non-consciousness sense of the word). More importantly, Hydrogen would be so rare that stars could not exist. Without stars no planet would be able to 'create', harbor, or sustain life.

If the gravitational constant had been greater, again by ever so slightly, "The Big Bang" would have expanded for a couple of years and then quickly collapsed on itself.

Okay, I get it, everyone gets this. When human minds arose, capable of fleshing out and discovering concepts of quantum physics, they discovered that certain concepts and laws had to be exactly how they were, for their understandable universe to exist. We all know this. You are right (as far as I know)

The fact of the matter is that these constants were flawlessly 'set', a sign of design.

Why does it have to be black and white? For someone so intent on reading between the lines and coming to your own conclusions based on research, do you even find it possibly possibly possible that the nature of the universe is such that even our current physical models are still far from describing it? Since I was a teenager, I recall them admitting they have discovered like 3 or 4 more dimensions than they had thought existed. Why do these laws and rules have to be exactly the way humans think they are, for our universe to exist? The fact of the matter is that we have no idea of the nature of our universe without a conscious, analytical, thinking human mind to receive and interpret all the data around it.

Maybe it would not exist at all, maybe those precise laws would exist, maybe its all bull shit that our minds are trying to impose upon a universe that can quite possibly be infinite.

"Most discipline is hidden discipline, designed not to liberate but to limit. Do not ask Why? Be cautious with How? Why? leads inexorably to paradox. How? traps you in a universe of cause and effect. Both deny the infinite."

This is a quote from Heretics of Dune by Frank Herbert. And i almost completely agree with it. Do you, as an educated man, see any end in site to physicists finding the 'final dimension' (if i can call it that) ? I believe our universe is infinite. Our human minds and abilities are not. It really is simple when you keep that in mind before trying to make concrete beliefs based on a book written by humans.

Extra Stout

01-12-2007, 10:41 PM

I'm still wondering what mythical combination of folklore and legend would render the statistical anomaly held by the Ararat mountain range as credit to purpose. Or why would the name of a mountain range stand to this very day after so many thousands of years - Even labeled as such on the earliest known maps of the region?? The Bible simply could have read, "and Noah settled his ark on a mountain where they waited for the waters to recede". But no, the clause is explicit.

The fact of the matter is that no myth could have produced such a particular location on earth at random; much less by name. And that the localized area would 1000's of years later be determined as the most terracentric spot on earth. One that would facilitate the re-distribution of animals on earth. Again... PURPOSE.
Your logic here is circular. Even if Ararat were whatever you are saying it is, that hardly constitutes evidence of a global flood.

However, Ararat is not what you claiming that it is. The "terracentric" point you are looking for indeed is on Asia Minor, but it is not Mt. Ararat. Close, but no cigar.

That Ararat has kept its name over thousands of years likewise is neither unique nor strengthens your point. The Bible does not even actually say that Noah's ark landed on Mt. Ararat. As detailed earlier in the thread, it says "mountains of Urartu." The kingdom of Urartu covered a pretty wide area from Asia Minor up into the Caucusus.

So which mountain was it?

Phenomanul

01-12-2007, 10:48 PM

Your argument hinges upon the existence of such fossils.

The Petrified Forest does not prove your hypothesis.

I suggest a small hike to the northern edge of the park....

The clues lie with the sediment 'film' that surrounds the petrified chunks themselves, since they have unfortunately (due to their brittle nature) fallen apart when exposed by the most recent geologic uplift. Had they all been buried in the same layer, the outer 'scale' surrounding each chunk would all be composed from the same stratum. Instead, several chunks were surrounded by different sediments. Some by the 'older' clay strata, others by sandstone strata and yet others from a basaltic granite layer that was originally thought to have created the petrified trees themselves (as in volcanic influence from ash)...

The paleontologist guide was completely stunned that no one had managed to notice this before I mentioned it to him. Sometimes first hand experience comes in handy much better than google would.

Besides there have been other documented cases.

See the case of Joggins, Nova Scotia.

tlongII

01-12-2007, 10:58 PM

I suggest a small hike to the northern edge of the park....

The clues lie with the sediment 'film' that surrounds the petrified chunks themselves, since they have unfortunately (due to their brittle nature) fallen apart when exposed by the most recent geologic uplift. Had they all been buried in the same layer, the outer 'scale' surrounding each chunk would all be composed from the same stratum. Instead, several chunks were surrounded by different sediments. Some by the 'older' clay strata, others by sandstone strata and yet others from a basaltic granite layer that was originally thought to have created the petrified trees themselves (as in volcanic influence from ash)...

The paleontologist guide was completely stunned that no one had managed to notice this before I mentioned it to him. Sometimes first hand experience comes in handy much better than google would.

Besides there have been other documented cases.

See the case of Joggins, Nova Scotia.

A University of Alberta geologist and his research associate in Nova Scotia have published new research which may answer long-standing questions about the formation of a world famous stand of fossilized trees near the Bay of Fundy.

Dr. John Waldron of the U of A and Michael Rygel of Dalhousie University published their paper, Role of evaporite withdrawal in the preservation of a unique coal-bearing succession, in the May issue of Geology Magazine, a publication of the Geological Society of America.

The Joggins Formation, on the coast of Nova Scotia, contains fossilized trees five to six metres in height preserved upright in layers of sandstone and shale, as well as numerous coal seams. The fossil trees, called lycopsids, grew during the Carboniferous period in tropical wetlands very different from Nova Scotia's current climate. Now, 300 million years later, the lycopsids can be seen in the cliffs overlooking the Bay of Fundy, exposed by erosion.

Though the formation has been studied since the 19th century - it's described in Sir Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology and in Sir Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species - questions have persisted about how the trees were preserved in standing position. The area must have sunken rapidly to allow great thicknesses of sediment to accumulate in a few decades.

"The main suggestion in the paper is that the subsidence in the basin and the reason it sank so fast, was because of the flow of the salt, which is quite a lot of different from what most previous geological research anticipated," Waldron said. "A lot of the subsidence in the basin that allowed the sediment to accumulate and allowed these amazing fossil trees to be preserved was the result of rock salt flowing under the surface during the Carboniferous period. The subsiding areas filled up with sand and mud, forming swamps in which forests grew, and those trees were able to be entombed in sediments before they fell over."

The study also suggests that this movement of salt under the surface may have contributed to the conditions for coal formation.

"Geologists have historically focused on areas where salt appeared to be rising," Waldron said. "Our new perspective on the Cumberland basin reflects a more recent appreciation that subsidence is just as important for an understanding of salt tectonics.

Waldron said the findings in the paper are the result of a unique collaboration between geological researchers and industry. Devon Canada, a petroleum company based in Calgary, Alberta, was doing exploration work in the Cumberland Basin and allowed Waldron and Rygel access to their seismic profiles - "pictures" of the subsurface made by sending shockwaves into the ground and recording the reverberations from the layers of rock under the surface.

Currently the Joggins Formation is the subject of Canada's application to UN to have the area declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Waldron said he and Rygel hope to continue his collaboration with Devon Canada and extend his research to take in more of the region.

"We hope to produce a more thorough, longer analysis the differential subsidence in this part of the Cumberland Basin - what was subsiding when. And in the long term what I would like to do is relate this particular area to the evolution of the whole of the Maritime basin, a much larger area that underwent subsidence during the same general time period."

Phenomanul

01-12-2007, 11:00 PM

Your logic here is circular. Even if Ararat were whatever you are saying it is, that hardly constitutes evidence of a global flood.

However, Ararat is not what you claiming that it is. The "terracentric" point you are looking for indeed is on Asia Minor, but it is not Mt. Ararat. Close, but no cigar.

That Ararat has kept its name over thousands of years likewise is neither unique nor strengthens your point. The Bible does not even actually say that Noah's ark landed on Mt. Ararat. As detailed earlier in the thread, it says "mountains of Urartu." The kingdom of Urartu covered a pretty wide area from Asia Minor up into the Caucusus.

So which mountain was it?

Ah my friend.... refer to HEBREW.

Besides, in case you missed the earlier reference. I considered an area bounded by 100 miles squared or 10,000 square miles. However, if you summed up the exposed area of all the mountain peaks in the range above 14,000 ft (highly conservative considering that Mt. Ararat itself is 16,854 ft tall) you would end up with a tabulated figure much lower than what I originally conceded. And one that would span the entire mountain range!!! I'm thinking in three dimensions here, not only the two provided by the surface itself at sea level... context ES, context.

But you missed the point; I never said it was 'smoking barrel' evidence of a flood. I only alluded to the fact that I found the distinction highly fascinating as that would be a clear indication of purpose (to me anyway)... revealed many years after the fact - and tarnish free from all allegations of post editorial tampering.

Phenomanul

01-12-2007, 11:07 PM

A University of Alberta geologist and his research associate in Nova Scotia have published new research which may answer long-standing questions about the formation of a world famous stand of fossilized trees near the Bay of Fundy.

Dr. John Waldron of the U of A and Michael Rygel of Dalhousie University published their paper, Role of evaporite withdrawal in the preservation of a unique coal-bearing succession, in the May issue of Geology Magazine, a publication of the Geological Society of America.

The Joggins Formation, on the coast of Nova Scotia, contains fossilized trees five to six metres in height preserved upright in layers of sandstone and shale, as well as numerous coal seams. The fossil trees, called lycopsids, grew during the Carboniferous period in tropical wetlands very different from Nova Scotia's current climate. Now, 300 million years later, the lycopsids can be seen in the cliffs overlooking the Bay of Fundy, exposed by erosion.

Though the formation has been studied since the 19th century - it's described in Sir Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology and in Sir Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species - questions have persisted about how the trees were preserved in standing position. The area must have sunken rapidly to allow great thicknesses of sediment to accumulate in a few decades.

"The main suggestion in the paper is that the subsidence in the basin and the reason it sank so fast, was because of the flow of the salt, which is quite a lot of different from what most previous geological research anticipated," Waldron said. "A lot of the subsidence in the basin that allowed the sediment to accumulate and allowed these amazing fossil trees to be preserved was the result of rock salt flowing under the surface during the Carboniferous period. The subsiding areas filled up with sand and mud, forming swamps in which forests grew, and those trees were able to be entombed in sediments before they fell over."

The study also suggests that this movement of salt under the surface may have contributed to the conditions for coal formation.

"Geologists have historically focused on areas where salt appeared to be rising," Waldron said. "Our new perspective on the Cumberland basin reflects a more recent appreciation that subsidence is just as important for an understanding of salt tectonics.

Waldron said the findings in the paper are the result of a unique collaboration between geological researchers and industry. Devon Canada, a petroleum company based in Calgary, Alberta, was doing exploration work in the Cumberland Basin and allowed Waldron and Rygel access to their seismic profiles - "pictures" of the subsurface made by sending shockwaves into the ground and recording the reverberations from the layers of rock under the surface.

Currently the Joggins Formation is the subject of Canada's application to UN to have the area declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Waldron said he and Rygel hope to continue his collaboration with Devon Canada and extend his research to take in more of the region.

"We hope to produce a more thorough, longer analysis the differential subsidence in this part of the Cumberland Basin - what was subsiding when. And in the long term what I would like to do is relate this particular area to the evolution of the whole of the Maritime basin, a much larger area that underwent subsidence during the same general time period."

That is what happens when biology is taken out from the equation... tisk tisk tisk at the geologist's one-tracked approach. So we are to believe that coal and petrified trees were formed side by side by the same process even though they are physically two completely different processes?

I will make it a point to visit someday.