Intelligent Design support letter to the editor

[fuelair]

The following letter to the editor appeared today in the Orlando Sentinel. At first, I was thinking "Another----------- idiot" and then..... Enjoy!!!:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/orl-le06_308jan06,0,1896306,print.story

:D:D:D:D:D

[sophia8]

:D Nice one!

[articulett]

He forgot to mention Ebola...

The oversight is forgivable--

[fuelair]

Thought y'all would find it interesting!!

[maddog]

Sweet!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Marvelous! I have saved that in my favs.

~~ Paul

[Spindrift]

I'll bet there are a lot of people who will totally miss the point.

[Tearout]

... No, my friends, we must stop this senseless slaughter of the good Lord's handiwork, and instead, honor and venerate them.


So then if a creationist develops a serious illness, cancer for instance, no attempt at medical intervention should be undertaken.

[fuelair]

I am totally down with that!!

[JoeEllison]

Awesome!!!

[rjh01]

There are certain people who would agree with that writer. They hold that all life is sacred. I doubt if the author is one of those.

[Jeff Corey]

Every sperm is sacred http://video.google/videoplay?docid=9002085385040727366

[Furi]

and a little more Python

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spikey urchin,
Who made the sharks, He did.

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

AMEN.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I liked it, but he gets a 1 point deduction for using cancer cells as a "lifeform".

[RobRoy]

So then if a creationist develops a serious illness, cancer for instance, no attempt at medical intervention should be undertaken.

Isn't that what the somewhat misnamed Christian Science church holds? Also, I believe, Jehovah's Witnesses have a less-drastic version of this concept.

The original letter is a nice work of irony. Unfortunate only that the author didn't delve further and deeper to draw some more outrageous conclusions.

[shadron]

I liked it, but he gets a 1 point deduction for using cancer cells as a "lifeform".

Ummmmmm, well, there is a strain of human cervical cancer cells calls "HeLa" (after the original donor, Henrietta Lacks, who died in 1951. It is indeed a life form pretty much on its own. The existing mass of such cells now far outweighs it's original donor. It grows ferociously and without end in the lab. It couldn't live, likely, without help, but then again...

"Reporter Smith continued, "In the half-century since Henrietta Lacks' death, her ... cells ... have continually been used for research into cancer, AIDS, the effects of radiation and toxic substances, gene mapping, and countless other scientific pursuits". HeLa was used to test human sensitivity to tape, glue cosmetics, and many other products."
--Wikipedia, "HeLa".

[Wowbagger]

:D

Someone, please write in a refutation!! Here, I'll give you the opening line: "Mr. Elgison: I find it rather preposterous that you think the kind, and loving God would Create such misery, when you know perfectly well, that it is all part of an atheist plot to destroy all life on Earth!!!!!!1111!!!!!!one!!"

[ebola]

He forgot to mention Ebola...


Somebody call?

Eric

[fuelair]

Ummmmmm, well, there is a strain of human cervical cancer cells calls "HeLa" (after the original donor, Henrietta Lacks, who died in 1951. It is indeed a life form pretty much on its own. The existing mass of such cells now far outweighs it's original donor. It grows ferociously and without end in the lab. It couldn't live, likely, without help, but then again...

"Reporter Smith continued, "In the half-century since Henrietta Lacks' death, her ... cells ... have continually been used for research into cancer, AIDS, the effects of radiation and toxic substances, gene mapping, and countless other scientific pursuits". HeLa was used to test human sensitivity to tape, glue cosmetics, and many other products."
--Wikipedia, "HeLa".

But the help it needs is miniscule - move it somewhere and open it's container is pretty much it. Key point : her cells were used to test lots of things - but extremely often the experimenters thought they were using other lines from other body parts WHICH THE HeLa cells HAD TAKEN OVER!!

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ummmmmm, well, there is a strain of human cervical cancer cells calls "HeLa" (after the original donor, Henrietta Lacks, who died in 1951. It is indeed a life form pretty much on its own. The existing mass of such cells now far outweighs it's original donor. It grows ferociously and without end in the lab. It couldn't live, likely, without help, but then again...

"Reporter Smith continued, "In the half-century since Henrietta Lacks' death, her ... cells ... have continually been used for research into cancer, AIDS, the effects of radiation and toxic substances, gene mapping, and countless other scientific pursuits". HeLa was used to test human sensitivity to tape, glue cosmetics, and many other products."
--Wikipedia, "HeLa".

Leaving viruses aside for a moment, does it exhibit the common characteristics of life? And are there any Pubmed articles that call HeLa a lifeform? (one will suffice for me to retract :))

[rjh01]

Here is an article that says that in one case cancer is not part of the animal it infects.
Since Pearse and her colleagues finished the original study, they've analyzed chromosomes in 15 more animals, and all the tumors have shown the same distinctive anomalies. This result bolsters the theory that one rogue cell line was the original infective agent, Pearse says Link (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060204/fob1.asp)

I think this cancer has the characteristics of life.

[Radrook]

The following letter to the editor appeared today in the Orlando Sentinel. At first, I was thinking "Another----------- idiot" and then..... Enjoy!!!:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/orl-le06_308jan06,0,1896306,print.story

:D:D:D:D:D

Very interestingly ironic way of saying things. Of course his assumptions are all skewed since they are describing post-Adamic fall conditions which are not atrributable to God. But in view of his typically profound unfamiliarity with the essentials of the subject-such ideas are to be expected.

BTW

Funny that you should mention the term idiot which is very close to the word fool.

Psalm 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

[quixotecoyote]

And LO there was post 23. And so did post 23 say, "Only fools shall say to themselves, 'I disbelieve in post 23,'" and therefore indeed, post 23 is the truth, the light, and the way.

[RobRoy]

And LO there was post 23. And so did post 23 say, "Only fools shall say to themselves, 'I disbelieve in post 23,'" and therefore indeed, post 23 is the truth, the light, and the way.

Which calls to mind the following lovely exchange from Red Dwarf's Rimmer and Lister:

RIMMER: Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, Lister. I never agreed
with my parent's religion, but I wouldn't dream of knocking it.
LISTER: What were they?
RIMMER: Seventh day advent hoppists. They believed that every Sunday
should be spent hopping. They would hop to church, hop through the
service, then hop back home again.
LISTER: What was the idea behind that, then?
RIMMER: Well you see, they took the Bible literally. Adam and Eve; the
snake and the apple... Took it word for word. Unfortunately, their
version had a misprint. It was all based on 1 Corinthians 13, where it
says "Faith, hop and charity, and the greatest of these is hop." So
that's what they did. Every seventh day. I tell you, Sunday
lunchtimes were a nightmare. Hopping round the table, serving soup --
we all had to wear sou'esters and asbestos underpants.

I'm only surprised they didn't go the other way, and drink beer every sunday. Now that's a religion I could get into. The Catholics have never had enough wine in their chalice for me, and what are crackers without some cheese to top it off?

[Radrook]

And LO there was post 23. And so did post 23 say, "Only fools shall say to themselves, 'I disbelieve in post 23,'" and therefore indeed, post 23 is the truth, the light, and the way.


No truth or consequences ploy being attempted. Only a reminder that the sword cuts both ways in terms of categorizing people as idiots. Of course I didn't have to cite scripture-but I'm funny that way sometimes. : )

[Radrook]

Which calls to mind the following lovely exchange from Red Dwarf's Rimmer and Lister:

RIMMER: Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, Lister. I never agreed
with my parent's religion, but I wouldn't dream of knocking it.
LISTER: What were they?
RIMMER: Seventh day advent hoppists. They believed that every Sunday
should be spent hopping. They would hop to church, hop through the
service, then hop back home again.
LISTER: What was the idea behind that, then?
RIMMER: Well you see, they took the Bible literally. Adam and Eve; the
snake and the apple... Took it word for word. Unfortunately, their
version had a misprint. It was all based on 1 Corinthians 13, where it
says "Faith, hop and charity, and the greatest of these is hop." So
that's what they did. Every seventh day. I tell you, Sunday
lunchtimes were a nightmare. Hopping round the table, serving soup --
we all had to wear sou'esters and asbestos underpants.

I'm only surprised they didn't go the other way, and drink beer every sunday. Now that's a religion I could get into. The Catholics have never had enough wine in their chalice for me, and what are crackers without some cheese to top it off?


If it calls that to your mind it's because you are totally mistaken as to where I am coming from in reference to this subject.

BTW

You really believe that namecalling and ridicule have logical persuasive argumentative merit don't you? How sad!

[Jimbo07]

If it calls that to your mind it's because you are totally mistaken as to where I am coming from in reference to this subject.



...except that before post #22 you weren't specifically addressed. I don't know your position in particular, but I hadn't understood you to be a Biblical literalist. Am I mistaken?

[RobRoy]

If it calls that to your mind it's because you are totally mistaken as to where I am coming from in reference to this subject.

Ummm . . . I wasn't speaking to you at all. I was speaking to quixotecoyote, which is why I quoted his post directly. :)

BTW

You really believe that namecalling and ridicule have logical persuasive argumentative merit don't you? How sad!

Err . . . I don't recall naming any names or riddling and ridicules. :boggled:

As for having "logical persuasive argumentative merit" I suppose I could have offered more information on how quixotecoyote's post triggered that Red Dwarf sense-memory, such as time, date, weather, location, witness depositions, etc. if that would suffice? Let me know. :D

[PBTree]

Very interestingly ironic way of saying things. Of course his assumptions are all skewed since they are describing post-Adamic fall conditions which are not atrributable to God. But in view of his typically profound unfamiliarity with the essentials of the subject-such ideas are to be expected.
.

Sorry, not sure I understand this (bible dumb). Are you saying (based on the original theme of the thread), that cancer cells, cockroaches etc, weren't around prior to the two apple-eaters being chucked out of eden?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Very interestingly ironic way of saying things. Of course his assumptions are all skewed since they are describing post-Adamic fall conditions which are not atrributable to God. But in view of his typically profound unfamiliarity with the essentials of the subject-such ideas are to be expected.

Ad Hoc.

BTW

Funny that you should mention the term idiot which is very close to the word fool.

Psalm 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Perhaps, but the wise man not only says it aloud, he realizes his heart isn't the center of conviousness, unlike the writer of the Psalms.

[quixotecoyote]

No truth or consequences ploy being attempted. Only a reminder that the sword cuts both ways in terms of categorizing people as idiots. Of course I didn't have to cite scripture-but I'm funny that way sometimes. : )

Do you disbelieve in the wisdom of post 23?

Remember, L1:P3 of the Post 23 clearly states that would be foolish.

[SomeGuy]

If it calls that to your mind it's because you are totally mistaken as to where I am coming from in reference to this subject.

BTW

You really believe that namecalling and ridicule have logical persuasive argumentative merit don't you? How sad!

You accuse us of namecalling and ridicule after quoting a bit of scripture that basically says: people that don't believe in god are fools.


Prepostorous!

[Radrook]

You accuse us of namecalling and ridicule after quoting a bit of scripture that basically says: people that don't believe in god are fools.


Prepostorous!

The following letter to the editor appeared today in the Orlando Sentinel. At first, I was thinking "Another----------- idiot" and then..... Enjoy!!!:

Not at all. I accuse you of namecalling and ridicule after you namecall and ridicule.

BTW

The scripture was merely to show that from other people's standpoint the ones calling others idiots might be seen as idiots themselves and that calling other people idiots is really unnecessary. That was the motive for posting the scripture. Nothing more.

[Radrook]

Do you disbelieve in the wisdom of post 23?

Remember, L1:P3 of the Post 23 clearly states that would be foolish.

Post 23 is irrelevant

[Radrook]

Sorry, not sure I understand this (bible dumb). Are you saying (based on the original theme of the thread), that cancer cells, cockroaches etc, weren't around prior to the two apple-eaters being chucked out of eden?

Christians do not believe nor teach that the original conditions were as they are now and that these present conditions are attributable to the original design. Hope that clears it up.

[Radrook]

...except that before post #22 you weren't specifically addressed. I don't know your position in particular, but I hadn't understood you to be a Biblical literalist. Am I mistaken?

Not specifically but indirectly perhaps? At least that's the way I perceived it then. If I was wrong then I apologize.

In any case, I was merely trying to point out that the argument in that article is flawed because it utilizes strawman. As for biblical literalist, that all depends on what that appellation encompasses from your particular viewpoint.

[Radrook]

Ummm . . . I wasn't speaking to you at all. I was speaking to quixotecoyote, which is why I quoted his post directly. :)



Err . . . I don't recall naming any names or riddling and ridicules. :boggled:

As for having "logical persuasive argumentative merit" I suppose I could have offered more information on how quixotecoyote's post triggered that Red Dwarf sense-memory, such as time, date, weather, location, witness depositions, etc. if that would suffice? Let me know. :D

If I misunderstood you I sincerely apologize.

[Furi]

And LO there was post 23. And so did post 23 say, "Only fools shall say to themselves, 'I disbelieve in post 23,'" and therefore indeed, post 23 is the truth, the light, and the way.

while I can clearly see that post 23 has been written, it does not offer any definate proof that it should be taken as absolute law, a very quick browse around even on this forum found other examples of post 23, that make no such claims.

So are these other post 23s to be thrown out and handwaved off because of your worldview and belief that this is the correct version of events. What research have you done to check that this is the true post 23.

=^..^=
Atwentythreeist until sufficient proof to the validity of its claim has been offered

So for example if a man wants to drink a bottle of orange juice but some indeterminate event interacted with his consciousness and caused him to drink a bottle of poison instead, that would qualify, in your view, as free will?

You are still avoiding because you are concentrating on the "non-determined" part and ignoring that it must also be non-random.

Born to be Wild.

Fender or Gibson?

and off another forum

i would say shikuramen in Kobe near Hankyu rokomichi station, i consider their ramen the best i had since my 3 year stint in Japan
http://teikoku.kamomeline.jp/gourmet/354.htm
http://gourmet.yahoo.co.jp/0002383906/M0028013223/
http://www.doko.jp/search/shop/sc40386903/

[UnrepentantSinner]

Christians do not believe nor teach that the original conditions were as they are now and that these present conditions are attributable to the original design. Hope that clears it up.

Ad hoc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc) is why you shouldn't make this argument. Hope the link clears that up.

[fuelair]

Very interestingly ironic way of saying things. Of course his assumptions are all skewed since they are describing post-Adamic fall conditions which are not atrributable to God. But in view of his typically profound unfamiliarity with the essentials of the subject-such ideas are to be expected.

BTW

Funny that you should mention the term idiot which is very close to the word fool.

Psalm 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.So, like the devil, you are fond of using scripture to "prove" a point. I said idiot, I meant idiot, if you prefer fool, so be it.

[NobbyNobbs]

Sorry, not sure I understand this (bible dumb). Are you saying (based on the original theme of the thread), that cancer cells, cockroaches etc, weren't around prior to the two apple-eaters being chucked out of eden?

Christians do not believe nor teach that the original conditions were as they are now and that these present conditions are attributable to the original design. Hope that clears it up.

I'm still confused. In your belief, did God create cancer cells and cockroaches? Did He simply allow them to come about? Did they evolve naturally?

I'm honestly curious. If your response is the first, then the original argument still applies, i.e., God is responsible for E.coli and viruses and etc. If the second response is your belief, he's still responsible, for letting it happen. If the third response is your belief, then why believe in God at all?

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Very interestingly ironic way of saying things. Of course his assumptions are all skewed since they are describing post-Adamic fall conditions which are not atrributable to God. But in view of his typically profound unfamiliarity with the essentials of the subject-such ideas are to be expected.
If God had no input/responsibility then how can God be (real) God?

[Furi]

If God had no input/responsibility then how can God be (real) God?

If God has no input or responsibility post Eden, what was with things like Floods Parting the sea Jeebus or even any form of latter design/action claims etc.

or am I missing something entirely here?

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

It must be God's agents making false claims that he still had power to do things - like the Flood, etc.:D Alternatively, Radrook has libelled his own god by declaring it not to have the power.

[Furi]

It must be God's agents making false claims that he still had power to do things - like the Flood, etc.:D Alternatively, Radrook has libelled his own god by declaring it not to have the power.

Oh Noes! :eek:

Where is a Frying Pan Spang Smilie when you need one

[ponderingturtle]

I liked it, but he gets a 1 point deduction for using cancer cells as a "lifeform".

Why not? There are certain animal cancers that are contagious and live far longer than any of the animal that they infect.

See the Tasmanian devil cancer outbreak.

[UnrepentantSinner]

If God had no input/responsibility then how can God be (real) God?

To play devil's advocate - he's not saying that God had no input/responsibility, he's saying that God allowed the world he created to play out under the auspices of free will after setting up the rules of the game. That's a B.S. ad hoc explanation as I've pointed out twice now, but different from saying that God had no input/reponsibility at all.

Why not? There are certain animal cancers that are contagious and live far longer than any of the animal that they infect.

See the Tasmanian devil cancer outbreak.

I've asked this once already and as yet haven't seen an answer - are there any papers on PubMed that describe cancers as "lifeforms." Shadron's HeLa example is very interesting, but I'm going to need to see scientists describing cancers not as "lifeform like", but as lifeforms before I accept it.

[RobRoy]

If I misunderstood you I sincerely apologize.

No worries then, and thanks for the apology. :)

[ponderingturtle]

I've asked this once already and as yet haven't seen an answer - are there any papers on PubMed that describe cancers as "lifeforms." Shadron's HeLa example is very interesting, but I'm going to need to see scientists describing cancers not as "lifeform like", but as lifeforms before I accept it.

Why would anything about a tasmian devil cancer be on PubMed? Why should PubMed and not biologists be the arbitrator of such a thing?

[PBTree]

Christians do not believe nor teach that the original conditions were as they are now and that these present conditions are attributable to the original design. Hope that clears it up.

Hmm.

So, first we humans make up this being called god (or designer if you like) to explain why things are as they are when we look around and don't have the knowledge to understand.

"Look a star, how did they get there?"
"I don't know, must have been put there (designed) by a god".
"A god, phew, lets write a book about this god and tell everyone else".
"ok, how should it start?"
"I don't know but lets put apples in, I like apples".

And now to explain away the foibles of the book that we humans wrote to explain this made up designer, we make more stuff up about its non-creations (cockroaches etc).

Sounds very suspicious to me. ;)

[quixotecoyote]

Post 23 is irrelevant


And how can you determine that in a way that doesn't invalidate your reference?

[Wildy]

Hmm.

So, first we humans make up this being called god (or designer if you like) to explain why things are as they are when we look around and don't have the knowledge to understand.

"Look a star, how did they get there?"
"I don't know, must have been put there (designed) by a god".
"A god, phew, lets write a book about this god and tell everyone else".
"ok, how should it start?"
"I don't know but lets put apples in, I like apples".

And now to explain away the foibles of the book that we humans wrote to explain this made up designer, we make more stuff up about its non-creations (cockroaches etc).

Sounds very suspicious to me. ;)

Especially since they didn't put apples in the book.

On a slightly similar note I have seen in the Adelaide paper a bunch of letters that are arguing about this whole Evolution/Design "debate", starting right around the time this thread did...

[PBTree]

Especially since they didn't put apples in the book.

On a slightly similar note I have seen in the Adelaide paper a bunch of letters that are arguing about this whole Evolution/Design "debate", starting right around the time this thread did...

Good point, should have mentioned fruit. But apple does get quite a few mentions in the book. Do a search on the KJv and you will find it. :)

As for the design debate, what annoys me the most is that their argument is based upon something that was made up. There is no other way to explain religion. It is made up, invented, pretend, imaginary, fantasy. The antonym is real.

The irony of the article that spawned this thread showed how nonsensical ad is, yet I can guarantee that we will still get believers making more stuff up to explain away their silliness.

Religion will remain in this made-up state until the supposed author (ghost written by others) of this book comes along to disprove it. I won't be holding mybreath.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Why would anything about a tasmian devil cancer be on PubMed? Why should PubMed and not biologists be the arbitrator of such a thing?

So you don't have a citation then?

O.k. thanks...

btw, 20 seconds...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17911263?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

[RobRoy]

As for the design debate, what annoys me the most is that their argument is based upon something that was made up. There is no other way to explain religion. It is made up, invented, pretend, imaginary, fantasy. The antonym is real.

While I understand and mostly agree with your points, I do disagree on the stance that the "argument is based upon something that was made up". You're right in pointing out that there is no way, short of the original author (or original inspiration) to show up and say, "I'll be signing copies of My book from 2 to 4 in the lobbey" to prove this. But by the same token, there's no way to prove that religion was made up. Even the most nonsensical, and more obviously (to me, anyhow) fabricated religions still have the plausibility of being divinely influenced.

So it is not "invented, pretend, imaginary, fantasy". Or at least it's not provable that it is, just as it's not proveable that it's not. Yes, yes, you can call me to the mat on the double-negative. :D

[Radrook]

I'm still confused. In your belief....

It's not just my personal belief that I am putting forth, it's the generally agreed upon Christian point of view regardless of denominational differences. There are slight differences,
but the main thrust is that God's original plan was not a world full of suffering sinning and death.


, ...did God create cancer cells and cockroaches? Did He simply allow them to come about? Did they evolve naturally? I'm honestly curious.

The Christian belief is that God did not create cancer cells. Such cells are the consequence of physical malfunction after mankind rejected God's guidance, protection and blessing and chose to go it on their own. Mankind's mismanagement of the earth since then has caused many formerly neutral animals to become pestiferous.


If your response is the first, then the original argument still applies, i.e., God is responsible for E.coli and viruses and etc. If the second response is your belief, he's still responsible, for letting it happen. If the third response is your belief, then why believe in God at all?

The issue of responsibility needs a rather detailed and an understanding of the issues that arose in Eden. First, God was accused of being a liar. His prohibitions were described as selfishly motivated. Mankind was described as being better off if they refused his guidance and did as they pleased. Our first parents willingly chose to go in that direction. God permitted their continued existence in order to grant them the opportunity to prove their point. Could they indeed govern themselves better without his guidance and blessing?
All heaven was watching. Destroying the rebels would not have answered that question but would simply raise suspicions that perhaps the rebels were right. So the issue had to be resolved by giving mankind and their angelic rebel friends the time sufficient to prove their point if they could.

With that in mind then you can think about responsibility with the needed background information.

The removal of God's blessings, as requested by our first parents would mean that their bodies would gradually begin to malfunction resulting in eventual sickness and death. As for the animals, they would eventually get out of control as would the earth itself.

BTW
My original contribution to this thread was intended to be for informational purposes only-not for seeking of a debate concerning
religion vs atheism.

[Radrook]

Hmm.

So, first we humans make up this being called god (or designer if you like) to explain why things are as they are when we look around and don't have the knowledge to understand.

"Look a star, how did they get there?"
"I don't know, must have been put there (designed) by a god".
"A god, phew, lets write a book about this god and tell everyone else".
"ok, how should it start?"
"I don't know but lets put apples in, I like apples".

And now to explain away the foibles of the book that we humans wrote to explain this made up designer, we make more stuff up about its non-creations (cockroaches etc).

Sounds very suspicious to me. ;)

No one is asking you to believe anything.
You totally misunderstood the purpose of my post as being one of evangelizing. The purpose of my post was merely to provide information. Beyond that you can believe whatever you wish.

As for the post above this one-I was asked for a response along
doctrinal lines and I provided one. That doesn't mean I am seeking or willing to engage is fruitless debates.

BTW

The misconception could have been a Hindu, Budhist, Shintoist, Islamic etcetera and I would have still provided a correction if I deemed it to be useful to a better understanding.

[Radrook]

It must be God's agents making false claims that he still had power to do things - like the Flood, etc.:D Alternatively, Radrook has libelled his own god by declaring it not to have the power.

Does the United States not plowing into Korea militarily mean it lacks power?

BTW
Please try not to attribute things to me which I haven't said.
Thanx.

[Radrook]

If God had no input/responsibility then how can God be (real) God?

I did not say he had no input. As for responsibility, that's a slightly more complex issue.
Actually, by your tone you seem to be an atheist. Which means that no matter what answer I provide it will be perceived as silly evangelizing and rejected.

So I won't waste your time nor mine.

[articulett]

I did not say he had no input. As for responsibility, that's a slightly more complex issue.
Actually, by your tone you seem to be an atheist. Which means that no matter what answer I provide it will be perceived as silly evangelizing and rejected.

So I won't waste your time nor mine.

Wow... will this work for all us atheists? I'm an atheist, and no matter what answer you provide I see you as silly and evangelizing. I've posted here too. Now, is this method useful for keeping all religious woo from preaching, opinion proffering and asking insincere questions on our forum... or is it just specific to you? Or are you just not going to waste some peoples' time, but you still plan on wasting other peoples' time still?

What percentage of forum members would need to have the "atheist tone" that makes you feel rejected for you to feel rejected enough to go to a woo forum instead of a skeptic's forum?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[articulett]

While I understand and mostly agree with your points, I do disagree on the stance that the "argument is based upon something that was made up". You're right in pointing out that there is no way, short of the original author (or original inspiration) to show up and say, "I'll be signing copies of My book from 2 to 4 in the lobbey" to prove this. But by the same token, there's no way to prove that religion was made up. Even the most nonsensical, and more obviously (to me, anyhow) fabricated religions still have the plausibility of being divinely influenced.

So it is not "invented, pretend, imaginary, fantasy". Or at least it's not provable that it is, just as it's not proveable that it's not. Yes, yes, you can call me to the mat on the double-negative. :D

I have yet to see a "theism" that is more likely to be true than say, Scientology, Moonies, or Mormonism. Yet everyone seems to think their beliefs contain more truths than that and that the others are "made up" or "wrong" or the believers are misperceiving, etc. (unless of course they are one of those 3). Let's face it-- we know for certain some religions are made up entirely out of "nothing"-- (see Randi's Carlos tape)-- what we don't know is if any of them have an iota of measurable evidence in their favor in regards to "higher truths". We have no evidence that there are even such things as higher truths-- though lots of guys seem to think they have such. Unfortunately they don't agree with each other. And some people mistake their conviction for truth. And the stakes are eternity. I'd say that makes it a sucky situation for all us rationalists out here.

[DrBaltar]

I'm still confused. In your belief, did God create cancer cells and cockroaches? Did He simply allow them to come about? Did they evolve naturally?
It's god's plan of course. We mere mortals can not understand god's plan, and we are not worthy to question it.

[DrBaltar]

It's not just my personal belief that I am putting forth, it's the generally agreed upon Christian point of view regardless of denominational differences. There are slight differences,
but the main thrust is that God's original plan was not a world full of suffering sinning and death.

So all the suffering, sinning and death was a result of God's poor planning?

[SezMe]

It's not just my personal belief that I am putting forth, it's the generally agreed upon Christian point of view regardless of denominational differences. There are slight differences,
but the main thrust is that God's original plan was not a world full of suffering sinning and death.
So god's original plan somehow went astray. Why, if god is omniscient and omnipotent, did god not devise a better plan? What went wrong?

And is our current world Plan B? Why didn't god go to work on Plan A.1 rather than switching to godawful (sorry, couldn't resist) Plan B?

[UnrepentantSinner]

The Christian belief is that God did not create cancer cells. Such cells are the consequence of physical malfunction after mankind rejected God's guidance, protection and blessing and chose to go it on their own. Mankind's mismanagement of the earth since then has caused many formerly neutral animals to become pestiferous.

Ad Hoc. Locusts, rats, molds, roaches, zebra mussles, cane toads, etc. etc. existed long before humans.

The removal of God's blessings, as requested by our first parents would mean that their bodies would gradually begin to malfunction resulting in eventual sickness and death. As for the animals, they would eventually get out of control as would the earth itself.

Actually we've terraformed huge swaths of the Earth's surface, and domesticated hundreds of wild species of plant and animals... even bananas. ;)

[Henners]

Only a reminder that the sword cuts both ways in terms of categorizing people as idiots.

It must be nice to think that.

[Henners]

It's not just my personal belief that I am putting forth, it's the generally agreed upon Christian point of view regardless of denominational differences. There are slight differences,
but the main thrust is that God's original plan was not a world full of suffering sinning and death.

And that faith modifies reality by what mechanism?

[H3LL]

Is this some sort of bizarre negative evolution.

Creatures "evolve" into ones less and less suited to their environment?

Is there a proper word for this negative evolution other than delusion?

.

[ponderingturtle]

The Christian belief is that God did not create cancer cells. Such cells are the consequence of physical malfunction after mankind rejected God's guidance, protection and blessing and chose to go it on their own. Mankind's mismanagement of the earth since then has caused many formerly neutral animals to become pestiferous.



So cancer just shows gods incompetence as a designer and not intention.

[UnrepentantSinner]

So cancer just shows gods incompetence as a designer and not intention.

That's crazy talk. Everyone knows that cancer... along with mental illness like, say, post partum depression, are the result of Thetans inhabiting your psyche. After getting an e-meter check, taking vitimins an getting clear the cancer should go away.

The post-fall "argument" is at least theologically consistent with a unevidenced literalist reading of Genesis, but the data - as I noted with my pest list above - isn't consistent with the paleontological and archeological evidence (oh, and apart from it's fatal ad hoc nature). Most TE's I know consider pests and cancers to be the natural order of "Creation" and that "the fall" was a spirtual one rather than any physical act like eating an apple.

[Radrook]

So all the suffering, sinning and death was a result of God's poor planning?


According the the Christian viewpoint it was a consequence of man's misuse of free will.

[Radrook]

So cancer just shows gods incompetence as a designer and not intention.

You are free to opine that way if you wish. However, from a Christian standpoint it shows the consequence of trying to do things without his blessing and guidence. I guess that's where you and Christians differ.

[Radrook]

It's god's plan of course. We mere mortals can not understand god's plan, and we are not worthy to question it.



The Christian viewpoint is that we can ask questions and that God has given humans full capacity to understand and that he clearly explains his plans via the Bible.

[articulett]

According the the Christian viewpoint it was a consequence of man's misuse of free will.

Which god, in his omniscience, knew would happen... right? In fact, doesn't know how it will ALL end up... who will win the "happily ever prize" according to the "Christian viewpoint"... that doesn't sound like "free will".

[Olowkow]

If it calls that to your mind it's because you are totally mistaken as to where I am coming from in reference to this subject.

BTW

You really believe that namecalling and ridicule have logical persuasive argumentative merit don't you? How sad!

Psalm 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.


I agree, quite sad.

[Ocelot]

Very interestingly ironic way of saying things. Of course his assumptions are all skewed since they are describing post-Adamic fall conditions which are not atrributable to God.

So the cockroach isn't one of the creepy things that creepeth that god created prior to the fall?

Who did create it then?

[ponderingturtle]

You are free to opine that way if you wish. However, from a Christian standpoint it shows the consequence of trying to do things without his blessing and guidence. I guess that's where you and Christians differ.

So everyone who gets cancer deserves it? Then why do faith healers try to cure it?

[Ocelot]

First, God was accused of being a liar. His prohibitions were described as selfishly motivated. Mankind was described as being better off if they refused his guidance and did as they pleased.

Actually God told Adam and Eve that if they aite of the fruit of the tree of knowledge they would surely die. Eve ate the fruit and didn't die. To the unititated this would suggest that God was indeeed a liar.

The initiated of course knows that Adam and Eve once cast out from the garden of Eden lived to a ripe old age of about 9 centuries but eventually died. They suggest that if they hadn't have disobeyed God they would have been immortal.

However this then raises the question of why God was in such a hurry to cast them out before they ate the fruit of the tree of life which would grant them immortality.

There is no suggestion that this immortality would be a reaquisition but instead that it would be a new thing.

Curious semantics asside the possibility of eating first from the tree of knowledge and then from the tree of life (which hadn't been forbidden) cast much doubt of the surety of Adam and Eve's eventual death.

So arguably the God of Genesis wasn't so much accused of being a liar but demonstrated to be so.

At the end of the day a primitive creation myth with no independent coroberation just the same as the creation myths of many contemporary societies.

[Ocelot]

It's not just my personal belief that I am putting forth, it's the generally agreed upon Christian point of view regardless of denominational differences. There are slight differences,
but the main thrust is that God's original plan was not a world full of suffering sinning and death.

Have you heard of false consensus bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect)? Would you be suprised to know that many denominations of Christianity, Judaism and Islam regard Genesis to be allegorical?

Many consider free will a gift rather than something stolen.

[DrBaltar]

So all the suffering, sinning and death was a result of God's poor planning?According the the Christian viewpoint it was a consequence of man's misuse of free will.
Do you think it's right for God to blame his creation for what his creation does? If I write a program and it has a bug in it, or doesn't work as intended, do I blame the software or do I blame myself? If God created us, we behave as he designed us to behave.

[DrBaltar]

The Christian viewpoint is that we can ask questions and that God has given humans full capacity to understand and that he clearly explains his plans via the Bible.Clearly? I don't think so. I bring up fallacies of Genesis, such as how the creation of the Earth and animals on the Earth are completely unlike what actually happened as demonstrated by fossil, geologic, and astrophysical record. I bring up the silliness of the Adam and Eve story. I am told that all this is metaphorical. If it were clear it would simply describe the creation of the Earth as it actually happened, and instead of the silly Adam and Eve story, the bible would simply state whatever it is that God wants that story to convey.

If parts of the bible are metaphorical, how can we know which parts?

[sphenisc]

Is this some sort of bizarre negative evolution.

Creatures "evolve" into ones less and less suited to their environment?

Is there a proper word for this negative evolution other than delusion?

.

Orthogenesis

From http://www.selfdesignedstudent.com/2008/01/irish-elk-neither-totally-irish-or-elk.html

Megaloceros was also used as an example in the theory of orthogenesis. Proponents of orthogenesis, according to Stephen Jay Gould, "claimed that evolution proceeded in straight lines that natural selection could not regulate. Certain trends, once started, could not be stopped even if they led to extinction." The antlers of the Irish Elk seemed to validate the theory. The animal evolved from smaller deer featuring small antlers and eventually, its antlers became so over sized that the deer could no longer function. Orthogenesis attributed the extinction of Megaloceros to the bulk of its head ornament. Unfortunately, modern creationists use the Irish Elk as an argument against natural selection.

[RobRoy]

I have yet to see a "theism" that is more likely to be true than say, Scientology, Moonies, or Mormonism. Yet everyone seems to think their beliefs contain more truths than that and that the others are "made up" or "wrong" or the believers are misperceiving, etc. (unless of course they are one of those 3).

Agreed.

Let's face it-- we know for certain some religions are made up entirely out of "nothing"-- (see Randi's Carlos tape)-- what we don't know is if any of them have an iota of measurable evidence in their favor in regards to "higher truths".

Sorry, I disagree. Not that I want to step up and defend any particular faith. I believe, but cannot prove, that there are a number of faiths which were "made up entirely out of 'nothing'", but when dealing with faith, there's simply no way to prove that someone wasn't divinely inspired. There may be evidence that certainly leans in that direction, but at the end of the day, nothing that can conclusively say an individual was not visited by God or some other kind of messenger.

We have no evidence that there are even such things as higher truths-- though lots of guys seem to think they have such. Unfortunately they don't agree with each other.

No evidence, correct. But I like to believe that there are higher truths.

At a basic level, almost all religions have fundamentals that are, if not exactly the same, then founded on similar principles. It's when they get to the practicing, the walking of the path, and some of the other fun details that they tend to disagree.

And some people mistake their conviction for truth. And the stakes are eternity. I'd say that makes it a sucky situation for all us rationalists out here.

Sure does. Especially those of us who would like to believe in something higher than ourselves, and yet are torn by the problems of most organized religions, or most organized religions and their adherents.

[PBTree]

Sorry, I disagree. Not that I want to step up and defend any particular faith. I believe, but cannot prove, that there are a number of faiths which were "made up entirely out of 'nothing'", but when dealing with faith, there's simply no way to prove that someone wasn't divinely inspired. There may be evidence that certainly leans in that direction, but at the end of the day, nothing that can conclusively say an individual was not visited by God or some other kind of messenger.

.

Well I believe that this is the part that marks it all as nonsense. How could someone be divinely inspired (by a non-interfering god I might add) and then not be able to show that he/she was inspired by this divinity, other than to state "god just spoke to me, you should all believe me and believe in him/her".

It even sounds unbelievable.

[PBTree]

If parts of the bible are metaphorical, how can we know which parts?

Correct. Either all of the words in the bible are god's words, or none of them are. Believers can't come along and say this part was spoken by god and these other parts are just some page notes or assumptions some believer made on god's behalf.

Now if all of the bible is true (based on the above), then let the stoning's begin. Whose first?

[Radrook]

Clearly? I don't think so. I bring up fallacies of Genesis, such as how the creation of the Earth and animals on the Earth are completely unlike what actually happened as demonstrated by fossil, geologic, and astrophysical record. I bring up the silliness of the Adam and Eve story. I am told that all this is metaphorical. If it were clear it would simply describe the creation of the Earth as it actually happened, and instead of the silly Adam and Eve story, the bible would simply state whatever it is that God wants that story to convey.

If parts of the bible are metaphorical, how can we know which parts?


Metaphorical?

Though I am sure that some Christians defensively use the metaphorical explanation in order to evade what they consider as an invincible argument, that is not the way that Genesis was meant to be understood.

How do we know it wasn't meant to be understood that way? We know because many of the OT prophets, the Apostles and most significantly, none other than Jesus himself repeatedly cited its contents, as the flood, the creation of Adam and Eve, the fall of humanity into a degenerative condition in a place called Eden, as well as many other Genesis events as historical fact.


Time Discrepancy?

The Genesis account doesn't specify the length of time between the first statement of "In the begining God Created the Heavens and the earth" and the start of the first earth preparatory "day". That time interval can encompass the billions of years mentioned by scientists.

[Ocelot]

Metaphorical?

Though I am sure that some Christians defensively use the metaphorical explanation in order to evade what they consider as an invincible argument, that is not the way that Genesis was meant to be understood.


You're at odds here with the representatives of 1 Billion Christians.


The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.


Pope Pius XII

Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Pope John Paul II

[NobbyNobbs]

Yes, yes, you can call me to the mat on the double-negative. :D

And a double positive!

It's not just my personal belief that I am putting forth, it's the generally agreed upon Christian point of view regardless of denominational differences. There are slight differences,
but the main thrust is that God's original plan was not a world full of suffering sinning and death.

So, God's plan went awry? So it wasn't a perfect plan? How does a perfect being come up with an imperfect plan?




The Christian belief is that God did not create cancer cells. Such cells are the consequence of physical malfunction after mankind rejected God's guidance, protection and blessing and chose to go it on their own. Mankind's mismanagement of the earth since then has caused many formerly neutral animals to become pestiferous.

Two question about this: in which passage of the bible does mankind reject God's guidance? As I recall, Adam and Eve weren't too hip aout leaving the garden. Second, which neutral animal became the cockroach?



First, God was accused of being a liar. But he was a liar. He told Eve she would die if she ate the fruit. She ate the fruit. She didn't die.

So the issue had to be resolved by giving mankind and their angelic rebel friends the time sufficient to prove their point if they could.

How much time? If God's sitting around waiting to see if we'll meess up the earth, then I think the point has been proven well before now. How much worse does it need to get before He comes back and says, "I told you so"?



The removal of God's blessings, as requested by our first parents would mean that their bodies would gradually begin to malfunction resulting in eventual sickness and death. As for the animals, they would eventually get out of control as would the earth itself.

Again, in which passage do Adam and Eve request the removal of God's blessings? I don't remember that part at all.


The Christian viewpoint is that we can ask questions and that God has given humans full capacity to understand and that he clearly explains his plans via the Bible.

I take exception to the bolded word above. If this were true, there'd be no debate. There'd be no need for interpretation of the bible. And in all likelihood, Christianity would be the only religion.

[DrBaltar]

Time Discrepancy?

The Genesis account doesn't specify the length of time between the first statement of "In the begining God Created the Heavens and the earth" and the start of the first earth preparatory "day". That time interval can encompass the billions of years mentioned by scientists.
But the earth was not created in the beginning. In the first 9.2 billion years of the universe, there was no earth.

What was the light that god created if the stars, sun and moon were created on the 3rd day? There were stars before the earth anyway, and the sun was also mostly formed by the time the earth started to coalesce from matter in the solar system. The moon "rules" the night only sometimes. When it's a new moon, it's not visible. It is also in the sky during the day half the time.

Are you suggesting the animals of the earth were created in a day? Fossil records do not collaborate this.

In Genesis it says "And God said, Let us make man in our image,...". Who is US?

What's up with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? I put my porn mags under my mattress or in a box somewhere if I don't want my kids to see them. Why is god leaving knowledge of evil next to creatures he designed to be curious with 'free will', and then punishes them and every generation afterwards when they inevitably eat the fruit? That's just childish and sadistic.

BTW, how old do you claim the earth is?

[Furi]

In Genesis it says "And God said, Let us make man in our image,...". Who is US?


unlike yous lot God was a Scouser like us lot in mairseysiiiide. you know what I mean there like

And why 'Our' and not 'My Own',

Not to menttion that you must remember that god is a jealous god and will not tolerate the worship of other gods.

Did god sub contract? and was this agains the T&Cs of the original RFW (request for work)?

[RobRoy]

And a double positive!

ROFL! I'll have to start using those more often.

But he was a liar. He told Eve she would die if she ate the fruit. She ate the fruit. She didn't die.

Errmm . . . yes she did. I get what you're saying, but God never states that the fruit is poison and that death will be immediate and instant. He simply says in Genesis 2:17, ". . . but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Prior to eating the fruit, as I understand it, Eve and Adam would have lived forever in ignorant bliss. After eating the fruit, they were "doomed" to a life of toil, pain and eventually death. In Genesis 3:19 God promises them, for the sin of eating the fruit, ". . . dust you are and to dust you will return." Eve drops out of the narrative after Genesis 4:25, but Adam's death is listed in Genesis 5:5, and given God's previous statement, Eve died at some point as well.

So, God didn't lie.

[NobbyNobbs]

ROFL! I'll have to start using those more often.



Errmm . . . yes she did. I get what you're saying, but God never states that the fruit is poison and that death will be immediate and instant. He simply says in Genesis 2:17, ". . . but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Prior to eating the fruit, as I understand it, Eve and Adam would have lived forever in ignorant bliss. After eating the fruit, they were "doomed" to a life of toil, pain and eventually death. In Genesis 3:19 God promises them, for the sin of eating the fruit, ". . . dust you are and to dust you will return." Eve drops out of the narrative after Genesis 4:25, but Adam's death is listed in Genesis 5:5, and given God's previous statement, Eve died at some point as well.

So, God didn't lie.


If I said, "You may have dessert when you eat your dinner", the clear implication is dessert comes immediately after dinner.

If I said, "You may take the HDTV home when you pay for it", the clear implication is the TV goes home with you immediately after you pay.

If I said, "The hostages will be returned when you accede to our demands", the clear implication is that they are free to go immediately after you give me the briefcase full of money.

If God says, "When you eat it, you will die", the clear implication is that if you take a bite, you'll fall down dead. Didn't happen that way. Either...

a) God lies.
b) God is misleading

Either way doesn't bode well for a perfect being.

[articulett]

Yeah... besides with the whole eternal soul thing he made actual death impossible... he just made it possible to live forever in agony.

[RobRoy]

If I said, "You may have dessert when you eat your dinner", the clear implication is dessert comes immediately after dinner.[snip]

It's a nice attempt at semantic argumentation, but there is nothing deliberate or implied in what God told Adam and Eve regarding the tree, especially when we consider it on God's level. For the sake of fun with words, we have to include scope and scale. If immortality was the natural state for Adam and Eve, and then they crunched the munchies, and Adam dies 930 years later . . . well, to God who took eons to create life, the universe and everything, then Adam did pretty much drop dead shortly after his little trip to the Buffett of Knowledge. :D

a) God lies.
b) God is misleading

Either way doesn't bode well for a perfect being.

Let me be clear that I'm not making a case for or against. The argument was that God made a statement and that statement was a lie. It wasn't. God said if you do A then B will happen. There was no time-table stated or implied. Eve and Adam did A, and it's hardly in doubt from the evidence we have that B followed.

There are much better examples, and more defendable, of the Biblical God being flawed than this one. This one isn't it.

[PBTree]

Metaphorical?

Though I am sure that some Christians defensively use the metaphorical explanation in order to evade what they consider as an invincible argument, that is not the way that Genesis was meant to be understood.

How do we know it wasn't meant to be understood that way? We know because many of the OT prophets, the Apostles and most significantly, none other than Jesus himself repeatedly cited its contents, as the flood, the creation of Adam and Eve, the fall of humanity into a degenerative condition in a place called Eden, as well as many other Genesis events as historical fact.

Time Discrepancy?

The Genesis account doesn't specify the length of time between the first statement of "In the begining God Created the Heavens and the earth" and the start of the first earth preparatory "day". That time interval can encompass the billions of years mentioned by scientists.

This is where the whole idea of a god falls apart. You don't know. You are supposing. Just because it is written in some book, does not mean it happened. It would be classed as hearsay in a court of law.

The same with "jesus himself repeatedly". That is also just more hearsay.

Nobody has yet explained why not one other author of that time period (other than a few illiterate fishermen), mentions anything about some chap called jesus, or anything about any miracles he may or may not have performed. I'm affraid that using his views to lend credibility to an ID argument, is wasted.

As for the time interval. You are making this up. There is nothing in the bible to suggest this and nothing in any other documentation that assumes that amount of time. It is the standard believer argument to state that the earth was made in 7 days but each day was really n millions years long. More supposition.

:)

[Radrook]

You're at odds here with the representatives of 1 Billion Christians.

OK! : )



Pope Pius XII



Pope John Paul II[/QUOTE]

I don't recognize the Pope as having the last word on biblical understanding. Do you? Actually, the CC track record in that area isn't very good.

[Radrook]

This is where the whole idea of a god falls apart. You don't know. You are supposing. Just because it is written in some book, does not mean it happened. It would be classed as hearsay in a court of law.

The same with "jesus himself repeatedly". That is also just more hearsay.

Nobody has yet explained why not one other author of that time period (other than a few illiterate fishermen), mentions anything about some chap called jesus, or anything about any miracles he may or may not have performed. I'm affraid that using his views to lend credibility to an ID argument, is wasted.

As for the time interval. You are making this up. There is nothing in the bible to suggest this and nothing in any other documentation that assumes that amount of time. It is the standard believer argument to state that the earth was made in 7 days but each day was really n millions years long. More supposition.

:)
'
First, I was responding to a question-yours. If you have all the answers already and have decided beforehand to tag all responses as not acceptable-then why ask?

Second, as I explained previously, my only motive for participation on this thread is make sure that you aren't attacking your own ideas while attributing them to Christianity.

Third, each person has a right to either reject or accept based on whatever reason he or she feels justifies it. So I really see no reason to engage in any debating. You are happy. I am happy. Case closed!


: )

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll bet there are a lot of people who will totally miss the point.Christian Scientists, for example. :(

[Skeptic Ginger]

I liked it, but he gets a 1 point deduction for using cancer cells as a "lifeform".I'm afraid it is you who loses the points this time.

Of Dogs and Devils, The Rise of Contagious Cancer (http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2006/08/21/of-dogs-and-devils-can-cancer-be-contagious/)These rogue cells have become parasites in their own right, evolving from a single ancestor into a dynasty that has colonised the globe aboard canine vessels. How this process began is still a mystery, but Weiss’s analysis provides some hints as to where and when.

The original cancer cell must have developed in either a wolf or an old Asian dog lineage, such as a Husky (left). It evolved anywhere between 200 and 2500 years ago and may well have been around for even longer.

In fact, the CTVT cancer cell is very likely to be the oldest lineage of mammalian cells still in existence. The cells that Weiss is studying today are most probably direct clone descendants of the same cells that Novinski identified 130 years ago – genetically identical great-granddaughters of the original tumour.



Edited to add, I see this was addressed. But what was your opinion then, US? After all, many argue that viruses are not life forms. Since then we've had transmissible prions thrown into the mix. Personally, I think once a tumor jumps ship and spreads out infecting other organisms it is reasonable to define it as a life form. Identical twins are not considered one lifeform.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not specifically but indirectly perhaps? At least that's the way I perceived it then. If I was wrong then I apologize.

In any case, I was merely trying to point out that the argument in that article is flawed because it utilizes strawman. As for biblical literalist, that all depends on what that appellation encompasses from your particular viewpoint.It's satire, Rad. :rolleyes: There is no need for concerns of straw men in satire. The point is not dependent upon addressing someone's argument.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Very interestingly ironic way of saying things. Of course his assumptions are all skewed since they are describing post-Adamic fall conditions which are not atrributable to God. .....Right, after God got pissed off, the world became bad on it's own. :rolleyes:

The point is the people claiming ID also claim God made prefect designs. Most don't point out God made bad things after getting pissed off because that contradicts the other claims that God is loving. It is reasonable for you to interpret the Bible as explaining why God added the cockroaches. Perhaps you should present your hypothesis to ID proponents such as the Discovery Institute.

[Radrook]

And a double positive!
So, God's plan went awry? So it wasn't a perfect plan? How does a perfect being come up with an imperfect plan?

Perfection is a subjective term which means that certain criteria are being met to the satisfaction of the one setting them. If the plan would have not given humans freedom of choice then from his viewpoint it would have been a flawed plan.


Two question about this: in which passage of the bible does mankind reject God's guidance? As I recall, Adam and Eve weren't too hip aout leaving the garden. Second, which neutral animal became the cockroach?

1. The events are recorded in Genesis.
2. In what passage does it say they weren't too hip?
3. I don't know.


But he was a liar. He told Eve she would die if she ate the fruit. She ate the fruit. She didn't die.

You mean on the very day? From God's standpoint she didn't last a day since 1000 years are as one day from his standpoint.

How much time? If God's sitting around waiting to see if we'll meess up the earth, then I think the point has been proven well before now. How much worse does it need to get before He comes back and says, "I told you so"?


How much time left?

Mark 13:
36 Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father

Again, in which passage do Adam and Eve request the removal of God's blessings? I don't remember that part at all.

Their disobedience requested it. They knew full-well what the consequeces would be, God's disapproval, but chose that path anyway.

I take exception to the bolded word above. If this were true, there'd be no debate. There'd be no need for interpretation of the bible. And in all likelihood, Christianity would be the only religion.

Inability to comprehend doesn't mean that what was written wasn't written clearly. There are other factors which can prevent comprehension and thus lead to debate and multiplicity of views. There is even full comprehension followed by a decision to go contrary to what is being fully understood.

[articulett]

This is where the whole idea of a god falls apart. You don't know. You are supposing. Just because it is written in some book, does not mean it happened. It would be classed as hearsay in a court of law.



And heresy in the Nation of Islam.

[Hawk one]

You mean on the very day? From God's standpoint she didn't last a day since 1000 years are as one day from his standpoint.

But this is still complete and utter weak apologism at work. See, if God inspired the bible, and intended it to be read by humans, then surely he would realise that he should keep the timeline accurate from the point of view of the reader. That's one of the first things you learn to do when you're in the business of communicating. So when the bible says "one day", then it should mean one day as it's felt by humans.

Of course, it's a moot point, since it's all a made-up story, but at least it should be an internally consistend made-up story.

Their disobedience requested it. They knew full-well what the consequeces would be, God's disapproval, but chose that path anyway. Why do you assume they really knew what the consequences would be? They didn't have any knowledge of death. Heck, they didn't have any knowledge that what they did was "evil", because they had to eat the fruit to learn that.

And that's just one of the details that makes no sense. Take a read through this article (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/absurdityofsin.html) showing just how silly that made-up story is.

[articulett]

'

Third, each person has a right to either reject or accept based on whatever reason he or she feels justifies it. So I really see no reason to engage in any debating. You are happy. I am happy. Case closed!

: )

Sure... if the case is about happiness.

If the case is about truth, that's another story. There IS only one truth that is the same for everybody... but lots of people claiming to have some sort of access to some divine truth or other but no evidence than any actual divine truth exists much less that anyone has it. Scientology makes people happy. Is the case closed? Christians have no more evidence for their divine truths than Scientologists do... or Muslims or Moonies or UFO believers or astrologists, or priests that do exorcisms...

Skeptics usually prefer not knowing something rather than vapidly believing whatever it is they've been inculcated to believe by whatever culture they were born into. We like to hang out together on skeptic forums understanding the facts we humans are uncovering and sharing them with each other. Unfortunately, faithers need to prop up their beliefs by attempting to inflict them upon skeptics not realizing that skeptics require evidence while faithers think the "case is closed" so long as they are happy.

Truth doesn't give a crap about your personal happiness, Radrook... and evolution is a fact even if you think you are going to get happily ever after bonus points for denying it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are free to opine that way if you wish. However, from a Christian standpoint it shows the consequence of trying to do things without his blessing and guidence. I guess that's where you and Christians differ.So when the person who lives as piously as possible and prays for guidance and God's blessings gets cancer, then God wasn't paying much attention to that free will thing I guess?

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Christian viewpoint is that we can ask questions and that God has given humans full capacity to understand and that he clearly explains his plans via the Bible.Better to leave the little peons in the dark and then fault them for their lack of faith and poor decision making I guess.

[PBTree]

'
First, I was responding to a question-yours. If you have all the answers already and have decided beforehand to tag all responses as not acceptable-then why ask?

Second, as I explained previously, my only motive for participation on this thread is make sure that you aren't attacking your own ideas while attributing them to Christianity.

Third, each person has a right to either reject or accept based on whatever reason he or she feels justifies it. So I really see no reason to engage in any debating. You are happy. I am happy. Case closed!


: )

Think you will find that I was responding to your response to DrBaltar.

Not engaging in debating. Hmm, tends to negate the reason for this forum.

To each his own I suppose. :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK! : )Pope Pius XII

Pope John Paul II

I don't recognize the Pope as having the last word on biblical understanding. Do you? Actually, the CC track record in that area isn't very good.As I see it, Ocelot's point is asking, "who made you Pope?" IOW, what makes your interpretation superior to the billion other interpretations of the Christian Bible?

[Radrook]

Right, after God got pissed off, the world became bad on it's own. :rolleyes:

That's because the world was on its own due to the rebellious request via disobedience.



The point is the people claiming ID also claim God made prefect designs.

The claim isn't their idea. It's based on a biblical statement. As I mentioned on another post, perfection is a subjective thing dependent on the criteria by which we evaluate things. Adam and Eve had no physical nor mental flaws. They were designed to live forever in perfect health. The animals, were perfect for their purpose.


Most don't point out God made bad things after getting pissed off ....

Well, stated that way it would seem as you see it. It can also be said in this way:
After mankind chose to wing it on its own without God's help they encountered many difficulties which they later began blaming God for.

because that contradicts the other claims that God is loving.

A person doing that doesn't understand the Bible. There is a contradiction only if one accepts one scripture as annulling all the others which clearly inform the reader that God does certainly hate certain things and certain types of people. So that love is not totally unqualified or unconditional.


It is reasonable for you to interpret the Bible as explaining why God added the cockroaches Perhaps you should present your hypothesis to ID proponents such as the Discovery Institute..


I did not say he added cockroaches. I said that some animals became pestiferous after mankind decided to go about on its own. Man's destruction of natural habitats to be replaced by cities. His conglomerating in huge numbers under unsanitary conditions. Over-hunting, overfishing, destruction of natural predators, introduction of species to control other species, etcetera.

[Radrook]

As I see it, Ocelot's point is asking, "who made you Pope?" IOW, what makes your interpretation superior to the billion other interpretations of the Christian Bible?

If an interpretation places human ideas over scripture then it is flawed-regardless of who is doing the interpreting.


What was the Protestant Reformation?

....A church or denomination’s teachings are authoritative and binding on Christians only if they represent the true meaning and clear teaching of Scripture. This is important in order to understand the connection between Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church, and the reason that the Protestant Reformation took place.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Protestant-Reformation.html

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....
A person doing that doesn't understand the Bible. There is a contradiction only if one accepts one scripture as annulling all the others which clearly inform the reader that God does certainly hate certain things and certain types of people. So that love is not totally unqualified or unconditional......I don't want to get this thread off topic here, but this kind of crap makes me sick frankly, and right now I am particularly disgusted. No matter how you spin it, if your god beliefs were true, the horrendous tragedies that have been heaped on these innocent men, women and children because 6,000 years ago one person disobeyed and ate the fruit from a tree is pretty overwhelming proof your god is not "a loving god" by any possible farthest fetched stretch of your apologist brain.

Congo rape victims seek solace (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3426273.stm)

A Brutal War's Machetes Maim Sierra Leone (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E3DF1239F935A15752C0A96F9582 60)

Subjected to horrific violence, an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 children are serving as soldiers for both rebel groups and government forces in current armed conflicts. (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/crp/index.htm)

Child slave labor revelations sweeping China (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/15/news/china.php)

[Radrook]

I don't want to get this thread off topic here, but this kind of crap makes me sick frankly, and right now I am particularly disgusted. No matter how you spin it, if your god beliefs were true, the horrendous tragedies that have been heaped on these innocent men, women and children because 6,000 years ago one person disobeyed and ate the fruit from a tree is pretty overwhelming proof your god is not "a loving god" by any possible farthest fetched stretch of your apologist brain.

Congo rape victims seek solace (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3426273.stm)

A Brutal War's Machetes Maim Sierra Leone (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E3DF1239F935A15752C0A96F9582 60)

Subjected to horrific violence, an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 children are serving as soldiers for both rebel groups and government forces in current armed conflicts. (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/crp/index.htm)

Child slave labor revelations sweeping China (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/15/news/china.php)

Assume that the Genesis account is true:

Would you be here if he had not let this world develop? If he had destroyed Adam and Eve then all of us would have disapeared from any possibility of existence. You find that preferable? I ask because I want to know your opinion.

BTW
You are entitled to your opinion. However, please try to refrain from any personal attacks. Thanks!

[Radrook]

Deleted

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm afraid it is you who loses the points this time.

Of Dogs and Devils, The Rise of Contagious Cancer (http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2006/08/21/of-dogs-and-devils-can-cancer-be-contagious/)



Edited to add, I see this was addressed. But what was your opinion then, US? After all, many argue that viruses are not life forms. Since then we've had transmissible prions thrown into the mix. Personally, I think once a tumor jumps ship and spreads out infecting other organisms it is reasonable to define it as a life form. Identical twins are not considered one lifeform.

I still think we're talking about something that is in that gray area (sort of like we'd expect to develop during abiogenesis) rather than a life form like a bacteria, but, I admit, this is some very fascinating stuff.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17969847?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

[articulett]

I'm afraid it is you who loses the points this time.

Of Dogs and Devils, The Rise of Contagious Cancer (http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2006/08/21/of-dogs-and-devils-can-cancer-be-contagious/)



Edited to add, I see this was addressed. But what was your opinion then, US? After all, many argue that viruses are not life forms. Since then we've had transmissible prions thrown into the mix. Personally, I think once a tumor jumps ship and spreads out infecting other organisms it is reasonable to define it as a life form. Identical twins are not considered one lifeform.

tumors undergo natural selection... they evolve... they mutate fast... we blast them with chemo... if one develops a mutation that makes it resistant to that chemo, it starts a whole new chemo resistant colony... so we pull out the bigger guns...

cervical cancers are primarily spread via hpv virus... that's a clever trick... ride along your vectors primal instincts (sex drive)... and don't kill them too fast--let them feel healthy enough to spread you

Cancer cells are living things as long as they can reproduce themselves (passing on their information to a new generation). Things don't evolve... the information (genomes) to build those things evolves giving rise to new "things". A species dies the same species it is born ass. I'm giving back the one point US took away. :p

[articulett]

Assume that the Genesis account is true:

Would you be here if he had not let this world develop? If he had destroyed Adam and Eve then all of us would have disapeared from any possibility of existence. You find that preferable? I ask because I want to know your opinion.

BTW
You are entitled to your opinion. However, please try to refrain from any personal attacks. Thanks!

Said the guy who readily engages in personal attacks AND thinks that he knows, not only that there is an invisible creator of the universe-- but also that he (radrook) KNOWS what book this dude inspired and how to go about interpreting it and what it "means"!-- talk about arrogant.

And I am not all loving, but I would never make a life form (have a child) if I thought there was even the remotest possibility that it could suffer forever... and you believe in an invisible all loving something or other who would have known in advance exactly which of his creations would be suffering forever AND why. The fact that he blames them, when he was the one who created and raised them and put their thoughts and language in their heads and then decided to punish their sentient beings forever if they didn't believe in his invisible ass is just sociopathic. And how did this magical god communicate with the people he poofed into existence? Was he distinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion? Was Jesus distinguishable from a mythological person or the "Mormon prophet" or a garden variety schizophrenic... many who seem to believe they are gods and/or sons of gods (and Jesus was both by some magical mystery of craziness).

I can't assume the genesis account is true anymore than I can assume Scientology's creation story is true... or Greek Mythology or any of the myriad of creation myths humans have been making up for eons. Why? because there is no evidence in support of any of that mumbo jumbo... none of the information given in any creation stories is the slightest bit prescient regarding knowledge that mortals took many years to accumulate regarding the nature of reality. God didn't mention DNA even. That's a big one to leave out if you're trying to impress your creations with your omniscience... don't you think.... and if he was benevolent--why not clue them in about germ theory--oh, and that females are as sentient as males and shouldn't be subjugated nor impregnated without their consent as god did.

I don't need to be thankful to your invisible illusion any more than I need to be thankful to Zeus or Mohummed or the Sun God that shines because people tossed virgins into volcanoes. What a self-important buffoon your faith has made you! And it's as unfixable as trying to talk suicide bombers out of whatever it is they think is going to land their eternal asses in Muslim paradise.

Ugh. Does it scare you to know that Scientologists and Muslims and Moonies and the assorted cults you don't believe in have as much faith (or more) in their higher truths than you do? Because it scares me. You cannot reason with faith.

[Radrook]

But the earth was not created in the beginning. In the first 9.2 billion years of the universe, there was no earth.

The beginning is not referring to the Big Bang event alone. It is referring to what God did as a compendium or as a prelude to the creative week and his creation of man. In any case, notice that the sequence is heavens first and earth later. Created the heavens and the earth. There is a correct sequence there.

What was the light that god created if the stars, sun and moon were created on the 3rd day? There were stars before the earth anyway, and the sun was also mostly formed by the time the earth started to coalesce from matter in the solar system.

Very true. Light itself was present in the universe prior to the beginning of the creative week.
please keep in mind that immediately after the first words Genesis tells us that there was darkness on the earth's surface. So obviously no light was getting through at that stage.

The Hebrew word "created" allows the alternate translation of "made to appear." So the removal of whatever was hindering the light from reaching the surface would have made the stars moon and sun appear for the first time as viewed from earth.

The moon "rules" the night only sometimes. When it's a new moon, it's not visible. It is also in the sky during the day half the time.

Yes, I agree, it does appear during the day. But the operative word here is it would rule or predominate. Even when the moon is present during the day it cannot be said to rule the day since it is always eclipsed by the brighter glory of the sun. Neither does the sun challenge the moon's rule at night.

BTW

Why do you assume that the scripture meant the moon would have to be always present at night?

Are you suggesting the animals of the earth were created in a day? Fossil records do not collaborate this.

The original word used in Genesis for "day" isn't restricted to a twenty-four hour time interval.

How long were the days of Genesis 1?
http://people.ku.edu/~bthomas/Sci_Bible/age_bib.html


In Genesis it says "And God said, Let us make man in our image,...". Who is US?

He was speaking to his Son, the Word of God.

What's up with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? I put my porn mags under my mattress or in a box somewhere if I don't want my kids to see them. Why is god leaving knowledge of evil next to creatures he designed to be curious with 'free will', and then punishes them and every generation afterwards when they inevitably eat the fruit? That's just childish and sadistic.

It can be interpreted that way and some people do. It can also be interpreted in a different way-and some people do.


BTW, how old do you claim the earth is?

As old as science tells us it is.

[articulett]

uggh... the brainwashing seems irreversible in radrooks case.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Assume that the Genesis account is true:

Would you be here if he had not let this world develop? If he had destroyed Adam and Eve then all of us would have disapeared from any possibility of existence. You find that preferable? I ask because I want to know your opinion.

BTW
You are entitled to your opinion. However, please try to refrain from any personal attacks. Thanks!I believe if you re-read what I said the only personal reference in it is a reference to the fact you apologize for the Christian God. I wasn't aware that was an attack. It's my understanding it is a legit description. And this post so illustrates that apologist behavior of yours.

God: "Sorry you got your limbs hacked off and a stick shoved into your vagina until a permanent fistula developed and urine and feces continually run down your legs and your children were kidnapped and will be tortured, raped, and forced to be part of the latest rebel army and your husband was locked in that church which was set on fire burning him alive, but what have you got to complain about? Without me you wouldn't even have a life in the first place.

Oh, and BTW, did I mention that you are supposed to demonstrate your faith by worshiping me now for all I've done for you?"

[Radrook]

I believe if you re-read what I said the only personal reference in it is a reference to the fact you apologize for the Christian God. I wasn't aware that was an attack. It's my understanding it is a legit description. And this post so illustrates that apologist behavior of yours.

God: "Sorry you got your limbs hacked off and a stick shoved into your vagina until a permanent fistula developed and urine and feces continually run down your legs and your children were kidnapped and will be tortured, raped, and forced to be part of the latest rebel army and your husband was locked in that church which was set on fire burning him alive, but what have you got to complain about? Without me you wouldn't even have a life in the first place.

Oh, and BTW, did I mention that you are supposed to demonstrate your faith by worshiping me now for all I've done for you?"

I don't approve of any of the things you just described.

[articulett]

I don't approve of any of the things you just described.

But your god does...
he went a little lighter on Job and Abraham though.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't approve of any of the things you just described.Of course you don't. You don't want to think about the real facts compared to your god apologist facts. The real facts are too unpleasant.

[Ocelot]

I don't recognize the Pope as having the last word on biblical understanding. Do you? Actually, the CC track record in that area isn't very good.

Radrook,

I mention it because of false concensus bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect). We imperfect humans have a tendancy to oversetimate the popularity of our own opinions. I've noted on occasion that you make appeals to popularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) and claim to speak for billions of christians. Despite personally finding such appeals being unconvincing your use of them makes me wonder if they sway you. If so I feel it worth noting that your opinions are your own and not necessarily representative of christianity as a whole.

So when you say "that is not the way that Genesis was meant to be understood" and diminish the opinions of those who reject literalist interpretations I have to wonder what is you basis for doing so. Is it because you feel that's what every good christian believes? If so then you're wrong. If not I would ask you to make yourself clearer.

1 billion people subscribe to the idea that certain of the Pope's declarations are infalliable. I don't and clearly you don't. That doesn't mean I can't agree with the Pope when he makes a salient point. Bible literalism is unsubstantiated and demonstrably self contradictory.

[Ocelot]

Radrook,

Theer is an argument made popular by an urban legend regarding an atheist professor and a christian student sometimes identified as Einstein (in fact a secular jew). The argument goes that just as cold is the absense of heat, and darkness is the absense of light; evil is the absense of God's love.

As you get to know me I'm hope you'll come to realise that the soure of an argument is less convincing than the argument itself. As such its status as an urban legend does not, for me, nulify its elegance.

I like the argument, it works well to explan how God did directly not create evil. It seems to me that you make similar arguments about the imperfection of the world resulting not from God's activity but from his (temporary) acceptance of our rejection of him. These arguments are good for those who accept the bible as a document to be read in context rather than as the literal word of God.

However I wonder if you'd care to comment on the following verse from the perspective of one who does seem to believe in a literalist interpretation.

Isaiah 45:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2045:7;&version=9;)


I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


God clearly acknowledges his direct role in benighting the world.

[DrBaltar]

The claim isn't their idea. It's based on a biblical statement. As I mentioned on another post, perfection is a subjective thing dependent on the criteria by which we evaluate things. Adam and Eve had no physical nor mental flaws. They were designed to live forever in perfect health. The animals, were perfect for their purpose.Apparently Adam and Eve were either designed with severe problems with authority or were so retarded they couldn't understand simple instructions. And which ever mental problem was the case was bad enough not only to punish them, but all of humanity from that point on!

I did not say he added cockroaches. I said that some animals became pestiferous after mankind decided to go about on its own.So mosquitoes didn't live off blood before then? What did they eat?

The Hebrew word "created" allows the alternate translation of "made to appear." So the removal of whatever was hindering the light from reaching the surface would have made the stars moon and sun appear for the first time as viewed from earth.Nice try. The only things Genesis says were 'created' were heaven, earth, great whales, every living creature that moveth, and man and woman. BTW, do you have a reference for that translation? Were all things that were said to be 'created' in Genesis already there and only revealed at the time Genesis says they were revealed?

The original word used in Genesis for "day" isn't restricted to a twenty-four hour time interval.True, it is one revolution of the earth, which used to be shorter than 24 hrs. God knows what 'day' means to us. If day is said, then day is meant. If not then you've invalidated your claim that the bible is clear.

He was speaking to his Son, the Word of God.What son? Jesus did not come till later.

It can be interpreted that way and some people do. It can also be interpreted in a different way-and some people do.Again, you're invalidating your claim that the bible is clear.

As old as science tells us it is.I go to science for clear answers as well.

Assume that the Genesis account is true:

Would you be here if he had not let this world develop? If he had destroyed Adam and Eve then all of us would have disapeared from any possibility of existence. You find that preferable? I ask because I want to know your opinion.How many people and other animals are NOT here because of the flood? If Genesis is true, 6 billion people descended from Noah's family. Multiply that by all the other families that were wiped out and you have an idea of all who are not here because of God's wrath. Of course that doesn't even scratch the surface of all the animals that were killed.

[NobbyNobbs]

Perfection is a subjective term which means that certain criteria are being met to the satisfaction of the one setting them. If the plan would have not given humans freedom of choice then from his viewpoint it would have been a flawed plan.

So perfection is a subjective term...and yet you claim to understand how God defines "perfection"?! You claim to know his viewpoint? I'm astounded.

If the bible is true, then according to at least one particular phrase, you certainly won't be among those inheriting the earth.


Their disobedience requested it. They knew full-well what the consequeces would be, God's disapproval, but chose that path anyway.

Their disobedience may have mandated it, or resulted in it, but I don't see how it "requests" it. How did they know what the consequences would be? Until actually eating the fruit, they didn't know good from evil. So they couldn't have known that eating it was a bad thing.





Inability to comprehend doesn't mean that what was written wasn't written clearly. There are other factors which can prevent comprehension and thus lead to debate and multiplicity of views. There is even full comprehension followed by a decision to go contrary to what is being fully understood.

When speaking of a book that contradicts itself repeatedly, that uses multiple meanings for the same word, that has people killing each other across the world for centuries becuase a common understanding of its meaning can't be found....that's a book to which the adjective "clear" clearly does not apply.

[Radrook]

Of course you don't. You don't want to think about the real facts compared to your god apologist facts. The real facts are too unpleasant.


Well, as I said previously, the only reason I began participating on this thread was to provide information and not to evagelize. However, since I was asked specific questions, I only thought it polite to answer in order to provide the info requested. Beyond that I really see no point in trying to persuade anyone on this forum about things which they have already made a firm decision. Actually, if I did, I would be accused of trying to shove my beliefs down people's throats. In any case, thanx for your sincere response and opinion.

[Radrook]

Radrook,

I mention it because of false concensus bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect). We imperfect humans have a tendancy to oversetimate the popularity of our own opinions. I've noted on occasion that you make appeals to popularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) and claim to speak for billions of christians. Despite personally finding such appeals being unconvincing your use of them makes me wonder if they sway you. If so I feel it worth noting that your opinions are your own and not necessarily representative of christianity as a whole.

You are right. Thanx for pointing that out and my apologies for not having made that clear from the outset. Some of what you call my views, are not representative of the majority of people who claim Christianity as their religion.




So when you say "that is not the way that Genesis was meant to be understood" and diminish the opinions of those who reject literalist interpretations I have to wonder what is you basis for doing so. Is it because you feel that's what every good christian believes? If so then you're wrong. If not I would ask you to make yourself clearer.

Sorry that I gave that belligerent impression. From now on if asked for an opinion I will try to include other opinions as well in order not to give the impression you describe.

BTW
Individual Christian status before God isn't what I am discussing. Neither am I authorized to be tagging individual people as eternally approved or dissaproved by God. Why? Because I don't qualify for that job.


1 billion people subscribe to the idea that certain of the Pope's declarations are infalliable. I don't and clearly you don't. That doesn't mean I can't agree with the Pope when he makes a salient point. Bible literalism is unsubstantiated and demonstrably self contradictory.


Of course they do and have a right to do so as I have a right to disagree. Actually, I do agree wiuth the Pope on many views involving doctrine and morality. But on others I don't as other millions of people also don't. So it's not as you seem to think. As for Bible literalism, we obviously disagree. Which is OK by me.

[Radrook]

Radrook,

Theer is an argument made popular by an urban legend regarding an atheist professor and a christian student sometimes identified as Einstein (in fact a secular jew). The argument goes that just as cold is the absense of heat, and darkness is the absense of light; evil is the absense of God's love.

As you get to know me I'm hope you'll come to realise that the soure of an argument is less convincing than the argument itself. As such its status as an urban legend does not, for me, nulify its elegance.

I like the argument, it works well to explan how God did directly not create evil. It seems to me that you make similar arguments about the imperfection of the world resulting not from God's activity but from his (temporary) acceptance of our rejection of him. These arguments are good for those who accept the bible as a document to be read in context rather than as the literal word of God.

However I wonder if you'd care to comment on the following verse from the perspective of one who does seem to believe in a literalist interpretation.

Isaiah 45:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2045:7;&version=9;)



God clearly acknowledges his direct role in benighting the world.

Yes, I have come accross that scripture before many years ago. Below I provide a link to a web-page that provides an explanation.

Excerpt:



I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Some people read verses such as this and claim that it means God creates sin. But their problem is in their knowledge and understanding of the word evil. They erroneously surmise that evil always means sin, but that is not the case. The word translated evil in scripture does not "necessarily" mean evil in the same sense that we understand evil in our day. We use the word evil today as a synonym for sin or wickedness, but that is not the case in scripture. The word translated evil is the Hebrew word [ra'], meaning something that is "not good." It is from a root word meaning to be spoiled, and by implication something that is not good. i.e., bad. It does not mean evil in the sense that we might think of the word today, but more correctly understood as bad or anything that is "not good" to us. For example, if a child receives a spanking, or we go through some adversity or anything which we deem not good for us, it is [ra'] or evil. e.g.:

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/create_evil.html

[PBTree]

So mosquitoes didn't live off blood before then? What did they eat?



just a small note Doc. I think you will find that mossies live on nectar (think I read it somewhere). The female only takes blood when she needs to do something with her eggs.

Do admit though, that without the blood, the whole lot would die off.

:)

[UnrepentantSinner]

just a small note Doc. I think you will find that mossies live on nectar (think I read it somewhere). The female only takes blood when she needs to do something with her eggs.

Do admit though, that without the blood, the whole lot would die off.

I guess I knew that instinctively (knowing about how only females only sucked blood), but I'd never checked up in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito#Food_habits

I'm still waiting for evidence that snakes have vemom injecting fangs because they consumed the juice of fruit or that chlorophyl was found on T-Rex teeth, or any of the other crazier Creationist "pre-Flood" claims.

[PBTree]

Yes, I have come accross that scripture before many years ago. Below I provide a link to a web-page that provides an explanation.

Excerpt:


I'm sorry Radrook but you are doing it again. That web page does not provide an explanation of that scripture. It provides someones view. An opinion. You make it appear that that this opinion is fact.

Unless you can get the author to provide precise explanations of his/her words for any scripture or writings etc, you are doomed to hearsay and opinion, not fact.

Another thing in passing, not necessarily to yourself. If god ditched the human race after the two troublemakers got tossed out of eden and said "go your own way", then who parted the Red Sea, sent down all the Frogs, killed the firstborn, trashed Jericho, sent the flood, impregnated mary? etc etc... I thought he/she wanted nothing to do with us and gave us free will. :(

Not only is this god spiteful/cruel but she/he is obviously very forgetful about what's been said by them.

[Ocelot]

Yes, I have come accross that scripture before many years ago. Below I provide a link to a web-page that provides an explanation.

Excerpt:

Yes I've noted that other translations of the bible use the word Calamity. nonetheless it does appear that he claimng an active role in "spoiling" the world. This rather puts pay to the idea that such imperfection in the world is simply the absence of Gods love. When such calimity happens, the bible is clear that God is actively behind it.

[DrBaltar]

just a small note Doc. I think you will find that mossies live on nectar (think I read it somewhere). The female only takes blood when she needs to do something with her eggs.

Do admit though, that without the blood, the whole lot would die off.

:)

Women...

[RobRoy]

Yes I've noted that other translations of the bible use the word Calamity. nonetheless it does appear that he claimng an active role in "spoiling" the world. This rather puts pay to the idea that such imperfection in the world is simply the absence of Gods love. When such calimity happens, the bible is clear that God is actively behind it.

Not only is this god spiteful/cruel but she/he is obviously very forgetful about what's been said by them.

Well, to jump in, this is only from our perspective, not from God's. This doesn't make God spiteful or cruel, except as we perceive God. I think C.S. Lewis, addressed this concept in The Problem of Pain stating that there was a distinct difference between a kindly God and a loving God. Of course, to forestall the comments, this is still "just" an opinion.

But Ocelot's point is valid about the concept of God' love or its absence.

[HeyLeroy]

Marvelous! I have saved that in my favs.

~~ Paul

Paul, you might want to copy & paste that to your computer somewhere; many newspapers don't archive their letters for very long.

Well, most actually do, but the linky may not be active for very long.

Cheers.

ETA: Here's (http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/letters/story.html?id=b71f369e-9e35-411a-bdbf-4694a07462ca) a letter to my local paper, from yesterday. I've already written a reply.

Can anyone spot the author's blunder? Besides endorsing ID, that is...

[Radrook]

Apparently Adam and Eve were either designed with severe problems with authority or were so retarded they couldn't understand simple instructions. And which ever mental problem was the case was bad enough not only to punish them, but all of humanity from that point on!


Free will comes with certain possibilities of choices. They were created flawles in body and mind. Or had no sinful tendencies. The concept of nonexistence was not aliuen to them since they had once been in that condition. They could also observe death in animals.



So mosquitoes didn't live off blood before then? What did they eat?
Nice try. The only things Genesis says were 'created' were heaven, earth, great whales, every living creature that moveth, and man and woman.

The Bible's theme is man's fall mankind and its redemption. So mosquitoes and other fauna aren't delved into in detail. Whatever the mosquito did back then, it was not intended to do it to humans


BTW, do you have a reference for that translation? Were all things that were said to be 'created' in Genesis already there and only revealed at the time Genesis says they were revealed?

All translations contain the same info in Genesis.


True, it is one revolution of the earth, which used to be shorter than 24 hrs. God knows what 'day' means to us. If day is said, then day is meant. If not then you've invalidated your claim that the bible is clear.

We are clearly told what a day can mean to him when he speaks of a day.


What son? Jesus did not come till later.

Again, you're invalidating your claim that the bible is clear.

I go to science for clear answers as well.

Jesus had a prehuman existence. The Bible is clear on this as well as about his creative role during that time.

BTW

Science is full of horrendous bloopers.It is also restricted by the human senses to this dimension and even here we are limited by distances and time. So I wouldn't bet it all on science. There is far more that svcience doesn't know that what it does know that vast ignorance should be sufficient to discourage the conclusiveness of saying there is no God.

How many people and other animals are NOT here because of the flood? If Genesis is true, 6 billion people descended from Noah's family. Multiply that by all the other families that were wiped out and you have an idea of all who are not here because of God's wrath. Of course that doesn't even scratch the surface of all the animals that were killed.

I was speaking about the opportunity to live.

[Radrook]

I'm sorry Radrook but you are doing it again. That web page does not provide an explanation of that scripture. It provides someone's view. An opinion. You make it appear that that this opinion is fact.

Unless you can get the author to provide precise explanations of his/her words for any scripture or writings etc, you are doomed to hearsay and opinion, not fact.

Well that's the only explanation I would give of and that's the one he gives so I posted it. Were you seeking some other explanation?



Another thing in passing, not necessarily to yourself. If god ditched the human race after the two troublemakers got tossed out of Eden and said "go your own way," then who parted the Red Sea, sent down all the Frogs, killed the firstborn, trashed Jericho, sent the flood, impregnated mary? etc etc... I thought he/she wanted nothing to do with us and gave us free will. :(

Not only is this god spiteful/cruel but she/he is obviously very forgetful about what's been said by them.

God didn't ditch mankind, mankind ditched God. I didn't say he didn't want absolutely nothing to do with mankind. He gave them what they had chosen, the chance to determine for themselves what is to be considered good and what is to be considered evil since they obviously felt themselves qualified to determine that without his help and had indirectly accused him of being selfish and getting in their way.

So in view of this, God allowed mankind to go on its way as requested. But he didn't leave them hopeless. He knew that their experiment would fail and once proven a complete failure then a restoration would be justified. So he immediately promised that this would be so in Genesis 3: 15 by providing a prophecy which entailed the coming of a savior. That savior would eventually come through Noah, then Seth, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and would be fulfilled in Jesus.

During the time that this experiment would be in progress God would be creating a nation which would serve to give an example of just how much in need of redemption we were. Since he chose to use that nation as an example he related to them in a special way. However, the general effort of mankind to go about their own way would not be interfered with, stalled, nor stopped until the appropriate time.

BTW

The calamities which ae mentioned in the OT are those in defense of a nation or upon a nation that had entered a special covenant relation with him for the reasons mentioned before. They were not directed at mankind in general.

BTW
Not evangelizing only responding to inquiry in order to inform.

[DrBaltar]

Free will comes with certain possibilities of choices. They were created flawles in body and mind. Or had no sinful tendencies.Except for following God's word and staying away from the forbidden fruit. Judging from the punishment that was a HUGE sin that they had a tendency towards.

BTW, do you have a reference for that translation? Were all things that were said to be 'created' in Genesis already there and only revealed at the time Genesis says they were revealed?All translations contain the same info in Genesis.I don't see how that answers my question.

We are clearly told what a day can mean to him when he speaks of a day.So day is day then?

BTW

Science is full of horrendous bloopers.It is also restricted by the human senses to this dimension and even here we are limited by distances and time. So I wouldn't bet it all on science. There is far more that svcience doesn't know that what it does know that vast ignorance should be sufficient to discourage the conclusiveness of saying there is no God.Science may have occasional mistakes, but there is a process where these mistakes are found and corrected.

Mankind has been basically stuck for over a millennia because of religious dogma, culminating in the dark ages. Since science has come to the rescue we have been advancing our knowledge and quality of life by a fantastic rate.

How many people and other animals are NOT here because of the flood? If Genesis is true, 6 billion people descended from Noah's family. Multiply that by all the other families that were wiped out and you have an idea of all who are not here because of God's wrath. Of course that doesn't even scratch the surface of all the animals that were killed.I was speaking about the opportunity to live.So am I. You were saying that God is at least merciful enough that humanity continued and we are here alive. And I'm saying there are numbers of people totaling many times the current population of Earth whose ancestors were killed in the flood that are not so lucky. They have no opportunity to live. They would not consider God so merciful.

[HeyLeroy]

So all the suffering, sinning and death was a result of God's poor planning?

According the the Christian viewpoint it was a consequence of man's misuse of free will.

I dunno, God seems like the original badass...

However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.

17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 17 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.


When a trumpet sounds in a city,
do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city,
has not the LORD caused it?




You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,



Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "

[DrBaltar]

According the the Christian viewpoint it was a consequence of man's misuse of free will.
The abused will often defend their abusers actions saying they deserved it.

[articulett]

Women...

XWe0pb55q8w

[Radrook]

Except for following God's word and staying away from the forbidden fruit. Judging from the punishment that was a HUGE sin that they had a tendency towards.

OK That's your view. But from Christianity's view was merely an exercise of free will without and inherent weakness causing it.

You limit trhe issue to a mere eating of a fruit-but there was far more involved in that action than meets the uninformed eye. As I previously explained, inherent in that action is a request-a rejection of guidence and a decision to try things on their own.

As for total freedom, strange that you should take umbrage since total freedom leads to anarchy and I am 100% sure that you would no want your government to allow that kind of freedom to its citizens since you would be victimized. Common sense.


I don't see how that answers my question.

So day is day then?

God can view a day in different durations not just 24 hours. That's why Adam died after living some 900 years.

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

bTW

Thousands of years later God is still said to be in his day of rest into which we can enter via casting sin away. So that in itself tells us clearly that the other creative days could not have been 24 hours long.

Hebrews 4:5
And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.

Hebrews 4:10
For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

Hebrews 4:11
Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.




Science may have occasional mistakes, but there is a process where these mistakes are found and corrected.

Mankind has been basically stuck for over a millennia because of religious dogma, culminating in the dark ages. Since science has come to the rescue we have been advancing our knowledge and quality of life by a fantastic rate.

That's a strawman since I am not debating against science. Of course science has its benefits. But to say that we know things in realms where science hasn't penetrated is unjustified. For example, we can say that based only on what we see in this part of the VISIBLE or DETECTABLE universe gravity exists and behaves in such and such a way. However, if we presumptuously extrapolate into the whole realm of existence, then we are being unscientific since our science is based on the characteristics of this dimension and this little part of the universe. Actually, even in this dimension the major portion of our universe has receded beyond detectability. So even here we are limited.

As far as science benefiting mankind, that is debatable since we are still slaughtering one another like savages. Proving that the original lie was a lie since we can't do things on our own without making fools of ourselves.[/quote]

So am I. You were saying that God is at least merciful enough that humanity continued and we are here alive. And I'm saying there are numbers of people totaling many times the current population of Earth whose ancestors were killed in the flood that are not so lucky. They have no opportunity to live. They would not consider God so merciful.

The reason we are granted life is so we can make a choice as Adam and Eve had an opportunity to choose and not have to permanently suffer the consequence of their decision.

About those who died in the past-that's why God provided the resurrection.

Acts 24:15
And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.



BTW
Not all those who died in the flood were humans. Genetic contamination had taken place. So when I say ressurection, it applies only to those humans who might have perished.

[Radrook]

The abused will often defend their abusers actions saying they deserved it.

You have a right to your opinion as I have a right to mine. You requested info-I provided it. but I will not engage in fruitless debates.

[articulett]

Is that snide remark really necessary?

It is a well documented phenomenon-- can you support your opinion:


I have found that people who are very critical of God are usually very lenient toward their own behavior and the behavior of mankind in general.What have you found about people who believe that god is a human invention... are the the bane of all existence? And where did you get that info.-- from your trusted clergy man?


They also demand respect of their views but are unwilling to give it to others. Interesting... because that is exactly what I have said about woos that preach at this forum... have you been cutting and pasting? Where is this fabulous respect that you imagine yourself giving and where is this uncalled for rudeness that you imagine yourself receiving in return. Cut and paste, would you. Because from where I sit... you do what every woo does. You insult skeptics and scientists in general... you proffer opinion as fact and imply unsavory things about those who don't believe as you do... you ask insincere leading questions you don't want the answer too... and you preach your woo slyly... pretending to be all sciency and skeptical and honest (ha) and humble and full of decorum and respect (ha, ha). You are like every woo.... why do you think you should get more respect than fredcarr the Scientologist who posts here or maatorc the new age woo or Rconk, the Mormon. What makes your woo that you carefully avoid mentioning more likely to be true. Humans have been making up creation stories for eons. Tell us yours and what the evidence is to support it. What language did the first people speak? What did they look like? How did they beget so many different looking people. Did god poof people into existance as adults and implant memories... what kind of adult could you be with virtually no brain programming during a protracted childhood-- a necessity of our species, in case you hadn't noticed. What language did these people speak and did god just whip up their DNA from the mud... how did he decide the code and why did he make it so similar to apes-- including the exact same non-working vitamin C gene that works in all the other mammals??? Why did he do the chromosome 2 fusion thing, eh? Why didn't he mention DNA.... or at least germ thoery... or maybe that the father determines the sex of the offspring-- it would have saved some women from being put to death for not bearing sons.

And why is this story more likely to be true that the Muslim creation story or the Buddhist one or the Moonie one? Why are you more credible than Tom Cruise in your "faith".


Additionally, they also demand strict adherance to logic while refusing to apply the same logic when it comes to ID or anything religious for that matter.
That's why I avoid debates.Wrong. You avoid debates because you have NO evidence for your alternative "hypothesis" and you are not educated nor interested in understand the facts that science is accumulating which shows your inane story to be a silly farce. You don't debate because your creation story is built on nothing at all and that doesn't fair well next to ever amassing evidence in favor of evolution. Evidence that your brain won't let you compute because you think the invisible guy in the sky wants you to really truly believe a certain version of the story so you can live happily ever after.


BTW
As I said previously, if asked a question I am more than willing to invest time and effort iun providing a response. However, if I am disrespectfully subjected to any kind of personal attack I will use the ignore option. So please try to refrain from doing so.This thread isn't about questions... it was about a letter to the editor... you enter these threads on this forum to attack evolution whenever you can... but you have nothing. You don't understand the simplest fact about evolution... you are not curious as to what we know and you are certain you have the "higher truth" which explains nothing at all and certainly no better than all the other magic stories humans have been passing on for eons. For the first time, we have actually figured out and proven why we are here... But your faith won't let you understand.

And I'm sure you have me on ignore. Don't bite from that tree of knowledge... it could be Satan tempting you to do that horrible horrible thing calling "thinking" and "reasoning" and being "honest" and truly "humble" instead of some version of whatever you imagine humility is. It sure isn't pretending to know divine secrets while knocking down eons of accumulated hard won scientific facts that would blow your socks off if you weren't so brain damaged from your faith. You call it apologetics and imagine it as something "good"-- I call it "lying for Jesus" and am glad I was able to see my way out of the miasma.

[NobbyNobbs]

All translations contain the same info in Genesis.

I'm quite sure this isn't true, but I don't have the cites right now to back myself up.


Science is full of horrendous bloopers.

The difference being, science doesn't claim to be infallible.




Of course science has its benefits. .....


As far as science benefiting mankind, that is debatable since we are still slaughtering one another like savages.

Make up your mind! Of course science has benefited mankind. Polio vaccines, expanded communication, transportation, etc. The case of benefit/evil is not black and white. Just because some scientific principles are used for evil does not mean science is not beneficial, and vice versa.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Christians do not believe nor teach that the original conditions were as they are now and that these present conditions are attributable to the original design. Hope that clears it up.

Are you saying that evolution never happened? Are you a young or old earth creationist by any chance? On what date did the original conditions change?

[articulett]

Science has a built in error correcting mechanism. Faith never does. You just have to "believe" and/or chalk it up to mystery.

Radrook, I just watched Tom Cruise's video...he seems very confident that he understands some higher truth... why should we expect that you have access to the real divine truth rather than him and all the people equally convinced of some equally nebulous divine something or other? Because I truly cannot tell why we should take you more seriously than other woo... Why do you take your "truth" more seriously than theirs?

[Ocelot]

You have a right to your opinion as I have a right to mine. You requested info-I provided it. but I will not engage in fruitless debates.

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/explanation.php?dir=articles/explanations&article=beliefs.php

[articulett]

Are you saying that evolution never happened? Are you a young or old earth creationist by any chance? On what date did the original conditions change?

He's a Jehovah's Witness creationist.

[Ocelot]

Thousands of years later God is still said to be in his day of rest into which we can enter via casting sin away. So that in itself tells us clearly that the other creative days could not have been 24 hours long.

Hebrews 4:5
And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.

Hebrews 4:10
For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

Hebrews 4:11
Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.


Really so on God's day of rest he:

Flooded the earth killing all creatures except those on the Ark,
Punished the inhabitants of Babel for wanting to be closer to him thus sowing the seeds for millennia of poor communication and discord.
Destroyed the towns of Soddom and Gomorrah turning Lot's wife into a Pillar of salt as he did so.
Caused the hundred year old Abraham to bear a son Issac.
Appeared to Moses as a burning bush
Changed Aarons Rod into a Serpant
Inflicted the plagues of Egypt
Divided the Red Sea, sending it crashing back to drown Pharroh's army.
Cared for the wanderers in the desrt for 40 years by sending them manna, sending water to them where Moses struck a rock with his staff (twice) and sweetening the water at Marah.
Issued the ten commandments... twice. The second one apparently with copy errors.
Consumed Nadab and Abihu with fire not to mention the people at Tabirah and Korah and Kadesh.
Made Arron's Rod bud.
Animated the brazen serpent
Caused Balaam Ass to speak
Divided the river Jordan
Toppled the walls of Jerico
Stayed the sun and the moon for Joshua and sent him a hailstorm
Immolated various folk for looking at ot touching the arc of the covenant.
Blinded and cured the Syrians
Raised the dead a couple of times.
Persecuted Jonah - on a bet.

It certainly doesn't sound restfull to me.

I could go on with more Old testament Death and destruction but lets skip forward to impregnating a virgin without prior consent cos I just love that one.

Anyway here's a big old list - http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/miracle.html

If he did all this on his one day of rest then tell me why didn't he send manna on the sabbath?

[bokonon]

Very interestingly ironic way of saying things. Of course his assumptions are all skewed since they are describing post-Adamic fall conditions which are not atrributable to God.
Because, of course, Adam designed and built ebola, plague, and cockroaches in the tedious unending spare time he enjoyed after maliciously consuming a fruit.

[bokonon]

It's not just my personal belief that I am putting forth, it's the generally agreed upon Christian point of view regardless of denominational differences. There are slight differences, but the main thrust is that God's original plan was not a world full of suffering sinning and death.
I guess we all encounter things from time to time that we didn't plan on. That's just part of being human, lacking complete information, failing to exercise control when implementing the plan, etc.

The Christian belief is that God did not create cancer cells.
Did they create themselves?

Such cells are the consequence of physical malfunction after mankind rejected God's guidance, protection and blessing and chose to go it on their own. Mankind's mismanagement of the earth since then has caused many formerly neutral animals to become pestiferous.
So, man's "mismanagement" of the benevolent ebola is what caused it to go bad. Would more spanking have been effective? Fewer coffee breaks? Scheduling software? Hot lunches?

The issue of responsibility needs a rather detailed and an understanding of the issues that arose in Eden. First, God was accused of being a liar. His prohibitions were described as selfishly motivated.
Let me just stop you right there. What function did the Tree of Knowledge serve in Eden, outside of being a deadly temptation? Did God lack the knowledge required to child-proof that sucker? Even the most negligent parents will not put poison in a saucer in the crib and then admonish the newborn not to drink it. If that fruit had grown on a high shelf -- say, cloud level -- men wouldn't have been capable of corrupting themselves until the late 1700s when balloons were invented, by which time we might have acquired sufficient experience to know better.

Mankind was described as being better off if they refused his guidance and did as they pleased. Our first parents willingly chose to go in that direction. God permitted their continued existence in order to grant them the opportunity to prove their point. Could they indeed govern themselves better without his guidance and blessing?
You know what this experiment needs? A control group.

All heaven was watching. Destroying the rebels would not have answered that question but would simply raise suspicions that perhaps the rebels were right. So the issue had to be resolved by giving mankind and their angelic rebel friends the time sufficient to prove their point if they could.
Adam and Eve didn't walk on the moon, raise enough food to feed billions, cure polio, or write "Huckleberry Finn." Their biggest accomplishment seems to have been providing long-forgotten names for a bunch of animals that were destined for extinction. In the absence of a credible control group, I'd say Mr. Poor Planning has had his butt handed to him on this one.

[articulett]

God, being omnipotent, could hand himself his own butt.

[bokonon]

How does a perfect being come up with an imperfect plan?
He was just showing off. "I can design this universe with 99.9999% of my brain stuffed behind my back!"

He told Eve she would die if she ate the fruit. She ate the fruit. She didn't die.
She's dead, isn't she? Q.E.D.

[articulett]

He was just showing off. "I can design this universe with 99.9999% of my brain stuffed behind my back!"


She's dead, isn't she? Q.E.D.

But no one really dies if they live forever, do they?

un- Q.E.D.

[articulett]

God created everything. Even evil. It says so in the bible.


I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6, KJV)
Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38)I don't know why the apple eaters (and their descendants) have to get the blame for something that their creator created.

[bokonon]

Their disobedience requested it. They knew full-well what the consequeces would be, God's disapproval, but chose that path anyway.
Eve's cat Fluffy didn't eat any fruit, so why should he be punished? You didn't eat any fruit, so why should you?

Doesn't any reasonable standard of justice avoid punishing the innocent?

[bokonon]

God does certainly hate certain things and certain types of people.
"Hate ... for lack of a better word ... is Godly. Hate is good."

I did not say he added cockroaches. I said that some animals became pestiferous after mankind decided to go about on its own. Man's destruction of natural habitats to be replaced by cities.
It never snows in Eden
It never rains, and the wind don't blow
And it's never cold in Eden
For the bible tells me so

Don't need a house in Eden
Just the sky above, and the earth below
Roaches brush your teeth in Eden
For the bible tells me so

His conglomerating in huge numbers under unsanitary conditions.
Don't need bidets in Eden
Any place you stand is the place you go
And your poop don't stink in Eden
For the bible tells me so

Over-hunting, overfishing, destruction of natural predators, introduction of species to control other species, etcetera.
Don't kill to eat in Eden
Ask the lord for steak and a steak will grow
There's some meaty trees in Eden
For the bible tells me so

[bokonon]

Yes, I have come accross that scripture before many years ago. Below I provide a link to a web-page that provides an explanation.

Excerpt:I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Some people read verses such as this and claim that it means God creates sin. But their problem is in their knowledge and understanding of the word evil. They erroneously surmise that evil always means sin, but that is not the case. The word translated evil in scripture does not "necessarily" mean evil in the same sense that we understand evil in our day. We use the word evil today as a synonym for sin or wickedness, but that is not the case in scripture. The word translated evil is the Hebrew word [ra'], meaning something that is "not good." It is from a root word meaning to be spoiled, and by implication something that is not good. i.e., bad. It does not mean evil in the sense that we might think of the word today, but more correctly understood as bad or anything that is "not good" to us. For example, if a child receives a spanking, or we go through some adversity or anything which we deem not good for us, it is [ra'] or evil. e.g.:

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/create_evil.html
It seems to me that this fails to refute the assertion that God created ebola. Ebola is not sin, it is something that is "not good" to us. Hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, killer asteroids, Alzheimers, and cockroaches are also not sin. Looks to me like anybody claiming their perfect sky daddy created rainbows but not roaches is on pretty shaky ground vis a vis scripture.

[Safe-Keeper]

To the OP: Organisms that look designed (http://fstdt.com/winace/designed_organisms/index.htm)

Really rubs it in:D.

[Radrook]

Really so on God's day of rest he:

Flooded the earth killing all creatures except those on the Ark,
Punished the inhabitants of Babel for wanting to be closer to him thus sowing the seeds for millennia of poor communication and discord.
Destroyed the towns of Soddom and Gomorrah turning Lot's wife into a Pillar of salt as he did so.
Caused the hundred year old Abraham to bear a son Issac.
Appeared to Moses as a burning bush
Changed Aarons Rod into a Serpant
Inflicted the plagues of Egypt
Divided the Red Sea, sending it crashing back to drown Pharroh's army.
Cared for the wanderers in the desrt for 40 years by sending them manna, sending water to them where Moses struck a rock with his staff (twice) and sweetening the water at Marah.
Issued the ten commandments... twice. The second one apparently with copy errors.
Consumed Nadab and Abihu with fire not to mention the people at Tabirah and Korah and Kadesh.
Made Arron's Rod bud.
Animated the brazen serpent
Caused Balaam Ass to speak
Divided the river Jordan
Toppled the walls of Jerico
Stayed the sun and the moon for Joshua and sent him a hailstorm
Immolated various folk for looking at ot touching the arc of the covenant.
Blinded and cured the Syrians
Raised the dead a couple of times.
Persecuted Jonah - on a bet.

It certainly doesn't sound restfull to me.

I could go on with more Old testament Death and destruction but lets skip forward to impregnating a virgin without prior consent cos I just love that one.

Anyway here's a big old list - http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/miracle.html

If he did all this on his one day of rest then tell me why didn't he send manna on the sabbath?

He is resting from the type of activitiy he had been engaged in during the prior six creative days. You know, the same way that you don't do the same type of activty on Sundays that you do on your working days.

[Radrook]

I'm quite sure this isn't true, but I don't have the cites right now to back myself up.

Here is a website that will help you garner various translations of Genesis.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=New+Earth&searchtype=all&version1=9&spanbegin=1&spanend=73


The difference being, science doesn't claim to be infallible.

Ok.


Make up your mind! Of course science has benefited mankind. Polio vaccines, expanded communication, transportation, etc. The case of benefit/evil is not black and white. Just because some scientific principles are used for evil does not mean science is not beneficial, and vice versa.

I did not say science is completely harmful. My main poiint is that it can't be used to prove the non-existence of anything beyond its range. Unfortunately, the vast majority of existing things are beyond its range. So it is unscientific to claim that science can do more than it is able to do.

[Ocelot]

He is resting from the type of activitiy he had been engaged in during the prior six creative days. You know, the same way that you don't do the same type of activty on Sundays that you do on your working days.

So why didn't he send manna on the Sabbath?

[DrBaltar]

As for total freedom, strange that you should take umbrage since total freedom leads to anarchy and I am 100% sure that you would no want your government to allow that kind of freedom to its citizens since you would be victimized. Common sense.Nor would I want a government that would apply strict sanctions for the entire nation because a couple of its citizens jay-walked. This is effectively what god has done.

God can view a day in different durations not just 24 hours. That's why Adam died after living some 900 years.God can view a day however he wants. But if the bible isn't written in terms we understand then it is not clear to us. We shouldn't have to wait until the new testament for a glossary. Anyway, if a day is 1000 years, then 6,000 years still does not match the time scale shown by geologic and fossil record as the time it took to create the earth and all the animals up through homosapiens.


BTW

Science is full of horrendous bloopers.It is also restricted by the human senses to this dimension and even here we are limited by distances and time. So I wouldn't bet it all on science. There is far more that svcience doesn't know that what it does know that vast ignorance should be sufficient to discourage the conclusiveness of saying there is no God.Science may have occasional mistakes, but there is a process where these mistakes are found and corrected.

Mankind has been basically stuck for over a millennia because of religious dogma, culminating in the dark ages. Since science has come to the rescue we have been advancing our knowledge and quality of life by a fantastic rate.That's a strawman since I am not debating against science.I went ahead and put the thread of quotes showing why I commented on science, starting with you saying "Science is full of horrendous bloopers." You did start bashing science and I responded to it.


Of course science has its benefits. But to say that we know things in realms where science hasn't penetrated is unjustified. For example, we can say that based only on what we see in this part of the VISIBLE or DETECTABLE universe gravity exists and behaves in such and such a way. However, if we presumptuously extrapolate into the whole realm of existence, then we are being unscientific since our science is based on the characteristics of this dimension and this little part of the universe. Actually, even in this dimension the major portion of our universe has receded beyond detectability. So even here we are limited.It's been only a couple of decades since science has detected dark matter, and even shorter since science has detected 'dark energy'. Give us time to figure it out... geez. It's not like we can meditate and come up with the answer. If science is unable to detect anything supernatural then how do religious people sense it? How is it that many people feel a connection to God? They are made up of physical matter. Couldn't scientists construct some type of biological machine that could mimic whatever it is that humans have that can detect the presence of God?

As far as science benefiting mankind, that is debatable since we are still slaughtering one another like savages. Proving that the original lie was a lie since we can't do things on our own without making fools of ourselves.Oh, and back during the dark ages when the concept of science was alien and religion took over every aspect of their lives there was no savage slaughtering. :rolleyes:


The reason we are granted life is so we can make a choice as Adam and Eve had an opportunity to choose and not have to permanently suffer the consequence of their decision.

About those who died in the past-that's why God provided the resurrection.

Acts 24:15
And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.



BTW
Not all those who died in the flood were humans. Genetic contamination had taken place. So when I say ressurection, it applies only to those humans who might have perished.Ok enough of this Noah's Ark nonsense. Lets get some facts now. Myths usually have some element of truth. During the last ice age a significant percentage of the Earth's water was in the form of glaciers and snow on land. The sea levels were lower. The Black Sea was a lake 90m below sea level. 8000 years ago when the ice age was ending, the ice melted and the sea levels rose. You do the math.

In 1997 geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University in Palisades, New York, revealed with the help of sonar maps that the Black Sea passed from being an isolated freshwater lake into an inner sea at the end of the Ice Age, when the Mediterranean Sea surged over a strip of land called the Bosporus sill, which kept apart the two seas.

Sonar maps revealed the ancient shorelines covered by mud at 295 to 328 ft (90 to 100 m) under the surface of modern Black Sea. Perfectly preserved dunes pointed to a rapid submergence and preserved freshwater and marine shells tell the same story.

The new research, published in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews, focused on the age of the youngest freshwater shells and the oldest marine shells come from mud samples, pointing that the transition from fresh water to sea water occurred 8,300
years ago.

"That's the same time [that] there was a big catastrophic release of fresh water from North America," said co-author Chris Turney of the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom.

12,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age, the huge Laurentide ice sheet covering most of North America started to melt forming an enormous lake, which burst into the North Atlantic Ocean in a rapid event, rising the world's sea level by about 4.92 ft (1.5 m) about 8,100 to 8,500 years ago.

"It looks like it was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was enough to get the Mediterranean over into the Black Sea. Our age [for the Black Sea flood] fits in very nicely, bang in the middle." said Turney.

But the ancient Black Sea was already 90 m below the sea level and the flood was enormous.

[Radrook]

So why didn't he send manna on the Sabbath?

I don't understand your question.

[Radrook]

Nor would I want a government that would apply strict sanctions for the entire nation because a couple of its citizens jaywalked. This is effectively what god has done.

That's a false analogy.


God can view a day however he wants. But if the bible isn't written in terms we understand then it is not clear to us. We shouldn't have to wait until the new testament for a glossary.

God is a God of gradual revelation in accordance with his infinite wisdom.

BTW

The Old Testament speaks of God viewing days as being longer than 24 hours.


Anyway, if a day is 1000 years, then 6,000 years still does not match the time scale shown by geologic and fossil record as the time it took to create the earth and all the animals up through homosapiens.


You are missing the point. When Chrstians were told they could enter God's rest much more than a thousand years had elapsed and still God's rest day was in progress.


I went ahead and put the thread of quotes showing why I commented on science, starting with you saying "Science is full of horrendous bloopers." You did start bashing science and I responded to it.

Sorry you see anything I might say about science as a bashing campaign.


It's been only a couple of decades since science has detected dark matter, and even shorter since science has detected 'dark energy'. Give us time to figure it out... geez. It's not like we can meditate and come up with the answer.

I'm not against science. I'm against quackery trying to pass as science.


If science is unable to detect anything supernatural then how do religious people sense it? How is it that many people feel a connection to God? They are made up of physical matter.


How is it that scientists sense the existence of dark matter when they themselves aren't made of dark matter?


Couldn't scientists construct some type of biological machine that could mimic whatever it is that humans have that can detect the presence of God?

Of course.

Oh, and back during the dark ages when the concept of science was alien and religion took over every aspect of their lives there was no savage slaughtering. :rolleyes:

Savage slaughterings are the results of mankind seeking to wing it on their own. You know, deciding what is evil and what is good according to how it fits their fancy.

Ok enough of this Noah's Ark nonsense. Lets get some facts now. Myths usually have some element of truth....

I agree with Jesus and his Apostles who considered the Flood not nonsense, as you do, but as an historical fact.


Luke 17:27
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

So did the Apostle Paul
Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

So did the Apostle Peter whom Catholics say was the first Pope.

2 Peter 2:5
And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

BTW
You object to having your precious science belittled but you are quite willing ready and able to belittle other people's beliefs.

[joobz]

God is a God of gradual revelation in accordance with his infinite wisdom.
Prove it.



I'm not against science. I'm against quackery trying to pass as science.
I am as well, let's make a list of such quakery:
I'll start:
Homeopathy
Intelligent Design
Law of Attraction
Scientology

Savage slaughterings are the results of mankind seeking to wing it on their own.
You know, deciding what is evil and what is good according to how it fits their fancy,
The bible seems to disagree with you. God likes a good slaughtering.

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30)

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22)

This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.' (1 Samuel 15:2-3)
I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD. (Ezekiel 35:7-9)


I agree with Jesus and his Apostles who considered the Flood not nonsense, as you do, but as an historical fact.
Based upon what facts?


You object to having your precious science belittled but you are quite willing ready and able to belittle other people's beliefs.
Science isn't belief but tested evidentiary fact.
What would permit you to make such a logical error?

[DrBaltar]

You are missing the point. When Chrstians were told they could enter God's rest much more than a thousand years had elapsed and still God's rest day was in progress.I'm not talking about the 'rest' period after the creation. I'm talking about the time it took to create (i.e. on the first day... on the 2nd day... etc), which is 6 thousand years if we substitute millennia for days in the interest of clarity. The things that Genesis says happened over 6000 years actually took 4.5 billion years.

How is it that scientists sense the existence of dark matter when they themselves aren't made of dark matter?You broke up what I said in a way that doesn't make as much sense. This should have been a separate quote:
They are made up of physical matter. Couldn't scientists construct some type of biological machine that could mimic whatever it is that humans have that can detect the presence of God?


Savage slaughterings are the results of mankind seeking to wing it on their own. You know, deciding what is evil and what is good according to how it fits their fancy.Savage slaughterings also seem to be the result of God's 'infinite wisdom'. You know, deciding what is evil and what is good according to how it fits his fancy. Joobz provides plenty of good examples above.

I agree with Jesus and his Apostles who considered the Flood not nonsense, as you do, but as an historical fact.Did you read what I quoted about what the researchers William Ryan and Walter Pitman found? You are aware there was an ice age right, and that the sea levels were lower. In the Black Sea they found an ancient shoreline as well as evidence that it transitioned from a freshwater lake to saltwater 8300 years ago. Why do you ignore all these facts and evidence?


BTW
You object to having your precious science belittled but you are quite willing ready and able to belittle other people's beliefs.
Go ahead and belittle science. But I have the right to defend it just as you have the right to defend your beliefs. Science can stand up to scrutiny. Can your religion?

[Radrook]

I'm not talking about the 'rest' period after the creation. I'm talking about the time it took to create (i.e. on the first day... on the 2nd day... etc), which is 6 thousand years if we substitute millennia for days in the interest of clarity. The things that Genesis says happened over 6000 years actually took 4.5 billion years.

You broke up what I said in a way that doesn't make as much sense. This should have been a separate quote:

Days are uniform in duration. If the rest day is longer than 1000 then the six had to be longer as well.

Savage slaughterings also seem to be the result of God's 'infinite wisdom'. You know, deciding what is evil and what is good according to how it fits his fancy. Joobz provides plenty of good examples above.

From what you and they consider God's infinite wisdom.


Did you read what I quoted about what the researchers William Ryan and Walter Pitman found? You are aware there was an ice age right, and that the sea levels were lower. In the Black Sea they found an ancient shoreline as well as evidence that it transitioned from a freshwater lake to saltwater 8300 years ago. Why do you ignore all these facts and evidence?

There were geological events taking place before the first day.
That period accomodates the time period you mention.

Genesis 1
1:In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.....

Go ahead and belittle science. But I have the right to defend it just as you have the right to defend your beliefs. Science can stand up to scrutiny. Can your religion?

I don't belittle science. I belittle the misuse of science and the glorification of sciernce into a veritable god.

BTW
My beliefs are beyond that particular vulnerability that you imagine them to be.

[joobz]

From what you and they consider God's infinite wisdom.
non-responsive.





I don't belittle science. I belittle the misuse of science and the glorification of sciernce into a veritable god.
I think no one here would disagree with your choice to belittle the missuse of science or the turning it into a dogmatic system.(What I assume you mean by veritable god).

[DrBaltar]

Days are uniform in duration. If the rest day is longer than 1000 then the six had to be longer as well.Oh what tangled webs we weave... Ok, so be it. 6 'days' from the creation of heaven and the earth until the creation of man. The earth is 4.6 billion years old, so subtract 40,000 years (about how long we've been around) and 6 days = 4,599,960,000 years. Divide by 6 and a 'day' is 766,660,000 years. (Funny how Gen 1:14 distinguishes days from years by saying: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years", but if you insist...)

Time for a timeline:
4.6B - 3.8Bya: The earth was formed with an ocean, day/night established
3.8B - 3.1Bya: Atmosphere and heaven were created
3.1B - 2.3Bya: Continents, grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree
2.3B - 1.5Bya: Stars, Sun and Moon created
1.5B - 766Mya: Sea and sky animals created
766M - 40Tya: Land animals, homosapiens
40Tya - 766Million years from now: God is resting.

Do I need to refute the timing of these events or is it obviously wrong to you?

Did you read what I quoted about what the researchers William Ryan and Walter Pitman found? You are aware there was an ice age right, and that the sea levels were lower. In the Black Sea they found an ancient shoreline as well as evidence that it transitioned from a freshwater lake to saltwater 8300 years ago. Why do you ignore all these facts and evidence?There were geogical events taking place before the first day.

Genesis 1
1:In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.Actually William Ryan and Walter Pitman were talking about evidence for the ice age ending and causing a flood for the inhabitants around the Black Sea/Lake and how that's what actually happened instead of the global flood in the story of Noah. From your reply I take it you didn't read it. Try reading it this time:

In 1997 geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University in Palisades, New York, revealed with the help of sonar maps that the Black Sea passed from being an isolated freshwater lake into an inner sea at the end of the Ice Age, when the Mediterranean Sea surged over a strip of land called the Bosporus sill, which kept apart the two seas.

Sonar maps revealed the ancient shorelines covered by mud at 295 to 328 ft (90 to 100 m) under the surface of modern Black Sea. Perfectly preserved dunes pointed to a rapid submergence and preserved freshwater and marine shells tell the same story.

The new research, published in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews, focused on the age of the youngest freshwater shells and the oldest marine shells come from mud samples, pointing that the transition from fresh water to sea water occurred 8,300
years ago.

"That's the same time [that] there was a big catastrophic release of fresh water from North America," said co-author Chris Turney of the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom.

12,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age, the huge Laurentide ice sheet covering most of North America started to melt forming an enormous lake, which burst into the North Atlantic Ocean in a rapid event, rising the world's sea level by about 4.92 ft (1.5 m) about 8,100 to 8,500 years ago.

"It looks like it was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was enough to get the Mediterranean over into the Black Sea. Our age [for the Black Sea flood] fits in very nicely, bang in the middle." said Turney.

But the ancient Black Sea was already 90 m below the sea level and the flood was enormous.

I don't belittle science. I belittle the misuse of science and the glorification of sciernce into a veritable god.Hey me too!

[Radrook]

Oh what tangled webs we weave... Ok, so be it. 6 'days' from the creation of heaven and the earth until the creation of man. The earth is 4.6 billion years old, so subtract 40,000 years (about how long we've been around) and 6 days = 4,599,960,000 years. Divide by 6 and a 'day' is 766,660,000 years.

The creation of the heavens and earth are not included in the creative week. They are said to have occurred in Genesis 1 PRIOR to the beginning of the creative earth preparatory week. The creative week begins with the statement" Let there be light!" Of course since the universe had already been created light already existed. So the statement concerning light has to be understood as applicable to the earth. The existence of an obscuring dust cloud could account for this.

(Funny how Gen 1:14 distinguishes days from years by saying: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years", but if you insist...)

Context: God is speaking about how mankind will perceive things.
So the days described that way are in relation to mankind, not in relation to himself.



Time for a timeline:
4.6B - 3.8Bya: The earth was formed with an ocean, day/night established
3.8B - 3.1Bya: Atmosphere and heaven were created
3.1B - 2.3Bya: Continents, grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree
2.3B - 1.5Bya: Stars, Sun and Moon created
1.5B - 766Mya: Sea and sky animals created
766M - 40Tya: Land animals, homosapiens
40Tya - 766Million years from now: God is resting.


Obviously Genesis 1 describes the creation of the universe prior to these descriptions. Creation of the universe obviously includes stars and galaxies and our sun.

The darkness on earth's surface mention in Genesis 1 could have been due to an opaque atmosphere which needed to be make translucent. Actually, the Bible tells us that a cloud was associated with that darkness.

"I made a cloud its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band" (Job 38:4-9)

When this swaddling band was finally made transparent, the heavenly bodies such as stars moon and sun, were made to become visible from earth's surface.

BTW

I disagree with the Hebrew word (ASAH) translated as "created " since it goes contrary to the context. Since it can also convey the sense of "made" "fashion" or "worked" the following translations are far more accurate. were made to appear. or "He worked on" or "He fashioned"

Do I need to refute the timing of these events or is it obviously wrong to you?

No need to since I didn't say that each day was as long as you are assuming I said. Some say that each day is 6000 years long. Me? I remain neutral as far as the exact time duration though I know it was more than a mere 24 hour day due to the duration of the sixth rest day which is still in progress. Actually, the rest day had passed the 1000 year mark shortly after the death of Adam.

Actually William Ryan and Walter Pitman were talking about evidence for the ice age ending and causing a flood for the inhabitants around the Black Sea/Lake and how that's what actually happened instead of the global flood in the story of Noah. From your reply I take it you didn't read it. Try reading it this time:

I have had their book for about ten years now and have read it. I regularly read parts of it now and then.

Hey me too!

Good!

BTW
"Oh what tangled webs we weave..."

Why do you assume that I am trying to deceive you?

[articulett]

God cannot be questioned... he's invisible and indistinguishable from all other gods humans have created...

Science is all about questioning... it has an error correcting mechanism, and it's true whether you believe it or not... No one expects you to have faith... they'll show you how we know the earth is a sphere and not the center of the universe and that when the sun rises, it's really an illusion caused by our planet orbiting towards the sun...

That's the same information for everyone and it's a little cleared than "god said let there be light..." DNA was in our body even though your invisible science teacher didn't think to mention it...

[six7s]

I did not say science is completely harmful. My main poiint is that it can't be used to prove the non-existence of anything beyond its range. Unfortunately, the vast majority of existing things are beyond its range.

:confused:

Please identify three or four such 'existing things' that are beyond the range of science

[DrBaltar]

The creation of the heavens and earth are not included in the creative week. They are said to have occurred in Genesis 1 PRIOR to the beginning of the creative earth preparatory week. The creative week begins with the statement" Let there be light!"
If anything in Genesis is clear, it seems clear that Gen 1:1-5 occurred on the first 'day', and everything after from the end of one day to the mention of the next 'day' occurred on that next 'day'. If not you are again demonstrating how unclear the bible is.

Context: God is speaking about how mankind will perceive things. So the days described that way are in relation to mankind, not in relation to himself.Why use days as mankind understand days in parts of it, and not in other parts? Just admit it, it's unclear.

Obviously Genesis 1 describes the creation of the universe prior to these descriptions. Creation of the universe obviously includes stars and galaxies and our sun.Not obvious to me. It says in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth. To me, heaven doesn't mean universe. If we sent a space probe close to the speed of light on a course across the universe, no one would claim the spacecraft is going through heaven.

When this swaddling band was finally made transparent, the heavenly bodies such as stars moon and sun, were made to become visible from earth's surface.

BTW

I disagree with the Hebrew word (ASAH) translated as "created " since it goes contrary to the context. Since it can also convey the sense of "made" "fashion" or "worked" the following translations are far more accurate. were made to appear. or "He worked on" or "He fashioned"How would you edit genesis so that it is correct, and clear?

No need to since I didn't say that each day was as long as you are assuming I said. Some say that each day is 6000 years long. Me? I remain neutral as far as the exact time duration though I know it was more than a mere 24 hour day due to the duration of the sixth rest day which is still in progress. Actually, the rest day had passed the 1000 year mark shortly after the death of Adam.You said 'days' are uniform in duration. I asked you before how old you thought the earth is. You said as old as science says it is. Scientists find that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. Scientists also find that homosapiens came along about 40,000 years ago. Based on your 2 comments that days are uniform duration and that genesis says from the time earth was created to the time mankind was created was 6 days. As I said above: The earth is 4.6 billion years old (according to the science you accept), so subtract 40,000 years (about how long we've been around) and 6 days = 4,599,960,000 years. Divide by 6 (because, as you say, 'days' are of uniform length) and a 'day' is 766,660,000 years. Have I made a mistake in my math somewhere?

I have had their book for about ten years now and have read it. I regularly read parts of it now and then.So, for the third time, what do you think of their claims that the flood was actually the rising ocean from the melting glaciers that poured into the Black Sea/Lake?

Why do you assume that I am trying to deceive you?I don't think you're deliberately deceiving me. I think you're fumbling around with your explainations and trying to modify them to make them work when the faults are shown as I take you literally. When we first started talking about the length of 'days' you gave references inferring that a 'day' meant 1000 years. Then when pressed, you backtracked and said "Days are uniform in duration. If the rest day is longer than 1000 then the six had to be longer as well."

Again, so we're all on the same page, just please edit Genesis so I, and others, can see what it's actually saying.

[Radrook]

:confused:

Please identify three or four such 'existing things' that are beyond the range of science

I suspect that what you mean by "beyond the range of science" is different from what I mean by "beyond the range of science".

[bokonon]

The creation of the heavens and earth are not included in the creative week. They are said to have occurred in Genesis 1 PRIOR to the beginning of the creative earth preparatory week. The creative week begins with the statement" Let there be light!" Of course since the universe had already been created light already existed. So the statement concerning light has to be understood as applicable to the earth. The existence of an obscuring dust cloud could account for this.
I have a feeling that even your decision to place "in the beginning" as the beginning of the earth rather than the beginning of the universe will not reconcile Genesis with either scientific facts or common sense, but let's run with it and see, shall we?

Time for a timeline:
4.6B - 3.8Bya: The earth was formed with an ocean, day/night established
3.8B - 3.1Bya: Atmosphere and heaven were created
3.1B - 2.3Bya: Continents, grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree
2.3B - 1.5Bya: Stars, Sun and Moon created
1.5B - 766Mya: Sea and sky animals created
766M - 40Tya: Land animals, homosapiens
40Tya - 766Million years from now: God is resting.

Obviously Genesis 1 describes the creation of the universe prior to these descriptions. Creation of the universe obviously includes stars and galaxies and our sun.


And yet, Genesis 1:14-19 clearly states:

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from thenight; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Stars, moon, and sun were, according to Genesis, created on the fourth day of the creation week, which is right where DrBaltar placed them. Either you're wrong, or Genesis is wrong. You can't both be right. You can both be wrong, and if I was a betting man, that's where I'd put my money.

Obviously, the Genesis account which has grass and fruit trees growing on day 3, but doesn't provide sunlight for them until day 4, might work if we were speaking of 24-hour days. Million-year days without sunlight raises some difficult survival problems for plants which depend on photosynthesis.

The darkness on earth's surface mention in Genesis 1 could have been due to an opaque atmosphere which needed to be make translucent. Actually, the Bible tells us that a cloud was associated with that darkness.

"I made a cloud its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band" (Job 38:4-9)

When this swaddling band was finally made transparent, the heavenly bodies such as stars moon and sun, were made to become visible from earth's surface.

What hand-waving nonsense. The verses you cite from Job don't say anywhere that the "swaddling band" was made transparent. On top of that, they are clearly talking about the sea, not the earth:

8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here hall thy proud waves be stayed?


Getting back to Genesis, it tells us that there is a flaming sword which prevents man from re-entering the garden of Eden (Genesis 3:24). Where should I point Google Earth to get a look at that sucker?

[Radrook]

If anything in Genesis is clear, it seems clear that Gen 1:1-5 occurred on the first 'day', and everything after from the end of one day to the mention of the next 'day' occurred on that next 'day'. If not you are again demonstrating how unclear the bible is.

It is very clear to me and other millions who understand it exactly the way I do.

Why use days as mankind understand days in parts of it, and not in other parts? Just admit it, it's unclear.

Because the context demands that we understand it that way.


Not obvious to me. It says in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth. To me, heaven doesn't mean universe. If we sent a space probe close to the speed of light on a course across the universe, no one would claim the spacecraft is going through heaven.

You are thinking in English while the Bible was written in Hebrew and Hebrew, as any other foreign language, has its nuances. Furthermore, It's not what it means to us personally that's important, it's what meaning the author indended it to have. We know the meaning based on context. You see, the Bible is clear that the heaven where he and the angels reside was in existence prior to our universe' creation. So it could not have been that heaven that God was referring to. Neither could it have been the firmanent since thaty's part of our atmosphere and is part of the earth itself.

Notice that the word "heaven' is imediately followed by the word "earth" The only creation immediately preceding the earth was the material universe itself. The universe, in turn was preceded by the spiritual heaven where God and his angels reside.

Actually,there is nothing cryptic about the word.

Psalm 8:2-4
3When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained....

Isaiah 13:10
For the stars of heaven and the constellations ....

Mark 13:25
And the stars of heaven....

Revelation 6:13
And the stars of heaven....

How would you edit genesis so that it is correct, and clear?

I find it correct and clear as it stands.

You said 'days' are uniform in duration. I asked you before how old you thought the earth is. You said as old as science says it is. Scientists find that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. Scientists also find that homosapiens came along about 40,000 years ago. Based on your 2 comments that days are uniform duration and that genesis says from the time earth was created to the time mankind was created was 6 days.

From the time he said "Let there be light!" until the creation of Eve were the six days of preparing the earth for human habitation.


As I said above: The earth is 4.6 billion years old (according to the science you accept), so subtract 40,000 years (about how long we've been around) and 6 days = 4,599,960,000 years. Divide by 6 (because, as you say, 'days' are of uniform length) and a 'day' is 766,660,000 years. Have I made a mistake in my math somewhere?

Only in assuming that I am counting Genesis 1 and 2 where the earth is said to be void and covered in water as being part of the first day.


So, for the third time, what do you think of their claims that the flood was actually the rising ocean from the melting glaciers that poured into the Black Sea/Lake?

I was unaware that you had asked me about this three times. In any case, as I previously mentioned. Jesus himself considered the flood to have been just as Genesis described it. So if I have to choose between what these two individuals claim and what Jesus himself believed and taught-I will side with Jesus.


I don't think you're deliberately deceiving me. I think you're fumbling around with your explanations and trying to modify them to make them work when the faults are shown as I take you literally. When we first started talking about the length of 'days' you gave references inferring that a 'day' meant 1000 years. Then when pressed, you backtracked and said "Days are uniform in duration. If the rest day is longer than 1000 then the six had to be longer as well."

What I said was that God can view a day as more than simply twenty-four hours. Then I gave scriptures which mention that he can consider 1000 years as one day as he chose to do in the case of Adam and Eve. I also said that the rest day was spoken of as still being in progress during the time of the Apostles indicating that the rest day was much longer than 1000 years. Sorry about the misunderstanding and the impression that I am backtracking.


Again, so we're all on the same page, just please edit Genesis so I, and others, can see what it's actually saying.


If I found a book as difficult to understand as you describe I would simply choose not to read it. Make sense?

[Furi]

I suspect that what you mean by "beyond the range of science" is different from what I mean by "beyond the range of science".

I agree with that, oh yes indeedly. (not specifically aimed at you Radrook)

A lot of the times I hear the phrase similar to "beyond the range of science" in relation to Religion and other CTs / Woo, they normally really meant to say
"Within the Realm of Fantasy" or
"outside of the range of GCSE science",
"Outside of the range of my comprehension or desire to find out more, It might cause my cosy world view to wobble a bit"

or my favorite "Why not do a crap load of research and present a well reasoned and sourced viewpoint to refute my claim, so I can handwave it or pick the smallest and most insignificant deviation from theory to state, AHA Got you you have just proved my point, and it is no good the rest of you science types looking at me like a shoal of gaffed haddock who've lost the fight, you know I am right" (Cue mass self spanging with frying pans from all sciency types)

[six7s]

Please identify three or four such 'existing things' that are beyond the range of scienceI suspect that what you mean by "beyond the range of science" is different from what I mean by "beyond the range of science".

Your suspicions may indeed be well founded

However, that is no reason to dodge my request, which is aimed simply at gaining an understanding of what you mean

[DrBaltar]

He might possibly be a politician. Straight answers seem to elude him.

[DrBaltar]

It is very clear to me and other millions who understand it exactly the way I do.Most Christians I talk to say Genesis is allegorical, which is not how you claim to see it. I am trying to understand how you can accept what Genesis says as the truth when evidence says otherwise.

How would you edit genesis so that it is correct, and clear?I find it correct and clear as it stands.I do not doubt that you understand it. Why do you think I would ask you to clarify it? You say that the Hebrew translation of 'ASAH' is not accurately translated to 'create'. So for instance, you could substitute 'create' for a better word or words. You say 'day' means different things in different contexts. It would help greatly if you could leave 'day' where it means 24 hrs, and replace the other 'day' with however many years it's supposed to be.

More reasons that it would help if you could edit Genesis:
You are thinking in English while the Bible was written in Hebrew and Hebrew, as any other foreign language, has its nuances. Furthermore, It's not what it means to us personally that's important, it's what meaning the author indended it to have. We know the meaning based on context. You see, the Bible is clear that the heaven where he and the angels reside was in existence prior to our universe' creation. So it could not have been that heaven that God was referring to. Neither could it have been the firmanent since thaty's part of our atmosphere and is part of the earth itself.

Plus, you frequently use passages from other parts of the bible to further clarify what is in Genesis. If you could put all this information, in one place, in genesis, that would also help greatly.

I don't think my request is that unreasonable, but you seem to be blowing me off. I was a Christian up through my teenage years when I started reading Genesis and realizing that things in it were wrong. I wondered how the creator of everything could have gotten the creation story wrong. Then I started wondering about the rest of the bible. It's probably not just me wondering these things. It's probably a lot of people.

From the time he said "Let there be light!" until the creation of Eve were the six days of preparing the earth for human habitation.So that is from the time there was day and night on the earth up until the time when there were humans? We're back to 4,599,960,000 years again.

Only in assuming that I am counting Genesis 1 and 2 where the earth is said to be void and covered in water as being part of the first day.Then stop dancing around it. TELL me exactly what event "Let there be light!" refers to. Is it the creation of the sun? Because that is 'created' later. Or do you mean revealed later? Just come out and say it. Geez, it's like pulling teeth!

I was unaware that you had asked me about this three times. In any case, as I previously mentioned. Jesus himself considered the flood to have been just as Genesis described it. So if I have to choose between what these two individuals claim and what Jesus himself believed and taught-I will side with Jesus.Fine, but why would the story of the flood that Jesus backs up seem to be explained so well and with geologic evidence from multiple sources all pointing to an alternative explanation? Is this evidence planted by God to test us and see if we believe his word rather than geologic evidence? I believe what is in the bible is mostly hearsay at best but if there is a God, then nature would be his direct word since it's a product of his creation.

If I found a book as difficult to understand as you describe I would simply choose not to read it. Make sense?Makes sense. But when my state fires the state director of science for promoting evolution (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100243) then I start to get concerned. When they replace the phrase "dinosaurs lived millions of years ago" to "dinosaurs lived a long time ago" in science text books I get concerned. When IMAX theaters start yanking volcano movies in the south (http://www.dirtygreek.org/journal.php?journalId=1111) because the backward hicks here in the bible belt might get offended when it mentions evolution, I get concerned. When they start teaching my child creationism in a science class I get concerned. Sure, I could teach her myself, but why should I have to home school my child in science in the leading industrial nation of the world?

So yeah, I want to know why certain people stick their fingers in their ears at verifiable evidence from multiple sources but look at something like Genesis and say "Yup yup yup... that's what happened."

[sphenisc]

Have I made a mistake in my math somewhere?


Generally "k" is used to represent thousands. "T" meaning "Tera" being 10^12.

[/nitpick]

[UnrepentantSinner]

Generally "k" is used to represent thousands. "T" meaning "Tera" being 10^12.

[/nitpick]

He used B instead of G for Giga so he was correct in usuing Bya/Mya/Tya, though it appears he should have had the first letter lower case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tya).

[sphenisc]

He used B instead of G for Giga so he was correct in usuing Bya/Mya/Tya, though it appears he should have had the first letter lower case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tya).

I sit half-corrected. :)

[Radrook]

Most Christians I talk to say Genesis is allegorical, which is not how you claim to see it.

That's bandwagon. Furthermore, you misrepresent by saying it is my idea when I clearly demonstrated via scripture that Jesus himself and his apostles also taught Genesis as historical fact. Now, I ask you, if I claimed to be a follower of Mohammed and called Mohammed a liar, or if I say I am Buddhist and call Buddha a liar. How seriously would you take my claim? The answer would be obvious were it not for your vehement need to doubt whatever it is that might contradict your preconceptions. In that case the thinking abilities are put on hold and logic no longer applies.


I am trying to understand how you can accept what Genesis says as the truth when evidence says otherwise.

What YOU and other atheists and people who have chosen to call Jesus a liar while claiming to be his followers consider evidence


I do not doubt that you understand it. Why do you think I would ask you to clarify it? You say that the Hebrew translation of 'ASAH' is not accurately translated to 'create'. So for instance, you could substitute 'create' for a better word or words. You say 'day' means different things in different contexts. It would help greatly if you could leave 'day' where it means 24 hrs, and replace the other 'day' with however many years it's supposed to be.

If you read the Genesis account you will notice that Adam was to die in the very day in which he sinned. Yet God allowed Adam to live to almost 1000 years. Obviously, then, God wasn't using the word "day" in the way insist that he always use it.

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 5:5
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.[/b]


2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

What is the Biblical Evidence for Long Days in Genesis?
File type:PDF - Download PDF Reader
... hence, the seventh day has been at least six thousand years long, even on the shortest of all ...
www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0804.pdf



Plus, you frequently use passages from other parts of the bible to further clarify what is in Genesis. If you could put all this information, in one place, in genesis, that would also help greatly.

Your objections are understandable since we view the Bible differently.

Romans 15:4
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

I don't think my request is that unreasonable, but you seem to be blowing me off. I was a Christian up through my teenage years when I started reading Genesis and realizing that things in it were wrong. I wondered how the creator of everything could have gotten the creation story wrong. Then I started wondering about the rest of the bible. It's probably not just me wondering these things. It's probably a lot of people.

So that is from the time there was day and night on the earth up until the time when there were humans? We're back to 4,599,960,000 years again.

Not evading but simply unable to understand why you find my explanation so difficult to grasp. Maybe it's because you aren't reading what I say carefully? As to not understanding Genesis or finding flaw with it, that does happen sometimes with some people and so they choose to become atheists or agnostics while others find no difficulties with Genesis at all.

Then stop dancing around it. TELL me exactly what event "Let there be light!" refers to. Is it the creation of the sun? Because that is 'created' later. Or do you mean revealed later? Just come out and say it. Geez, it's like pulling teeth!0


Please reread my posts in which a clear explanation has already been given in reference to your question.


Fine, but why would the story of the flood that Jesus backs up seem to be explained so well and with geologic evidence from multiple sources all pointing to an alternative explanation? Is this evidence planted by God to test us and see if we believe his word rather than geologic evidence? I believe what is in the bible is mostly hearsay at best but if there is a God, then nature would be his direct word since it's a product of his creation.

That would be 100% acceptable if a rebellion, with all its attending consequences, would not have taken place.

Revelation 12:9

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.



Makes sense. But when my state fires the state director of science for promoting evolution (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100243) then I start to get concerned. When they replace the phrase "dinosaurs lived millions of years ago" to "dinosaurs lived a long time ago" in science text books I get concerned. When IMAX theaters start yanking volcano movies in the south (http://www.dirtygreek.org/journal.php?journalId=1111) because the backward hicks here in the bible belt might get offended when it mentions evolution, I get concerned. When they start teaching my child creationism in a science class I get concerned. Sure, I could teach her myself, but why should I have to home school my child in science in the leading industrial nation of the world?

So yeah, I want to know why certain people stick their fingers in their ears at verifiable evidence from multiple sources but look at something like Genesis and say "Yup yup yup... that's what happened."

I understand your concern and respect your right to your views and to your choices although I doubt that inability to understand the motives of others is the reason for your interest. However, I am sure that your motives are noble.

Please take note also that I have equal respect for my right to my views and my choices. Actually, in that area there is little for you to presently worry about much less dedicate your time to a biblical besmirching campaign since in terms of equitable exposure to ideas via public education evolutionists and atheists presently enjoy a far superior position as opposed to creationists. And I say presently because the future will be quite different.

Habakkuk 2:14
For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.[


BTW

I often wonder the same about atheists in terms of sticking fingers in ears so as not to hear and covering eyes so as not to see. Nothing new, actually.

Matthew 13:15
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,....

[NobbyNobbs]

He is resting from the type of activitiy he had been engaged in during the prior six creative days. You know, the same way that you don't do the same type of activty on Sundays that you do on your working days.

Goalposts ------------------------------->thataway.





How is it that scientists sense the existence of dark matter when they themselves aren't made of dark matter?

How is it that scientists sense the existence of plutonium when they themselves aren't made of plutonium?





You object to having your precious science belittled but you are quite willing ready and able to belittle other people's beliefs.

Actually, what we are doing is endorsing having science questioned, and we are willing, ready, and able to question other people's beliefs. The only reason it often devolves into belittlement is when we ask similar questions over and over and get the run-around when it comes to a straight answer.

Days are uniform in duration. If the rest day is longer than 1000 then the six had to be longer as well.


The creation of the heavens and earth are not included in the creative week. They are said to have occurred in Genesis 1 PRIOR to the beginning of the creative earth preparatory week. The creative week begins with the statement" Let there be light!" Of course since the universe had already been created light already existed. So the statement concerning light has to be understood as applicable to the earth. The existence of an obscuring dust cloud could account for this.


Obviously Genesis 1 describes the creation of the universe prior to these descriptions. Creation of the universe obviously (NOT!) includes stars and galaxies and our sun.

The darkness on earth's surface mention in Genesis 1 could have been due to an opaque atmosphere which needed to be make translucent.


I disagree with the Hebrew word (ASAH) translated as "created " since it goes contrary to the context. Since it can also convey the sense of "made" "fashion" or "worked" the following translations are far more accurate. were made to appear. or "He worked on" or "He fashioned"


No need to since I didn't say that each day was as long as you are assuming I said. Some say that each day is 6000 years long. Me? I remain neutral as far as the exact time duration though I know it was more than a mere 24 hour day due to the duration of the sixth rest day which is still in progress. Actually, the rest day had passed the 1000 year mark shortly after the death of Adam.


So much for "clearly states".


It is very clear to me and other millions who understand it exactly the way I do.

According to the above, it isn't even clear to you, since you "remain neutral" on the issue of something as simple and basic as the length of a day.

Not only that, but there are millions of others who see it just as clearly, and yet differently, than you do. Any chance they are right and you are wrong? If so, it's obviously not clear. If not, what makes your interpretation right? Either way, the fact that millions interpret it one way and millions interpret it another means it isn't clear.





You are thinking in English while the Bible was written in Hebrew and Hebrew, as any other foreign language, has its nuances. Furthermore, It's not what it means to us personally that's important, it's what meaning the author indended it to have.

First of all, it was written in Aramaic. Secondly, are you a Hebrew or Aramaic scholar? If not, how are you sure your interpretation is correct? Thirdly, if what's important is the meaning the author intended it to have, are you suggested you know the intentions of God? Isn't that a bit presumptuous?



If I found a book as difficult to understand as you describe I would simply choose not to read it. Make sense?


Possibly. Or, having read it, you might describe it as "unclear", yes?

[NobbyNobbs]

If you read the Genesis account you will notice that Adam was to die in the very day in which he sinned. Yet God allowed Adam to live to almost 1000 years. Obviously, then, God wasn't using the word "day" in the way insist that he always use it.


...or, God lied. Or the story is allegorical. Your explanation isn't the only conceivable one.

[Radrook]

He might possibly be a politician. Straight answers seem to elude him.

I think that accusation isn't justified.

[Radrook]

...or, God lied. Or the story is allegorical. Your explanation isn't the only conceivable one.


Of course my explanation isn't the only conceivable one. I never said that it is. However, your claim that one explanation is as good as the other in relation to the Bible is fallascious since there are explanations which contradict what Jesus said and what all the prophets and writings tell us about Genesis. The only way to accept such an explanation is to call Jesus a liar which seems to be OK by you but isn't OK by me.

BTW

You are entitled to the opinion that God lied. But that's not what the present facts and history indicates.

[Radrook]

Snip! Snip!

Actually, what we are doing is endorsing having science questioned, and we are willing, ready, and able to question other people's beliefs. The only reason it often devolves into belittlement is when we ask similar questions over and over and get the run-around when it comes to a straight answer.


What you tag as getting the run around due to your refusal to accept the answer.

BTW
What are you endorsing? Me? I am only responding to questions. No questions, no responses. Make sense?


Snipo!

According to the above, it isn't even clear to you, since you "remain neutral" on the issue of something as simple and basic as the length of a day.

If I take a stand then I am being dogmatic or am basing it on unfounded evidence or some other hackneyed accusation-right? The Bible is clear for the purpose for which it was written, the salvation of mankind via the sacrifice of Jesus. All these other tidbits over which you choose to eternally nit-pick don't affect that essential. Neither does your nit-picking prove anything but a predisposition to view anything written in the Bible as flawed.
That very approach to the Bible results in your inability to understand.

Proverbs 2:3-4


Not only that, but there are millions of others who see it just as clearly, and yet differently, than you do. Any chance they are right and you are wrong? If so, it's obviously not clear. If not, what makes your interpretation right?

I don't call Jesus a liar-that's what makes my interpretation right.


Either way, the fact that millions interpret it one way and millions interpret it another means it isn't clear.

Not necessarily, it can also mean that they bring the wrong attitude and understanding is denied them by default since they don't deserve it due to their wrong motives or insincerity.

First of all, it was written in Aramaic.

I know that Aramaic was also used. But the major portion was in Hebrew unless that fact suddenly changed over the course of the last 40 years.


Secondly,are you a Hebrew or Aramaic scholar? If not, how are you sure your interpretation is correct? Thirdly, if what's important is the meaning the author intended it to have, are you suggested you know the intentions of God? Isn't that a bit presumptuous?

You don't need to be a Hebrew or Aramaic Scholar in order to understand the Bible. Do you need to know English in order to understand Shakespeare's plays? The plays are translated regularly into other languages and thoroughly understood and appreciated.

The Bible was written in order to inform us of God's intentions and to be understood. So how in heaven's name is claiming to understand it in reference to God's intentions being presumptuous. Please excuse me but this is really AMAZING! LOL



Possibly. Or, having read it, you might describe it as "unclear", yes?

Nothing unusual in that in view of the different motives people have in reading it. Neither does it prove anything about the book itself.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I sit half-corrected. :)

No! Stand proudly and obstinately because I love pedantic objections with a basis in fact, even if sabotaged by technospeak. :thumbsup:

[DrBaltar]

What YOU and other atheists and people who have chosen to call Jesus a liar while claiming to be his followers consider evidenceIf it's incorrect there must be a flaw in the evidence. You said you have William Ryan and Walter Pitman's book and read parts of it regularly. Where are the flaws in the evidence?

If you read the Genesis account you will notice that Adam was to die in the very day in which he sinned. Yet God allowed Adam to live to almost 1000 years. Obviously, then, God wasn't using the word "day" in the way insist that he always use it.That tells me nothing except that Adam died in the same 'day'. It only says a 'day' is at least 1000 years. Apparently he would have been immortal otherwise?


Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 5:5
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.[/b]

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Let's begin clearing things up. These are two quotes from Genesis both using 'day' and meaning, as you say, two different things. I propose the following changes:

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the dayC that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 5:5
And all the dayAs that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.[/b]

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one dayB is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Let dayA be of the 24 hr variety, dayB is defined by Peter to be 1000 years, and dayC be the day whose length has yet to be defined. It may also be 1000 years and therefore equal to dayB, but also possibly either 6000 years, or 766,660,000 years.

Not evading but simply unable to understand why you find my explanation so difficult to grasp. Maybe it's because you aren't reading what I say carefully?Evasion is when in response to my questions you give several examples of what a length of a day is when you could have simply said a day is (fill in the blank) years. Or if the length of day changes throughout Gen 1 then you could have simply edited it to show how long a day means in each context.

Please reread my posts in which a clear explanation has already been given in reference to your question.Evasion: you could have simply stated "Let there be light refers to (fill in the event).

I understand your concern and respect your right to your views and to your choices although I doubt that inability to understand the motives of others is the reason for your interest. However, I am sure that your motives are noble.No, I'd really like to know why science teachers are increasingly asked to ignore scientific evidence and give lip service to completely unproven superstitions.

Please take note also that I have equal respect for my right to my views and my choices. Actually, in that area there is little for you to presently worryYou doubt that the incidents I cited above about science education exist?

Habakkuk 2:14
For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.Would this knowledge of the glory of the lord enable me to look past the fact that seas are made of water and not covered by water?

I don't call Jesus a liar-that's what makes my interpretation right.


This reminds me so much of Kissing Hank's Ass (http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php)...
Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the **** out of people just because they're different?"

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."

[NobbyNobbs]

You are entitled to the opinion that God lied. But that's not what the present facts and history indicates.

I would love to see a list of those facts and history. Are any of them from sources other than the bible?



If I take a stand then I am being dogmatic or am basing it on unfounded evidence or some other hackneyed accusation-right? The Bible is clear for the purpose for which it was written, the salvation of mankind via the sacrifice of Jesus. All these other tidbits over which you choose to eternally nit-pick don't affect that essential. Neither does your nit-picking prove anything but a predisposition to view anything written in the Bible as flawed.
That very approach to the Bible results in your inability to understand.

No, the nitpicking serves to determine whether the reference (in this case, the bible) is a legitimate one. If I read a scientific research paper that was rife with spelling and grammatical errors, I would have to wonder, "If these guys couldn't be bothered to use a spell check, what else have they screwed up?"

If the bible can't keep its story straight on how long a day is, or the linneage of Jesus, or any one of a number of contradictions, I have to wonder, "What else is wrong in there?"



I don't call Jesus a liar-that's what makes my interpretation right.

I've never quite faced egotism like this before, so I don't really know how to respond to it. I'm a bit flabbergasted.

Not necessarily, it can also mean that they bring the wrong attitude and understanding is denied them by default since they don't deserve it due to their wrong motives or insincerity.

Ah yes, blame the audience. So if I were to say to you, "Blue horse gel, overcome computer staple, lids on mug time.", I can then complain that the reason you didn't understand the true meaning of my message is because you have the wrong attitude? Because you choose not to understand?



I know that Aramaic was also used. But the major portion was in Hebrew unless that fact suddenly changed over the course of the last 40 years.

I stand corrected. I was under the impression that the majority was written in Aramaic. I should have googled first: "A few chapters of the books Ezra (ch. 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26) and Daniel (ch. 2:4 to 7:28), one verse in Jeremiah (ch. 10:11, and a word in Genesis (ch. 31:47) are written, not in ancient Hebrew, but in Aramaic." The New Testament was written in Greek.



You don't need to be a Hebrew or Aramaic Scholar in order to understand the Bible. Do you need to know English in order to understand Shakespeare's plays? The plays are translated regularly into other languages and thoroughly understood and appreciated.

Unless you are prepared for the inevitable mistranslations and misinterpretations that follow from translation, then yes, you do need to be a Hebrew scholar. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say that a particular play by a Russian playwright really needs to be seen in Russian. Or that a particular word in Spanish doesn't really have an English equivalent.

Besides, you haven't really experienced Shakespeare until you've read it in the original Klingon. :D

The Bible was written in order to inform us of God's intentions and to be understood. So how in heaven's name is claiming to understand it in reference to God's intentions being presumptuous. Please excuse me but this is really AMAZING! LOL

First of all, if it was intended to be understood, it's doing a singularly bad job of it. There are a little more than 2.1 billion Christians in the world, not even a majority. Which means this book has not been "truly understood" by two-thirds of all people currently living. Then, within Christianity, you have all the different sects who cannot agree on meaning and interpretation. I don't know what sect you are associated with, so I don't know how many people agree with your interpretation, but no matter how you look at it, the bible is not well understood by the large majority of people. So if God wrote it, or inspired it to be written, to be understood, well, maybe the Holy Spirit should have written it instead. Because then it'd be a Ghost writer. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Second, I mention "presumptuous" because a) you claim to understand the bible, and b) you say it is understood with reference to God's intentions. Which means you need to know God's intentions. So tell me: how do you know God's intentions?

And if you do, maybe you can finally explain all the horrific stuff that goes on in our world. Most religious people I ask say "It's not for us to know the will of God." But since you have an inside line, perhaps you could enlighten us.

[DrBaltar]

Second, I mention "presumptuous" because a) you claim to understand the bible, and b) you say it is understood with reference to God's intentions. Which means you need to know God's intentions. So tell me: how do you know God's intentions?

And if you do, maybe you can finally explain all the horrific stuff that goes on in our world. Most religious people I ask say "It's not for us to know the will of God." But since you have an inside line, perhaps you could enlighten us.

It is not for us to know what Radrook knows.

[six7s]

I think that accusation isn't justified.

You might want to believe that.

However, if you actually think about it, you'll realise that it does indeed seem reasonable, given that you have only given my request the brush-off
Please identify three or four such 'existing things' that are beyond the range of science I suspect that what you mean by "beyond the range of science" is different from what I mean by "beyond the range of science"

Please, feel free to prove that you are not here simply to spin your woo like a politician

What YOU and other atheists and people who have chosen to call Jesus a liar while claiming to be his followers consider evidence

Relax! Before anyone could assert that Jesus was a liar, there would have to be an accurate record of what he said.

Your objections are understandable since we view the Bible differently.

Indeed

Despite more holes and less substance than a sieve, you still manage to get hung up on the idea that it is a reliable source

Please reread my posts in which a clear explanation has already been given in reference to your question.

If YOU reread your posts, you'll see that you have NOT clearly explained anything

I don't call Jesus a liar-that's what makes my interpretation right.
I've never quite faced egotism like this before, so I don't really know how to respond to it. I'm a bit flabbergasted.

Egotism and/or self-delusion to the point of being blind to the non-sequitur?

I don't like country and western - that's what makes me a chef

[Radrook]

You might want to believe that.

However, if you actually think about it, you'll realise that it does indeed seem reasonable, given that you have only given my request the brush-off


Please, feel free to prove that you are not here simply to spin your woo like a politician

I don't go into this because it's so obvious as to be not worth going into. Not brushing you off just saving us the unnecessary time.

Relax! Before anyone could assert that Jesus was a liar, there would have to be an accurate record of what he said.

And you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.


Indeed

Despite more holes and less substance than a sieve, you still manage to get hung up on the idea that it is a reliable source

Well, just count yourself blessed that you aren't as dense as you think I am.

If YOU reread your posts, you'll see that you have NOT clearly explained anything Egotism and/or self-delusion to the point of being blind to the non-sequitur? I don't like country and western - that's what makes me a chef

Sorry you feel that way. If I am so unintelligible why read my responses to questions and continue to ask me questions?

[six7s]

Not brushing you off just saving us the unnecessary time.

Yeah, riiiiiiiigggghhhhhttt...

Like a minute or so for you to type and 10 seconds for me to read

Well, just count yourself blessed that you aren't as dense as you think I am.

This might come as a surprise, but I don't think you're dense

Insecure in your woo, yes

But not dense

Oh, and please don't 'bless' me again - I find that genuinely offensive

If I am so unintelligible why read my responses to questions and continue to ask me questions?

Call me a woo-filter

Actually, call me whatever you want

You may as well, cos I (or others like me) will be 'calling you' whenever you persist in promoting unsubstantiated woo



Relax! Before anyone could assert that Jesus was a liar, there would have to be an accurate record of what he said.And you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

I don't have an opinion

Instead, I made an assertion (that there is no accurate record re what Jesus said) based on an observation that indicates significant inconsistencies in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - the four authors most likely (I think) to have any idea what was said

See http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

If you have resources that are better than the gospels, please name them

What is your opinion?

How did you arrive at it?

[Radrook]

I would love to see a list of those facts and history. Are any of them from sources other than the bible?

Sure.

No, the nitpicking serves to determine whether the reference (in this case, the bible) is a legitimate one. If I read a scientific research paper that was rife with spelling and grammatical errors, I would have to wonder, "If these guys couldn't be bothered to use a spell check, what else have they screwed up?"

If the bible can't keep its story straight on how long a day is, or the linneage of Jesus, or any one of a number of contradictions, I have to wonder, "What else is wrong in there?"

That is your opinion to which you are entitled.

I've never quite faced egotism like this before, so I don't really know how to respond to it. I'm a bit flabbergasted.

I am an egostist? I thought you were interested in the Christian viewpoint--not in getting in snide remarks.

Ah yes, blame the audience. So if I were to say to you, "Blue horse gel, overcome computer staple, lids on mug time.", I can then complain that the reason you didn't understand the true meaning of my message is because you have the wrong attitude? Because you choose not to understand?

Understanding isn't allowed just anyone-especially when the person doing the reading is really out to trash everything biblical he can get his meat hooks into.

I stand corrected. I was under the impression that the majority was written in Aramaic. I should have googled first: "A few chapters of the books Ezra (ch. 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26) and Daniel (ch. 2:4 to 7:28), one verse in Jeremiah (ch. 10:11, and a word in Genesis (ch. 31:47) are written, not in ancient Hebrew, but in Aramaic." The New Testament was written in Greek.

Koine Greek to be exact.

Unless you are prepared for the inevitable mistranslations and misinterpretations that follow from translation, then yes, you do need to be a Hebrew scholar. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say that a particular play by a Russian playwright really needs to be seen in Russian. Or that a particular word in Spanish doesn't really have an English equivalent.

Knowing Hebrew doesn't guarantee lack of bias. Also, the Bible uses simple language. Words describing everyday things like trees, rivers, houses, stars, heaven and do forth. Words common to every language. If indeed there is mistranslation it isn't based on difficulty but on doctrinal bias of those doing the translating.

Besides, you haven't really experienced Shakespeare until you've read it in the original Klingon. :D

It is translated with sufficient clarity to allow understanding of its central theme-the salvation of mankind via the Ransom sacrifice.

First of all, if it was intended to be understood, it's doing a singularly bad job of it. There are a little more than 2.1 billion Christians in the world, not even a majority. Which means this book has not been "truly understood" by two-thirds of all people currently living.

Especially since those people reject it practically from birth due to cultural influences and not because of attempting to understand it.

Within Christianity, you have all the different sects who cannot agree on meaning and interpretation. I don't know what sect you are associated with, so I don't know how many people agree with your interpretation, but no matter how you look at it, the bible is not well understood by the large majority of people. So if God wrote it, or inspired it to be written, to be understood, well, maybe the Holy Spirit should have written it instead. Because then it'd be a Ghost writer. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

First, the Bible itself tells us that there would come a time when its Christian teachings would be twisted into diverse doctrines after the death of the Apostles.

Acts 20:
29.For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

2 Timothy 4:3, 4

3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

It is referred to as the Apostasy and it is attributed to the efforts of God's enemy Satan and those who feign Christianity but who are really in Satan's service. Jesus referred to it as the sowing of the weed among the wheat.

2 Corinthians 11:14-16

14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

15Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

As for a host of people who don't understand, you are wrong in assuming it is because of any inherent flaw. It is common knowledge that socialization programs people to accept or reject certain ideas while preferring others. This is the case in China, India, and other parts of Asia and Africa just to mention a few.

Neither was it meant to be understood by those seeking to trash it.

Matthew 7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

But for those who come in contact with it and are willing to humbly learn, it is written sufficiently clearly to get its primary message across, the salvation of mankind via the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus. That is the main theme that runs through all sects calling themselves Christians because that is the essential message of the Bible. All other disagreements do not annul a person's faith in that Ransom.


I mention "presumptuous" because a) you claim to understand the bible, and b) you say it is understood with reference to God's intentions. Which means you need to know God's intentions. So tell me: how do you know God's intentions?

And if you do, maybe you can finally explain all the horrific stuff that goes on in our world. Most religious people I ask say "It's not for us to know the will of God." But since you have an inside line, perhaps you could enlighten us.

There is NOTHING mysterious about knowing God's intentions since he makes those intentions known from the very beginning of human history starting in Genesis and terminating in Revelations.

One thing he makes clear is that he will direnctly terminate this situation by directly intervening.

Daniel 2:44
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

The conditions he plans to establish once that is done are also described.

Revelation 21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


Nothing mystrerious about that.

As for our present situation, again the bible tells us clearly why we are in this mess and what God plans to do about it.

Ecclesiastes 7:29
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

So if there is a mystery in what's on GOd's mind it isn't supposed to be a mystery to a Christian or anyone else reading the BIble who is humbly seeking to understand it and not trash it.

BTW
I don't like to be talked about in the second person in my presence. I find it disrespectful and annoying and am asking you to please desist if you wish this conversation to continue.
If you want to use ad hominem I suggest you do so by using the private message option. Otherwise you are baiting me into a heated argument-a method I respond to not by arguing but by simply terminating the discussion with the person or person's involved in the attacks.

[Radrook]

If it's incorrect there must be a flaw in the evidence. You said you have William Ryan and Walter Pitman's book and read parts of it regularly. Where are the flaws in the evidence?

I don't reject the evidence they present. What I reject is their conclusion that it was the flood described in Genesis. So the evidence isn't really relevant since that flood could have followed the Genesis flood or even have occurred prior to the Genesis flood.
It all depends on how they are dating it. But one thing is for sure, it wasn't the Genesis flood since the Genesis flood is described as being worldwide.

That tells me nothing except that Adam died in the same 'day'. It only says a 'day' is at least 1000 years. Apparently he would have been immortal otherwise? Let's begin clearing things up. These are two quotes from Genesis both using 'day' and meaning, as you say, two different things. I propose the following changes:

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the dayC that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 5:5
And all the dayAs that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.[/b]

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one dayB is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Let dayA be of the 24 hr variety, dayB is defined by Peter to be 1000 years, and dayC be the day whose length has yet to be defined. It may also be 1000 years and therefore equal to dayB, but also possibly either 6000 years, or 766,660,000 years.

Evasion is when in response to my questions you give several examples of what a length of a day is when you could have simply said a day is (fill in the blank) years. Or if the length of day changes throughout Gen 1 then you could have simply edited it to show how long a day means in each context.

Several, means three. I only provided two. Neither did I say that both applied to the same time period. The thousand year one obviously applies to Adam and Eve. The longer one, and it is longer since that rest day was spoken of being still in effect thousands of years later during our first century, obviously applies to the rest day. So when you ask, these two duration's have to be in the answer. As to my not taking a definite stand, that doesn't mean that I don't accept the 1000 year period or reject the longer creative day period. It simply means that I prefer to reserve my opinion as to how long the creative days were though I do accept that they were longer than 24 hours. Actually, the six thousand year for each creative day would make the creative week 36,000 years long.

BTW

Here is another reference to the way God might choose to view a day.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Some have suggested that his ability to choose to view a day as any length can be attributed to his being in the eternal now and not within the stream of time itself.

Actually, the concept isn't that difficult to understand when we consider the effects that faster than light travel can have on our perception of time. Also, by the way time seems to flow faster and faster as we age. God being eternal has had a long time to age and time perception might very well have been affected in this manner. But that is mere speculation and deviates somewhat from the subject.

BTW
You are right in concluding that Adam and Eve were designed for eternal life. Immortality? Well, that's another subject altogether.

Evasion: you could have simply stated "Let there be light refers to (fill in the event).

Sorry if I gave the impression of evasion. You are right. I should have immediately provided a direct clarification and avoided all the ensuing confusion. My bad. But not intentional. Health problems make concentration difficult sometimes.

No, I'd really like to know why science teachers are increasingly asked to ignore scientific evidence and give lip service to completely unproven superstitions. You doubt that the incidents I cited above about science education exist? Would this knowledge of the glory of the lord enable me to look past the fact that seas are made of water and not covered by water?

How in heaven's name did you reach the conclusion that the Bible teaches that the seas are not made of water?


This reminds me so much of Kissing Hank's Ass (http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php)...

Sorry you feel that way.

[DrBaltar]

If Radrook were born in Saudi Arabia, he would probably be a devout Muslim and would consider Jesus a false prophet.

[Radrook]

If Radrook were born in Saudi Arabia, he would probably be a devout Muslim and would consider Jesus a false prophet.

Actually, I have never encountered a Muslim who has spoken disrespectfully of Jesus. Quite to the contrary, they honor him as a prophet and even say something along the lines of "Blessed be his name" whenever they mention him. They don't, however, accept him as being the Son of God nor as being God's final prophet. Instead they say that he promised the coming of Mohammed which is God's final prophet. But you are right, everyone's views are affected in one way or another by the culture in which he or she is socialized.


Excerpt

Q. [b]What does the Qur'an say about Jesus?

From Huda, Your Guide to Islam.

A. In the Qur'an, stories about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (called 'Isa in Arabic) are abundant. The Qur'an recalls his miraculous birth, his teachings, the miracles he performed by God's permission, and his life as a respected prophet of God. The Qur'an also repeatedly reminds that Jesus was a human prophet sent by God, not part of God Himself
islam.about.com/cs/jesus/f/jesus_quran.htm

[PBTree]

I agree with Jesus and his Apostles who considered the Flood not nonsense, as you do, but as an historical fact.



You point to jesus as a verifier of the flood. How does this make it a fact? There is no proof that even he exists. What other book from the period of his existence mentions him? Point me to something that mentions his name. Surely healing the blind, bringing someone back from the dead, vandalising the temple, feeding thousands with a few fish sandwiches and personally coming back from the dead, would rate a mention in someone's diary/book/government papers etc etc from that period.

And, where are all of the Egyptian hieroglyphics and/or writings that mention plagues of locust, rivers of blood, firstborn deaths, red sea opening, armys being drowned. Or didn't the egyptians think any of this was important enough to write about. I mean, why would they care that all of their servants/slaves/workers had just gone on strike and were heading home with some bloke called moses.

Strange that we have found so much of their writings and they wrote about so many un-important things but didn't mention any of this.

[NobbyNobbs]

Sure.

Ok...are you going to give examples, or just tell me they exist? This is a very unhelpful and evasive response.

Understanding isn't allowed just anyone-especially when the person doing the reading is really out to trash everything biblical he can get his meat hooks into.

I could have sworn that somewhere in the bible it talks about how God's word is meant for everyone.

Also, the Bible uses simple language. Words describing everyday things like trees, rivers, houses, stars, heaven and do forth. Words common to every language.
If indeed there is mistranslation it isn't based on difficulty but on doctrinal bias of those doing the translating.

Oh, you mean words like "day"?


Especially since those people reject it practically from birth due to cultural influences and not because of attempting to understand it.

Exactly. Which is why one of the reasons you accept it is due to an accident of birth. If you were born in a different time, or a different place, to different people, you'd think differently. Therefore, the bible isn't absolute and utter Truth with a capital T. It has meaning only to those born into a particular culture at a particular time.



As for a host of people who don't understand, you are wrong in assuming it is because of any inherent flaw. It is common knowledge that socialization programs people to accept or reject certain ideas while preferring others. This is the case in China, India, and other parts of Asia and Africa just to mention a few.

Um...it's true here, too. Chances are, you're a victim of it in some way as much as anyone else.

For example, most people in America reject the idea of dogs as food. It is perfectly acceptable in China, and if you think about it very objectively, there's no reason why a pig should be eaten and a dog shouldn't. Yet Americans, because of socialization, reject the idea. Does this make the idea that dogs shouldn't be food inherently right? No. Inherently wrong? No.


There is NOTHING mysterious about knowing God's intentions since he makes those intentions known from the very beginning of human history starting in Genesis and terminating in Revelations.

Circular logic. You know God's intentions through interpretation of the bible, and you interpret the bible by way of knowing God's intentions.

One thing he makes clear is that he will direnctly terminate this situation by directly intervening.

Does he make clear *when* or *how*?




As for our present situation, again the bible tells us clearly why we are in this mess and what God plans to do about it.

Ecclesiastes 7:29
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Wait...so we're in trouble because we invented things....using the creativity, forethought, and intellect that God gave us? Talk about setting us up for failure. "Here, kid, here's some paper, and paint, and a paintbrush. Go have fun. I'll come back in a bit to yell at you for getting some paint on the brush and paper."


BTW
I don't like to be talked about in the second person in my presence. I find it disrespectful and annoying and am asking you to please desist if you wish this conversation to continue.
If you want to use ad hominem I suggest you do so by using the private message option. Otherwise you are baiting me into a heated argument-a method I respond to not by arguing but by simply terminating the discussion with the person or person's involved in the attacks.

How shall we talk to you? In the third person? It would sound a lot more insulting if we did. "Radrook is pontificating again....what did Radrook say this time?....Let's put him on ignore...." etc.

I'm not really sure where this little rant came from or what it was in reference to.

I'm not intending to insult anyone, honestly. I'm just trying to gain some insight as to why people believe what they do, including why you believe what you do. I find it ironic that in doing so, I'm accused of being close-minded, unaccepting, and plain old not wanting to listen and learn.

[DrBaltar]

I don't reject the evidence they present. What I reject is their conclusion that it was the flood described in Genesis. So the evidence isn't really relevant since that flood could have followed the Genesis flood or even have occurred prior to the Genesis flood.
It all depends on how they are dating it. But one thing is for sure, it wasn't the Genesis flood since the Genesis flood is described as being worldwide.The event they describe is a worldwide event. As the glaciers melted the sea levels rose everywhere. In some places it was gradual and not catastrophic. In others, like the Black Sea, it was. Ten cubic miles of water poured through to the Black Sea each day, two hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls. The Bosporus flume roared and surged at this rate for at least three hundred days.

It seems pretty coincidental that this event happened at this location at about the same time as the Noah story. And if these were two separate events, it seems odd that the catastrophic event caused by the receding ice age warranted no mention.

Neither did I say that both applied to the same time period. The thousand year one obviously applies to Adam and Eve. The longer one, and it is longer since that rest day was spoken of being still in effect thousands of years later during our first century, obviously applies to the rest day.It would have to be much longer. I did a little research, and it looks like homosapiens have been around for 150,000 - 200,000 years, rather than the 40,000 I originally thought. So after god created man, he rested one of his 'days', which lasted at least until the first century (I assume you meant A.D.). Until I have better information it's looking like god's day is at least 150,000 - 200,000 years long. And I say at least because for the last 2,000 years he still seems to be resting.

Some have suggested that his ability to choose to view a day as any length can be attributed to his being in the eternal now and not within the stream of time itself.'Some' people suggest all kinds of things. 'Some' other people also suggest there is no god.

Actually, the concept isn't that difficult to understand when we consider the effects that faster than light travel can have on our perception of time. Also, by the way time seems to flow faster and faster as we age. God being eternal has had a long time to age and time perception might very well have been affected in this manner. But that is mere speculation and deviates somewhat from the subject.If time flows faster and faster as we age, and god's age is infinite, then time would flow infinitely fast for him. No, I think god is able to tell time.

BTW
You are right in concluding that Adam and Eve were designed for eternal life. Immortality? Well, that's another subject altogether.Well who's screw up shortened life spans from 930 years to 20-30 years? That's how long humans used to live. And which awesome person was so great that god extended our lifespans to the 80 or so years it is now?

Evasion: you could have simply stated "Let there be light refers to (fill in the event).Sorry if I gave the impression of evasion. You are right. I should have immediately provided a direct clarification and avoided all the ensuing confusion. My bad. But not intentional. Health problems make concentration difficult sometimes.LOL even when acknowledging your evasion you continue to evade. What event does 'let there be light' refer to?

How in heaven's name did you reach the conclusion that the Bible teaches that the seas are not made of water?

From your quote:
Habakkuk 2:14
For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

If water is said to cover the sea, then it is implied that the sea is something else other than water.

This reminds me so much of Kissing Hank's Ass (http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php)...Sorry you feel that way.Don't be sorry. The feeling I had as I wrote that was happiness as I reflected on how funny the Kissing Hank's Ass (http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php) parody is.

[Radrook]

You point to Jesus as a verifier of the flood. How does this make it a fact?

It wasn't only Jesus who spoke of the flood as factual. The writers of the OT also spoke of all the events in Genesis as historical fact. So did Jesus' apostles. So I guess you will have to also question their existence? Additionally, I think you know full well why it makes it a fact from my standpoint so I need not go into detailed explanations. Saves time.

There is no proof that even he exists.

That is merely your opinion.

Surely healing the blind, bringing someone back from the dead, vandalizing the temple, feeding thousands with a few fish sandwiches and personally coming back from the dead, would rate a mention in someone's diary/book/government papers etc etc from that period.

Not if such people were heathens who had their own gods to whom such things would be an effrontery. Even the Jews themselves strove to discount the miracles as they still do. However, there is one thing they don't do, that is deny that Jesus ever existed.

Jesus had many enemies among the Jews. Yet there is no historical evidence that they ever challenged his having existed. They did accuse him of false teachings. But as to his existence, no opposition there. That in itself speaks volumes since his nonexistence if true, would have been a prime weapon in their arsenal. Yet, nothing.

BTW
Gospels and the rest of the NT are considered historical documents which take note of his many miracles.

What other book from the period of his existence mentions him? Point me to something that mentions his name?

Here is an article that seems to provide what you request:

Excerpt

Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following:

“. . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . .” (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

http://cfmin.wordpress.com/2007/08/02/is-there-any-historical-proof-that-jesus-existed/


Other references are mentioned in the article. In any case, as I previoiusly said, the very fact that the Jews did not use Jesus nonexistence as a weapon proves to me thast he existed.

And, where are all of the Egyptian hieroglyphics and/or writings that mention plagues of locust, rivers of blood, firstborn deaths, red sea opening, armies being drowned. Or didn't the Egyptians think any of this was important enough to write about. I mean, why would they care that all of their
servants/slaves/workers had just gone on strike and were heading home with some bloke called Moses.Strange that we have found so much of their writings and they wrote about so many unimportant things but didn't mention any of this.


Strange to a person unfamiliar with how ancient historians operated when it came to national defeats and humiliations. The Egyptians and other ancient cultures didn't commemorate their humiliations. They either ignored them altogether or denied them. In this particular case they seem to have opted for the first. Furthermore, don't you find it strange that no ancient historian strove to refute the Exodus account. Neither the Egyptians nor even the Greeks put forth an argument against its historical accuracy. That is truly weird if the Exodus account were a lie and yet you seem to accept it tongue in cheek as if of no consequence.

[Radrook]

The event they describe is a worldwide event. As the glaciers melted the sea levels rose everywhere. In some places it was gradual and not catastrophic. In others, like the Black Sea, it was. Ten cubic miles of water poured through to the Black Sea each day, two hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls. The Bosporus flume roared and surged at this rate for at least three hundred days.

It seems pretty coincidental that this event happened at this location at about the same time as the Noah story. And if these were two separate events, it seems odd that the catastrophic event caused by the receding ice age warranted no mention.

Coincidences do happen and are often very conducive to false interpretations.

In their book, they don't say that the flood which was caused by the influx of ocean water into that area was a worldwide event. So perhaps you misunderstood. What they say is that it was a local event which gave rise to the worldwide flood which they consider a myth.
Or considered a myth even before they found evidence of this supposed local flood. Again, I am not denying that this flood occurred. Neither am I denying an ice age as you seem to have concluded. IU am simply saying that the flood they describe doesn't fit the description of the flood described in Genesis, and since I consider Genesis an accurate historical account, I prefer to reject this interpretation which essentially is saying that all the Bible prophets, Jesus and his apostles, including Peter who was the first Catholic Pope according to them were liars.

It would have to be much longer. I did a little research, and it looks like homosapiens have been around for 150,000 - 200,000 years, rather than the 40,000 I originally thought. So after god created man, he rested one of his 'days', which lasted at least until the first century (I assume you meant A.D.). Until I have better information it's looking like god's day is at least 150,000 - 200,000 years long. And I say at least because for the last 2,000 years he still seems to be resting.

The theme of the Bible isn't the age of the earth. The theme of the Bible is mankind's fall into sin and death and God's plan to restore mankind to its former condition via the Ransom sacrifice of Jesus.

Of course such subjects can be addressed and there are plenty of creationist sites which provide satisfactory explanations for the seeming discrepancies between what science asserts and what the Bible indicates in relation to the length of time which humans have been on this earth. Here is an interesting article.

RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-radioactive.html


'Some' people suggest all kinds of things. 'Some' other people also suggest there is no god. If time flows faster and faster as we age, and god's age is infinite, then time would flow infinitely fast for him. No, I think god is able to tell time.

I agree about mere unfounded suggestions. Good points about time!


.Well who's screw up shortened life spans from 930 years to 20-30 years? That's how long humans used to live. And which awesome person was so great that god extended our lifespans to the 80 or so years it is now?

I consider the reduction from eternity to a mere nine-hundred some years much more impressive than the reduction from that to 80 or so. Man had been given a flawless body. But as he distanced himself from his original perfection a further reduction of life-span could be expected. Actually, No one after Adam lived a full 1000 years. Each died within that 1000 year day period as Adam had been warned. However, there is a very curious thing, if you read the Genesis account you will readily notice the difference between the pre-flood and post-flood life-spans. Pre-flood life-spans regularly hit the nine hundred mark. But immediately after the flood Noah's dipped to 600. From that point onward each generation's life-span potential dipped further until we hit the level you mention.

The Scientific Evidence for Biblical Longevity By: Arnold Mendez Fact ...
File type:PDF - Download PDF Reader
www.amendez.com/Noahs%20Ark%20Articles/NAS%20The%20Scienti...0Biblical%20Longevity.pdf

Because of this some have speculated that a cause effect relationship between post-flood conditions and the reduction of life-span is involved since there seems to be a positive correlation. In any case, by the time of Abraham the age you mention was already considered old.



LOL even when acknowledging your evasion you continue to evade. What event does 'let there be light' refer to?

The beginning of the first day commences with that statement.


From your quote:
If water is said to cover the sea, then it is implied that the sea is something else other than water.

The reference to the water covering the seas a comparison of the extent that the earth will be filled with God's knowledge. It has nothing to do with chemistry.

[Radrook]

This might come as a surprise, but I don't think you're dense Insecure in your woo, yes But not dense Oh, and please don't 'bless' me again - I find that genuinely offensive.

I wasn't blessing you.

[Radrook]

Ok...are you going to give examples, or just tell me they exist? This is a very unhelpful and evasive response.

Obviously people aren't living forever as they would had and the world is definitely a mess as it wouldn't be if the rebellion had not taken place. Since that's so obvious I felt it needed no further explanation.

I could have sworn that somewhere in the bible it talks about how God's word is meant for everyone.

How much of the Bible have you read?

Oh, you mean words like "day"?

The Bible's theme isn't about chemistry, geology, astronomy, or any other science. It is about mankind's fall into sin and death and God's a provision of a ransom sacrifice through Jesus in order to bring about a restoration. As for the day difficulties you claim you are experiencing there is nothing further I can say to help you in that area. That being so then it's really pointless to continue along that line.


Exactly. Which is why one of the reasons you accept it is due to an accident of birth. If you were born in a different time, or a different place, to different people, you'd think differently. Therefore, the bible isn't absolute and utter Truth with a capital T. It has meaning only to those born into a particular culture at a particular time.

So you are arguing against what? Not against anything I said since I did say that culture does have an influence. It can't be that you are saying that culture makes acceptance of Christianity inevitable since that would be silly since atheists and agnostics abound in cultures where Christianity is taught. It can't be that you are saying that choices made under cultural influences prove the Bible isn't inspired since that is irrelevant. It can't be that you are saying that that if the Bible were true it would be accepted by everyone in every culture.
So indeed, since it can't one any of these ridiculous ideas. What is it that you are saying which warrants further discussion?


snip = irrelevant



Wait...so we're in trouble because we invented things....using the creativity, forethought, and intellect that God gave us? Talk about setting us up for failure. "Here, kid, here's some paper, and paint, and a paintbrush. Go have fun. I'll come back in a bit to yell at you for getting some paint on the brush and paper."
False analogy.



How shall we talk to you? In the third person? It would sound a lot more insulting if we did. "Radrook is pontificating again....what did Radrook say this time?....Let's put him on ignore...." etc.

I'm not really sure where this little rant came from or what it was in reference to.

The rant came from snide remarks being made to other about me. That strikes you as inexplicable? That's like stepping on someone's toe ands showing consternation because he says Ouch!

I'm not intending to insult anyone, honestly. I'm just trying to gain some insight as to why people believe what they do, including why you believe what you do. I find it ironic that in doing so, I'm accused of being close-minded, unaccepting, and plain old not wanting to listen and learn.

Well, considering that you are asking questions merely to immediately shoot down the answers what other conclusion do you expect? Acctually, 99.99 percent of the persons frequenting this forum are against religion. So as I previously said, I merely posted to clarify the Christian position-nothing more. I also clearly explained that I am, not willing to engage in fruitless debates. Especially in a forum where such debates particularly useless.

So my apologies if I did not end this discussion sooner and let it drag on to its inevitable and predicatable conclusion.

Thanx to all those who communicated in a decent manner.

Bye!

[NobbyNobbs]

How much of the Bible have you read?

I'd say about 2/3. My eyes tend to glaze over at a whole list of "begats" and dietary laws, but other thatn that I've read quite a bit. Actually, it's been awhile. I should go back and read it again.



So you are arguing against what? Not against anything I said since I did say that culture does have an influence. It can't be that you are saying that culture makes acceptance of Christianity inevitable since that would be silly since atheists and agnostics abound in cultures where Christianity is taught. It can't be that you are saying that choices made under cultural influences prove the Bible isn't inspired since that is irrelevant. It can't be that you are saying that that if the Bible were true it would be accepted by everyone in every culture.
So indeed, since it can't one any of these ridiculous ideas. What is it that you are saying which warrants further discussion?

What I was trying to say, and doing a rather poor job of it, I agree, is as follows: If culture has such a huge impact on what a person is predisposed to belief, how can you claim such beliefs as "Ultimate Truth"? Just because a person was raised in an environment where such beliefs are predominant does not make such beliefs true. That's all I'm saying.

Which means, if you accept the fact that local culture has a large impact on your belief system, then logically you must accept the possibility that your belief system doesn't have it right.



The rant came from snide remarks being made to other about me. That strikes you as inexplicable? That's like stepping on someone's toe ands showing consternation because he says Ouch!

Then please use the quote feature, because otherwise we don't really know what you're referring to. I'm still not sure I do.



Well, considering that you are asking questions merely to immediately shoot down the answers what other conclusion do you expect? Acctually, 99.99 percent of the persons frequenting this forum are against religion. So as I previously said, I merely posted to clarify the Christian position-nothing more. I also clearly explained that I am, not willing to engage in fruitless debates. Especially in a forum where such debates particularly useless.

I'm not against religion so much as I'm for rational thought. I'm often surprised at otherwise intelligent people who disregard otherwise acceptable facts simply because such facts run counter to what an ancient, much mistranslated book says.

[articulett]

Well, considering that you are asking questions merely to immediately shoot down the answers what other conclusion do you expect? Acctually, 99.99 percent of the persons frequenting this forum are against religion. So as I previously said, I merely posted to clarify the Christian position-nothing more. I also clearly explained that I am, not willing to engage in fruitless debates. Especially in a forum where such debates particularly useless.



What irony-- the only questions he asked were not ones he was interested in having answered... just ones designed to infer his "truth"... and he ignored all the intelligent well written responses tailored directly to him and insulted those who answered his question.

Skeptics are not against religion as much as you would want to believe that. We just feel the same way about your religion that you feel about Muslims or Moonies or Scientologists or Astrologists.

We do not think faith is a way to reach the truth.... lots of people do... and they are all convinced of very different nebulous truths... some will even do things they would not normally do to prove their faith to their invisible deity. We think evidence is a much better way of finding objective truths... truths that are the same for everybody. And most of us would rather not know something than believe a lie. Most of us aim to understand the foibles that make human thinking go awry. To us, all the woo profferers sound the same--so do the conspiracy theorists. We look for a reason why we should take one more seriously than the other, but they all spin a delusion that is impenetrable to fact and feel superior or chosen for being able to have that "truth". You are no different.

[Radrook]

I'd say about 2/3. My eyes tend to glaze over at a whole list of "begats" and dietary laws, but other than that I've read quite a bit. Actually, it's been awhile. I should go back and read it again.

So would mine. Actually, there is very little need for us to delve into the fine points of such dietary laws since they were written for a nation that had entered into a Covenant relationship with him-Israel. Furthermore, Christians are not under the Mosaic Covenant. We are under a New Covenant. So spare your eyes the read.

Geneologies? They were provided as a means to accurately trace the promised seed mentioned in Genesis 3 in order to identify it when it did appear. They weren't provided for casual reading. So you can spare your eyes the irritation there as well.

Actually, your question about whether the Bible message was written for everyone is a very good one. The answer of course is yes. It was written to give hope of a restoration to Adam's descendants. 1 John 2:2

However, among Adam's offspring there would be certain persons who would not be disposed toward God in a favorabe way. Acts 28:27

These would strive to gain knowledge of scripture with the purpose of misrepresenting it. Since God promised to help us understand biblical things via his active force or holy spirit, and such holy spirit is given only to those who sincerely seek God, then those individualswould be opoerating under a severe handicap.

Here is an article that might shed more light on the subject:

Jesus Parables
http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestudies/speakinparables.htm


What I was trying to say, and doing a rather poor job of it, I agree, is as follows: If culture has such a huge impact on what a person is predisposed to belief, how can you claim such beliefs as "Ultimate Truth"? Just because a person was raised in an environment where such beliefs are predominant does not make such beliefs true.

I agree 100%. However, please take note that I never used that premise.

That's all I'm saying. Which means, if you accept the fact that local culture has a large impact on your belief system, then logically you must accept the possibility that your belief system doesn't have it right.

I hope you realize that your premise if it were true would be universally applicable to all things learned regardless of source. Which would include scientific theories as well. Actually, the premise is flawed because it doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion you reach.

A belief system impacts a belief system it cannot be 100% right.
That belief system was impacted by culture.
That belief system can never be said to be 100% right.

Now, let's apply that rule and see what happens.

The concept of gravity was impacted by culture.
Therefore the concept of gravity can never be said to be 100% right?

Since all concepts have been influenced by culture, then, all concepts are questionable.
Yet, I don't see anyone questioning other such concepts based on cultural influences.

There is also an assumed conclusion that person's who attain a certain belief which predominates in a culture are unable to be objective. Yet, there are Christians in China,
who have become Christians because they have weighed the matter objectively. In fact, there are Christians in all those nations in which Christianity doesn't predominate who have become Christians long after having reached adulthood. So accusing a person of being Christian simply because of culture is an accusation of mindlessness which doesn't necessarily apply. Even many who have grown up in Christian households have eventually decided to go their own way for various personal reasons. Some into Islam, others into Agnosticism, into Atheism, etcetera. So that inevitability based on your idea of cultural destiny just isn't as efficient as you make it out to be.


Then please use the quote feature, because otherwise we don't really know
what you're referring to. I'm still not sure I do.

Best to simply forget about the whole thing. Thanx for your calm decent reply.

I'm not against religion so much as I'm for rational thought. I'm often surprised at otherwise intelligent people who disregard otherwise acceptable facts simply because such facts run counter to what an ancient, much mistranslated book says.

I agree that one should not sacrifice rationality at the alter of religion. About the book being mistranslated, that hasn't managed to dilute its original purpose or message which comes across loud and clear-the restoration of mankind to its former perfection via the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus. Neither does its antiquity make it somehow flawed. Antiquity simply means that its message of hope for redemption was immediately being transmited after mankind got itself into trouble. Titus 1:2

In short, if it had not been transmitted imediately then the objection would be that it is of very recent origin and the question as to why God kept silent for so long would become an issue-right?

clarification:

To those who might get the wrong impression, I am not trying to evangelize. I am merely responding to questions in order to promote
better understanding of the issues involved.

[NobbyNobbs]

I agree 100%. However, please take note that I never used that premise.


I hope you realize that your premise if it were true would be universally applicable to all things learned regardless of source. Which would include scientific theories as well. Actually, the premise is flawed because it doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion you reach.

First, I'm a bit confused, because you agree 100%, then you say if the premise were true, then you flat out say it is flawed.



A belief system impacts a belief system it cannot be 100% right.
That belief system was impacted by culture.
That belief system can never be said to be 100% right.

Now, let's apply that rule and see what happens.

The concept of gravity was impacted by culture.
Therefore the concept of gravity can never be said to be 100% right?

Correct. Science never says "This is the way the world works, and we are 100% sure of it." Science says, "Every single time we've dropped the ball, it has fallen to the ground. Experience tells us it is highly, highly likely that the next time it is dropped, it will again fall to the ground. There is every reason to expect this, at an astonishingly high probability that almost, but not quite, equals 100%." That's what science says.

[articulett]

What former perfection of mankind? And how does ransoming Jesus do that again? Whose plan was this and why exactly did he need to do what he did?

I know it makes sense to you, but it really doesn't make any more sense than Scientology or Greek Mythology to me. And why didn't this god mention DNA (getting back to the OP?)

[Radrook]

First, I'm a bit confused, because you agree 100%, then you say if the premise were true, then you flat out say it is flawed.

I agree 100% that culture can have a huge influence on hoe a person views the world. What I disagree on is the conclusion that culture always determines what a person believes and that a person's belief is somehow of less worth or has to be taken less seriously simply because it predominates in that person's culture. That I might have believed differently if I had been born in India doesn't in any way prove anything about a belief's inherent truth
or lack of it.

Is my belief in democracy as the best type of government somehow devalued because I just happen to have been born in the USA? Of course not. I could have been born in Communist China. Or in Hitler's Germany. Quite possibly I might have supported those types of governments. But that in no way devalues my present belief that democracy is the best type of government as opposed to a dictatorship, or communism.


Or let's apply it to scientific beliefs. If I had been born during another historical period I might have considered the earth to be flat. Or that the sun was burning like a piece of coal-a fairly recent belief. Or that the stars were really campfires of distant tribes [a former Australian aboriginal belief] or any of the other unscientific concepts of such cultures and times. It can be said then, that the only reason I believe as I do is because I just happened to be born during this time in human history-which is of course totally irrelevant to the belief's validity itself.


The same applies to a person's present religious beliefs. They have to be evaluated based on factors that are relevant. The possibilities of what could have believed otherwise had I been the product of another culture is irrelevant.

Correct. Science never says "This is the way the world works, and we are 100% sure of it." Science says, "Every single time we've dropped the ball, it has fallen to the ground. Experience tells us it is highly, highly likely that the next time it is dropped, it will again fall to the ground. There is every reason to expect this, at an astonishingly high probability that almost, but not quite, equals 100%." That's what science says.

True, probabilities is all we can expect from induction.

[DrBaltar]

I am simply saying that the flood they describe doesn't fit the description of the flood described in Genesis, and since I consider Genesis an accurate historical account, I prefer to reject this interpretation which essentially is saying that all the Bible prophets, Jesus and his apostles, including Peter who was the first Catholic Pope according to them were liars.I don't think anyone is calling these people a liar. It's just that they haven't witnessed the event, and I doubt they have done any real investigation into the flood.

The theme of the Bible isn't the age of the earth. The theme of the Bible is mankind's fall into sin and death and God's plan to restore mankind to its former condition via the Ransom sacrifice of Jesus.

Of course such subjects can be addressed and there are plenty of creationist sites which provide satisfactory explanations for the seeming discrepancies between what science asserts and what the Bible indicates in relation to the length of time which humans have been on this earth. Here is an interesting article.

RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-radioactive.html
These sites assume improper investigation techniques and then criticize them based on methods that are not used. I understand the point of the bible isn't about the age or formation of the earth. But it is an area of the bible that is testable and it demonstrates fallacies and inconsistencies in the bible. Once we know the bible is far from perfect then the rest of it is taken with a grain of salt. (Especially the part about Lot's wife LOL).

I consider the reduction from eternity to a mere nine-hundred some years much more impressive than the reduction from that to 80 or so. Man had been given a flawless body. But as he distanced himself from his original perfection a further reduction of life-span could be expected. Actually, No one after Adam lived a full 1000 years. Each died within that 1000 year day period as Adam had been warned. However, there is a very curious thing, if you read the Genesis account you will readily notice the difference between the pre-flood and post-flood life-spans. Pre-flood life-spans regularly hit the nine hundred mark. But immediately after the flood Noah's dipped to 600. From that point onward each generation's life-span potential dipped further until we hit the level you mention.

The Scientific Evidence for Biblical Longevity By: Arnold Mendez Fact ...
File type:PDF - Download PDF Reader
http://www.amendez.com/Noahs%20Ark%2...0Longevity.pdf
The link you referenced didn't work. But fossil evidence does not support this.Humans before the time of the flood had lifespans of about 20-30 years.

Because of this some have speculated that a cause effect relationship between post-flood conditions and the reduction of life-span is involved since there seems to be a positive correlation. In any case, by the time of Abraham the age you mention was already considered old.

LOL even when acknowledging your evasion you continue to evade. What event does 'let there be light' refer to?The beginning of the first day commences with that statement.Let's try again. What event does 'let there be light' refer to. i.e. what event are we familiar does this line refer to? Does it refer to the creation of the sun? Something else?

[Radrook]

I don't think anyone is calling these people a liar. It's just that they haven't witnessed the event, and I doubt they have done any real investigation into the flood. These sites assume improper investigation techniques and then criticize them based on methods that are not used. I understand the point of the bible isn't about the age or formation of the earth. But it is an area of the bible that is testable and it demonstrates fallacies and inconsistencies in the bible. Once we know the bible is far from perfect then the rest of it is taken with a grain of salt. (Especially the part about Lot's wife LOL). The link you referenced didn't work. But fossil evidence does not support this.Humans before the time of the flood had lifespans of about 20-30 years. Let's try again. What event does 'let there be light' refer to. i.e. what event are we familiar does this line refer to? Does it refer to the creation of the sun? Something else?


I guess we simplly differ in our opinions and there is really nothing further to say. I have no difficulty living with that. That's why I don't engage in heated debates which invariavbly lead nowhere. I simply acknowledge your right to your views and expect the same of others. As I previously said, my original effort was to straighten out certain misconceptions. Beyond that, I guess if you do wish to debate these matters then it will have to be with someone else. But thanks for the invitation in any case. No hard feeings either. : )

BTW
Perhaps the authors pof the articles you find fault in will be willing to debate those points you mentioned. If I were the author of such an article which comes under criticism I probably would offer a counterargument or two before calling it quits and engaging in a more pleasant or more fruitful activity.

[articulett]

Yes, but reality and how people came to be remains the same no matter what opinions people have about it. There are tons of stories... but only one truth... and the best way to find it is through measurable evidence not purported holy books.

When a person is murdered, there can be only one truth about what actually happened but an infinite amount of theories or hypothesis or guesses or stories. Your vision of history is based on one of the latter. Following the evidence is the best and really only method we have of finding the former-- the real truth... the one that is true regardless of peoples' faith opinions and so forth. The earth was never flat... even though for many years humans naturally assumed it was... it wasn't a holy text that helped us get it right.

[Radrook]

Yes, but reality and how people came to be remains the same no matter what opinions people have about it. There are tons of stories... but only one truth...

I agree that there is one ultimate truth to everything. Science purports to know it but those scientists familiar with the metaphysical reality of our existence know better. Of course, practicality demands that we accept what our senses seem to register as ultimate truths. But there is no 100% guarantee that it is. Actually, science can't even prove that we aren't presently all brains in a vat and that all these things being supposedly perceived are merely the result of input from some virtual reality supercomputer. In short, science CANNOT prove that an external world even exists. The only thing science can do is work with the sense impressions we seem to receive from a seemingly exterior world, tag it as factual for the sake of expediency and sanity and proceed from their as if all were 100% real.

Which of course it is, in a subjective way. Science, deals ultimately with the supposedly perceived phenomena but the nomena, ultimate reality will always be beyond reach. Let me give you an example. Let's suppose that there are a million aliens from other worlds each hardwired to perceive the same stimuli, of indeed there is such a thing, differently. One alien perceives a supposed object as a flame, another as a liquid, another as a solid rock, another as a transparent rock, and another doesn't perceive it at all. One alien perceives a stimuli as bitter, another as sweet, yet anther as tasteless. One perceives the molecules of a flower as aromatic another as a pungent stench. Each reacts differently to what is supposedly an exterior stimuli. But whose reality is the real one? If I perceive an object as round, and another alien perceives it as square, or a rectangular prism. or a triangle ad infinitum. What is that's stimuli ultimate nature?

Can we say with 100% that our perception is to be considered the real one. Each one of the millions of aliens could argue the same way based on what they perceive but each one would be merely reporting what he is detecting within the bounds of his hardwiring.
So what really is the nature of existence?
Even the seemingly iunviolabe laws of mathe,matics will break down if one alien race is incapable of perceiving things numerically as we do. To them two objects are perecived as one. All their tests verify it to the satisfavction of theiur own perceptions. We voiew them as peculiar and they us in the same way. Multiply thgese idoisyncracies to hundreds of alien species and the ultimate reality of things will appear to be what it really is, beyond our range. All we would be able to do would be to agree to disagree and admit that we don't know what ultimate reality is.

That being said you can now better understand how I view the following statement:

and the best way to find it is through measurable evidence not purported holy books When a person is murdered, there can be only one truth about what actually happened but an infinite amount of theories or hypothesis or guesses or stories. Your vision of history is based on one of the latter. Following the evidence is the best and really only method we have of finding the former-- the real truth... the one that is true regardless of peoples' faith opinions and so forth. The earth was never flat... even though for many years humans naturally assumed it was... it wasn't a holy text that helped us get it right.

And there is the crux of the matter. Science doesn't claim to go beyond its bounds. The ones claiming that science can delve into areas it was never intended to delve into and make declarations it has absolutely no right to make, such as the inexistence ofd God are persons who wish it were so or perhaps imagine it to be so. But as for science itself, it has never made that claim because to put it simply it can't.

As for the Christian bewlief in God, that too can be assailed in asimilar manner. Yet, for the sake of expediency and sanity and because it makes more sense to the majority of people on earth, they have opted to believe that there is a God and that he has communicated with us through certain writings. In this regard science simply must remain within the limited bounds of its own limited supposedly external and supposedly perceived universe.

[Radrook]

What former perfection of mankind? And how does ransoming Jesus do that again? Whose plan was this and why exactly did he need to do what he did?

Before I answer please not that I am not trying to convert or evangelize but merely responding to questions in order to clarify the Christian position. I am also assuming that you genuinely don't know the Christian viewpoint, have perhaps misunderstood it or maybe can benefit from knowing it a t more clearly. If not then it would be a waste of time for both of us.

That being said:

1. The bodily perfection that would prevent mankind from suffering sickness and death.


Ecclesiastes 7:29
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

2. A ransom is given in order to free someone who has been taken captive. In this case after sinning, mankind became captive to sin and death because sin's punishment or consequence is death and mankind could not behave sinlessly due to imperfection inherited from our first parents.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

This dying condition is described as a captivity needing a ransom via the payment of mankind's sins by someone without sin. Once paid, then, mankind could hope to gain eternal life based on the merit of that Ransom given by Jesus.

Matthew 20:28
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.


3. God didn't mention DNA because it was unnecessary, the terminology would have confused the majority of readers throughout history. He could also have used equations instead of saying let there be light.


makes sense to you, but it really doesn't make any more sense than Scientology or Greek Mythology to me. And why didn't this god mention DNA (getting back to the OP?)

I know it doesn't make sense to you. But there is the explanation you requested.

[articulett]

Science does not purport to know the ultimate truth-- but it is the one that lets the evidence lead towards the conclusion... whereas all faiths tell you the conclusion and then try and fit the evidence into that conclusion--exactly like you are doing. All the who do that. Tom Cruise does that with his scientology... He is called upon to be at the scene of accidents because he is the one with the true powers that can help people-- or so he believes-- because, like you, he has learned to fit the facts into the belief he has.

It's religions and you who are making claims of fact... or assertions that sound like facts... but they are nothing but belief... "god didn't mention DNA because it was unnecessary..." Says who? And how would you know why god didn't mention something or whether he even exists. Scientists can say there is no measurable objective evidence for claims of consciousness (gods, souls, demons, angels, fairies, thetans, etc.) outside of a living brain-- there is no evidence that there can BE consciousness without a brain and tons of evidence that shows that a brain generates consciousness... Scientist sure can say that. They can't prove there aren't invisible entities all over the place that are carefully keeping themselves from being detected for reasons you've managed to discern--but that is certainly not a reason to give such claims credence.

Religions make claims explaining physical things in the natural world-- they have no evidence for those claims. Science is the only field proven to have verifiable useful and true explanations for what we observe. You just state things as though they are true, but they are based on nothing at all--nothing... a story you've been indoctrinated with and facts you've twisted to support that story. The same as every other religion or belief system or woo.

[Radrook]

Science does not purport to know the ultimate truth-- but it is the one that lets the evidence lead towards the conclusion... whereas all faiths tell you the conclusion and then try and fit the evidence into that conclusion--exactly like you are doing. All the who do that. Tom Cruise does that with his scientology... He is called upon to be at the scene of accidents because he is the one with the true powers that can help people-- or so he believes-- because, like you, he has learned to fit the facts into the belief he has.


Evidence? That of course assumes that no one is out to dupe you.

Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

BTW

If you are in such a privileged position in terms of rationality, then celebrate and be glad you aren't as dense as you think I am. As for evidence, proving this or proving that-can you prove to me that the external world exists? Of course you will say you see, you touch, you smell, you taste-but all those sensations can be brain-generated or simulated via a virtual reality supercomputor. Can you prove such isn't the case? If you can't prove that basic thing about your perceived reality how can you purport to prove that God doesn't exist?

BTW
The use of the pronoun "you" gives the conversation an unnecessary confrontational tone.
That's why I usually avoid it since my motives aren't confrontational. I employ it above to show you how it comes across.

Again I remind you that I am merely responding to your inquiry and not trying to deviate you from your chosen beliefs but only striving to clarify what the Christian viewpont is in order to reduce misrepresentations.

Actually, the ultimate skeptic would indeed question the reality of an external world. Ever consider that?

[articulett]

Evidence of what. It would be up to you to show that there are divine truths... and that you have accessed them.... just as it would be for Tom Cruise or the The Pope or anyone who believes they have divine truths. It would be up to you to prove there was a god who wrote a book if you wanted to proffer an objective reason for believing it. Science shows the evidence-- the only punishment for not believing it is ignorance... you can believe the earth is flat and god poofed people into existence if you want-- you can be afraid that you will suffer forever if you don't believe this, but that doesn't make it so. Science can show you the evidence we have and the best explanation for that evidence. It's not afraid to be questioned like your god. It isn't arrogant to question the objective truth--it's the only way we can learn what we don't know. It's the only we can refine understanding. We can't build airplanes or heal broken bones on faith... we can't grow plants or advance technology on faith... we have not come to understand genetics or neurology or how our brains and bodies work on faith! Facts are the best way to understand the natural world--the one truth that is the same for everybody. When has anyone's faith brought forth a verifiable truth. It's all promised truths in some supposed afterlife where we will supposedly feel and think and remember without a brain or inputting sensory organs. It's nuts. It makes no sense. You have to brainwash people to get them to believe this and promise them goodies for believing and threaten them for doubting.

Humans are eager to find out every bit of useful truth there is... do you think if there was the slightest evidence for souls or gods we wouldn't be refining that knowledge... do you think if there was the slightest evidence for an eternity based on believing the right story that there wouldn't be gobs of scientists testing to see who had the real divine truth and who was really the infallible leader getting real revelations?? You are just soooo sooo deluded by your faith. You trust primitive texts for truths and not evidence that you can learn and test for yourself. That is a sickening sad thing your faith has done for you... and it's done it for billions of others with differing faiths all equally certain of their rightness as you are. Don't you see that?

Science like math is based on facts that are the same for everybody--that everybody can know and test and learn about... no matter what language you speak or what god you've been indoctrinated to believe in... and your religions teach you not to trust it and to trust those who spin lies and mythologies instead. That is just soo sad.... such a waste of a human brain... such a mental virus... and I suspect it's as unfixable for you as it is for any cult member and all those who believe things you find unbelievable.

You are an example of the reason why it's wrong to inculcate beliefs in trusting kids. They do it in North Korea... all religions do it... Muslims do it... all regimes do it... you have been brainwashed and your brainwashing has made you afraid of being unbrainwashed. The same for the Muslim kiddies and the kiddies who believe that Kim Jong Il was born of a god and Americans are responsible for all their suffering... the same as the Jonestown kiddies and the kids born into Scientology or Mormonism or all other purported truths based on faith-- not on evidence. And that is sad. You are an example of why creationism must never be taught in schools. Faith and presumption of answers is not the way we find out the truth. Nor is being afraid to question authority figures or invisible men in the sky.

[Radrook]

....Science shows the evidence--

You keep ignoring the FACT that all science presents are sense impressions and all the conclusions reached are based on sense impressions which themselves can't be verified as being anything but sense impressions. So essentially your scientific beliefs are based on your faith that the exterior world exists and that the ideas you conclude about this un-provable exterior world are genuine because-well, umm, because your sense impressions tell your mind in a vat so.

The only punishment for not believing it is ignorance... you can believe the earth is flat and god poofed people into existence if you want-- you can be afraid that you will suffer forever if you don't believe this, but that doesn't make it so.

Neither does your blind faith in your Mickey Mouse sense impressions make your conclusions about an assumed exterior reality so. So where do you draw the line. Wait! I know-you draw the line when it comes to God.


Science can show you the evidence. we have and the best explanation for that evidence.

Second verse same as the first! To me that smacks of brainwashing!


It's not afraid to be questioned like your god. It isn't arrogant to question the objective truth--it's the only way we can learn what we don't know. It's the only we can refine understanding. We can't build airplanes or heal broken bones on faith... we can't grow plants or advance technology on faith... we have not come to understand genetics or neurology or how our brains and bodies work on faith!


Facts????? Oh, you mean sense impressions you tag as facts.

....are the best way to understand the natural world--

You can't even prove that that world exists! Oh wait a minute. Yes, you can--sense impressions!


,.,.the one truth that is the same for everybody.

All brains in a vat come happily to similar conclusions.


When has anyone's faith brought forth a verifiable truth.


A brain in a vat would find everything it experiences verifiable.

It's all promised truths in some supposed afterlife where we will supposedly feel and think and remember without a brain or inputting sensory organs. It's nuts. It makes no sense. You have to brainwash people to get them to believe this and promise them goodies for believing and threaten them for doubting.

What makes no sense and is really verifiably nuts is your claim that you can prove the existence of an external world based on your sense impressions when no one else who is familiar with the subject can.

Snip Snip Snip Yada Yada Yada and on it mindlessly goes without nary a care in the world as to what previous counter-arguments were presented. And That's why I avoid debates!

Bye!

BTW

This guy thinks that science based here is applicable to
the other twelve dimensions and even multiuniverses if they happen to exist.

An excellent example of blind faith.

[articulett]

What is one useful verifiable truth that has come from religion... or gurus or subjective "knowingness" or revelation. We know for absolute certain that many mythologies and superstitions have come from such... we know nothing true that has come from such. But surely you understand that the computer you are using has come from mortals evolving scientific verifiable knowledge over time... so has your language... that's from mortals... so has all your technology... your expected longer life span... your ability to communicate with people all over the world... your understanding that the earth is a sphere and that our sun is a star and that the universe is vast and that the earth is but a speck in it... what sort of knowledge has faith brought... what sort of truth or goodness... it takes credit for things it did not do while demonizing science and those who speak the truth. It always has... your religion has as much claim to truth as all the religions and mythologies and cults you don't believe in. A skeptic disbelievers your nonsense for the same reason you'd dismiss Muslim nonsense or Moonie nonsense. None of you have evidence-- all sound as sure and impenetrable as you. All are critics of science with nothing at all to offer in return but semantics and promises that can never be tested or verified. All pretend to have truths.... all of them... just like you... just as sure... and just as based on NOTHING. Ugh. And just as unlikely to ever see they are fooling themselves. They have come to trust a lie and dismiss the best method for finding the truth that is the same for everybody.

And you avoid debates because your goal is to preach and convince yourself that your faith is true... not to find out the truth. You think you already have it. You came here to denigrate actual truths and offer nothing at all in return. By keeping your faith alive in your head it feels more true to you... same as with every woo who comes here to let us know that they have the true woo that we need to know and shame on us for trusting things like science and facts and evidence.

I'm glad to see you scurry off with your woo tail between your woo legs...

[D'rok]

Actually, the ultimate skeptic would indeed question the reality of an external world. Ever consider that?

I think the word you're looking for is sophist.

[joobz]

You keep ignoring the FACT that all science presents are sense impressions and all the conclusions reached are based on sense impressions whioch themnselves can't be verified as being anything but sense impressions.

And you seem to forget that religion doesn't even have that much.

[D'rok]

You keep ignoring the FACT that all science presents are sense impressions and all the conclusions reached are based on sense impressions whioch themnselves can't be verified as being anything but sense impressions. So essentially yourt scientiufic beliefs are based on your faith that the exterior world exists and that the ideas you conclude about this umprovable exterior world are gennuibnne becvause-well, umm, because your sewnse impresions tell yourt miund in a vat so.

....



Sophistry and solipsism in a single steaming slurry of sh*t.

[Radrook]

Sophistry and solipsism in a single steaming slurry of sh*t.


Proverbs 18:6
A fool's lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes.

Well, what have we here? Another pest it seems? This one of the foul- mouthed atheistic variety? Sigh! Oh well. Okay. No problem. I have a solution for that kind of mindless drivel. Snip! Snip! Snip!
and ummm, ignore option.

Ah! The serenity of peace!

BTW

The only thing this person shows by resorting to profanity is that he can't wing it via logic. Even a five-year old can do what he just did. Actually People who act like that are really giving atheism a bad name since it gives rthe impression that to be atheist is to be rude or to become a savage in terms of human relations. On those grounds alone atheism might be avoided like a plague. So they do more damage to their cause than good.

In any case, lesson learned.

[D'rok]

Well, what have we here? Another pest it seems? This one of the fould mouthed atheistic variety? Sigh! Oh well. Okay. No problem. I have a solution for that kind of mindless drivel. Snip! Snip! Snip!
and ummm, ignore option.

Ah! The serenity of peace!

For the record, Radrook's original, and oh so very christian version of this post:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_13941479d4cd7849e9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10414)

Click for legibility and a personal attack on my family.

[articulett]

I saw it the first time... but we have come to expect such behavior for the self proclaimed profferers of divine truths. The hypocrisy of the holier than thou knows no bounds.

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone but themselves takes them seriously or even understands what they are trying to convey.

[Radrook]

Such a good possibility for discussing solipsism's intricacies lost due to the inability to control the urge to use profanity. Well, to each his own as the saying goes.

Carpe Deum?

[articulett]

I don't speak woo... maybe DOC understand radrook?

[joobz]

Why discuss it? As I posted in another thread, it's rather outdated school of thought. Isn't it kind of meaningless to question the utility of science and materialism with people over the INTERNET while ON A COMPUTER.

[D'rok]

I saw it the first time... but we have come to expect such behavior for the self proclaimed profferers of divine truths. The hypocrisy of the holier than thou knows no bounds.

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone but themselves takes them seriously or even understands what they are trying to convey.

The fundie is a mercurial species. This one seems to be particularly jumpy.

[bokonon]

Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Of all the planets in all the galaxies in all the universe, he had to be cast out into mine.

The use of the pronoun "you" gives the conversation an unnecessary confrontational tone.
That's why I usually avoid it since my motives aren't confrontational. I employ it above to show you how it comes across.

Again I remind youthat I am merely responding to your inquiry and not trying to deviate you from your chosen beliefs
A Christian hypocrite, whining about some trivial thing he thinks other people should avoid, but which he regularly does himself. How unusual.

I only mention "cast out the mote from thine own eye" to clarify scripture with which some may be unfamiliar.

[JoeEllison]

For the record, Radrook's original, and oh so very christian version of this post:



Click for legibility and a personal attack on my family.
Frankly, isn't that what we all expect from Christians posting online? That is who the are, no matter how much they want to paint everyone else as being "immoral", the only people I see making threats and attacks on people's families are Christians.

[Radrook]

Frankly, isn't that what we all expect from Christians posting online? That is who the are, no matter how much they want to paint everyone else as being "immoral", the only people I see making threats and attacks on people's families are Christians.

That's hipocritical!

You cunningly ignore his provocation and triumphantly focus on my reaction to it. The devil and his cohorts usually react that way when they feel they have caused a Christian to stumble. They pat one another on the back and celebrate. Unfortunately for them, Jesus died for my sins and despite your objections, I still maintain my good standing before God based on his sacrifice.

As for immorality, all of us are immoral, including you regardless of your holier-than-thou attitude. Threats? That's a lie since I threatened no one. Furthermore, I erased the comment immediately. Which in your sanctimonious opinion counts for nothing but which in God's book counts for quite a lot.

BTW

You are showing surprise at a normal human reaction:

Proverbs 15:1
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

So, if you want to be taken seriously,which I can tell you do based on your ridiculous posturing, then tell your little friend over there to stop trying to provoke. Then maybe, just maybe I might listen with more respect to whatever else you might have to say.












.

[Furi]

:snip: Furthermore, I erased the comment immediately. Which in your sanctimonious opinion counts for nothing but which in God's book counts for quite a lot.


So you mean it is OK to be a twunt as long as you repent, this would explain a lot on why theists think that atheists must be immoral we have no higher power to pass our guilt of to, we have to live with ours.

*wondering if this trainwreck will get anywhere back near the topic, or is it another R Paul Evolution thread*

[D'rok]

That's hipocritical!

You cunningly ignore his provocation and triumphantly focus on my reaction to it. The devil and his cohorts usually react that way when they feel they have caused a Christian to stumble. They pat one another on the back and celebrate. Unfortunately for them, Jesus died for my sins and despite your objections, I still maintain my good standing before God based on his sacrifice.

As for immorality, all of us are immoral, including you regardless of your holier-than-thou attitude. Threats? That's a lie since I threatened no one. Furthermore, I erased the comment immediately. Which in your sanctimonious opinion counts for nothing but which in God's book counts for quite a lot.

BTW

You are showing surprise at a normal human reaction:

Proverbs 15:1
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

So, if you want to be taken seriously,which I can tell you do based on your ridiculous posturing, then tell your little friend over there to stop trying to provoke. Then maybe, just maybe I might listen with more respect to whatever else you might have to say.

Attacking the argument, even dismissively, is perfectly valid. Attacking the arguer is not. His/her family is way off limits.

Your best argument against evolutionary science is some solipsist nonsense that objective reality doesn't exist? That deserves no response but derision. Note that I derided your argument, not you. Wise up.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_13941479ff05838c29.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10449)

[DrBaltar]

Proverbs 15:1
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
.
I noticed you are a very frequent bible quoter. I know the book means a lot to you, but can you make your case well enough that your position can stand on it's own merits without constantly searching for validation from the bible?

I think religious people have view points like everyone else that are no more valid than anyone else's (at least without further relevant information/data to back it up), but they try to bolster their view point as one that is sanctioned by god just because they can find a semi-applicable quote in the bible, or whatever book they use.

It's also like seeing a congressman constantly quoting ancient Greek scholars or Aesop's Fables while debating a bill in the House that is meant for modern times. i.e. perhaps the general sentiment is valid but is often naive and doesn't take into account current relevant situations and events or benefit from modern research. You just drop some random quote from 2 or more millennia ago and smugly move on as if saying "I believe my point has been made".

[six7s]

It's also like seeing a congressman constantly quoting ancient Greek scholars or Aesop's Fables while debating a bill in the House that is meant for modern times. i.e. perhaps the general sentiment is valid but is often naive and doesn't take into account current relevant situations and events or benefit from modern research. You just drop some random quote from 2 or more millennia ago and smugly move on as if saying "I believe my point has been made".

:clap:

Although I have a hunch you're being a tad too generous with the 'perhaps the general sentiment is valid', I think you've hit the proverbial on the head :)

[wolfgirl]

You just drop some random quote from 2 or more millennia ago and smugly move on as if saying "I believe my point has been made".Yes! Exactly! I hate the smugness of the Bible quote as if that somehow ends all argument. Why does quoting a 2,000-year-old book make you right? I'm going to start dropping relevant-sounding quotes from Homer and see what happens...

[RobRoy]

Yes! Exactly! I hate the smugness of the Bible quote as if that somehow ends all argument. Why does quoting a 2,000-year-old book make you right?

Because it's from (all rights reserved, not available in some areas, check local listing) God.

If you believe that, then that ends the debate . . . except for where the Devil can quote scripture to his own purpose (Mathew 4, Luke 4).

So who do I believe? Aarrggh!?! Quick someone, quote me some Bible!

Damn, it must all come down to individual interpretation. I'll just have to think for myself. :eek:

I'm going to start dropping relevant-sounding quotes from Homer and see what happens...

You wanna see some rosy-fingered dawns? :D

[godofpie]

Yes! Exactly! I hate the smugness of the Bible quote as if that somehow ends all argument. Why does quoting a 2,000-year-old book make you right? I'm going to start dropping relevant-sounding quotes from Homer and see what happens...
Homer: Are you saying you're never going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Pork chops?
Lisa: Dad, those all come from the same animal.
Homer: Heh heh heh. Ooh, yeah, right, Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal.

Homer: [drunk] Look, the thing about my family is there's five of us. Marge, Bart, Girl Bart, the one who doesn't talk, and the fat guy. How I loathe him.

Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.

Marge: Homer, the plant called. They said if you don't show up tomorrow don't bother showing up on Monday.
Homer: Woo-hoo. Four-day weekend.

Homer: There's your giraffe, little girl.
Ralph Wiggum: I'm a boy.
Homer: That's the spirit. Never give up.

Here's to alcohol, the cause of—and solution to—all life's problems


you meant this Homer, right?

[Radrook]

I noticed you are a very frequent bible quoter. I know the book means a lot to you, but can you make your case well enough that your position can stand on it's own merits without constantly searching for validation from the bible?

emphasis mine

Sorry that Bible quotations annoy you. The reason I post scripture isn't because I feel that my point will have been proven to the ones who read it so there. I am well aware that those who are reading are in their majority atheists, agnostics, and possibly even a Satanist now and then. So I am definitely not under the delusion you seem to assume I am. I simply quote because the quote expresses my thoughts in a manner that I find equally effective or more effective than mine. I also quote to demonstrate the applicability of the Bible counsel to our everyday life or to demonstrate that it has value in providing us with guidance on how to behave.


I think religious people have view points like everyone else that are no more valid than anyone else's (at least without further relevant information/data to back it up), but they try to bolster their view point as one that is sanctioned by god just because they can find a semi-applicable quote in the bible, or whatever book they use.

Sorry you feel that way.


It's also like seeing a congressman constantly quoting ancient Greek scholars or Aesop's Fables while debating a bill in the House that is meant for modern times. i.e. perhaps the general sentiment is valid but is often naive[ and doesn't take into account current relevant situations and events or benefit from modern research. You just drop some random quote from 2 or more millennia ago and smugly move on as if saying "I believe my point has been made".

Sorry you feel that way.


BTW
Deletions of any of my previous comments on this post and the ones below are due to a recent administrator warning and based on what I think he might consider to be rude.

[Radrook]

Yes! Exactly! I hate the smugness of the Bible quote as if that somehow ends all argument. Why does quoting a 2,000-year-old book make you right? I'm going to start dropping relevant-sounding quotes from Homer and see what happens...

Sorry that you feel that way.

[Radrook]

Because it's from (all rights reserved, not available in some areas, check local listing) God....:You wanna see some rosy-fingered dawns? :D

Sigh! Ok! Bye! : )