Nephilim: Angels, giants, or God's eugenics program? [Archive] - Page 3

edge

19th February 2008, 10:22 AM

Rad says,

For example, the sudden appearance of Jesus among his followers though no doors were open. That concept is repeatedly tossed about via the Star Trek series where people use a transporter. Yet no one has ever accused the film of propagating magic. In the same series people are healed via what someone might interpret as a wave of the hand holding a device. This is similar to Jesus healing of the sick. Yet no one complains that magic is being invoked on the Star Trek series. There is also the appearance of beings who are -almost godlike-like Q for example. Yet again, no one seems to think it is magic but they accept it as a possibility because it is couched in scientific jargon. So are we really being skeptical due to the ideas themselves, or it for some other reason. In view of the above, I suspect the latter.

In the gospel of John, Jesus escapes stoning three or more times because it wasn’t Gods will for the death/sacrifice of Christ, it wasn’t time.
He vanishes right before their eyes.
He is obviously using a science that is far beyond our capabilities even now.

So here is a thought why are we not allowed this kind of advancement or how about time travel?
It, the Bible gives an answer.

Piggy asks again,

You tell me how I can tell the difference.

Why should I believe you, not them?

You tell me.

There is only one that offers salvation; to believe in me would do you no good, All I can do is witness to you.

Again, how do we know that your accepted miracles aren't caused by "rebel angels"?
Andrea Yates now knows and it’s to late, so there is how you can tell.
The New covenant is in place God will never ask of us what Andrea was fooled into doing.

Are YOU a mind reader, now ?

These examples were all past events that allow us to judge them for their virtues or lack of them.

Huh ? You think it's good that you don't understand?

No I think it’s good that you are searching with a slight open mind.

By WHICH process can we determine what feelings are true and which are not ?

By praying for answers, help in decisions and then answers are forth coming.
You learn to recognize the outcome, was it good or bad.
This won’t work for you because you have one big stumbling block that is your lack of belief.
Your unwillingness to accept, mean you will not receive the answers.
You can be lucky but you are not blessed, you think it’s magic and not miraculous.

That has nothing to do with the sentence you answered.

My answer,

Believe in the good be aware of the evil.

It has everything to do with it, ask Andrea or any one that has been fooled by the rebel angels.

Neither of those verses claims that what god does is not magic.

No Magician can make the blind see or the lame walk or give insight to the Father, magic is slight of hand and if a magician can make true magic it comes from the rebel angels/demons as a counterfeit miracle.

I see. So "miracle" is a medical term? I'm sorry, but the vernacular use of the word "miracle" does not have to result from the belief in the occurrences of miracles. Can you provide any modern scientific medical papers that make literal reference to a miraculous cure?

Unless you can tell us how Q did his tricks or how a transporter works they are still essentially "magic".
[/quote]
Slight of hand, magic from Hollywood.

Tricky

19th February 2008, 10:34 AM

Actually, the Bible holds up pretty well scientifically.

Scientific facts only recently discovered had been revealed in the
Bible thousands of years ago. The following list is an example:

Well lets just examine some of these, shall we?

The Theory of Creation
by Jim Schicatano

Predictions of Creation

Countless Stars

Jer 33:22
I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.

This is of course a metaphor, not science at all. It doesn’t take a lot of science to know that there are a lot of stars and sand grains. However, they are not infinite. They’re just hard to count.

Gen 22:17
I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.

Another metaphor. Interestingly though, in Jeremiah, they are “countless”, but in Genesis they are “numerous”. Seems like a contradiction.

Gen 32:12
But you have said, 'I will surely make you prosper and will make your descendants like the sand of the sea, which cannot be counted.

Metaphor. However, this actually displays a remarkable ignorance of science. All sand is not of the sea, it has many origins. Also it doesn’t mention sand that was once the sea, but due to tectonics, is now far above the sea. Also it doesn’t mention that while the beach is often made of sand (though this is by no means universal), most of the sea floor is mud. This is not good science in any case.

Gen 15:5
The same metaphor. Nothing scientific about it.
==============

Under SeaValleys
2 Sam 22: 16
The valleys of the sea were exposed
and the foundations of the earth laid bare
at the rebuke of the LORD,
at the blast of breath from his nostrils.

This is, of course, completely contrary to science. You would have to remove all the water on earth in order to expose the deepest valleys of the sea (the trenches). But yes, water runs into low places. This knowledge far precedes the Bible.

====================

Expanding Universe

Isaiah 40: 22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

This strongly suggests the earth is flat, since circles are two-dimensional geometric shapes. If there is a “throne” up there, it has not been discovered by science. Stretching like a canopy does not indicate expanding like the universe (now if a balloon had been mentioned, I might be more impressed.) This is absolutely awful science.

Ps 104: 2, 3
He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. He makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind.
Do you consider this a scientific description? Poetic, yes. Metaphorical, definitely, but scientific? Not even close.

Isa 42: 5
This is what God the LORD says—
he who created the heavens and stretched them out,
who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it,
who gives breath to its people,
and life to those who walk on it

The “heavens” are stretched out over much more than the earth. This indicates a high degree of geocentric belief, i.e. that the earth is the center of the universe. Science now knows that this is far from true. Also, there is no evidence that life or breath come from God. Give the bible a big “F” for this report.

Isa 45:12
I will lay waste the mountains and hills and dry up all their vegetation;
I will turn rivers into islands and dry up the pools.

It takes an insane person to think this is supposed to indicate an expanding universe. It sounds like God is getting ready to murder some people again. And what for? Take a look at
Isa 45:17
But those who trust in idols, who say to images, 'You are our gods,' will be turned back in utter shame.
God is all upset about not being worshipped again so he’s going to make them die of thirst. What a prick!
==========================

Existence of Space

Job 26:7
He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

LOL. The earth is not suspended. And space isn’t empty. The bible is wrong again.
==============================

Hydrologic Cycle

Job 26:37-28
Invalid reference.

Job 26:8
He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.

This has nothing to do with the hydrologic cycle. Also, water is not “wrapped” in clouds. Clouds are water. Plus I’m guessing that it didn’t take humans long to figure out that clouds and rain are associated. My cat has that figured out. Mr. Schicatano has a very low standard for being impressed with scientific knowledge.

Ecc 1: 6-7
The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course.
All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.
This is just flat out wrong. I don’t blame these early humans for having mistaken impressions about how the world works, but anybody who believes this in this age has no excuse for their ignorance.

==============
Antiquity of the Earth

Hab 3: 6
He stood, and shook the earth; he looked, and made the nations tremble.
The ancient mountains crumbled and the age-old hills collapsed.
His ways are eternal.

This has nothing to do with the antiquity of the earth. But I invite others to look at the entire chapter (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/parser.php?search1=hab+3%3A1-11&version1=31&showmoresearches=closed&showmoreversions=closed&pslookup_showfootnotes=yes&pslookup_showxrefs=). God is being a prick again.
***
That's all I have time for right now, but suffice it to say that not a single one of those examples demonstrates that the bible "holds up well scientifically". Just the opposite. It is as full of ignorance and superstition as you would expect writings of simple, uneducated people to be.

Belz...

19th February 2008, 10:40 AM

These examples were all past events that allow us to judge them for their virtues or lack of them.

Nice dodge, Edge.

And please learn to use the quote function properly.

No I think it’s good that you are searching with a slight open mind.

I have a very open mind. Unfortunately for theists it means that I look for evidence, not feelings. Feelings can say anything, and they're just as often wrong than right, because they actually have no basis in reality (other than their hormonal nature, of course).

By praying for answers

Let me get this straight. I ask you how you can know that a certain feeling is true and that another isn't, and you basically answer that you can by trusting your feelings ?

Isn't that a tad circular ?

My answer,

It has everything to do with it, ask Andrea or any one that has been fooled by the rebel angels.

YOU are the one who's claiming that. I'm asking you how can YOU tell that it is deception or not, since obviously other pious theists have ALSO been fooled.

No Magician can make the blind see or the lame walk

No, but they can write books like the bible that CLAIMS that this happened.

Piggy

19th February 2008, 10:52 AM

Yeppers, that's exactly what I was asking.

Thanks for the thumbnail sketch, it made perfect sense. So Duet. was, in a sense, the Book of Mormon of its time; answering questions and addressing issues that were relevant and aligned nicely with the way the authors wanted things to go. A kind of conspiracy theory for the Bible?

Yeah, I guess you could make that comparison.

Another example I mentioned before, tho not in that context, was Ezekiel's vision. But that's different from Deut b/c it was radically new.

Basically, the school of Ezekiel invented the theology of a universal, spiritual god, an idea we don't find prior.

But again, this notion was expedient. Without it, Israel would have been bereft of their God.

So if there's an argument to be made for revelation, that would be it.

Except, if that vision of God is correct, it implies that the previous theology was wrong... unless God changed his mind about the whole tabernacling business.

Piggy

19th February 2008, 10:55 AM

Tricky

19th February 2008, 11:02 AM

Off topic, I already explaned and you refuse to accept it.
Yes, you explained it, but that doesn't excuse it. You didn't lie to protect someone's feelings. You didn't lie to save fellow soldiers in combat. You didn't even lie to keep Santa Claus believable for some child. You lied for the sake of greed. That's one of the kinds of lies I find more reprehensible.

RobRoy

19th February 2008, 11:22 AM

Except, if that vision of God is correct, it implies that the previous theology was wrong... unless God changed his mind about the whole tabernacling business.

Missed that part of your post entirely. Went back, and read it, and you're right. That's actually exactly what I was looking for: something profoundly different from the rest that it could be credited as being divinely influenced.

The tabernacling issue does present a unique problem, one that others, including Jesus, would endevour to overthrow later, as it invited elitism into worship.

Piggy

19th February 2008, 11:31 AM

edge...

A thought comes into your head, you call it the Word of God.

A feeling comes to you, you call it the Will of God.

A thought comes into someone else's head -- if it agrees with your thoughts, it is also the Word of God; if not, it is not the Word of God.

A feeling comes to someone -- if it agrees with your feelings, it is also the Will of God; if not, it is not the Will of God.

You tell me to pray. If I were to pray and say that I heard God, and God told me something that did not agree with you, you would say, no, that's not it, pray harder. If I then prayed and said I heard God, and God told me something that agreed with you, you would say, yes, now you hear right.

If there is a more supreme act of egotism, I cannot imagine it.

Foster Zygote

19th February 2008, 11:43 AM

Radrook

19th February 2008, 12:04 PM

You did not answer the question. How can you convince us that the miracles you believe in are genuine while the miracles you discount are false?[/quyote]

Who said I'm trying to convince you?

[quote]
[b]
Myself, Piggy, Nogbad, Belz, Tricky, Bokonon etc...[b]

Oh I get the point OK.

Again, how do we know that your accepted miracles aren't caused by "rebel angels"?

Again? Are you kidding?

So there are false miracles to be found. Do you allow for the possibility that the miracles you accept as genuine are false or indeed that all miracles are false?

Of course not.

of those verses claims that what god does is not magic.
Context

e it backward. It is not up to me to prove that the supernatural does not exist, it is up to you to prove that it does. My only stance is that there is no evidence in favor of the existence of the supernatural. I will not accept that it exists unless evidence is presented. You have failed to present any evidence for the supernatural.

That's a lazy way out. Neither is it logical. Absence of proof does not meen proof of absence. Try applying it to your abiogensis pet idea. Of course you won't since you reserve that for the anti-God stance only.

BTW
I really don't care as much as you think whether you believe or not.

I see. So "miracle" is a medical term? I'm sorry, but the vernacular use of the the word "miracle" does not have to result from the belief in the occurance of miracles. Can you provide any modern scientific medical papers that make literal reference to a miraculous cure?
'
You argue against that since I didn't say it. No papers needed since the expression is common.

a fictional character? Unless you can tell us how Q did his tricks or how a transporter works they are still essentially "magic".

Feigning incomprehernsion of what is said isn't effective argumentation. Or are you simply trying to swamp via volume? Actually, you have reverted into droning I don't understand anything you say and will invent things asnd attribute them to you mode. Also, your tone is one of an amateure trial lawyer. Do you really believe I am under obligation to submit myself to that kind of approach?

If a question ignores obvious logic, or if it appears to feign ignorance. or even if it demands that I asume a victimized mentality under constant barrage of irrelevancies-I will evade it because it is time wasting not to mention extremely annoying.

edge

19th February 2008, 12:58 PM

edge, post 503 was more dancing and dodging.

No answer to my question.

I can now only conclude that you have no answer, and you are indeed a supreme egotist who believes his thoughts are the Will and Word of Almighty God.

He talks to me all ways. I talk back; they say it is a sign of something.
I sorry that you don't believe me I try to make it his will but even I can't always.
In other words I keep learning and asking for forgiveness to get that communication back.
Then things start going well again.

To explain all this to you I have to write a book in here and IS that what you want me to do.
I'll be in here a while if I do?

In John he radically changes everything, the Father he talked about is always working and adapting even on the Sabbath.

So from my viewpoint it still is happening this is the first place to look in today’s world for proof and you guys know all this and I have posted links about it.

You tell me to pray. If I were to pray and say that I heard God, and God told me something that did not agree with you, you would say, no, that's not it, pray harder. If I then prayed and said I heard God, and God told me something that agreed with you, you would say, yes, now you hear right.

It depends on what you tell me.

I have no ides if it’s right or wrong unless you are specific.
Radrook and I agree on our beliefs so if we come together and talk and pray we can be in agreement because there will be a proof of out come through fellowship, “if two or more of you come together I will be there”.
And always in a good way.

If you told me that God told you to hurt your family and said that you must tell Edge of this, I would be tied to that destiny to either fix it the best I can or run away and observe.

What would you do?

The first thing I would do is say Lord help me make the right choices.
Then I would try to talk you out of it and maybe eventually stop you some way, If it was gods will the out come will be what it is and what the purpose was through will and there might be a form of proof.
Things are starting to come to light isn’t that the saying?
In other words you’ll be able to put 1 and 1 together and get proof there’s 3.

Tricky is accusing me,
Yes, you explained it, but that doesn't excuse it. You didn't lie to protect someone's feelings. You didn't lie to save fellow soldiers in combat. You didn't even lie to keep Santa Claus believable for some child. You lied for the sake of greed. That's one of the kinds of lies I find more reprehensible.

It was an experiment; see what science can do to you?

God knows my heart Tricky and he’s going to do his will.
If you see me as imperfect then you are right.
We only can get better.

The fellow solider in combat was my daughter.

I was going in to learn apparently, and now I know the flaw it that experiment.
Now James knows that I know and I wonder if he knew all along?

What I was really doing was looking for alternative energy.
My conclusion is it sure looks like it still, but still inconclusive.
More tests need to be run and all I have to do is go mining..

Do you forgive me?

Belz...

19th February 2008, 01:12 PM

He talks to me all ways. I talk back; they say it is a sign of something.

Of what, though ?

Muslims also say he talks to them. Some of the most extreme ones say he tells them to blow themselves up. How can YOU tell that their conversations with God aren't geniune but yours are ?

Honestly, Edge, you've simply shown time and time again that you HAVE no idea how do distinguish between true and false as far as religion goes. The only thing you do is blindly trust your own feelings to the exclusion of all others.

That is what distinguishes science from woo, and the foundation of the scientific method, which specifically tries to prevent the behaviour and bias you're displaying, is what allowed us to move forward.

Tricky

19th February 2008, 01:24 PM

Tricky is accusing me.
It is an accusation to which you have already admitted.

It was an experiment; see what science can do to you?
It was not an experiment. You had a claim of which you were quite certain. You expressed no doubt about the outcome.

God knows my heart Tricky and he’s going to do his will.
If you see me as imperfect then you are right.
We only can get better.
I don't mind you lying. As I've said, we all lie. But your sanctamonious stand against liars here strikes me as hypocrisy.

The fellow solider in combat was my daughter.
I have no idea what you're talking about. As far as I can remember, this is the first time you've ever mentioned your daughter.

I was going in to learn apparently, and now I know the flaw it that experiment.
Now James knows that I know and I wonder if he knew all along?
You apparently didn't learn. James knew all along (from long experience and numerous tests) that dowsing doesn't work. That is the lesson that you should have taken away. But you did not.

What I was really doing was looking for alternative energy.
My conclusion is it sure looks like it still, but still inconclusive.
More tests need to be run and all I have to do is go mining.
This is yet a new tack. You've managed to go six years without mentioning that you were looking for alternative energy. You said you were looking for gold. Now perhaps this is not a lie. Perhaps you just remember poorly. Your stories have a way of becoming more fantastic as they age.

Do you forgive me?
I have said many times that I think you are a basically nice guy. I still think that. I believe though that you will cross the line of niceness when it comes to defending your delusions. I honestly wish you would join us in the real world. I think you would like it better and do a better job of setting reachable goals. Of course, I forgive you. But I haven't forgotten, and I hope you won't either. Otherwise, the lesson is lost.

Achán hiNidráne

19th February 2008, 02:21 PM

Despite the fact that Rad has me on ignore, there is just too much grand mal silliness here to be left unanswered:

Who said I'm trying to convince you?

Then why the Hell are you arguing with us at all?

Again? Are you kidding?

It's a fair question. Dismissing it out of hand won't change that.

Of course not.

Of course not... any other rational explanation might throw a monkey wrench into the carefully contrived philosophy you've created for yourself to help you justify you're willful ignorance and bigotry.

Why am I NOT surprised?

Context

So an alleged "supernatural" event is only a "miracle" when it's serves to verify your supersticions but it's blackest "magic" when it doesn't?

Oh know I see the difference! :rolleyes:

That's a lazy way out.

Well, that's logic for you.

Neither is it logical.

Actually its not only quite logical it's how big, bad, science works. The only person here making a claim is you. You've made the claim now put up the evidence or shut up.

Preferably, the latter.

Absence of proof does not meen proof of absence.

No, absence of proof is an absence of proof. Without proof we have no reason to believe. Again, put up or shut up.

Try applying it to your abiogensis pet idea. Of course you won't since you reserve that for the anti-God stance only.

While research is ongoing, there is far more evidence for abiogenesis (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html) than there ever was for your (or anyone else's) deity.

BTW
I really don't care as much as you think whether you believe or not.

Again, if you "don't care," then why are you here evangelizing? If not to save our apocryphal "souls," then perhaps it's to serve smug, self-righteousness?

You argue against that since I didn't say it. No papers needed since the expression is common.

Nice dodge.

Feigning incomprehernsion of what is said isn't effective argumentation. Or are you simply trying to swamp via volume? Actually, you have reverted into droning I don't understand anything you say and will invent things asnd attribute them to you mode. Also, your tone is one of an amateure trial lawyer. Do you really believe I am under obligation to submit myself to that kind of approach?

If a question ignores obvious logic, or if it appears to feign ignorance. or even if it demands that I asume a victimized mentality under constant barrage of irrelevancies-I will evade it because it is time wasting not to mention extremely annoying.

Again, Zygote asked a fair question and you try to dodge it by insulting his integrity (i.e. "Feigning incomprehernsion" (sic), etc.) and playing the victim card.

Why are you so afraid of where the rational answers to these queries might take you? How does your faith suffer if your Bible is found to be the collection of Bronze Age tall tales and legends that it is? Even if the disproving the Bible cast doubt on Yahweh's/Jehovah's existance, why would that harm you?

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Foster Zygote

19th February 2008, 02:41 PM

Who said I'm trying to convince you?
Are you playing tedious, pedantic word games or are you suggesting that you do not have confidence in the truth of your arguments?

Again? Are you kidding?
Not in the least. How do we tell the difference between your claims and the claims of those who adhere to other religious beliefs?

Of course not.
Can you provide examples of some true miracles as well as false miracles and explain the difference?

Context.
Context what? That isn't even a sentence fragment. All I see in those verses is a warning not to go to fortune tellers and mystics. Where do they say that God is not magical?

That's a lazy way out. Neither is it logical. Absence of proof does not meen proof of absence. Try applying it to your abiogensis pet idea. Of course you won't since you reserve that for the anti-God stance only.
No, the lazy way out is to say "We can't see beyond that mountain ridge, so that's where the dragons are". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but neither is it evidence of some thing's existence. Applying your logic, one is just as obligated to believe in invisible pink unicorns and leprechauns as in the Christian god, or any other gods. And abiogenesis has nothing to do with gods, invisible pink unicorns or any other mythical beings. It has to do with chemistry pure and simple.

BTW
I really don't care as much as you think whether you believe or not.
Oh, I think you care very much whether people think you are correct or not. Otherwise, why would you have lied about the origin of that list?

You argue against that since I didn't say it. No papers needed since the expression is common.
A lot of expressions are common but none the less not used literally. Am I to deduce that Harry Caray was a Hindu because he was fond of exclaiming "HOLY COW!!!"?

Feigning incomprehernsion of what is said isn't effective argumentation. Or are you simply trying to swamp via volume? Actually, you have reverted into droning I don't understand anything you say and will invent things asnd attribute them to you mode. Also, your tone is one of an amateure trial lawyer. Do you really believe I am under obligation to submit myself to that kind of approach?

If a question ignores obvious logic, or if it appears to feign ignorance. or even if it demands that I asume a victimized mentality under constant barrage of irrelevancies-I will evade it because it is time wasting not to mention extremely annoying.
Annoying? I thought you didn't really care.

I see you are ignoring the fact that you cannot tell us how these fictional technologies actually work. In the end you are still insisting that the dragons are right over the next mountain ridge.

Foster Zygote

19th February 2008, 02:46 PM

Despite the fact that Rad has me on ignore...

I suspect he doesn't really use his ignore function on anyone, he simply ignores them the old fashioned way.

Tricky

19th February 2008, 02:55 PM

I suspect he doesn't really use his ignore function on anyone, he simply ignores them the old fashioned way.
The Amish call it "shunning".

Piggy

19th February 2008, 03:07 PM

Foster Zygote

19th February 2008, 03:14 PM

The Amish call it "shunning".

Even on their internet forums?

Tricky

19th February 2008, 05:02 PM

Even on their internet forums?
Yes, but they have to do it after plowing season when they can hook up their horses to the computer.

edge

19th February 2008, 05:40 PM

Radrook:

You say you are here just to present a view.

Then you are in the wrong place.

This is a skeptical community.

No one gets away with simply saying "I believe this". That's not what we're here for.

edge:

There are only 2 possible conclusions if we follow your thinking:

1. You cannot be wrong about what God says. Others can. EGOTISM.

2. God would not allow you to be wrong about His Word, but He does allow others to be wrong. EGOTISM.

This is a right place to be.

Not in the least. How do we tell the difference between your claims and the claims of those who adhere to other religious beliefs?

One brings life and the other brings death.

I have no idea what you're talking about. As far as I can remember, this is the first time you've ever mentioned your daughter.
No in 1999, 2000 I told you what was going on with her health.

You apparently didn't learn. James knew all along (from long experience and numerous tests) that dowsing doesn't work. That is the lesson that you should have taken away. But you did not.
I found the flaw in the way he’s testing and I proved it last summer, and I am still doing that in the field.
My success there goes beyond that test in an office, in tries and successes alone.

This is yet a new tack. You've managed to go six years without mentioning that you were looking for alternative energy. You said you were looking for gold. Now perhaps this is not a lie. Perhaps you just remember poorly. Your stories have a way of becoming more fantastic as they age.

I tried to stay off of this subject but lets see if I can refresh your memory.
I was using it as a mining tool when I noticed other properties that the devise exhibits.
This is the main theme, small amount of my energy in, for a greater mechanical movement.
What is the movement related to and can it be changed?

If true and proven by the double blind test then we could theorize even further.
It would be a further understanding of gravity and how we could use it and the energy that can be tapped from the either.
Don’t know if I spelled it right but you get my drift.
I was going under some of Teslas assumption and thinking there must be something that can come close to demonstrating an almost free energy field.
Dowsing for heavy metals demonstrates that if it isn’t the Ideomotor effect, “at which point people in here turned hostile”, then it was something to look into.

The million is nothing compared to this, “replacing fossil fuels and using the rotation and the field of the Earth to develop virtual free energy”.
Before I wrote to the JREF I had already sent a proposal to NASA to run experiments in a micro gravity environment.
This would have either been the death toll for dowsing for heavy elements and water or a new revelation and a key, to a new resource.
Newton’s law would have come into effect and that would have been that, it would have proved motion as a byproduct or it would not.
Even if it’s a one-way attraction something else should happen and that’s movement, because there in a micro-gravity state there is no weight to mass per-say.
Once you push or pull momentum continues.
Is there a way to use a mechanism to amplify the effects that’s what I’m looking for.

You should be able to pull off a stationary electromagnetic field or a heavy metal target.
Where are the heaviest elements and heaviest fields?
What could we use?
Pushing through space is futile but pulling isn’t because of what else is observed.

This is a good reason why I do not think it is ideomotor effect.
When I dowse for gold the closer I get the stronger the attraction apply that principal to a space environment and then what do you have.
If correct, unlimited speed that develops exponetionaly.

When I sent my proposal to them they did this, taken from one of my old docs.,

Remember the tether experiment?

The experiment was to see how much power we could retrieve from the electro magnetic field of the Earth.
It supposedly was so much power that it fried the tether wire and it broke free.
Then there were UFOs.

Something may not want us to know what this type of physics leads to?

Or our government doesn't want us to know about free power.

I would like to know how much was received before it fried and what their readings were that they monitored.
Nothing else was ever said and it makes you wonder because it had positive results up until it fried.

It was working better than their expectations.
Since you guys brought it up, this movie also is about the alleged UFOs that were spotted during this experiment and are not relevant, what is though is it parallels what I was on about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I&mode=related&search

If they prove what they are saying in here, http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/dowsing_and_magnetic_sense.html
Then we are back to the ideomotor effect and a better explanation of its effect.
I still can’t agree with their analyses.

Piggy I’ll get back to you in a minute.
I’ll show you what I’m talking about from John.

Piggy

19th February 2008, 05:45 PM

Piggy I’ll get back to you in a minute.
I’ll show you what I’m talking about from John.

No, you won't.

And do you know why?

Because I've forgotten more about the Bible than you will ever know about the Bible.

And because my question is not about the Bible. It is about you, my egotistical friend.

edge

19th February 2008, 06:25 PM

Well at least you called me friend.
Some of my base is in these words.

21Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. 23And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

1 John 4
Test the Spirits
1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. 6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

10Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Jesus Appears to His Disciples
19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
10Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught."
11Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. 12Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." None of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord. 13Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.

In other words Piggy you have to believe first and do right not wrong to receive the Holy Spirit then you get the answers.

Piggy

19th February 2008, 06:54 PM

In other words Piggy you have to believe first

But If I believe first, I will follow whoever shows up at my door at the earliest hour.

Could be Jesus.

Could be Mohammed.

Could be the Church of Satan.

Your way cannot lead to truth. Or if it does, it can do so only by chance -- some will find truth, many more will fall into error. And no one will know when they have it.

I cannot recommend it.

If you believe first, even lies will appear true.

Your way is folly.

Tricky

19th February 2008, 07:00 PM

No in 1999, 2000 I told you what was going on with her health.
That is possible. I arrived here in November of 2001. When did the forum begin, does anyone know offhand?

I found the flaw in the way he’s testing and I proved it last summer, and I am still doing that in the field.
My success there goes beyond that test in an office, in tries and successes alone.
You have not found a flaw in his testing. You have not proved anything. This much I know is correct. I've been reading your writing for several years now, and you cannot even tell us what your protocol is, much less describe a flaw in Randi's testing.

I tried to stay off of this subject but lets see if I can refresh your memory.
I was using it as a mining tool when I noticed other properties that the devise exhibits.
This is the main theme, small amount of my energy in, for a greater mechanical movement.
What is the movement related to and can it be changed?
I recall you talking about some kind of force which violated Newton's laws of physics. You seemed to think that you had found an action without an equal and opposite reaction. I don't recall that one of your purposes in dowsing was to try to harness this force. As I recall, your purpose was to make money.

But it is true, you have spouted a lot of "theories" over the years. Not a single one of them had any basis in evidence. If they had, you would be hailed as one of the greatest scientists of all time. But you are not. Not even close. You have only the faintest grasp of how science works.

If true and proven by the double blind test then we could theorize even further.
It would be a further understanding of gravity and how we could use it and the energy that can be tapped from the either.
Don’t know if I spelled it right but you get my drift.
You haven't theorized at all. A theory fits the evidence. Your theory fits no evidence. What you are doing is commonly called "arm-waving".

I was going under some of Teslas assumption and thinking there must be something that can come close to demonstrating an almost free energy field.
I don't believe you can, in your own words, describe Tesla's work with any accuracy. So far, nothing has ever come close to "demonstrating an almost free energy field." The concept of free energy is another violation of the laws of physics. I'm pretty sure Tesla knew this.

Dowsing for heavy metals demonstrates that if it isn’t the Ideomotor effect, “at which point people in here turned hostile”, then it was something to look into.
Dosing for heavy metals has never been successfully done in a properly controlled double blind test. Thus, it hasn't demonstrated anything. The only thing that has been demonstrated is that dowsing doesn't work. But if you want to take a place in history, you can at least take pride in the fact that you are one of the people who has helped demonstrate that dowsing doesn't work. We're all grateful for that.

The million is nothing compared to this, “replacing fossil fuels and using the rotation and the field of the Earth to develop virtual free energy”.
Before I wrote to the JREF I had already sent a proposal to NASA to run experiments in a micro gravity environment.

And what did NASA say to you? Did they even bother to reply? If so, can you show us the letter? If your letter to NASA was as carefully constructed as your writing on these boards, I feel that it is likely they laughed and threw it away, or perhaps somebody filed it under "humor".

This would have either been the death toll for dowsing for heavy elements and water or a new revelation and a key, to a new resource.
There is no need to sound a death toll for something that was never alive. Don't you think NASA would have seen the merit in your ideas if there had been any? They're very forward thinking, those guys.

Newton’s law would have come into effect and that would have been that, it would have proved motion as a byproduct or it would not. if it’s a one-way attraction something else should happen and that’s movement, because there in a micro-gravity state there is no weight to mass per-say.
This statement makes no sense at all, which you would realize if you had even a basic science education. Take some classes, Edge. You're embarrassing yourself with this drivel.

Once you push or pull momentum continues.
Is there a way to use a mechanism to amplify the effects that’s what I’m looking for.
Amplification would require more "pushing or pulling". To amplify or accelerate, you must add force. This is one of the simplest formulas in physics. If you're interested, I'm sure someone here will be glad to explain this to you in a little more detail. Your "theories" will be destroyed, but at least you will learn something.

You should be able to pull off a stationary electromagnetic field or a heavy metal target.
Where are the heaviest elements and heaviest fields?
What could we use?
Pushing through space is futile but pulling isn’t because of what else is observed.
This is pure, unadulterated gibberish. It's not even good gibberish, like the people who run "free energy" scams use. Not even a child would be convinced by this.

This is a good reason why I do not think it is ideomotor effect.
You don't even know what the ideomotor effect is. You have never understood even the basic concept that it is YOU subconsciously making the dowsing rod twitch. When YOU don't know where the target is, it doesn't twitch at the right place. All properly run dowsing tests, including the one you took in Randi's office six years ago, have shown this to be true. The ideomotor effect is not a force.

When I dowse for gold the closer I get the stronger the attraction apply that principal to a space environment and then what do you have.
If correct, unlimited speed that develops exponetionaly.
If that was true, then you ought to be able to make a pendulum of gold swing by dowsing at it from close range. You can't.

When I sent my proposal to them they did this, taken from one of my old docs.
Oh, so NASA stole your ideas and didn't give you credit? Well that's good news for you, Edge. You can show a lawyer the document you sent them and sue NASA for a whole lot of money. Intellectual theft is a crime, Edge, and you should make them pay for it.

But you'll pardon me if I am skeptical on your claim.
***
By the way. What Piggy says about his knowledge of the Bible? It's true. He knows more about the Bible and religious texts in general than any person I've ever seen here, and we've had some good ones. You could learn a great deal from him. In fact, you'd be a fool to try to challenge him in that field of expertise. But I doubt that will stop you.

edge

19th February 2008, 08:41 PM

If that was true, then you ought to be able to make a pendulum of gold swing by dowsing at it from close range. You can't.

That statement may not be entirely true.
Tricky the name fits you so well,Oh, so NASA stole your ideas and didn't give you credit? Well that's good news for you, Edge. You can show a lawyer the document you sent them and sue NASA for a whole lot of money. Intellectual theft is a crime, Edge, and you should make them pay for it.

That's not even what I said, they choose this over mine is more accurate.
Along with the rest of, as you say, your drivel.

You have not proved anything.
SezMes' small version of the new test is proof that higher numbers were reached.
Not counting several that we conducted here.

This statement makes no sense at all, which you would realize if you had even a basic science education. Take some classes, Edge. You're embarrassing yourself with this drivel.
Every one that I have explained this to does, funny how you don't.

I have explained this to you before and now you remember.

As I recall, your purpose was to make money.

Isn’t that everybody’s purpose in today’s world, it takes money to make money, funding is important.

But it is true, you have spouted a lot of "theories" over the years. Not a single one of them had any basis in evidence.
So you do remember.
You don't even know what the ideomotor effect is. You have never understood even the basic concept that it is YOU subconsciously making the dowsing rod twitch.
So what’s your point? Is this trickys’ thread of de-rails?

Twitch?

Radrook

19th February 2008, 08:55 PM

This is all total drivel and doesn't even deserve reading nor a response.

Radrook

19th February 2008, 09:00 PM

Well lets just examine some of these, shall we?

The Theory of Creation
by Jim Schicatano

Predictions of Creation

Countless Stars

Jer 33:22
I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.

This is of course a metaphor, not science at all. It doesn’t take a lot of science to know that there are a lot of stars and sand grains. However, they are not infinite. They’re just hard to count.....

God is being a prick again.

[COLOR=#404040][FONT=Verdana]

Astrologers had counted the visible stars at that time for astrological purposes. So the import of the word "countless" has to be understood within that context.

The rest is the same senseless, mindless, fanatical, chirping with a concluding nasty barb and doesn't deserve a response.

snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip

Piggy

19th February 2008, 09:08 PM

This is all total drivel and doesn't even deserve reading nor a response.

I know, but for some reason, we're hanging in here with you anyway.

Tricky

19th February 2008, 09:57 PM

Astrologers had counted the visible stars at that time for astrological purposes. So the import of the word "countless" has to be understood within that context.
Did they? Where are their numbers? Do you think they might have discovered that the numbers vary depending on the season or the clarity of the night?

Countless just meant "too many to count". It has nothing to do with science.

The rest is the same senseless, mindless, fanatical, chirping with a concluding nasty barb and doesn't deserve a response.
Actually, I responded to the claims showing that the bible is not correct about science in any but the most obvious observations. And the nasty barb was not at you. It was at the god that the Old Testement describes. He is described as a jealous, insecure, tyrannical. murderous jerk (as exemplified in the very verses you suggested). That is not your fault. You didn't describe Him that way. But of course if you accept the OT as true and still worship that God, then you might be mistaken as supporting that sort of personality. Surely you can understand why.

snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip
That's okay. I didn't expect you to have any response. I would have been totally shocked if you had even made a lame attempt to defend your position. But I think it is obvious that your claim that the bible has scientific merit is completely destroyed. Remember, there are real scientists here, not just wide-eyed, credulous innocents.

Belz...

20th February 2008, 05:23 AM

As I've said, we all lie.

I disagree. I do believe, last time we discussed this, it was concluded that "we would all lie under certain circumstances." :D

Piggy

20th February 2008, 05:29 AM

Astrologers had counted the visible stars at that time for astrological purposes.

I don't know of any such count by the ancient Hebrews.

Also, the ancient Hebrews were not given to astrology.

If you're refering to counts by Ptolemy and others, you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Of course, if you can point me to a count which would have been known to the Hebrews at that time, please do.

But you don't, of course. You just heard this erroneous theory (no, folks, he didn't make it up) and passed it on without really considering it or checking it out.

Belz...

20th February 2008, 05:30 AM

How do we tell the difference between your claims and the claims of those who adhere to other religious beliefs?

One brings life and the other brings death.

So ? Something that brings death might be seen by you as "bad", but it doesn't make it any less true. Again, how do we tell the difference between a true belief and a false one ?

In other words Piggy you have to believe first

That makes no sense. We are asking how we can tell the difference between a true belief and a false one. The presence of that belief changes nothing. In fact, it would be counter-productive to hold the belief first, because then we'd be impaired in our judgment of whether the belief is true or not.

Again, how to we tell the difference ?

Belz...

20th February 2008, 05:31 AM

When did the forum begin, does anyone know offhand?

According to the members' list, the earliest member is Randi, and he was logged in on April 2001.

Belz...

20th February 2008, 05:35 AM

The rest is the same senseless, mindless, fanatical, chirping with a concluding nasty barb and doesn't deserve a response.

Fanatical ? Why is it that theists always project their own thoughts onto others ?

Tricky

20th February 2008, 06:00 AM

No in 1999, 2000 I told you what was going on with her health.
According to the members' list, the earliest member is Randi, and he was logged in on April 2001.
Oh dear. That means that Edge has been caught in another... erm... honest mistake.

Well, we all know his memory has a high randomization factor.

Radrook

20th February 2008, 06:57 AM

Radrook

20th February 2008, 07:08 AM

In other words Piggy you have to believe first and do right not wrong to receive the Holy Spirit then you get the answers.

Very good point brother Edge! They fail to realize that God's help is essential for us to understand.

John 14:26).
“The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you”

There is also the matter of whether those who hear his message are either his teachable symbolic sheep or are in fact the symbolic stubborn goats Jesus tells us about.

John 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Of course that's not for us to say. However, each person's reaction to Jesus's voice will eventually place him either at the right of God or to his left and will eventually, if persistent, decide his or her eternal destiny.

Matthew 25:33
And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Matthew 12:30
He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.

So we are either sheep or goats-there is no middle ground.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Foster Zygote

20th February 2008, 07:10 AM

After all, the claim that there is no God is simply a claim without evidence to prove it.

Which god? Zeus, Huitzilopotchli, Wotan, Ganesh, Cthulhu, The Flying Spaghetti Monster? By your logic you are in error if you deny anything for which there is no evidence. Do you deny that Ganesh exists?

"The dragons are just over the next mountain ridge."

Foster Zygote

20th February 2008, 07:13 AM

Tricky

20th February 2008, 07:24 AM

The essential problem is this:

1. Ridiculous claims and accusations: The Genesis author was unaware that there is sand in deserts?

2. Unreasonable expectations or criteria: Expecting and demanding the writer use scientific speech unintelligible to his audience.

3. Unwarranted conclusions: Concluding from context what isn't said.

4. Inconsistency: Tagging things as merely metaphorical when convenient and literal when ridicule is the goal.

5. Selective blindness or feigning incomprehension: Claiming inability to understand or see the obvious while just easily having seen it in a previous point.

6. Purposeful malicious rudeness: Insertion of snide remarks involving a hominem or else designed to provoke a raise.

7. Twisting: Inserting own thoughts into the text and claiming the author said it.
You linked the verses claimed to show that the bible was "pretty good" at science. I have shown that they are not good at all. They are in fact wretched. Of course, this is to be expected of writings of the day, however, Christian apologists seem to be trying to say that they were somehow (miraculously?) similar to what is known today. If such is the case, then they are wrong. Demonstrably

Despite my revulsion, when confronted with this type of pseudo quackery, I was in the process of answering each and every one of those idiocies. But then came to the name-calling. Then I realized that discussion wasn't really the goal and opted for a better choice.
Just FYI, quackery refers to fake medicine. And of course, pseudo quackery would mean an imitation fake.

I have called you no names, though I did refer to a god that would kill people because they didn't worship him (as clearly shown in those verses you linked) "a prick" and I stand by that statement. But I am not surprised you choose not to answer my "idiocies" (speaking of name-calling). I do not believe you have a reasonable answer.

As for Piggy's statement: As Edge stated, that is Egotistical. After all, the claim that there is no God is simply a claim without evidence to prove it.
Yes, that would be an unsupported claim. However I and most atheists here do not make such a claim. We only say there is no evidence for a god. Yet without any evidence that a god exists, Edge and others will presume to speak for one. Yes, I think that presenting oneself as God's mouthpiece is egotistical. Don't you?

Yet the majority here continuously drone about it with nary a care in the world and not giving a FFA whether it has been conclusively proven or not. In short, snort, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Let's be equitable in our assessments lest we be found guilty of avarice.
I'm sure you are mistaken. While there are a very few here who make such a claim, I think it is clear that they are in the minority (only about 25% according to this internal poll (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106453)). And even so, this is not a "claim" but a belief.

The only "claim" is that so far, there is no good evidence for a god. The way to prove that claim wrong would be to show good evidence for a god. Do you have any?

ETA: Speaking of claims, you say I have been rude. Can you indicate which parts of what I have posted have been rude and to whom I have been rude?

PixyMisa

20th February 2008, 07:39 AM

Visits to the moon were imagined by Johannes Kepler and even a Chinese emperor (Huang Di?).
And Lucian (2nd century AD) in his "True History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_History)". (A trilogy in two parts!)

Belz...

20th February 2008, 08:11 AM

After all, the claim that there is no God is simply a claim without evidence to prove it.

And since there is no evidence that there IS a god, we go with Occam's Razor.

Thank you for making that clear.

edge

20th February 2008, 10:10 AM

Oh dear. That means that Edge has been caught in another... erm... honest mistake.

My bad Space.com 1999 here 2001/2002.
The answer still stands because I told you about it here, my daughter.

Which god? Zeus, Huitzilopotchli, Wotan, Ganesh, Cthulhu, The Flying Spaghetti Monster? By your logic you are in error if you deny anything for which there is no evidence. Do you deny that Ganesh exists?

They can’t even mention the right name.

And since there is no evidence that there IS a god, we go with Occam's Razor.

Thank you for making that clear.

We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit”.
14This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.

And he still appears in the mind of believers.There are things that verify the truth that are shown that you will not see or hear.
There is an exchange that you won’t be able to participate in because you are not humble enough to receive it.

But you'll pardon me if I am skeptical on your claim.
Sure.

By the way. What Piggy says about his knowledge of the Bible? It's true. He knows more about the Bible and religious texts in general than any person I've ever seen here, and we've had some good ones. You could learn a great deal from him. In fact, you'd be a fool to try to challenge him in that field of expertise. But I doubt that will stop you.
bolding mine
He seems to have a grasp of it but he hasn’t actually listened, he’s not taken it to heart and tried to experiment by getting rid of pride and then being humble to accept.
He sees all the false ones and assumes they are all false.
He is afraid to let go of this world and accept the next.
Because he is an expert in the field of religion what a great allies he would make in Christ.

You could learn a great deal from him.
I’m sure that I could, and I’ll pray that he sees what he needs to see to accept and be received for that final wisdom that he lacks.
Edge prays, Receive the Holy Spirit .

How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Act means hide to Be is the differance.
It all boils down to this, to Be or not to Be.

Piggy

20th February 2008, 10:42 AM

Very good point brother Edge! They fail to realize that God's help is essential for us to understand.

John 14:26).
“The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you”

There is also the matter of whether those who hear his message are either his teachable symbolic sheep or are in fact the symbolic stubborn goats Jesus tells us about.

John 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Of course that's not for us to say. However, each person's reaction to Jesus's voice will eventually place him either at the right of God or to his left and will eventually, if persistent, decide his or her eternal destiny.

Matthew 25:33
And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Matthew 12:30
He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.

So we are either sheep or goats-there is no middle ground.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Suppose I quoted you scripture from a Muslim holy book telling you that you must have faith in Allah and His Prophet. Would you stop being a "believer" in your faith and convert?

What about Hindu scripture telling you that you must first have faith in Krishna?

What about a speech from Jim Jones saying you must have faith in him?

If your answer is "no", then you are refusing to do what you're asking me to do.

Piggy

20th February 2008, 10:51 AM

He seems to have a grasp of it but he hasn’t actually listened, he’s not taken it to heart and tried to experiment by getting rid of pride and then being humble to accept.

On the contrary. There is nothing more humbling than coming to understand that one is just a temporary speck, not the eternally-living beloved child of the Almighty.

If I had been prideful, I would have believed that the faith I was given was true and real because my family and community believed it, and that all others were wrong because they did not agree with us.

Instead, I dropped all that and really opened my heart and mind.

I let the text show me what it really was.

He sees all the false ones and assumes they are all false.

Not at all. I judge each book, each claim, each faith on its own grounds.

There are many genres in the Bible -- history, mythology, parables, apologies, humor, epic poetry, erotic poetry, propaganda, genealogy, building specs, etc.

I do not assume. It is you who decide in advance what it is, and project that onto the book, even when the book itself tells you different.

He is afraid to let go of this world and accept the next.

I will admit death scares me. But there is no next world to accept.

edge

20th February 2008, 11:19 AM

What about Hindu scripture telling you that you must first have faith in Krishna?

I have practiced their technique of meditation and they have one thing right there is a soul.
The rest is wrong.
This is after I fell away from my earlier Christian Orthodox indoctrination that I was brought up in, from my parents.
At that point I realized the earlier teachings even by them where right in the respect that we shouldn't and the reasons why is true, that we shouldn't, as was demonstrated by the results of my actions to participate in soul travel.

But it also reinforced what the Bible says about us having a soul, My bad, which meant more understanding was needed by me.

I have to go I'll be back.

HghrSymmetry

20th February 2008, 12:01 PM

My main concern would be that the more academic texts would assume basic knowledge that I have not learned. After all, one wouldn't expect an advanced textbook to constantly re-hash fundamental concepts. What I need is something to introduce me to the fundamentals of the subject.

This might be a better starting point:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802819281/paganoriginofthe

Another possibility:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0809137313/paganoriginofthe

Foster Zygote

20th February 2008, 12:19 PM

This might be a better starting point:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802819281/paganoriginofthe

Another possibility:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0809137313/paganoriginofthe

Thanks.

edge

20th February 2008, 12:58 PM

But there is no next world to accept.
That's exactly what I thought in-between when I was a skeptic, because I used all of your logic at one time or another against the ones that tried to tell me these things.
Meanwhile my parents progressed they left the Orthodox beliefs and became re-born Christians and were blessed with their life, while I remained under a curse.
It is a curse of the wrong path, which leads to darkness.

So I decided to check it, in any religion that could demonstrate that there was something to it.
Two of them have some of it right but not all of it. All of them reflect recognition of the truth.
But it is just a reflection of the truth, a mirror image or a mirage.

Boy I took the long way around.
But I got here and it’s not arrogance it is witnessing where it’s needed.
Just like they did to me, thank God they were so patient.

Since I thought I had been out of body before and that they were not dreams, I thought, “as this book appeared in my gas mask case some how”, that I would read it and do three checks at once.

One, to see if what I was experiencing was a dream I had on several occasions in the past.
Two, is there a soul?
Three, are they right about religion, “Hindus”, and not what I had been taught through the Christen religion?

Even after believing again, I fell back into atheism.
Because I still was not reborn again.
You see I had received more knowledge but not wisdom, or the Holy Spirit.
Because as adults you loss what you were born with.

What use is a tear if there is not a speck in the eye?

Does it prove something other than emotion?

The wind is invisible do we feel it?

The spirit is also invisible do we feel it?
We know the cause in both instances.

I wrote something up there that caused me to be joyful and sorrow at the same time and my spirit couldn’t control my body then I welled up a tear.
Maybe it’s the realization that my body can’t be in control of my spirit.

That would have never have happened as a skeptic.

Belz...

20th February 2008, 01:08 PM

I have practiced their technique of meditation and they have one thing right there is a soul.
The rest is wrong.

And how did you determine what they got right and what they got wrong, again ?

Belz...

20th February 2008, 01:09 PM

Even after believing again, I fell back into atheism.
Because I still was not reborn again.

Because as adults you loss what you were born with.

Edge, are you planning to start making some sense at one point ?

Belz...

20th February 2008, 01:11 PM

Oh dear. That means that Edge has been caught in another... erm... honest mistake.

It gets worse than that, Tricky.

edge
Graduate Poster

Join date: 14th February 2004

edge

20th February 2008, 01:28 PM

It gets worse than that, Tricky.

edge
Graduate Poster

Join date: 14th February 2004

My identity before this one was slightly different. Or my password was.
I could never get my original log in information and made this one, the one you see here now.
I think they had a change or a crash of the system.
Anything else?

Tricky

20th February 2008, 01:33 PM

My identity before this one was slightly different. Or my password was.
I could never get my original log in information and made this one, the one you see here now.
I think they had a change or a crash of the system.
Anything else?
This is true, Belz. Edge (and some others) lost their info in a forum crash. All of the posts before the crash were lost, and a great pity it is. Ah, the trolls we could tell...

You would have been really amazed by some of Edge's stories about how he had had positively identified extraterrestrial aircraft.

edge

20th February 2008, 01:36 PM

This is true, Belz. Edge (and some others) lost their info in a forum crash. All of the posts before the crash were lost, and a great pity it is. Ah, the trolls we could tell...

You would have been really amazed by some of Edge's stories about how he had had positively identified extraterrestrial aircraft.

I was going to serach the forum to see if I could find it.
Wasn't it called Seeing is Believing?

edge

20th February 2008, 01:50 PM

Couldn't find it.
But I remeber this guy.
He was here before you,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=268707#post268707
Real fun to talk to.
What ever happend to De_bunk?

Tricky

20th February 2008, 01:52 PM

I was going to serach the forum to see if I could find it.
Wasn't it called Seeing is Believing?
I found that one and bumped it, but it wasn't the one I was talking about. This one had all kinds of von Däniken stuff and stories about how you had seen a coherent beam of light coming from the ship. It was truly a treasure.

Tricky

20th February 2008, 01:54 PM

Couldn't find it.

Here it is (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=43374).
But I remeber this guy.
He was here before you,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=268707#post268707 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=268707#post268707)
Real fun to talk to.
What ever happend to De_bunk?
He's still here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3443697#post3443697)

edge

20th February 2008, 02:07 PM

You got a link?

Here's what I found in my docs.

Jesus Christ explained to his apostles what events would immediately precede his second coming, "It shall be exactly as in the days before Noah entered the ark". Matt 24:38 , Luke 17:27. What is the significance of this statement and how does it relate to Ufos? The Flood epic Gen. 6 begins with a strange account of the "sons of God" (b'nai Elohim), taking wives from among the daughters of Adam.
"In those days giants [nephilim] were in the earth, the men of renown of whom ancient tales are told".
The word which is translated, "giants", in the King James version of the Bible is, in Hebrew, "Nephilim", which means, "Those who fell, or ... the fallen ones". Jude, the brother of Jesus describes them as "angels, having left their first estate in heaven". These fallen angels came to earth for a serious purpose.

The "fallen ones" sought to merge with the bloodline of Adam, because of the promise to send a redeemer through Adam's kinsman. The Hebrew says that the Sons of God saw that the women were a fit "extension", for they sought to extend themselves into this realm from the spirit realm, as well as to extend themselves into the "children of the promise" the lineage of Adam. Satan tried to prevent the eventual birth, in the distant future, of the Messiah.

Satan-Prince of the Power of the Air, Lord of those that Fly, Intelligence behind UFO manifestations and alien encounters

· "[The occultist] is brought into intelligent communication with the spirits of the air, and can receive any knowledge which they possess, or any false impression they choose to impart...the demons seem permitted to do various wonders at their request." - G.H. Pember, "Earth's Earliest Ages and Their Connection with Modern Spiritualism and Theosophy" (1876)

· "UFO behaviour is more akin to magic than to physics as we know it... the modern UFOnauts and the demons of past days are probably identical." -Dr. Pierre Guerin, FSR Vol. 25, No. 1

· "The UFO manifestations seem to be, by and large, merely minor variations of the age-old demon -ological phenomenon..." - John A. Keel, "UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse"
The causes behind UFO sightings, abductions, and other paranormal phenomena are more malignant and awesome than any theory scientists have proposed .

The tribulation, or End Times will officially begin when (Dan.9:27) Israel signs a treaty with the head of the government of unified Europe to establish a Jewish temple in Jerusalem and resume the ancient sacrificial system of worship there.

The man who signs this treaty for Israel will be unique, he will be believed by many to be the long awaited Messiah of the Jews. Bible prophecy calls him the Antichrist. This Antichrist is described in detail in scripture.

Careful investigation of these texts reveal a connection between Antichrist and the phenomena of UFOS.
Daniel 11 describes the Anti christ:

edge

20th February 2008, 02:19 PM

Last edited by De_Bunk : 17th February 2008 at 08:24 AM.
Cool, I wrote him a short P.M.
I see the link.
That's when I rejoined, after that post Skinny confirms it and a bunch of others.
I had been off for about 2 or 3 years.
I joined about 6 months before the test in the office and that should satisfy Belz.
Go six months before the test and that will be as close to the truth as I can get it.

They wrote about the test in March 29, 2002
So my actual join date would be around, august of 2001.

Tricky

20th February 2008, 02:20 PM

Link provided.

As I said, folks, if you thought it couldn't get any more bizarre, then you just don't know Edge.

edge

20th February 2008, 02:51 PM

Link provided.

As I said, folks, if you thought it couldn't get any more bizarre, then you just don't know Edge.

I call it fortunate.
What I write in this section is truth.

From De-Bunk off the link,
edge...( apart from the fact that you did have well over 200 posts as you were first here way back in the early days...)

So am I truthful Belz?

Tricky

20th February 2008, 07:31 PM

I call it fortunate.
What I write in this section is truth...)

You don't lie a lot, Edge. You generally only tell obvious lies when you get caught trying to defend conflicting statements you've made. Mostly what you are is mistaken. Horribly, obviously, ludicrously, laughably, maddeningly mistaken. You don't really pay much attention to the information that so many people have provided for you, and that is a minor form of dishonesty (in that you seem to be asking questions but aren't interested in listening to the answers) but it's not really lying.

Still, almost nothing you say could be even remotely considered to be truth. Your self-confidence doesn't make it truth. Your (unusual) interpretation of religious writings doesn't make it true. What makes a thing true is objective, verifiable, repeatable evidence. You don't have any of that. Not a shred. That doesn't mean you're lying. It only means you're deluded. And I think that's a darn shame. You're a nice guy and I am truly saddened that you're so out of touch with reality.

Piggy

20th February 2008, 07:43 PM

Re post 562, it is another form of extreme egotism to think that Biblical texts refer to our time, not ancient times.

Radrook demonstrates yet another aspect of the pervasive egotism required by this form of Biblical interpretation: The paranoid belief that anyone opposing his ideas about the Bible is intentionally trying to discredit those who believe like him.

Let me assure you, legitimate Biblical scholars pay you no attention.

They go on with their work because it is their work. They are not concerned with fringe interpretations or the people who hold them.

Yet folks like Radrook, and the marginal community of pseudo-scholars he cites, repeatedly hawk the paranoid lie that legitimate scholars are out to discredit them.

They imagine themselves at the very center of the entirety of global inquiry into one of the most famous works of literature in the world.

Either you are with them, or you are out there sweating to prove them wrong. It's all about them, any way you slice it.

In fact, their opinions are largely unknown to the scholarly community. Even those who are aware of their skreeds, by and large, do not know their arguments in any detail, and certainly cannot be bothered to waste their time attempting to discredit them. They have real work to do.

Yet the "God gives me truth" egotists imagine otherwise. No, they say, we are the center pole, we are the axis, and everyone who disagrees is looking to us, trying to tear us down.

Folly.

Foster Zygote

20th February 2008, 07:47 PM

Radrook

21st February 2008, 12:32 AM

Excerpt

PAST CHARGES BY CRITICS ANSWERED BY ARCHAEOLOGY

Moses could not have written Pentateuch because he lived before the invention of writing. Writing existed many centuries before Moses.

Abraham's home city of Ur does not exist. Ur was discovered. One of the columns had the inscription "Abram."

The city built of solid rock called "Petra" does not exist. Petra was discovered.

The story of the fall of Jericho is myth. The city never existed. The city was found and excavated. It was found that the walls tumbled in the exact manner described by the biblical narrative.

The "Hittites" did not exist. Hundreds of references to the amazing Hittite civilization have been found. One can even get a doctorate in Hittite studies at the University of Chicago.

Belshazzar was not a real king of Babylon; he is not found in the records. Tablets of Babylonia describe the reign of this coregent and son of Nabonidus.

http://everystudent.com/features/bible.html?OVRAW=Bible%20Contradictions&OVKEY=bible%20contradiction&OVMTC=standard&OVADID=610489512&OVKWID=3466946512

One begins to wonder why they have a need to disagree without proof to the contrary. Or how much trust ca be placed on any other statement they might chance to come up with. Or even more importantly, whose influence they are really under.

Belz...

21st February 2008, 05:27 AM

I was going to serach the forum to see if I could find it.
Wasn't it called Seeing is Believing?

It's a perfectly reasonable explanation. No proof needed, this time.

But seeing is most definitely NOT believing. If I saw a ghost, I'd think I was mad.

Piggy

21st February 2008, 05:34 AM

One begins to wonder why they have a need to disagree without proof to the contrary. Or how much trust ca be placed on any other statement they might chance to come up with. Or even more importantly, whose influence they are really under.

Radrook, please cite actual scholarship.

Your error about these claims regarding Jericho has already been pointed out, for example.

Legitimate scholars will use 2 principal guidelines when classifying a tale, or an element in a tale, as most likely (or certainly) mythical:

1. Obviously contrary to fact (e.g., an ocean of fresh water above the sky)

2. Strong parallels with other ancient myths in the geographic and temporal vicinity (e.g., Utnapishtim and Noah)

When both of these are true, you're looking at an ancient mythology, not a history as we think of history today.

Legitimate scholars do not take the names of peoples and cities, for example, for which we have not yet found evidence and simply assume these are mythical.

Again, if you're reading people who are making claims like the ones you posted, you simply need to stop reading them and pick up some real scholarship.

My suspicion, however, is that you're not reading any of it, but are merely repeating unfounded accusations being passed along by "Bible-believing" books and Web sites.

Nogbad

21st February 2008, 05:56 AM

Excerpt

One begins to wonder why they have a need to disagree without proof to the contrary. Or how much trust ca be placed on any other statement they might chance to come up with. Or even more importantly, whose influence they are really under.

I would be interested in who made these claims, for example, "writing did not exist in the time of Moses". If Moses lived in Egypt he was obviously surrounded by writing. It appeared on every public building and every monument. Petra was re-discovered by European visitors in 1812 but was not lost - it was a small Christian town until Islam swept north. It declined as an imprtant city, to small town, to village, to being deserted over a 1200 year period (approx 600Bc to 600AD). The OT does not name Petra but rather another town which some Biblical scholars identify as Petra but which others are not so sure about.

I will be blunt, I think the claims made on behalf of serious historians on that web site is at best ill informed and at worst deliberate misinformation and does them or their credibility no favours at all. If they are ill informed and can be that gullible about history how can we trust their interpretation of anything else? If it is deliberate mis-information then they have no credibility anyway.

Tricky

21st February 2008, 05:57 AM

Yeah, that's a real great academic source you got there, Radrook.
Two of the gospels were written by the apostles Matthew and John, men who knew Jesus personally and traveled with him for over three years. The other two books were written by Mark and Luke, close associates of the apostles.
I believe that even religious scholars now accept that these books were written much later.

Foster Zygote

21st February 2008, 06:19 AM

Excerpt

One begins to wonder why they have a need to disagree without proof to the contrary. Or how much trust ca be placed on any other statement they might chance to come up with. Or even more importantly, whose influence they are really under.

So you're saying that if someone was to be caught in a lie, said person's credibility would be justifiably suspect, yes?

Nogbad

21st February 2008, 06:35 AM

Foster Zygote

21st February 2008, 06:51 AM

I should say I don't want to appear unduly prickly but as someone who studied History (indeed, for what it is worth, has a Masters in History) I can't help feeling we are getting accused of an awful lot that has never been uttered in the dusty corriders of academia.

You're in good company. After all, every atheist makes the absolute claim that there are no gods anywhere, and evolutionary biologists claim that organisms evolve entirely randomly.

Radrook

21st February 2008, 11:41 AM

I would be interested in who made these claims, for example, "writing did not exist in the time of Moses". If Moses lived in Egypt he was obviously surrounded by writing. It appeared on every public building and every monument. Petra was re-discovered by European visitors in 1812 but was not lost - it was a small Christian town until Islam swept north. It declined as an imprtant city, to small town, to village, to being deserted over a 1200 year period (approx 600Bc to 600AD). The OT does not name Petra but rather another town which some Biblical scholars identify as Petra but which others are not so sure about.

I will be blunt, I think the claims made on behalf of serious historians on that web site is at best ill informed and at worst deliberate misinformation and does them or their credibility no favours at all. If they are ill informed and can be that gullible about history how can we trust their interpretation of anything else? If it is deliberate mis-information then they have no credibility anyway.

Are you saying that those claims were never made? How are they being gullible about history? In any case, I will research and see if I can provide you with the names of the archeologists or historians who made those claims. One I have in my computor archives I believe. So I'll get back to you on this later after my research is completed. Thanx for the feedback.

BTW
The following site provides more info to disagree with: : )

Archeology and the Bible
http://www.manavai.com/articles/art1.htm

Nogbad

21st February 2008, 12:54 PM

You're in good company. After all, every atheist makes the absolute claim that there are no gods anywhere, and evolutionary biologists claim that organisms evolve entirely randomly.

Fair point - I suppose a free pass would be asking a bit much.

Nogbad

21st February 2008, 01:08 PM

Are you saying that those claims were never made? How are they being gullible about history? In any case, I will research and see if I can provide you with the names of the archeologists or historians who made those claims. One I have in my computor archives I believe. So I'll get back to you on this later after my research is completed. Thanx for the feedback.

BTW
The following site provides more info to disagree with: : )

Archeology and the Bible
http://www.manavai.com/articles/art1.htm

Sorry was a bit rushed earlier - nasty and uncalled for intrusion of work.

By gullible I mean that I am assuming the people who wrote the site did not set out to mislead. This means most likely that they have lifted details from elsewhere without checking it. Petra was stumbled upon by a Swiss explorer in 1812. Therefore any claim that Petra did not exist had to be made before 1812. Academics who questioned Biblical authority prior to 1812 did exist - mainly during the second half of the 18th century but were the exception rather than the rule. Prior to the 18th century it was a hobby that would undoubtedly lead to the loss of an academic position and in some countries worse than than that. Genuinely rigorous criticism of the Bible began in the second half of the 19th century although even then it was considered a bit disreputable. There are modern historians and archaeologists who dispute aspects of the Bible but as knowledge of ancient texts, Petra, Jericho etc., pre-date such discourses they could (nor, indeed, would) hardly deny their existence.

It should be noted that the field of archaeology was not vast before 1812 either and mainly consisted of trying to blow holes in the head of the Sphinx to see if there was an entrance.

Piggy

21st February 2008, 01:21 PM

AArcheology and the Bible
http://www.manavai.com/articles/art1.htm

Radrook, that's junk.

It makes unfounded and erroneous assertions about what is supported by evidence (e.g. a worldwide flood, which is not supported by valid evidence, yet is a common mythological theme) as well as about what mainstream scholars claim.

My advice -- again -- is to stop reading this kind of unsubstantiated and erroneous pseudo-research.

Tricky

21st February 2008, 01:55 PM

My advice -- again -- is to stop reading this kind of unsubstantiated and erroneous pseudo-research.
But that's the only kind that has the right answers!:mad:

edge

21st February 2008, 03:13 PM

Tricky say,
(in that you seem to be asking questions but aren't interested in listening to the answers) but it's not really lying.

I'll pray for you that you may also receive the truth, not really lying is telling the truth.
Your answers are deceptions and your avatar is a bold statement to the fact and when I ask a question it's to make you think not me.
And this,
You don't really pay much attention to the information that so many people have provided for you, and that is a minor form of dishonesty

see the problem here is you all think that I have no idea as to what you provide when I have used all of what you provide when I was lost.
Been there done that!

And again this dribble and name calling,
Still, almost nothing you say could be even remotely considered to be truth. Your self-confidence doesn't make it truth. Your (unusual) interpretation of religious writings doesn't make it true. What makes a thing true is objective, verifiable, repeatable evidence. You don't have any of that. Not a shred. That doesn't mean you're lying. It only means you're deluded. And I think that's a darn shame. You're a nice guy and I am truly saddened that you're so out of touch with reality. bolding mine
You are going to be so surprised.

Now for a prayer,
I ask you Lord to come into Trickys life and show him the way to your light and glory I ask this in Jesus name and to open the eyes and hardened hearts of the blind in this site so that they can receive the spirit of truth in the name of Jesus I ask this,
And please don’t forget Piggy. Amen

Rad says,
One begins to wonder why they have a need to disagree without proof to the contrary. Or how much trust can be placed on any other statement they might chance to come up with. Or even more importantly, whose influence they are really under.

Some ones come up behind them and blindfolded them is what I see.
In some cases even worst.
The stuff in stone and buildings is hard to refute.
For example, piggy say,
Your error about these claims regarding Jericho has already been pointed out, for example.

Jericho, taken from the link below,Also known as Tell es-Sultan, er-Riha, Eriha, Yeriho

Collapsed MB Wall
Sellin and Watzinger and later Kenyon found remains of a collapsed mudbrick wall at the base of the stone revetment wall.
Bryant Wood points to the base of that mudbrick wall. All agree that the wall fell down, but they differ on the date. Wood's conclusions are the most informed and they date the destruction of the wall to the time of Joshua (1400 B.C.)
"Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through it. Now a man named Zacchaeus was there; he was a chief tax collector and was rich. He was trying to get a look at Jesus, but being a short man he could not see over the crowd. So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, because Jesus was going to pass that way" (Luke 19:1-4,

Storejars of Grain
Both Garstang and Kenyon found dozens of storejars full of grain from the last Canaanite city of Jericho. The obvious conclusion: these were from the time of the harvest when the city was burned (not looted) by Joshua. As such, the archaeological record fits the biblical record at this point precisely.

http://www.bibleplaces.com/jericho.htm

Well Piggy I don’t know what school you are going to but you might need to rethink your position.
Down below is a fossil of a whale and guess what the same bone they have now they had then. You know the bone that evolutionists say is a limb.
It looks like they had to have it for the same reason then as now.

Nogbad

21st February 2008, 03:29 PM

Sellin and Watzinger and later Kenyon found remains of a collapsed mudbrick wall at the base of the stone revetment wall.
Bryant Wood points to the base of that mudbrick wall. All agree that the wall fell down, but they differ on the date. Wood's conclusions are the most informed and they date the destruction of the wall to the time of Joshua (1400 B.C.)

According to whom? I am serious,who said his conclusions were the most informed?

The generally accepted date for the raising of that particular level of Jericho is 1550BC. This does not agree with some interpretations of Biblical dating although it does coincide with the expulsion of the Hyskos from Egypt.

Foster Zygote

21st February 2008, 04:14 PM

Can I do an Edge style photo montage as well?

Piggy

21st February 2008, 04:17 PM

Well Piggy I don’t know what school you are going to but you might need to rethink your position.

Stetson University, formerly North Florida Baptist College, where I took courses in Judeo-Christian religion from Christian scholars, including Mitchell Reddish (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/002-3964267-5954459?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Mitchell%20G.%20Reddish) and Marc Lovelace (http://www.amazon.com/Compass-points-Old-Testament-study/dp/0687092752/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203635683&sr=1-1).

The University of Florida.

The University of Georgia, where I took courses from Jewish scholar Theodore Lewis (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/002-3964267-5954459?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Theodore%20J.%20Lewis).

Now, the Bible does not say merely that one wall collapsed at some point in Jericho's history. It says the entire city wall collapsed at once without receiving any physical assault. There is no evidence for this.

Nogbad

21st February 2008, 04:18 PM

Hmmmm Raquel :eye-poppi

Piggy

21st February 2008, 04:19 PM

Hmmmm Raquel :eye-poppi

Zugzug!

Tricky

21st February 2008, 04:37 PM

Tricky say,

I'll pray for you that you may also receive the truth, not really lying is telling the truth.

So if a young child says "There really is a Santa Claus", then that is truth? They believe it, so they're not lying.
No, Edge. Being wrong is neither the truth nor is it lying. This should be easy to understand.

Your answers are deceptions and your avatar is a bold statement to the fact and when I ask a question it's to make you think not me.
Don't worry, Edge. I always think about what you say. That's why I so rarely reply by quoting scripture or someone else's words. But my answers are not deceptions. They are as honest as I can make them.

My avatar is a cartoon character popular in the 90's. My forum name is an old childhood name that I got, not because of any trickiness, but because it rhymed with my last name. Like you, I lost my first account here and had to recreate it. I had a different name then, one that would not cause you to make such accusations. Fortunately, I only lost a handful of posts.

see the problem here is you all think that I have no idea as to what you provide when I have used all of what you provide when I was lost.
That is certainly not apparant. You make the same mistakes over and over. I can't tell that you are learning anything.

And again this dribble and name calling.
This is not name-calling. There is no slur. It is based on the things you have said. If I came out and said that whites were better than blacks, you would not be "name-calling" by identifying me as a racist. Of course, I say no such thing. If you want to call me arrogant, well, you could make a case for it, just as I can make a good case that you are deluded. But frankly, nothing you call me will upset me. I am not vindictive.

This, on the other hand, is incredibly racist, or at least prejudiced.
Egyptians can't be trusted, I think pride got in their way...

You are going to be so surprised.
I doubt it. You have never provided any evidence of this, so I think it is highly unlikely. But if I am, I will deal with reality as it presents itself. I will not spend a lot of time preparing for a reality that has emerged from your deluded brain.

Now for a prayer,
I ask you Lord to come into Trickys life and show him the way to your light and glory I ask this in Jesus name and to open the eyes and hardened hearts of the blind in this site so that they can receive the spirit of truth in the name of Jesus I ask this,
And please don’t forget Piggy. Amen

Thank you for that. I also wish well for you and hope that you finally reach the point that you can open your eyes and deal with the real world. I think you would be better for it.

I ask this in the name of human love and empathy.

edge

21st February 2008, 04:41 PM

Ya but here's the problem with that,
The Roman-Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, citing Manetho, equates the expulsion of the Hyskos from Egypt with the Exodus. As Abba Eban points out, "this is plainly impossible,"[3] in the context of the Biblical chronology. The Book of Exodus states that Hebrew slaves built the city of Pi Ramses ("House of Ramses"). According to Egyptian sources, the city was built during the reign of Ramses II, who ruled 1279-1213 B.C. In other words, the Biblical Exodus would have had to have taken place 300 years after the expulsion of the Hyskos. Of course there is also no evidence that the Hyskos were ever enslaved--or even Hebrews. Again quoting Abba Eban, "few modern scholars would go so far as to assert that the Hebrews and the Hyskos were the same people."[4] If the Hyskos were not the Hebrews, what then, is the earliest non-Biblical reference to this people?

About a century ago, archaeologists found 350 tablets covered with cuneiform writing in the Akkadian language in the Egyptian village of El Amarna. These
tablets, dating to the 14th century B.C., contain numerous references to a people whose name is Habiru (or alternatively Hapiru or Apiru) in the Akkadian
language. The obvious phonetic similarity to "Hebrew" suggested to early scholars that the Habiru of the Amarna tablets and the Hebrews were the same people.

However, subsequent archaeological findings as described by Niels Lemche, professor of Old Testament studies at the University of Copenhagen, in his book Prelude to Israel's Past, indicated widespread use of this term throughout the near east over many centuries during the mid-second millennium B.C. The context of this usage makes clear that 'Habiru' "should not be understood as an ethnic group, but as some kind of social segment." There is no reference to the religious beliefs of the Habiru. The totality of ancient documents discovered, reviewed in detail by Lemche, suggests 'Habiru' is best translated, depending on the context, as 'bandit,' 'outlaw,' 'highwayman,' 'refugee,' 'fugitive,' or 'immigrant,' without any suggestion of ethnicity.[5] Thus, despite the phonetic similarity, the Habiru of the Amarna tablets are not the Hebrews of ancient Israel.

The earliest known non-Biblical reference to Israel is on the 27th line of inscription on a 7.5 foot high granite slab found in Thebes, Egypt, and dating to 1207 B.C.[6] This commemorative stone monument was commissioned by the son of Ramses II, Pharaoh Merneptah, to commemorate his military victories in Canaan, and is known as the Merneptah Stella. Israel is listed as one of eight "border enemies" vanquished by Egypt. The literal translation of the relevant line of Egyptian hieroglyphics is "Israel is stripped bare, wholly lacking seed."

According to the bible Ramses had all records of the Hebrews destroyed.
Egyptians can't be trusted, I think pride got in their way as according to the bolding which is mine since the Hebrews had and have plenty of seed.
They knew they were carving in stone, pride kicking in, maybe hiding embarrassment.

edge

21st February 2008, 04:47 PM

Raquel is on a new comedy show.
Monday nights I think.

Nogbad

21st February 2008, 04:50 PM

Ya but here's the problem with that,

According to the bible Ramses had all records of the Hebrews destroyed.
Egyptians can't be trusted, I think pride got in their way as according to the bolding which is mine since the Hebrews had and have plenty of seed.
They knew they were carving in stone, pride kicking in, maybe hiding embarrassment.

It is good that you can consider Egyptian texts critically - you just need to broaden that critical field. :)

I did say that the date of the Jericho ruins coincided with the expulsion of the Hyskos rather than the Hyskos were the Israelites. However, the Hyskos are considered to be a Semitic people and belonged to the region North East from Egypt. More than that it is difficult to surmise.

Piggy

21st February 2008, 05:15 PM

Egyptians can't be trusted, I think pride got in their way as according to the bolding which is mine since the Hebrews had and have plenty of seed.

The lesson here is that the boasts of ancient kings cannot be trusted.

edge

21st February 2008, 05:42 PM

The lesson here is that the boasts of ancient kings cannot be trusted.

Especially if they are on the wrong side of God.

According to the Biblical narrative, Jabin, the King of Hazor, headed a coalition of Canaanite cities against the advancing Israelites, led by Joshua. The Israelites won the battle and Joshua burned and ravaged the city (Jos. 11:1 - 12).

"And Joshua turned back at that time, and took Hazor, and smote its king with the sword: for Hazor formerly was the head of all those kingdoms. Everyone in it they put to the sword. They totally destroyed them, not sparing anything that breathed, and he burned up Hazor itself .. Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds - except Hazor." (Jos 11:10-12)

Evidence of this violent destruction by burning was discovered in various areas of excavation of the site. Another Israelite battle, this time against a Canaanite army led by Sisera, Jabin's general, is described in the Book of Judges, Chapter 4.
The Hazor Excavations in Memory of Yigael Yadin

Israelite Hazor
http://unixware.mscc.huji.ac.il/~hatsor/history.htm

That was taken from here,
http://www.bible-history.com/resource/ar_isrl.htm

edge

21st February 2008, 06:34 PM

I’ll have to say even I am impressed.
What a great site.
14 plus the seven churches.

The Ishtar Gate of Babylon was built during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar II (604- 562 BC). The foundations of the gate were discovered between 1899 and 1914, including numerous glazed bricks and unglazed figures. The entire Ishtar Gate was reconstructed to a height of 47 feet and now resides at the Pergamon Museum in Berlin.

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/babylon-and-the-ishtar-gate-faq.htm

How did the discovery of the lost Hittite civilization provide evidence in support of the biblical record?

How did the discovery of the lost Hittite civilization provide evidence in support of the biblical record? The Old Testament mentions the ancient Hittite civilization more than 50 times, either by their Hebrew name "Chitti" or by their designation as the sons and daughters Heth. However, prior to their rediscovery in the 19th century, there appeared to be no evidence for their existence outside of the Bible. Skeptics cited the missing evidence as evidence that the Bible actually fabricated their existence. This called the reliability of the biblical account into question. Basically the skeptics said, "We can't find any evidence for the Hittite civilization outside of the Bible. This demonstrates that the Bible cannot be trusted as an historical source."

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/hittite-faq.htm

Ancient Jericho

Ancient Jericho is one of the most excavated sites in Israel. Starting in the early 1900’s, archaeologists exposed a huge retaining wall that has supported the foundation of the great city since the Middle Bronze Age. This stone foundation held a large, structural wall of mud bricks that defined ancient Jericho.

Throughout the last century, no less than four separate excavation teams have found remains of a collapsed mud brick wall at the base of the stone retaining wall. Scholars now agree that the wall fell down, but they differ on the date. Bryant Wood and other highly-regarded archaeologists date the destruction of the wall to the time of Joshua in about 1400 BC.

In the 1930’s and 1950’s, teams discovered numerous store jars still full of grain from the last Canaanite city that existed at ancient Jericho. The conclusion of many scholars is that the city was conquered at the time of the harvest, but was burned, instead of looted. This evidence matches the biblical account of Joshua 6.

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/ancient-jericho-faq.htm

Why was the city of Shechem an important find?

Why was the city of Shechem an important archaeological find? The ancient city of Shechem plays a prominent role in the Bible. The Lord spoke to Abraham near Shechem after commanding him to leave his home in Haran (Genesis 12:1-7). Jacob later settled near Shechem after leaving his father-in-law Laban in Padan Aram (Genesis 33:18). Simeon and Levi killed all the males of Shechem after the rape of their sister Dinah (Genesis 34). Shechem was allotted to the tribe of Ephraim following the Israelite conquest of the Promised Land (Joshua 20:7). Joseph was buried in Shechem after his body was exhumed and brought from Egypt (Joshua 24:32). Rehoboam was crowned in Shechem following the death of Solomon (1 Kings 12:1). Shechem briefly served as Jeroboam's capital following the division of the Kingdom into the Northern and Southern Kingdoms (1 Kings 12:25). And although the city no longer existed in Jesus' day, it was the original site of Jacob's Well where Jesus spoke with the woman of Samaria (John 4:1-42).

The city of Shechem is mentioned by name in Genesis, Joshua, Judges, 1 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Psalms, Jeremiah, and Hosea. When the city of Shechem was discovered it was thus a great source of vindication for the biblical record.

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/shechem-faq.htm

Tel Dan
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/tel-dan-faq.htm

Megiddo

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/megiddo-faq.htm

Ancient Jerusalem – The City of David

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/ancient-jerusalem-the-city-of-david-faq.htm

Why was the Merneptah Stele a significant archaeological discovery?

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/merneptah-stele-faq.htm

Shishak Relief

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/shishak-relief-faq.htm

Karnak Temple of Luxor (ancient Thebes), which shows battle scenes between the Egyptians and Israelites. These scenes have also been attributed to Pharaoh Merneptah and date to approximately 1209 BC. The Karnak Temple also contains records of Pharaoh Shishak's

Moabite Stone

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/moabite-stone-faq.htm

The House of David Inscription

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/the-house-of-david-inscription-faq.htm

House of Yahweh Ostracon
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/house-of-yahweh-ostracon-faq.htm

The city of Ur - Why was it such an important find?

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/city-of-ur-faq.htm

Dig deeper now,

http://www.allabouttruth.org/history-of-israel.htm

Seven Churches in Revelation – Literal Locations in Asia Minor
Their Ultimate Significance

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/seven-churches-in-revelation.htm

Taken from (http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/bible-archaeology.htm), published by AllAboutGOD.com Ministries, M. Houdmann, P. Matthews-Rose, R. Niles, editors, 2002-06. Used by permission."

edge

21st February 2008, 06:42 PM

It is good that you can consider Egyptian texts critically - you just need to broaden that critical field. :)

I did say that the date of the Jericho ruins coincided with the expulsion of the Hyskos rather than the Hyskos were the Israelites. However, the Hyskos are considered to be a Semitic people and belonged to the region North East from Egypt. More than that it is difficult to surmise.

There weren’t much records of their rule because they were herdsman, but they were in control till the ruling class defeated them and had them kick out and the reinstated the pharaoh system.
150 to 300 years of non-documentation that’s missing.

Piggy

21st February 2008, 06:48 PM

edge: Like Radrook, you're reading a bunch of junk.

Anyone can find charlatans to tell them what they want to hear. You've found yours.

But their errors are so transparent, they're not going to sway anyone who has not already decided to believe them.

You would do much better to follow the links I provided for the men -- Christian and Jew -- who I studied with.

But you won't, I know.

You are convinced that your thoughts and feelings are the Word and Will of God. Most likely, you will never be saved from the trap of your own ego.

edge

22nd February 2008, 01:22 AM

You would do much better to follow the links I provided for the men -- Christian and Jew -- who I studied with.

But you won't, I know.

I look at all the links.
I went back to page 11, 5 pages, you know what you haven't posted one link that I see and doubt seriously that you have one to refute any of those above about the archaeological sites that are in confirmation with the bible. You know why? Because they are real places, that exist or have existed.
You talk a good story though.

edge

22nd February 2008, 01:27 AM

Check it out Radrook this is James.
It's a good show.

Nogbad

22nd February 2008, 03:44 AM

I’ll have to say even I am impressed.
What a great site.
"

Edge it was people like you that convinced me not to go into teaching...there are apparently laws against strangling students that will not learn (why this should be the case is completely beyond me :rolleyes: )

This site repeats exactly the same nebulous claims as the others so what makes it better? Somebody said the Bible must be wrong because no trace of the Hittites had been found. Who said this and when? Was it ever the mainstream historical view in the 18th and 19th century? In the 19th century Turkey was ruled by the Ottoman Empire and was fighting numerous small wars to retain European territories like Greece. Obtaining permission to even look was not a straight forward process. Serious archaeology did not exist and Biblical criticism was in its infancy.

It seems to me that these so called claims of historical opinion being refuted by recent discoveries is completely bogus. FFS! most of the so called recent discoveries occurred in the 19th century when being openly critical of the Bible was considered uncalled for and uncouth and much effort and money was put into attempting to prove things like the flood. Poor old Thomas Paine, a late 18th century/early 19th century radical thinker and writer, was shunned by the society and died a pauper.

The gist of these claims on the internet sites seems to be a typical strawman argument. The poor Bible was under assault by nasty academics who have now been proved wrong by their own science. However, the sources of such claims are nary anywhere to be seen and all the so called scientific refutation occurred in a period when religious views held a hegemony of thinking in most academic institutions. Later claims like the one regarding Wood's view on the date of the walls of Jericho note that others disagree but fail to mention that the only people who agree with Wood are other creationist and Biblical historical groups and that the carbon dating of the grain in 1995 gave a figure 1550BC and that this along with the original views on the pottery and walls confirms the accepted earlier date. Only the Biblical groups hold to the later date. Why? Because they think they need to in order to tie into their chronology. The fact their understanding of Biblical chronology may be wrong is not as yet a predominate factor.

If the weight of evidence becomes overwhelmingly in favour of 1550BC, even for the Biblical historical scholars, I confidently predict that they will sit down and say "OK the walls are there and they fell down therefore that bit is right, so if it happened in 1550BC then Joshua must have been there in 1550BC" and the chronology will change with remarkably little fuss. Tell me I am wrong ;)

Now don't get me wrong - there was an Israelite kingdom and it was in the Canaanite lands. However, I believe the archaeology should determine the facts rather the archaeological facts be determined by an interpretation of a religious text. Wood is a much better archaeologist than Wyatt, who I consider a typical Woo amateur. Nevertheless Wood is hamstringing himself by tying into an a priori assumption regarding the chronology.

Belz...

22nd February 2008, 05:24 AM

Hmmmm Raquel :eye-poppi

Seconded.

Piggy

22nd February 2008, 05:25 AM

I look at all the links.
I went back to page 11, 5 pages, you know what you haven't posted one link that I see and doubt seriously that you have one to refute any of those above about the archaeological sites that are in confirmation with the bible. You know why? Because they are real places, that exist or have existed.
You talk a good story though.

Look at post 585, the one where I mention the men I studied with in answer to your question. Click on the names.

Look at the books that I and Nogbad and HghrSymmetry recommended to Foster Zygote.

Those links.

Try reading those guys and not the utterly unsupported pseudo-scholarship you're currently reading.

Belz...

22nd February 2008, 05:28 AM

Now for a prayer,
I ask you Lord to come into Trickys life and show him the way to your light and glory I ask this in Jesus name and to open the eyes and hardened hearts of the blind in this site so that they can receive the spirit of truth in the name of Jesus I ask this,
And please don’t forget Piggy. Amen

Aren't you religious folks just irritatingly condescending...

According to the bible Ramses had all records of the Hebrews destroyed.

When does the bible mention "Ramses" ?

Especially if they are on the wrong side of God.

Why ? Why would you trust the "winners" instead ?

Piggy

22nd February 2008, 05:28 AM

It seems to me that these so called claims of historical opinion being refuted by recent discoveries is completely bogus.

Indeed.

In fact, it is the mainstream scholars who are making the excavations, decrypting the inscriptions, decyphering the texts, and actually coming up with the valid discoveries that either confirm or do not confirm Biblical accounts.

Archaeology has not refuted mainstream Biblical scholarship. It IS mainstream Biblical scholarship.

Tricky

22nd February 2008, 11:42 AM

In fact, it is the mainstream scholars who are making the excavations, decrypting the inscriptions, decyphering the texts, and actually coming up with the valid discoveries that either confirm or do not confirm Biblical accounts.

Archaeology has not refuted mainstream Biblical scholarship. It IS mainstream Biblical scholarship.

Pity this hasn't filtered down to the rank and file yet.

edge

23rd February 2008, 11:42 AM

Aren't you religious folks just irritatingly condescending...

When does the bible mention "Ramses" ?

Why ? Why would you trust the "winners" instead ?

37 The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. 38 Many other people went up with them, as well as large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds. 39 With the dough they had brought from Egypt, they baked cakes of unleavened bread. The dough was without yeast because they had been driven out of Egypt and did not have time to prepare food for themselves.

So all you have is Jericho and a 300-year gap in time because no records where keep by the rulers of Egypt and discount what the Hebrews have recorded.
Simply friggin amazing!
You pretend that the people that have inhabited this land for thousands of years haven't a clue to the whereabouts of their ancient cities.

Why would you trust the "righteous" instead
There fixed it for you that should make it understandable! :)

edge

23rd February 2008, 11:43 AM

Pity this hasn't filtered down to the rank and file yet.
We can only hope and pray!
You see we feel the same way.

Piggy

23rd February 2008, 11:54 AM

edge, you need to start reading legitimate scholarship, not unsupported speculation.

There is a difference between contemporary records of events (such as monuments to military victories erected by the rulers who won those same battles) and tales of alleged events which would have been ancient even to those doing the writing.

There is also a huge difference between what we think of as "history" and the genres of ancient writing. The ancient record is full of outlandish boasts of total victory and triumph which turn out to contain a heavy dose of propaganda (as you yourself have cited in this thread).

Bottom line: The Biblical tale of the captivity in Egypt and the exodus of the Jews is not currently supported by any hard evidence. It is more likely that the tales had their origins in battles in the land of Canaan instead, and were later transfered to the setting of Egypt.

But if discoveries are made which bear out elements of the Biblical account, mainstream scholars will be the first to embrace them.

Belz...

25th February 2008, 05:29 AM

37 The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth.

Thanks. I mean the PHARAOH Rameses, not the place.

So all you have is Jericho and a 300-year gap in time because no records where keep by the rulers of Egypt and discount what the Hebrews have recorded.

Could you repeat that ? That makes no sense, syntaxically.

You pretend that the people that have inhabited this land for thousands of years haven't a clue to the whereabouts of their ancient cities.

Please, Edge. You pretend that a people whose history was passed down orally have a better record than those who wrote down these things ?

There fixed it for you that should make it understandable! :)

The "righteous" ? How do we know who is righteous, now ?

Belz...

25th February 2008, 05:31 AM

We can only hope and pray!

Hope < Action.

Piggy

25th February 2008, 05:36 AM

Hope < Action.

Speak for yourself, pal. I knew Hope. Biblically. :D

Radrook

28th February 2008, 10:04 PM

A highly entertaining read!

Evolutionary Science Fiction
Fabulous Fairy-tales which only Small Children can Believe
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_22.htm

Tricky

28th February 2008, 10:13 PM

A highly entertaining read!

Evolutionary Science Fiction
Fabulous Fairy-tales which only Small Children can Believe
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_22.htm
Yes, the fairy-tale parts are quite entertaining to children. The actual evolutionary parts, of which there are almost none, are not so much. The few historical bits they put in are curiosities and hypotheses long rejected by evidence, but at least we get to laugh at evolutionists who have made so very many different mistakes in their history. Unlike creationists, who are still making the same ones over and over.

Piggy

29th February 2008, 05:00 AM

A highly entertaining read!

Evolutionary Science Fiction
Fabulous Fairy-tales which only Small Children can Believe
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_22.htm

Stop reading junk, Radrook. Read the science.

See, you don't read the actual science and scholarship. No, you read non-scientific and non-scholarly attacks on the scholarship.

And you can't see why these people have gotten it wrong, because you're not actually reading what the evolutionary scientists, for example, and Biblical scholars have found and said. Unless you do, you will never be able to catch the errors.

Stop reading junk, start reading scholarship. There have been several books by bona fide Christian and Jewish scholars posted here. Read them. See what they've found, what they have to say.

If you continue to post junk -- i.e., popular work by non-scientists and non-scholars who print lies, distortions, and long debunked views -- it's going to continue to be ignored.

Ocelot

29th February 2008, 06:14 AM

Radrook,

Do you believe that the following is an accurate depiction of the evolutionary science which seems to explain the development of the Giraffe's curious height.

The giraffe used to look just like other grazing animals in Africa. But while the other animals were content to eat the grasses growing in the field and the leaves on the lower branches, the giraffe felt that the "survival of his fittest" depended on reaching up and plucking leaves from still higher branches. This went on for a time, as he and his brothers and sisters kept reaching ever higher. Only those that reached the highest branches of leaves survived.
All the other giraffes in the meadow died from starvation. So only the longest-necked giraffes had enough food to eat while all their brother and sister giraffes died from lack of food (all because they were too proud to bend down and eat the lush vegetation that all the other short-necked animals were eating). Sad story; don’t you think? But that is the story of how the giraffe grew its long neck.
Picture the tragic tale: Dead giraffes lying about in the grass while the short-necked grazers, such as the antelope and gazelle, walked by them, having plenty to eat. So there is a lesson for us: Do not be too proud to bend your neck down and eat. Oh, you say, but their necks were by that time too long to bend down to eat grass! Not so; every giraffe has to bend its neck down to get water to drink. *Darwin’s giraffes died of starvation, not thirst.

You have previously said that you accept that different species may have evolved from "kinds"

Would you be prepared to accept that the Okapi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi) might be of the same "kind" as the Giraffe. If so would your explanation of how this happened be more plausible than the misrepresentation of scientific theory above.

In order to dismiss a theory with any integrity you must first understand it. I invite you to demonstrate your understanding of evolutionary theory by explaining how this quote from the site you cited is in fact a misrepresentations of not only what evolutionary science believes but what you seemed earlier prepared to accept with regard to speciation.

Foster Zygote

29th February 2008, 08:08 AM

A highly entertaining read!

Evolutionary Science Fiction
Fabulous Fairy-tales which only Small Children can Believe
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_22.htm

Entertaining? In a manner, yes. But it's called schadenfreude.

Remotely accurate? Unequivocally no. It's pure crap. It isn't intended to actually educate anyone. Instead its aim is to perpetuate ignorance. In a way it reminds me of the stereotypes that are often spread about the peoples of other nations. They're full of misrepresentation and outright falsehood, but they serve the purpose of justifying the fear and loathing one is expected to feel regarding the threat of the outsiders. Websites like the above serve to convince people who are ignorant of evolutionary theory, yet despise it none the less, that they are justified in rejecting what they do not understand.

Piggy

29th February 2008, 10:06 AM

Radrook, try reading Your Inner Fish (http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0375424474/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1). It may help you understand what evolutionary theory really says.

Radrook

29th February 2008, 07:51 PM

Radrook,

Do you believe that the following is an accurate depiction of the evolutionary science which seems to explain the development of the Giraffe's curious height.

You have previously said that you accept that different species may have evolved from "kinds"

Yes, I did say that.

Would you be prepared to accept that the Okapi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi) might be of the same "kind" as the Giraffe?

I can accept that both might have been derived from some ancient kind.

If so would your explanation of how this happened be more plausible than the misrepresentation of scientific theory above.

The representation you posted seems to be speaking of natural selection. Actually, I see no difficulty in accepting that longer necked giraffes would survive shorter necked ones if the food supply were gradually made inaccessible to the shorter necked ones. The only part I would find unbelievable about that scenario is it were to be postulating the acquired trait mechanism idea.

If it is putting forth that idea then I would consider it a
misrepresentation of current evolutionary theory. However, I don't think that the article is claiming that this description represents contemporary evolutionary theory but is simply an illustration of
how previous ideas were once thought viable but later rejected.

In order to dismiss a theory with any integrity you must first understand it. I invite you to demonstrate your understanding of evolutionary theory by explaining how this quote from the site you cited is in fact a misrepresentations of not only what evolutionary science believes but what you seemed earlier prepared to accept with regard to speciation.

Since I did not make that claim I can't very well engage in a demonstration of that kind.

BTW
I had not read every single item at that site but found the ones I did read interesting. I had not as yet read the one you posted.
But I do find a flaw now that I have.

(all because they were too proud to bend down and eat the lush vegetation that all the other short-necked animals were eating).

That is a clear inexcusable misrepresentation!

Ocelot

3rd March 2008, 03:12 AM

I'm suprised you missed that one. It's pretty high up on the page. however the misrepresentations are typical of the rest of the piece.

Would you care to say anythiong about how evolutionary theory does not require giraffes with shorter necks to drop dead of starvation?

Or is there a section on that page which you feel is less erm... well riddled with lies?

Radrook

3rd March 2008, 10:54 AM

I'm suprised you missed that one. It's pretty high up on the page.

So am I.

....however the misrepresentations are typical of the rest of the piece.

Well, if it is riddled with misreprentations then I definitely don't approve of it. Feel free to point out the others.

Would you care to say anything about how evolutionary theory does not require giraffes with shorter necks to drop dead of starvation?

I was criticizing the manner of his description. He makes it sound as if evolutionists invariabley require natural selection to function in that silly way. Under his chosen scenario, he has jiraffs refusing food in order to not bend their necks down to get it. An absurd suggestion. Obviously if shorter necked-jiraffes would have been able top bend necks to ground to eat they would have.

Or is there a section on that page which you feel is less erm... well riddled with lies?

Errrm, I haven't had time to read them all yet. But I will get back to you on that later tonight after I do.

Ocelot

4th March 2008, 04:06 AM

I was criticizing the manner of his description. He makes it sound as if evolutionists invariably require natural selection to function in that silly way. Under his chosen scenario, he has jiraffs refusing food in order to not bend their necks down to get it. An absurd suggestion. Obviously if shorter necked-jiraffes would have been able top bend necks to ground to eat they would have.

The early common ancestor of the Giraffe and Okapi was probably well adapted to eating leaves as its two descendant lines both share this characteristic. They have long prehensile (and curiously blue) tongues which are excellent at stripping the leaves off branches. Sure they can, and occasionally do, eat grass but their big advantage is in being so well suited to eating leaves off branches, a food source for which there is less competition from other species. However there's still competition from members of their own species. The rules of the competition are simple. Whoever has the most descendants wins. One dramatic way of losing is to die before having any descendants. However this is not the only way to be beaten. Another member of your species might do better than you by simply being more efficient at turning food into babies. In the case of the giraffe it appears that being able to reach higher branches than the others in your herd, meaning less competition for the food available there, was a defining advantage and so generation upon generation favoured, slightly, those with slightly longer necks. It were more likely than not these that had more descendents than their shorter necked brothers and sisters. Many many generations each with, on average, slightly longer necks than the last means an exceedingly long neck today.

Note how none of them are dying from having a shorter neck. All that is required is that those with shorter necks have on average less descendants.

And the okapi, why doesn't it have a longer neck? Possibly because it's ancestors lived in an area where there wasn't a high quality food source that was just a little bit out of reach of those with shorter necks.

Doesn't this sound so much more plausible that the caricature presented by the site you referenced.

If you're not able to present this alternative argument yourself then it might seem that your understanding of evolution is not sufficient to make a judgement on it.

Radrook

4th March 2008, 10:44 AM

,,,,[COLOR=black]Doesn't this sound so much more plausible that the caricature presented by the site you referenced.

If you're not able to present this alternative argument yourself then it might seem that your understanding of evolution is not sufficient to make a judgment on it.

Why wouldn't I be able to give an explanation for the survival of the fittest concept? Its simplicity poses no problem for anyone of normal intelligence. Let me add to your examples with some popular ones:

The white arctic fox and the Polar Bear are examples which might be cited in order to illustrate how a characteristic which benefits a species is passed on in with greater frequency until most or all of the population involved shares it.

Blending in with background helps to camouflage the predator in its predation and gives it an advantage over one who the prey can easily spot and hide from. A white rabbit in a snowbound environment had the advantage over a brown one whom predators can easily see-will tend to survive more frequently be more likely to pass on that survival characteristic, and voila! A population of white rabbits within that geographical area.

BTW
If the environment, or habitat changes due to a natural disaster, such ass a volcanic eruption and members of a species become geographically isolated from one another so that no genetic interchange takes place then that too will cause a difference in appearances in time and might lead to speciation. There is much more to say but I'll stop at that.

That knowledge was required of the students in my college biology class. Not that I learned it there, but it was required in order to pass. So you see, despite your low opinion of my intelligence- I do comprehend.

I do agree however with your opinion that if a person is ignorant of
a subject he should not be so bold as to pontificate expertise. That's why I am forced repeatedly to correct the wild claims made on this forum concerning the Bible. People totally unfamiliar with it pop up, pontificate, make wild assertions, feel that they have proven something-and they have-actually-total ignorance of the biblical subject matter they are criticizing and opining about tongue-in-cheek.

Sadly, when the crass mistakes they are making are brought to their attention, some become wroth and proceed to accuse of evangelization or faith-conversion motives. But that isn't the case at all. Criticism of religion is expected from most on this site since this is predominantly an atheistic skeptics forum. However, to be a skeptic doesn't mean that we have been given as license to misrepresent.

So in order to reduce that type of modus operandi and help keep the skepticism within the its ethical bounds-I point out where that skepticism has gone awry. That is all.

Belz...

4th March 2008, 01:06 PM

Why wouldn't I be able to give an explanation for the survival of the fittest concept? Its simplicity poses no problem for anyone of normal intelligence.

And yet it's wrong. It's not survival of the fittest.

I do agree however with your opinion that if a person is ignorant of
a subject he should not be so bold as to pontificate expertise. That's why I am forced repeatedly to correct the wild claims made on this forum concerning the Bible.

A shame you don't do the same with the bible's wild claims.

edge

4th March 2008, 02:16 PM

shame you don't do the same with the bible's wild claims.
What, that God can do as he sees fit?
It doesn't work that way since he is all and you are a part.
It does work if you want it to be interpreted correctly for you, as Radrook has done an excellent job of it, he has the patients that you haven't, you have taking the easy way out the low road with out truly looking at what is being said.

I swear to tell the truth, The whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

Non of us could stand up to that, that is why even the justice system relies on that, Prayer or oath however you want to look at it.
They are asking for intervention for the truth.
They know better.

edge

4th March 2008, 02:17 PM

Oh and trust me it works as I found out one time. :)

Foster Zygote

4th March 2008, 03:02 PM

What, that God can do as he sees fit?
It doesn't work that way since he is all and you are a part.
It does work if you want it to be interpreted correctly for you, as Radrook has done an excellent job of it, he has the patients that you haven't, you have taking the easy way out the low road with out truly looking at what is being said.

I swear to tell the truth, The whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
It's funny that you should bring that up in regard to Radrook. Why don't you ask him about it?

Belz...

5th March 2008, 05:28 AM

What, that God can do as he sees fit?

No, that some of the things claimed in the bible are impossible, contradictory or flat out wrong.

It doesn't work that way since he is all and you are a part.

Rhetoric preaching. Would you mind providing evidence that he even exists ?

It does work if you want it to be interpreted correctly for you

But as we established earlier and in other threads, "interpreting correctly" is an oxymoron.

, as Radrook has done an excellent job of it, he has the patients that you haven't, you have taking the easy way out the low road with out truly looking at what is being said.

There is NOTHING easy about accepting the fact that I am a meaningless speck of dust in a chaotic, unforgiving universe.

I swear to tell the truth, The whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

I just tell the truth. I don't need an omnipotent deity in the sky to bully me into it.

Non of us could stand up to that, that is why even the justice system relies on that, Prayer or oath however you want to look at it.

Not for atheists, it doesn't.

They are asking for intervention for the truth.
They know better.

I would've thought they could manage the truth on their own. Can you ?

Radrook

6th March 2008, 01:14 AM

And yet it's wrong. It's not survival of the fittest.

Ok! Let's use Natural Selection.

A shame you don't do the same with the bible's wild claims.

That's because there are none.

Piggy

6th March 2008, 05:10 AM

Ok! Let's use Natural Selection.
But it's not just natural selection. There were other theories involving natural selection which turned out to be wrong.

Darwin's breakthrough was understanding -- and explaining -- how natural selection was a positive creative force in speciation, not just a negative force culling off the overpopulation.

To understand Darwin's theories, and the Modern Synthesis (current explanatory framework), you have to understand how NS works, what it does over time and how it does it.

That's because there are none.

Creation of mankind from dust
Sons of God mating with women
Worldwide flood
All world's animals on one boat
Raising the dead
Knocking down fortified walls with trumpet blasts
Stopping the sun
Turning water to wine
Turning a woman to salt
Healing the blind or leprous by touch

I could go on and on....

Nogbad

6th March 2008, 05:19 AM

Tower of Babel is an interesting one. The International Space Station has got to be higher than the Tower.

Belz...

6th March 2008, 05:30 AM

Ok! Let's use Natural Selection.

No, what I meant is that "fittest" is a misnomer. There are plenty of life forms that survive that aren't the fittest of the lot.

That's because there are none.

You don't think that claims of miracles that defy the laws of physics are "wild" ?

Ocelot

6th March 2008, 05:39 AM

No, what I meant is that "fittest" is a misnomer. There are plenty of life forms that survive that aren't the fittest of the lot.

You don't think that claims of miracles that defy the laws of physics are "wild" ?

Survival of the fittest is a tautology. Fittest doesn't mean the most physically buff - it means the most fit to survive. Moreover survival doesn't mean individual imortality, it refers to the genetic traits passed on.

As such it can be rearead as "heritable traits which tend to lead to having more offspiring will tend to lead to more offspring inherriting those traits"

An individual may survive to double the average age of their species but if it does so at the expense of reproduction then whatever inherritable trait that tends to lead to this feat of longevity will not ultimately survive.

I don't like the phrase - it so easily missunderstood.

Belz...

6th March 2008, 08:01 AM

Survival of the fittest is a tautology. Fittest doesn't mean the most physically buff - it means the most fit to survive.

Same difference. A lot of things aren't the most fit and yet survive to have offspring.

Ocelot

6th March 2008, 08:10 AM

Same difference. A lot of things aren't the most fit and yet survive to have offspring.

You did read the rest of the post didn't you?

Belz...

6th March 2008, 10:03 AM

Yes, which is why I answered what I did. Fittest <> Survival/Reproduction.

Ocelot

6th March 2008, 10:39 AM

Yes, which is why I answered what I did. Fittest <> Survival/Reproduction.

A lot of things do survive and reproduce despite not being "most fit for survival and reproduction" however there is a tendancy for those that are better fitted for survival and reproduction to do so better.

That's all that's required for natural selection to operate.

This is why I don't like the phrase. It's so easily misinterpretted. However I guess it is a littler snappier than

The tendacy of survial of inherritable traits fit for the purpose of increasing the survial of those traits.

Belz...

6th March 2008, 10:41 AM

A lot of things do survive and reproduce despite not being "most fit for survival and reproduction" however there is a tendancy for those that are better fitted for survival and reproduction to do so better.

That's exactly what I meant. Why are we arguing about this ?

Ocelot

7th March 2008, 03:35 AM

That's exactly what I meant. Why are we arguing about this ?

It seems we're not. Instead we must be having an agreeable conversation.

On the JREF!!
:jaw-dropp

I won't tell if you won't tell.
:boxedin:

Radrook

7th March 2008, 03:49 AM

Tower of Babel is an interesting one. The International Space Station has got to be higher than the Tower.

The tower of Babel's height was not the offending factor. One factor was the plan being made to violate the prime directive God had given mankind:

Genesis:1
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it;

Genesis 11:4
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

Excerpt

One language in the world, The building of Babel.

How soon men forget the most tremendous judgments, and go back to their former crimes! Though the desolations of the deluge were before their eyes, though they sprang from the stock of righteous Noah, yet even during his life-time, wickedness increases exceedingly. Nothing but the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit can remove the sinful lusts of the human will, and the depravity of the human heart. God's purpose was, that mankind should form many nations, and people all lands.

In contempt of the Divine will, and against the counsel of Noah, the bulk of mankind united to build a city and a tower to prevent their separating. Idolatry was begun, and Babel became one of its chief seats. They made one another more daring and resolute.
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=18&source=2&seq=i.1.11.1

Nogbad

7th March 2008, 04:30 AM

Piggy

7th March 2008, 05:03 AM

The tower of Babel's height was not the offending factor. One factor was the plan being made to violate the prime directive God had given mankind:

Genesis:1
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it;

Genesis 11:4
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

Excerpt
Wrong again.

More cherry-picking.

You ignore the reason which God states for doing what He did.

"Look, they are one people and they have one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do, and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let's go down there and confuse their language so that they can't understand each other's speech."

If God had meant to say instead, "Look, they have spurned my commandment to fill the earth," then that's what He would have said.

Again, in your arrogance, you are imposing your ideas on the text, replacing your notions for what is actually stated.

And you're distorting the text here on this thread to give a false impression.

I know that "Bible believers" aren't accustomed to being held to standards of academic honesty. In that community, cherry-picking and distortion is accepted. But it won't wash here.