PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Those who actually read Bible:
       Most of them see it as history of the planet (by Lester

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Strange. Most people that actually read the Bible see it as a story about the history of the planet and find it at least historically interesting.
Most of them do?

Show us the polls, or whatever piece of evidence you have to defend this claim.

I think this could be one of your most probable hits. But it was a claim, and if you won't support it you should qualify it by adding "I think" or something like that.

Don't you think?

Ever?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:29 PM on January 20, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think we should know by now that he doesn't. The thinking was done long ago when the bible was written, now they simply sit back and rely on people that were thinking over a thousand years ago.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 7:11 PM on January 20, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

*yawn*


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:01 PM on August 20, 2010 | IP
Gaunt

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Strange. Most people that actually read the Bible see it as a story about the history of the planet and find it at least historically interesting.



Quote: Pope John Paul II, regarding 'Vatican 2'

"The Bible is a story, a tale of morality and honor, it is a window into the human soul and its relationship with the divine. It is not and cannot be presumed to be an accurate representation of our past, nor do such historical errors as are found within lessen its power or its importance. It is an accurate metaphor of human experience."


So 'most people' to lester means him and a few other people in his trailer park.


(Edited by Gaunt 8/25/2010 at 03:41 AM).


-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).

Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 08:57 AM on August 24, 2010 | IP
Gaunt

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then again, Lester being amusingly unaware of this should not be a surprise. beyond his demonstrated track record as a pathalogical liar, let us also not forget the four times now he has demonstrated himself to be startlingly ignorant of basic Christian theology and church history: I have been compelled to school him on the substance and history of his own belief system several times now: of course, he fled like a coward every time refusing to admit or even aknowledge his own errors or demonstrated ignorance, but that doesnt make the proof of it go away.

Just recently I had to explain to him WHERE the 4004 BC YEC date came from, he didnt even know that. Notably, when I then asked him to justify it scientifically, or rationalize the admitted theological inconsistencies, he (of course) fled like a coward.


-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).

Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 03:45 AM on August 25, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Support?


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:48 PM on December 27, 2010 | IP
NIF

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you lot as so petty

I start reading this tread to find it is all about taking the s*** out of Lester

I then go back to the list of threads and use the find tool (CTRL+F) to find the word lester.
there are SIXTEEN threads devoted to taking the s*** out of Leser on the first page!
and thats just the ones I can tell from the title/sub-title



in this thread I will take the time to show you how / why some people would view the bible as "a story about the history of the planet ".
but I will not do this sort of thing for every thread! why? because it is a wast of my time to go around cleaning up everytime you lot childishly slander Lester.
I sincerly hope you lot will grow up


###

INSTANCES OF HISTORICAL ACCURACY IN THE BIBLE

1) In 1883, Naville, and in 1908, Kyle, found at Pithom: the lower courses were built of bricks filled with good, chopped straw.  The middle courses have less straw including stubble.  The upper courses were made of pure clay, with no straw whatever.
Relates to Exodus 1:11

2) in 1842-1845, P.E. Botta uncovered the royal palace of Sargon. and within found an account of the siege of Ashdod
before this time Isaiah 20:1 was the ONLY reference to King Sargon or the siege of Ashdod anywhere.

3) Starting in 1929, Dr. John Garstang, excavated the ruins of ancient Jericho. their findings concluded that when the wall of Jericho fell it fell outward, down the hillside and the city had been burned.  
this coinsides to Joshua 6:20.  the walls of Jericho "fell down flat". The Israel people then rushed strait way into the city and burned it. They took none of it to themselves.

4) also to do with the siege of Jericho.  At the time of the attack, the harvest had just been taken in (Joshua 3:15), so the citizens had an abundant supply of food.
for any war general with half a brain it is NOT a good idea to siege a walled city right after they take in their harvest. but for an army following the will of a God...
back on subject, John Garstang found in his excavation in the 1930s many large jars full of grain. proof the city was destroyed right after the harvest.
to elaborate on this. the siege was not only started right after the harvest, it was also very short (accourding to the bible, the walls came down on the seventh day)

5) and even MORE about the siege of Jericho. according to the Bible, Rahab and her family were saved. As you may recall, the spies had instructed Rahab to bring her family into her house (which was build ON the wall) and they would be rescued. so if the wall fell down then how did Rahab survive?
The German excavation of 1907–1909 found that on the north a short stretch of the lower city wall did not fall as everywhere else!

6) the crossing of the red sea. if this really happened then wouldn't there be chariot's and human bones there? well, there are (as you probibly already guessed). including Gold coated chariot wheels.
The Bible said all the chariots of Egypt including 600 choice chariots pursued the Israelites. now I don't know about you, but I wouldn't send 600 gold plated chariots after some slaves unless I was REALLY pissed off (like if my country was hit my multiple plages, my first born died, and all my countries laves decided to leave taking the kindoms welth with them)

7)  archaeologists discovered a stone inscription on a pillar at the ancient city of Dan, which refers to the "House of David". the pillar is a victory pillar of a King in Damascus dated about 250 years after David's reign  (1000-961 B.C.)

8) Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus  (ca. 69/75 – after 130), was a roman historian. he recorded that the Jews were removed from Rome during the reign of Claudius.
in Acts 18:2 says "And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome) and came unto them."

9) Mesha was ruler of the small kingdom of Moab, east of the Dead Sea, in the mid-ninth century BC.
the two main references on King Moab are "2 Kings 3" in the bible and the "Moabite Stone" (It was discovered in Dhiban, Jordan, in 1868 by a French missionary named F.A. Klein).
Both documents describe the same event, the revolt of Mesha. and agree with each other.
the Moab Stone is 34 lines long and is written in Moabite (a language almost identical to Hebrew)
For those who don't know the story, Israel rules over Moab. Moab rebels. Israel combines forces to retake Moab. Moab is successfull in retaining its independance.

10) At the south end the Dead Sea area, near Mt. Masada and Mt. Sodom (named for obviouse reasons) at least 5 destroyed cities have been discovered. including the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Gen 19:24-28)

it was discovered these cities where turned to ash and contained many balls of pure sulfur (brimstone in the King James version of the Bible). These sulfur balls ,after burning everything around them to ash, them melted the ash to glass and became encased in it.
the sulfur balls are estimated to have burned at around 5,000 degrees Celsius. and no where else in the world, even around volcanic activity, were any balls of this composition found.  

a geologist by the name of Frederick Clapp theorised that subterranean deposits of a petroleum-based substance called bitumen (which contains a high amount of Sulfur) could have forced out of the ground by tectonic activity, court alight from some surface fire, before falling to earth in a large firey mass
it was AFTER Frederick Clapp came up with this theory that the cities where found. It turns out that the sites are located exactly on a fault line along the eastern side of a plain south of the Dead Sea. And there is ample evidence of Bitumen in the region south of the Dead Sea.

it is interesting to note that other cities that have been destroyed by fire or by volcanoes, like Pompeii, have a layer of ash on top, but under that is the original material. Here however, we see entire cities completely turned to ash, exactly as the Bible describes.





REFERENCES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/biblical-archaeology.htm
http://mindprod.com/feedback/god/godbibletrue.html
http://english.sdaglobal.org/evangelism/arch/sodom.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/jericho.asp
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/HistoricalAccuracyOfTheBible.htm
http://www.bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm
http://www.christnotes.org/bible
http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/sodomfound.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a019.html


NOTE: i dint mean to use christian based sites. this is what came up in google.
if and when I find a Darwinist web site that is willing to post information supporting Creation, then I will quote from there  ^_^
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 11:45 PM on January 22, 2011 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from NIF at 10:45 PM on January 22, 2011 :
you lot as so petty

I start reading this tread to find it is all about taking the s*** out of Lester

I then go back to the list of threads and use the find tool (CTRL+F) to find the word lester.
there are SIXTEEN threads devoted to taking the s*** out of Leser on the first page!
and thats just the ones I can tell from the title/sub-title


Welcome to the forum NIF!

For better or worse Lester is the creationist resident on this site, so it is no surprise many threads are dedicated to what he has said. Part of the problem is that there are few creationists that stay for very long, so Lester is hit with all the evolutionist's attention much of the time.

NOTE: i dint mean to use christian based sites. this is what came up in google.
if and when I find a Darwinist web site that is willing to post information supporting Creation, then I will quote from there  ^_^


If you're looking for evidence to support the Bible, Christian apologetic sites seems like an obvious source that would pop up in a search engine. I'm not familiar with the points you've brought up, and I don't have the background knowledge to have an informed opinion, so I'll let others address your points.

I will say that the Bible is a mix of mythology and history, so I'm not surprised some things in the Bible are historically accurate. However, just because the Bible is historically accurate in some areas doesn't mean it is entirely accurate all over. Also, one of your links, answersingenesis.org, is known to give out faulty information and is notorious about not fixing their site's material when corrected.

P.S. I actually found 17, not 16, threads dedicated to Lester according to the title on the first page. "Les" is short for Lester, I think that was Derwood's doing.

(Edited by Fencer27 1/23/2011 at 2:45 PM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 2:39 PM on January 23, 2011 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Fencer:
I will say that the Bible is a mix of mythology and history, so I'm not surprised some things in the Bible are historically accurate. However, just because the Bible is historically accurate in some areas doesn't mean it is entirely accurate all over.


That is a point that Creationists don't want to admit.  Every culture has its myths and history.  I love Greek mythology - it has such a rich collection of characters, each with their strengths and weaknesses.  Take the Trojan War, for instance.  Was there really a Trojan war?  Did the city of Troy actually exist?  

While archaeoogists have located the ruins of a city that once was called Troy, the actual story of the Trojan War as told in the Iliad is certainly myth.  Perhaps there was a great battle that took place around the plains of Troy.  The retelling of the battle through generations gained legendary proportions with the passage of time.  The legend grew to mythical proportions.  Homer then wrote it down and we know it as the Iliad.

Same thing with the Bible.  Except in the case of the Bible, myth has become religion.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:00 AM on January 24, 2011 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from NIF at 10:45 PM on January 22, 2011 :

10) At the south end the Dead Sea area, near Mt. Masada and Mt. Sodom (named for obviouse reasons) at least 5 destroyed cities have been discovered. including the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Gen 19:24-28)

it was discovered these cities where turned to ash and contained many balls of pure sulfur (brimstone in the King James version of the Bible). These sulfur balls ,after burning everything around them to ash, them melted the ash to glass and became encased in it.
the sulfur balls are estimated to have burned at around 5,000 degrees Celsius. and no where else in the world, even around volcanic activity, were any balls of this composition found.  

a geologist by the name of Frederick Clapp theorised that subterranean deposits of a petroleum-based substance called bitumen (which contains a high amount of Sulfur) could have forced out of the ground by tectonic activity, court alight from some surface fire, before falling to earth in a large firey mass
it was AFTER Frederick Clapp came up with this theory that the cities where found. It turns out that the sites are located exactly on a fault line along the eastern side of a plain south of the Dead Sea. And there is ample evidence of Bitumen in the region south of the Dead Sea.

it is interesting to note that other cities that have been destroyed by fire or by volcanoes, like Pompeii, have a layer of ash on top, but under that is the original material. Here however, we see entire cities completely turned to ash, exactly as the Bible describes.


From Answers in Genesis, Arguments Creationists should NOT use :
Sodom and Gomorrah?

Answers in Genesis did not attempt to involve itself in checking any of the other claims, but someone who had been with Wyatt to his ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’ site10  sent us samples he had from there of the alleged ash from a couple of the ‘buildings,’ and a sulfur ball.11 The photos show the structures at ‘Sodom and Gomorrah,’ together with the labels put on them by Wyatt. Simple visual inspection of such photos (and watching videos put out by these ‘amazing discoverers’) strongly suggests that these ‘building ruins’ are soft sedimentary structures with some lamination, carved into an array of shapes by rain and wind.

To put it mildly, the claim that such structures would form from incinerated buildings, then survive in the open for thousands of years, defies understanding of basic scientific principles (not to mention common sense).

Nevertheless, we sent the samples for chemical analysis to a reputable Australian laboratory.12 Their report was interpreted by a Ph.D. geochemist.13 The existence of the sulfur ball is not surprising—the entire area is rich in natural sulfur. The results from the ‘ash’ (see chart below, right) were not consistent with what would be expected from incinerated ancient buildings, or rock ash of any sort. Instead, they clearly indicated an [evaporite] deposit of gypsum-type minerals. This crumbly, easily eroded material fully explains the visual impressions, and is consistent with the known features of this area. The chemistry also shows an abundance of carbonates, which would be broken down by heat.14  





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:46 AM on January 25, 2011 | IP
NIF

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 1:46 PM on January 24, 2011 :
From Answers in Genesis, Arguments Creationists should NOT use :
Sodom and Gomorrah?

Answers in Genesis did not attempt to involve itself in checking any of the other claims, but someone who had been with Wyatt to his ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’ site10  sent us samples he had from there of the alleged ash from a couple of the ‘buildings,’ and a sulfur ball.11 The photos show the structures at ‘Sodom and Gomorrah,’ together with the labels put on them by Wyatt. Simple visual inspection of such photos (and watching videos put out by these ‘amazing discoverers’) strongly suggests that these ‘building ruins’ are soft sedimentary structures with some lamination, carved into an array of shapes by rain and wind.

To put it mildly, the claim that such structures would form from incinerated buildings, then survive in the open for thousands of years, defies understanding of basic scientific principles (not to mention common sense).

Nevertheless, we sent the samples for chemical analysis to a reputable Australian laboratory.12 Their report was interpreted by a Ph.D. geochemist.13 The existence of the sulfur ball is not surprising—the entire area is rich in natural sulfur. The results from the ‘ash’ (see chart below, right) were not consistent with what would be expected from incinerated ancient buildings, or rock ash of any sort. Instead, they clearly indicated an [evaporite] deposit of gypsum-type minerals. This crumbly, easily eroded material fully explains the visual impressions, and is consistent with the known features of this area. The chemistry also shows an abundance of carbonates, which would be broken down by heat.14  

this link is to what I think this might bethe Video you quote mentioned
(that sentance is such bad english that when I read it I decided to leave it just for laughs)

it seems most websites that claim these dig sites as Sodom and Gomorrah get most of their quotes from this video anyway. so this 10 min video can give you almost all the information on Sodom and Gomorrah that took me two hours of scouring the net did ^_^

and it also counters many of the points your quote brought up. but before I get into that...
MY responce is based around the understanding that YOUR argument is that these dig sites are not even cities. that they are purely natural geological formations
if this is wrong then stop me here.

otherwise ...

"the claim that such structures would form from incinerated buildings, then survive in the open for thousands of years"
as the video states (and until someone with a PhD in chemistry says other wise) "Research showed that objects burned with sulphur leave a remaining ash heavier than the original material". thus Greatly slowing decay.
and for a comparison... the Dead sea scrolls, which where found near the dead sea (dah) just like the Sodom and Gomorah ruins, where carbon dated.
the oldest of which was the "Wadi-Daliyeh deed", found in cave 1, dated with a 14c age of 2289 +/- 55, 408-203 BC (sorry, I just felt like being all techincal and stuff here)

so 2400 year old scrolls can survive in the area intact. but 3900 year old city composed of compacted Ash of a heavier substance than that of the buildings they once where can not survive even partually intact ??





"these ‘building ruins’ are soft sedimentary structures with some lamination, carved into an array of shapes by rain and wind."
there is no doubt in my mind that natural erotion can create interesting shapes. such as mangroves in the shape of love hearts, and the bungle bungles (Australia), or trees that look like some random thing.
however! nature dose NOT redily make right angles.
(I seem to be having a bit of trouble posting the pic. but will give it a go anyway)

http://pinkoski.com/images/SG20.jpg

and in the Video there if footage of another 'natural'(?) feature that looks remarkibly like a double wall. with right angles and parrelel lines and matching widths and flat sides all sorts of stuff you don't expect to find in nature.





"The existence of the sulfur ball is not surprising—the entire area is rich in natural sulfur."
yes it is. for both.
yes the area is rich in natural sulphur. including (as I mentioned in my last post) underground deposits of bitumen.
and yes it IS SURPRISING to find the existance of these sulpher balls. (once again, already mentioned in my last post) "no where else in the world, even around volcanic activity, were any balls of this composition found."





"This crumbly, easily eroded material fully explains the visual impressions, and is consistent with the known features of this area."
here is an arial view of the area. (if the pic loads that is)

http://chinese.sdaglobal.org/evangelism/arch/images/sodom/overview.jpg


http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/sodomf22.jpg

these pics shows the difference between the white ash area of the "city" and the stone area of the surounding landscape. and how it is neatly containd within the *naturally eroded, wall like, geological feature*(?)

in addition to this, the video also gives a breif description of the layout of the city. how the "wall" stops at an open area (gate), then imediatly inside the city you are meeted by what looks like a sphinx on a raised platform, flat vallies (roads) run along regulare mounds (buildings).
this site and this one both contain good pics / information that go to support the claim that these are cities. and not just natural phenomina





now that I have presented information concerning that these are Cities. here is the information that shows these cities died from a hail of brimstone
- the video (first quoted by Apoapsis, then linked to by me) shows us footage of the sulpher balls at the dig site, and the labritory tests that proove they are 95.72% pure sulpher + other compounds that would add to the heat of the fire.
and footage of sulpher balls on site. including impact marks from where they "rained" down.
- this site (the same one from my last point) has great descriptions and pics of proof of the intence heat these cities suffered from.


and if I wanted to be REALLY petty. I could say that your reply is only an out dated quote from an site that
is known to give out faulty information and is notorious about not fixing their site's material when corrected.
but honestly I like my other rebutals better ^_^



REFERENCE
http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html
http://pinkoski.com/Articles/Sodom-Gomorrah.html
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm
http://english.sdaglobal.org/evangelism/arch/images/sodom.wmv

NOTE: different sites than last time
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 06:23 AM on January 25, 2011 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is 'fire and brimstone'?

Sounds like a volcano in action to me.  No deity needed for that.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:03 AM on January 25, 2011 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 08:03 AM on January 25, 2011 :
What is 'fire and brimstone'?

Sounds like a volcano in action to me.  No deity needed for that.


I thought 'fire and brimestone' were the providence of that other guy.  You know, the devil himself.  

Say, you don't suppose God has a split personality, do you?  Maybe he is, in fact, the devil too?  Sort of a schizophrenic personality, what with all the murder and mayhem he performs in the Bible.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:38 AM on January 25, 2011 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from NIF at 05:23 AM on January 25, 2011 :

and it also counters many of the points your quote brought up. but before I get into that...
MY responce is based around the understanding that YOUR argument is that these dig sites are not even cities. that they are purely natural geological formations
if this is wrong then stop me here.



My basic point is that Ron Wyatt is a crank and has no respect even within the creationist community.

He does however say things that people desperately want to hear, whether they are true or not.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:49 PM on January 25, 2011 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from NIF at 01:45 AM on January 23, 2011 :
you lot as so petty
I start reading this tread to find it is all about taking the s*** out of Lester
It's about supporting one's own claims, which is something Lester doesn't do.

I then go back to the list of threads and use the find tool (CTRL+F) to find the word lester.
there are SIXTEEN threads devoted to taking the s*** out of Leser on the first page!
and thats just the ones I can tell from the title/sub-title
There should be many, MANY more, if we demanded support from Lester for each one of his extraordinary claims (demands that shouldn't be necessary in the first place).

in this thread I will take the time to show you how / why some people would view the bible as "a story about the history of the planet ".
Turns out i know some people see it that way, which is not what Lester said.

but I will not do this sort of thing for every thread!
This sort of thing = supporting a softer version of Lester's claims when you can't support what he actually said?
why? because it is a wast of my time to go around cleaning up everytime you lot childishly slander Lester.
He brings it upon himself.

He's the one that makes claims he won't support.

If you do the same, the same will happen to you. The same should happen to every one of us.

It seems like you're fine, so far. Let me check... Oops! Unsupported claim:
Quote from NIF at 9:16 PM on January 22, 2011 in the thread Most evidence goes both ways:
(...)but the current working model is so flawed that it should NOT be taught as fact.
My experience tells me you're not going to support that. And if you don't even try, i think i'll be starting a thread for you to do it or get exposed, just like Lester.

Would that be childish? What about going around making claims you know you're not willing or able to support in the first place?

I sincerly hope you lot will grow up
I sincerely hope that at least you believe what you said, and try to support it. And that you're able to change your mind when you see that's not possible.

As for the instances of historical accuracy in the Bible, well... I don't know what to tell you. I never denied that there could be instances of historical accuracy in the Bible. I would dispute some from your list, but that's not important. Since we know it contains things that are definitely NOT historically accurate, we know the Bible is NOT historically accurate. It contradicts itself. It was obviously revised and edited plenty of times, and some of the dates are impossible (not to mention the physically impossible events like the Sun stopping in the sky and stuff).

If you claim that all crows are black, and i show you this:

it doesn't matter how many black crows you show me, i still proved you wrong (not that biblical errors are remotely as rare as white crows).

If defending a claim turns out to be very difficult, there might be a good reason for that.

Here you have some contradictions:
Click→


NOTE: i dint mean to use christian based sites. this is what came up in google.
Um... What were your search terms?



if and when I find a Darwinist web site that is willing to post information supporting Creation, then I will quote from there  ^_^
Like what?

Can you please start a thread and show us some of that "
information supporting Creation"? ^_^

(Edited by wisp 1/25/2011 at 7:17 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:37 PM on January 25, 2011 | IP
NIF

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
What is 'fire and brimstone'?
a quick trip to
http://dictionary.reference.com/ would have fixed this simple ignorance

Brimstone:
World English Dictionary = 1.  an obsolete name for sulphur  
Medical Dictionary = 1. sulphur
Bible Dictionary (first I ever heard of this, but am not totally surprised) = an inflammable mineral substance found in quantities on the shores of the Dead Sea. The cities of the plain were destroyed by a rain of fire and brimstone (Gen. 19:24, 25). In Isa. 34:9 allusion is made to the destruction of these cities. This word figuratively denotes destruction or punishment (Job 18:15; Isa. 30:33; 34:9; Ps. 11:6; Ezek. 38:22). It is used to express the idea of excruciating torment in Rev. 14:10; 19:20; 20:10.


Sounds like a volcano in action to me.  No deity needed for that.
true. a volcano does produce a lot of sulphur, fire, and ash.
but there are two flaws with this theory
1) there is no volcano near the dead sea
2) there was no large pile up of ash on the 'cities'.
(I'm sure I mentioned both of these in an eirler post)


orion
I thought 'fire and brimestone' were the providence of that other guy.  You know, the devil himself.

look up Bible Dictionary: Brimstone. specificly the part that says
"[in the Bible] this word figuratively denotes destruction or punishment (Job 18:15; Isa. 30:33; 34:9; Ps. 11:6; Ezek. 38:22). It is used to express the idea of excruciating torment in Rev. 14:10; 19:20; 20:10."

so yes and no.
fire and brimestone are commonly associated with hell, and hell is commonly associated with the devil. but I think in the bible passages refering to Sodom and Gomorrah are more to do with the "destruction or punishment" use of the word then the "excruciating torment
since God destroyed these cities as punishment ... I think that is a fair call

and that is without going into the inaccurace of western scocietys ying-yang approch to the christian heaven/hell concept. (I tried to make this sentance as politically correct as possible. took me a few tries)

Apoapsis
My basic point is that Ron Wyatt is a crank and has no respect even within the creationist community.

He does however say things that people desperately want to hear, whether they are true or not.
prehaps he is
and prehaps he does

but rather than basing your defence around your personal views of one man, how about trying to attack the data that I present to you at face value?

 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 7:13 PM on January 25, 2011 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 09:00 AM on January 24, 2011 :
That is a point that Creationists don't want to admit.  Every culture has its myths and history.  I love Greek mythology - it has such a rich collection of characters, each with their strengths and weaknesses.  Take the Trojan War, for instance.  Was there really a Trojan war?  Did the city of Troy actually exist?  

While archaeoogists have located the ruins of a city that once was called Troy, the actual story of the Trojan War as told in the Iliad is certainly myth.  Perhaps there was a great battle that took place around the plains of Troy.  The retelling of the battle through generations gained legendary proportions with the passage of time.  The legend grew to mythical proportions.  Homer then wrote it down and we know it as the Iliad.

Same thing with the Bible.  Except in the case of the Bible, myth has become religion.


Good points, I liked learning about Greek mythology in high school. Not only were the characters colorful but so were my classmates; IMHO the weirdest kids take Latin.

Often myth is loosely based off of fictional events that have been embellished, fine tuned and what not. I think it would solve a lot of problems with fundamentalism if they recognized the 'human' influence on religious texts. I think it's fine to believe that such and such book was inspired by a deity or God (especially when it comes to religious pluralism), but the whole infallible business with little to no mortal editing is something I would like to see go away or contained inside family homes and churches.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 11:49 PM on January 25, 2011 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from NIF at 6:13 PM on January 25, 2011 :
Apoapsis
My basic point is that Ron Wyatt is a crank and has no respect even within the creationist community.

He does however say things that people desperately want to hear, whether they are true or not.
prehaps he is
and prehaps he does

but rather than basing your defence around your personal views of one man, how about trying to attack the data that I present to you at face value?


OK

Quote from NIF at 10:45 PM on January 22, 2011 :

10) At the south end the Dead Sea area, near Mt. Masada and Mt. Sodom (named for obviouse reasons) at least 5 destroyed cities have been discovered. including the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Gen 19:24-28)

it was discovered these cities where turned to ash and contained many balls of pure sulfur (brimstone in the King James version of the Bible). These sulfur balls ,after burning everything around them to ash, them melted the ash to glass and became encased in it.
the sulfur balls are estimated to have burned at around 5,000 degrees Celsius. and no where else in the world, even around volcanic activity, were any balls of this composition found.  


5000C is almost the temperature of the surface of the sun.  I don't believe that any chemical reaction will get to that temperature at an ambient earth environment.

So I think it's made up to please the gullible.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:40 AM on January 26, 2011 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

5000ºC???? Hahaha! I had not read that!

NIF, you're not familiar with Celsius, right? Because yesterday here in Buenos Aires we had to endure 39 degrees, and people were melting.

The most exothermic chemical reaction i know of is burning thermite, which can go up to 2,500 °C. The actual temperature, of course, depends on the rate at which heat can escape to the surrounding environment (which, in turn, depends partially on the temperature of the surrounding environment). This is why metals can burn so hot: They burn without releasing gases that would make the heat escape.

And here you are, stating that your deity throwed people something that burned at 5,000 ºC.

The aluminum used in thermite reactions boils at 2,519 °C, which is why its maximum temperature is lower than that.

Did your amazing divine chemical reaction release hot gases? Let me guess: You don't know. But here's the thing: Ask that question to the guy you're quoting. He'll be as clueless as you are.

Why don't you guys reproduce that amazing chemical reaction? Or was it magical?

Do something useful, for once. Amaze us with your Bible Science. Because i'm not impressed by what you guys are doing so far.





-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:31 PM on January 26, 2011 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, 5000 C is not credible.

NIF - what you should do is look for some credible source.  I was curious about this business of lost/mythical biblical cities.  I came across this blurb about Sodom & Gomorrah:

Sodom and Gomorahh


Two geologists think they know how the infamous biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Graham Harris and Tony Beardow argue in the Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology that the land near the Dead Sea on which the cities may have stood literally liquefied in an earthquake, swallowing them up ca. 1900 B.C. A similar event, in which loosely packed, waterlogged soils liquefy under seismic force, destroyed an area of nearly 30,000 square miles in China in 1920. Harris and Beardow admit that the "analysis of a past earthquake event, especially one for which there is a lack of data, or even credible eyewitness accounts, is difficult," particularly "when the event is speculative and occurred in the dawn of history." But they suggest that a tidal wave caused by the earthquake might have stranded a large block of salt on shore, inspiring the tale that Lot's wife, ignoring God's command not to look back at the burning cities, was turned into a pillar of salt. Few scholars are likely to believe this hypothesis. "This is Noah's Ark stuff," says ARCHAEOLOGY Contributing Editor Neil Asher Silberman. "The real challenge for biblical archaeologists today is not to search for long-lost cities, but to understand why the ancient Israelites formulated these powerful myths."


Note the last comment above:

"This is Noah's Ark stuff," says ARCHAEOLOGY Contributing Editor Neil Asher Silberman. "The real challenge for biblical archaeologists today is not to search for long-lost cities, but to understand why the ancient Israelites formulated these powerful myths."

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:24 PM on January 26, 2011 | IP
NIF

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK. looks like it is time to wrap up this thread.
of course to start with I am going to address any outstanding points / flaws / questions etc concerning what points I have sofar put forward. (I don't want a thread like this one to pop up about me ^_^ )

Apoapsis
5000C is almost the temperature of the surface of the sun.  I don't believe that any chemical reaction will get to that temperature at an ambient earth environment.
I acctually laughed when I read this.
when I typed it I did not pay much (if any) to the Temp given.

Bibleplus gave "5,000 degrees Celsius (or around 9,000 degrees Fahrenheit)."
english.sdaglobal gave "5000-6000 degrees Fahrenheit"
at least one of these two sites is wrong ^_^
lets go with the obviouse and say the 5000 degrees Celsius is wrong.

out of curiocity I looked up burning temps of sulphur and the surface of the sun
you where right about the surface of the sun. not that I ever doubted that fact
however, the burning temp of a sulphur fire .... is still unknown to me.
I used the search terms "sulphur burning temp, sulphur burning temp is degrees, sulphur fire temp is degrees, how hot can a sulphur fire get, sulphur BTU" and "Sulphur flash point" (which is 188°C to 207°C)
so unless you can tell me what the average, if not highest possible temp of a sulphur fire. then we should go with 5000 degrees (Fahrenheit this time. I agree you everyone that 5000 celsius is a bit outrageouse)



now that I have dealt with the last of the outstanding issues (unless I missed one). I can officially end my involvement in this thread.
I can just imagin people thinking (and consequently typing) "whats this? Running away from his own arguments! so much for defending his own claims ... [insert something about Lester]..." and so on.
well no. I am not running away, I am just of the same state of mind as Wisp
I never denied that there could be instances of historical accuracy in the Bible. I would dispute some from your list, but that's not important.

which is perfectly true. proving some parts of the Bible are historicly accurate is not going to disporve evolution (although Sodom and Gamorrah does make for a great natural phenomina).

Since we know it contains things that are definitely NOT historically accurate, we know the Bible is NOT historically accurate.
debating this statement would be more constructive to the forum than debating the bibles historical accurace
BUT debating the scientific theory of evolution would be even better.

but since you brought it up I do have to say something concerning the bible containging "things that are definitely NOT historically accurate"
Here you have some contradictions:
Click-
when I went to youtube and searched "contradictions in the bible". the link you provided us was the No# 1 hit.
I then googled "disproving contradictions in the bible" and got a whole list of sites. this site was search result no#3. it claims to disprove " Shabir Ally’s list of 101 “contradictions” in the King James Bible".
admittedly I didn't read it. reason? because I do not plan to debate contradictions in the Bible.

I am not a linguist. and I know almost nothing about the history of the Roman Empire, Egypt, Turky, or the rest of the mediterranean.
any debate I have about "contradictions in the bible" would simply be a war of Copy and Paste.


Can you please start a thread and show us some of that "information supporting Creation"? ^_^

thats another thing I do not care about supporting creationisim ! *GASP*

I will freely admit that I was brought up in a christian family (not cathlic)
went to a christian school (not cathlic)
and until shortly after I left home, attended a christian church (not cathlic)
because of all this, as well as a personal bias against the cathlic denomination (a subject not totally relevant to this forum), I was left with an open mind to the flaws in evolution.
also reading a lot of sci-fi books helped to show me that with a few well worded sentances and playing deeply on assumptions, it is not that hard to warp true science into distorted (yet still believable) science.

and yes, for all those who really NEED to know, I do believe in chreationisim. but only until science can finally sort it self out and come up with a workable theory.(maybe I am just trying to cover all bases...)

BUT just so we are all clear on this point I will say it again. I do not care about supporting creationisim !

I expect some people to ask "how can this be so? all you have done so far is try to prove the historical accurace of the bible!?"
so I will point out 2 things:
1) I have not been a regular member for long enough to have participated in many threads. so defining my habits from this one thread is statisticly impractical.
2) if you read closely to what I actually say, I try to be as politically correct as possible.
and if you do ever catch me saying ANYTHING along the lines of "the bible is correct" then pull me up for it. I will either retract or rephrase what I said.


some how I mannaged to get the topic back onto what I have been typeing in this thread. ^_^


wisp described what I had been typeing as:
supporting a softer version of Lester's claims when you can't support what he actually said
which is true. BECAUSE Lester used a hyperbolic statement in his argument.
if taken literaly, it is imposible to support such a claim (thus he should not do it).
but this "softer version" can be supported. which I believe I have done so quite effectivly :p

I will not hold against Lester the (occasional) use of hyperbolic statements. nor should you. nor would I hold the use of such a (poor) debateing tactic against any of you.
and if this is not good enough for you, then I will just have to make a list.
not the "x people do it more than y people" list, just a "proof that everyone does it" list.


And even tho I said at thee start of this post that I am "ending my involvement in this thread", if any of you wish, feel free to continue debateing any of the 10 historical accuracies I have put forward.
who knows, I may just add another point or two my self.

NOTE: no pun intended (who can find it?)
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 07:08 AM on January 27, 2011 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from NIF at 6:13 PM on January 25, 2011 :
derwood
What is 'fire and brimstone'?
a quick trip to
http://dictionary.reference.com/ would have fixed this simple ignorance


OK....

Yes, I know how to use a dictionary.  I also give people a few posts so as to know what sort of person I am dealing with.  Often times, it only takes one.

Brimstone:
World English Dictionary = 1.  an obsolete name for sulphur  
Medical Dictionary = 1. sulphur
Bible Dictionary (first I ever heard of this, but am not totally surprised) = an inflammable mineral substance found in quantities on the shores of the Dead Sea.


LOL!

talk about circular reasoning...


Sounds like a volcano in action to me.  No deity needed for that.
true. a volcano does produce a lot of sulphur, fire, and ash.
but there are two flaws with this theory
1) there is no volcano near the dead sea

Mt.Pinatubo is in the Philippines, yet ash from it fell as far away as Singapore.

2) there was no large pile up of ash on the 'cities'.
(I'm sure I mentioned both of these in an eirler post)

I'm sure you must have.  You have all the right answers to everything.
but rather than basing your defence around your personal views of one man, how about trying to attack the data that I present to you at face value?


Famous last words.... Famous projective last words...




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:56 AM on January 27, 2011 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from NIF at 06:08 AM on January 27, 2011 :
OK. looks like it is time to wrap up this thread.
of course to start with I am going to address any outstanding points / flaws / questions etc concerning what points I have sofar put forward. (I don't want a thread like this one to pop up about me ^_^ )

Apoapsis
5000C is almost the temperature of the surface of the sun.  I don't believe that any chemical reaction will get to that temperature at an ambient earth environment.
I acctually laughed when I read this.
when I typed it I did not pay much (if any) to the Temp given.

Bibleplus gave "5,000 degrees Celsius (or around 9,000 degrees Fahrenheit)."
english.sdaglobal gave "5000-6000 degrees Fahrenheit"
at least one of these two sites is wrong ^_^
lets go with the obviouse and say the 5000 degrees Celsius is wrong.

out of curiocity I looked up burning temps of sulphur and the surface of the sun
you where right about the surface of the sun. not that I ever doubted that fact
however, the burning temp of a sulphur fire .... is still unknown to me.
I used the search terms "sulphur burning temp, sulphur burning temp is degrees, sulphur fire temp is degrees, how hot can a sulphur fire get, sulphur BTU" and "Sulphur flash point" (which is 188°C to 207°C)
so unless you can tell me what the average, if not highest possible temp of a sulphur fire. then we should go with 5000 degrees (Fahrenheit this time. I agree you everyone that 5000 celsius is a bit outrageouse)


You partially answered your own question.  The boiling point of sulfur is 445C.  A sulfur fire won't get much hotter than that.

If you pressurize it, such as in a rocket engine,  (don't try this at home, although I admit that I did at a young age, ;-) it will get up to 2600F.

Zinc-Sulfur

In the early days of experimental rocketry powdered zinc and sulfur were a common propellant. This was also referred as "micrograin."   The optimum mixture was 2.04 parts zinc to one part sulfur by weight.  Its burn rate depends on how small the particle size is for each and how much it is compressed.  The more dense it is compacted, the slower the burn rate.  It's burn rate is between 14 and 290 inches per second.  At 160 lbs/ft3 and 1000 psi, the following has been measured*:

Burn rate - 90 in./sec
Flame Temp - 2600 F
Effective Exhaust Velocity - 1490 ft/sec
Specific Heat Ratio - 1.25
Molecular Weight - 97.45 lbs / mole
Specific Impulse - 45 sec


So, my conclusion is that accuracy is fairly irrelevant to you as long the material you find supports your position.

now that I have dealt with the last of the outstanding issues (unless I missed one). I can officially end my involvement in this thread.


That was the first issue, not the last, and you have not dealt with it.


I can just imagin people thinking (and consequently typing) "whats this? Running away from his own arguments! so much for defending his own claims ... [insert something about Lester]..." and so on.


You said it. . .

well no. I am not running away,


Then what are your feelings on the accuracy of the material you are quoting?

BTW, what are your feelings now about time dilation?


(Edited by Apoapsis 1/27/2011 at 11:32 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:28 AM on January 27, 2011 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from NIF at 09:08 AM on January 27, 2011 :
OK. looks like it is time to wrap up this thread.
You mean your involvement in it.
of course to start with I am going to address any outstanding points / flaws / questions etc concerning what points I have sofar put forward. (I don't want a thread like this one to pop up about me ^_^ )
Just if you make claims you're not willing or able to support.

I have yet to know a creationist who doesn't indulge in that, but i actually focus on dishonesty. And i've known many honest creationist (not intellectually honest, but their overall honesty is acceptable). I hope you're one of them.

Lester is not. He's easily one of the most dishonest creationists i've come across. He knows perfectly well that he won't support what he says. He's aware that the points he's making have been thoroughly refuted, and he has ran away from the thread where it happened. But he will repeat the same PRATT as if that never happened. And THAT's why we start threads for him to address. We know he won't, but there will be a clear record for all to see.

And you don't see it?

when I typed it I did not pay much (if any) to the Temp given.
Perhaps neither did your sources. Which is more important than you seem to accept.
Bibleplus gave "5,000 degrees Celsius (or around 9,000 degrees Fahrenheit)."
english.sdaglobal gave "5000-6000 degrees Fahrenheit"
at least one of these two sites is wrong ^_^
lets go with the obviouse and say the 5000 degrees Celsius is wrong.
The minimum of the most conservative (no pun intended) site is 5000 ºF, which is 2760 ºC. Still above that of the most exothermic chemical reaction i know of.

Has someone have produced sulfur balls that burn so hot? Because, unlike aluminum, when it burns it releases gases. Hot gases. Namely, sulfur dioxide. Its boiling point is 444.6 °C. So how could it get so much hotter than that? Only if you prevent the gases from escaping.

Did your deity enclosed Sodom and Gomorrah in a pressurized chamber or something?

I've burned sulfur myself. It doesn't get that hot. It gets quite smelly though.

Did you know you can boil water in a paper cup?


The water in it doesn't let it get any hotter than its boiling point (100º C), which is lower than the 232 ºC (or 451 Farenheit, like the book) needed for paper to burn, because those water molecules that reach that temperature just leave.

It still looks like you got yourself some magic sulfur balls. But i'm not a chemist either.

out of curiocity I looked up burning temps of sulphur and the surface of the sun
you where right about the surface of the sun. not that I ever doubted that fact
however, the burning temp of a sulphur fire .... is still unknown to me.
But in any case it couldn't be higher than its boiling point, which is far, far lower than 5000 ºF.
I used the search terms "sulphur burning temp, sulphur burning temp is degrees, sulphur fire temp is degrees, how hot can a sulphur fire get, sulphur BTU" and "Sulphur flash point" (which is 188°C to 207°C)
so unless you can tell me what the average, if not highest possible temp of a sulphur fire. then we should go with 5000 degrees (Fahrenheit this time.
Why should we? That's much hotter than its boiling point, and not all of us have an emotional investment in the Bible.

I can just imagin people thinking (and consequently typing) "whats this? Running away from his own arguments! so much for defending his own claims ... [insert something about Lester]..." and so on.
Well, it looks like it, but i'm not even sure what your arguments were. What you're arguing for. And i do wonder why you wrote here in the first place.

It's not like Lester's claim could be defended.

well no. I am not running away, I am just of the same state of mind as Wisp
I never denied that there could be instances of historical accuracy in the Bible. I would dispute some from your list, but that's not important.
which is perfectly true. proving some parts of the Bible are historicly accurate is not going to disporve evolution
Nor prove that the inaccurate parts of the Bible are accurate.

Since we know it contains things that are definitely NOT historically accurate, we know the Bible is NOT historically accurate.
debating this statement would be more constructive to the forum than debating the bibles historical accurace
BUT debating the scientific theory of evolution would be even better.
Yes. Creationists don't enjoy discussing their beliefs. They feel more comfortable trying to point imaginary flaws in Evolution, hoping for a victory by default.
but since you brought it up I do have to say something concerning the bible containging "things that are definitely NOT historically accurate"
Here you have some contradictions:
when I went to youtube and searched "contradictions in the bible". the link you provided us was the No# 1 hit.
I then googled "disproving contradictions in the bible" and got a whole list of sites. this site was search result no#3. it claims to disprove " Shabir Ally’s list of 101 “contradictions” in the King James Bible".
admittedly I didn't read it. reason? because I do not plan to debate contradictions in the Bible.
If you admit they're there, that the Bible is not inerrant, if you don't use the Bible as an authority, then i'm fine with your reluctance.
I am not a linguist. and I know almost nothing about the history of the Roman Empire, Egypt, Turky, or the rest of the mediterranean.
any debate I have about "contradictions in the bible" would simply be a war of Copy and Paste.
Turns out you don't need any of that in order to see some of the Bible's blatant contradictions.

I Samuel 17:50-51 says that David killed Goliath, while II Samuel 21:19 says that the same Goliath was killed by Elhanan.

Nobody disputes the translation. It's just a contradiction. You don't need to be a linguist or a historian to see it, because they're internal contradictions. So the Bible is enough. And there's no copypaste war. You can read it yourself in the Bible.

If the Bible makes two or more contradictory claims about past events, you KNOW it can't be accurate. You know this with certainty.

if and when I find a Darwinist web site that is willing to post information supporting Creation, then I will quote from there  ^_^
Can you please start a thread and show us some of that "information supporting Creation"? ^_^
thats another thing I do not care about supporting creationisim ! *GASP*
We're used to that. But your comment seemed to imply that there is some "information supporting Creation".

If you won't defend it, take it back. If you didn't really mean what you seemed to mean, then please, make it clear. Thank you.

I will freely admit that I was brought up in a christian family (not cathlic)
went to a christian school (not cathlic)
and until shortly after I left home, attended a christian church (not cathlic)
because of all this, as well as a personal bias against the cathlic denomination (a subject not totally relevant to this forum), I was left with an open mind to the flaws in evolution.
Such as?

See? You did it again. You seem to imply that such a thing exists. I don't even know what you're talking about.

Do you?

also reading a lot of sci-fi books helped to show me that with a few well worded sentances and playing deeply on assumptions, it is not that hard to warp true science into distorted (yet still believable) science.


Do you have something to say or not?

Here's how you do it:

I have a problem with biblical creationism. It implies that animals started out as vegetarians (and so did we). There's no evidence for this, and there's evidence against it. Intestinal worms can't parasite plants, for plants have no intestines. Spiders know how to build traps. What were they supposed to trap in the pacific garden of Eden? Fruits? Care to explain this to me?

Your turn. Show us those mythical flaws you think you saw in Evolution. Put up or shut up.

and yes, for all those who really NEED to know, I do believe in chreationisim.
That doesn't say as much as you'd think. The thing is that there are thousands of versions of Creationism.

Please, clarify this by giving us a rough timeline of events. Something like this:

  • Around 6k years ago: Adam & Eve were vegetarians and lived peacefully with the dinosaurs and trilobites, but they fukced things up.
  • Some 5k years ago some animals started fancying meat.
  • Etc.
Something like that, but with your beliefs (i'm not trying to make a straw man, but you people believe so many different weird things that they become quite hard to track).

but only until science can finally sort it self out and come up with a workable theory.(maybe I am just trying to cover all bases...)
It has. 150 years ago.

You're making an argument from pigheadedness. Your failure to understand the Theory of Evolution doesn't count as an argument against it.

In any case, you did it again. You now seem to imply that the Theory of Evolution is not a workable theory.

Care to support that? Show us a flaw or something.

Put up or shut up.

BUT just so we are all clear on this point I will say it again. I do not care about supporting creationisim !
You don't seem to care about showing us anything against Evolution either.

You also don't even seem to care about having us address your doubts about it. So... What exactly do you care about? What are you doing here?

Did you just come to make timid hints that we might be wrong?

I expect some people to ask "how can this be so?"
No. I know why. You're one of those creationists with an intuition that Creationism can't actually be defended. That whatever you say to support Creationism will be refuted quickly and thoroughly.
"all you have done so far is try to prove the historical accurace of the bible!?"
[color=teal]Is that what you tried to do? Just by showing isolated instances of what you believe to be historical accuracy?

(...) 2) if you read closely to what I actually say, I try to be as politically correct as possible.
I'm not sure what that means.
and if you do ever catch me saying ANYTHING along the lines of "the bible is correct" then pull me up for it. I will either retract or rephrase what I said.
Alright. So you weren't actually trying to "
prove the historical accurace of the bible"?

wisp described what I had been typeing as:
supporting a softer version of Lester's claims when you can't support what he actually said
which is true. BECAUSE Lester used a hyperbolic statement in his argument.
I'm glad you see it. But it wasn't just hyperbolic: It was plain wrong.

If i say that humans are males, i'm not being hyperbolic. I'm not just exaggerating the number of males. I'm saying something stupid.

if taken literaly, it is imposible to support such a claim (thus he should not do it).
Do you think it can be done in any other way? If taken illiterately perhaps?

but this "softer version" can be supported. which I believe I have done so quite effectivly :p
And what would that be? Because i believe i showed quite effectively that the Bible is NOT historically accurate. Unless you think Goliath wasn't historical.

I will not hold against Lester the (occasional) use of hyperbolic statements.
I'm not surprised.
nor should you.
Says who?

This claim (like most of the claims we demand for him to support) wasn't hyperbolic but moronically erroneous or deceitful.

nor would I hold the use of such a (poor) debateing tactic against any of you.
Oh, you think holding people responsible for what they say is a poor debating tactic?

It's like you were planning to make your own unsupported assertions (or hints).

If you remove the responsibility, only the irresponsible get benefited.

and if this is not good enough for you, then I will just have to make a list.
I don't know what you mean.

not the "x people do it more than y people" list, just a "proof that everyone does it" list.
Does what? Make hyperbolic statements? Make unsupported claims?

Please, do. I have no problems with that. I will defend or take back any of my claims. And if you're not willing to do that, perhaps you're not qualified to debate. Lester sure isn't.

And even tho I said at thee start of this post that I am "ending my involvement in this thread", if any of you wish, feel free to continue debateing any of the 10 historical accuracies I have put forward.
Even if that was what they are, with the superhot magic sulfur and all, they seem hardly on topic. This thread was about Lester defending his claim that those that actually read the Bible see it as the History of the planet, which is stupid.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:37 PM on January 27, 2011 | IP
NIF

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey everyone.
sorry I dissapeared a while back.
it all started with insurance details, and bith certificates. then I went on holidays. then I went back to work and had to 'catch up'. then there was the compitition. then more work. and now I am about to spend a month outside of internet reception.
just thought I should let you know. so you don't get the wrong idea about my absence. I even put it back on the thread that I was last on.

before I leave you all again I shall try and more fully close off my contribution to this thread. (I tried to do this before I went on holidays, but I think ppl just took it as me running away)

just before I left it got pointed out that one of the fact I presented from one of the sites I used as a reference was incorrect (by incorrect I mean VERY incorrect). not much other evidence/arguments where presented against my other points regarding Sodom and Gomorrah. However, given the major innacuratcy of one of of the facts on the website then why believe any of that website? or any of the websites that have near identical informantion (other than that one major innacuracy)?
so I shall formally withdraw all points I put forward about Sodom and Gomorrah... except for THIS SITE. this site appears to have conducted completely independent study on the "cities".
the first half of the site talks/shows "walls" and "archways" that Im sure you will pass off as just wind eroded lime stone. but I would like you to skip down to the bottom half where it shows the sulpher balls and melted rock.

now for some lateral thinking:
does the precense of sulpher balls and melted rock indicate the possibility of it "raining sulpher" in that area?
if yes, does that leave open the possibility that a "city" in that area could have burnt to dust?
and then, does that leave the open the possibility that maybe, just maybe, this particular 'myth' in the bible may acctually be based on real life events that acctually took place, in REAL LIFE  !?  *gasp*

either way this neither prooves the bible or disproves evolution. just so long as people keep an open mind about their beliefs and don't just assume something just because it fits in nicely with what they were tought.

I shall leave the rest of this thread in your hands, because as said I am about to spend some time outside of internet reception.

Have fun
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 06:43 AM on July 11, 2011 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from NIF at 05:43 AM on July 11, 2011 :

just before I left it got pointed out that one of the fact I presented from one of the sites I used as a reference was incorrect (by incorrect I mean VERY incorrect). not much other evidence/arguments where presented against my other points regarding Sodom and Gomorrah. However, given the major innacuratcy of one of of the facts on the website then why believe any of that website? or any of the websites that have near identical informantion (other than that one major innacuracy)?
so I shall formally withdraw all points I put forward about Sodom and Gomorrah... except for THIS SITE. this site appears to have conducted completely independent study on the "cities".
the first half of the site talks/shows "walls" and "archways" that Im sure you will pass off as just wind eroded lime stone. but I would like you to skip down to the bottom half where it shows the sulpher balls and melted rock.


It says this is the only place on earth these balls are found??  I don't think so.




now for some lateral thinking:
does the precense of sulpher balls and melted rock indicate the possibility of it "raining sulpher" in that area?
if yes, does that leave open the possibility that a "city" in that area could have burnt to dust?
and then, does that leave the open the possibility that maybe, just maybe, this particular 'myth' in the bible may acctually be based on real life events that acctually took place, in REAL LIFE  !?  *gasp*


Let's see how convincing it was to Answers in Genesis.  They should be pretty sympathetic to this argument, right?

Sodom and Gomorrah?

Answers in Genesis did not attempt to involve itself in checking any of the other claims, but someone who had been with Wyatt to his ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’ site10  sent us samples he had from there of the alleged ash from a couple of the ‘buildings,’ and a sulfur ball.11 The photos show the structures at ‘Sodom and Gomorrah,’ together with the labels put on them by Wyatt. Simple visual inspection of such photos (and watching videos put out by these ‘amazing discoverers’) strongly suggests that these ‘building ruins’ are soft sedimentary structures with some lamination, carved into an array of shapes by rain and wind.

To put it mildly, the claim that such structures would form from incinerated buildings, then survive in the open for thousands of years, defies understanding of basic scientific principles (not to mention common sense).

Nevertheless, we sent the samples for chemical analysis to a reputable Australian laboratory.12 Their report was interpreted by a Ph.D. geochemist.13 The existence of the sulfur ball is not surprising—the entire area is rich in natural sulfur. The results from the ‘ash’ (see chart below, right) were not consistent with what would be expected from incinerated ancient buildings, or rock ash of any sort. Instead, they clearly indicated an [evaporite] deposit of gypsum-type minerals. This crumbly, easily eroded material fully explains the visual impressions, and is consistent with the known features of this area. The chemistry also shows an abundance of carbonates, which would be broken down by heat.14  


Answers In Genesis

either way this neither prooves the bible or disproves evolution. just so long as people keep an open mind about their beliefs and don't just assume something just because it fits in nicely with what they were tought.


So, when we can agree with the conclusions of Answers in Genesis that this is fictitious, where does that leave your argument?



I shall leave the rest of this thread in your hands, because as said I am about to spend some time outside of internet reception.

Have fun


So, what are your feelings about time dilation?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:30 PM on July 11, 2011 | IP
Catholic

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As a catholic, it pains me to read these comments for a series of reasons
1. It consist of  admittedly well spoken atheist ganging up on some not so well spoken believers, its like atheist win some unspoken prize from outwitting believers and denouncing religion. Not trying to step on any toes, but this is precisely the reason people generally preceive atheist as either pretentious, pompous, or simply *** holes

2. The arguments on this forum are so roundabout, I cringe at each comment. Everyone is going back and forth saying 'you dont have proof in you myths', but then I ask you, what proof do you have to discount my 'myths'. In case you were formulating a response do note the question was rhetorical. You have no proof to discount my myths. Being unbiased, I must also conceed that I also have no significant evidence to disprove god does not exist. So all in all, nobody has any evidence to prove or disprove anything, therefore, the arguments presented have no bearing. What makes arguments engaging is not simply two sides at one anothers throats, it is the way they use strong and tangible evidence to combat one another. However, on this forum, much of the coherent argument has turned to what-if rabble. At this point, people are not even reading and trying to digest opposing comments, their just waiting to send back venomous replies. With that, it brings me to my final issue. Respect. I understand atheist may not agree with religion, but their is a minimum amount of respect given to a persons beliefs. I sometimes get the impression that because atheist base their beliefs on scientific evolution that they have a right to look down on believers who use faith to justify creation. If you are an atheist at your computer thinking you are more intelligent than me because your an atheist you are wrong. If you happen to be smarter than me it is not because you are an atheist and I am a catholic. I personally have no quarrels with atheist, but many others do precisely because of this. I simply dont understand how you can expect to be received  nicely if you continually call someones beliefs a childish myth. Thats why I feel bad for the other believers on the sight. Many of their post ended up sounding like ramblings mainly because of their frustration. Here you are trying to defend your religion when some guy comes out saying your religion is a myth. For atheist that dont know the feeling, its hard to keep composure. If you do not treat others with respect expect none. When you spend enough of your time calling someones belief a stupid fairytale, you start to come off as an *** hole.  Sorry, lost myself for a moment, my main points * respect others or expect none * the debate over creation is a roundabout discussion until the presence of indisputable evidence, so adamantly debating with what-ifs gets us nowhere

 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 5:49 PM on July 19, 2011 | IP
Catholic

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Also on a side note to atheist receiving unknown pleasure from discounting the bible:
1. The disciples who wrote the bible almost 2000 years ago didnt have chemical labs and the periodic table at hand. Instead, they had to make due with their eyes and current knowledge. Some of the experiences god presented before them at the time were unexplainable and therefore, could not be explained without exaggeration or scientific inaccuracies. Also, many atheist are missing the primary purpose of the Bible. The Bible can not always be taken literaly, sometimes you have to use context to analyse the Bible. A major component of the bible isnt its historical accuracy, but its message. As faithful followers, there are certain things we soundly believe based on our faith. The same way atheist have sound faith in scientist and teachers, catholics have in god. Call it blind faith if you will its no different than any other trusting relaionship. When we were children, we beleived our teachers when they said 3 + 3= 6. Why couldnt it equal nine? What does 3 really mean? Why cant 3 be switched with 7? Why does + equal add. These questions can go on and on. Why should I believe in an atom, I havent seen one in person. Why should I believe supernovas exist, I havent seen one. I conceed that I do believe in them, Why? Because I have FAITH in my teachers. I have FAITH in scientific discoveries. I have FAITH in astronauts, and I have FAITH in the photographs I see in text books, so why cant I have FAITH in God. I have seen neither a supernova nor an atom and I bet many of you haven't, yet we have Faith they exist. I know someone may counter that they could theoretically go and see one, however, 99.9 percent will not yet they will still believe their textbooks, teachers, newsreporters. My friends, it is that 'blind' Faith in mankind that allows them to believe. And my skeptical atheist, it is that 'blind faith' that allows me to believe there is a god up there watching over me at night
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 6:49 PM on July 19, 2011 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from Catholic at 4:49 PM on July 19, 2011 :
2. The arguments on this forum are so roundabout, I cringe at each comment. Everyone is going back and forth saying 'you dont have proof in you myths', but then I ask you, what proof do you have to discount my 'myths'.
In case you were formulating a response do note the question was rhetorical. You have no proof to discount my myths. Being unbiased, I must also conceed that I also have no significant evidence to disprove god does not exist. So all in all, nobody has any evidence to prove or disprove anything, therefore, the arguments presented have no bearing.

This is going to be one of those roundabout comments:
'We' don't have to provide evidence/proof to discount a myth. Someone making a claim like: 'The Earth was created 6000 years ago' has to provide evidence. Otherwise, anyone can claim anything exists because you don't have evidence that it doesn't. Also discounting other options does not count as proof that your claim is true.
So, do you have evidence / proof of your myths? Before you answer that, what are your myths?

What makes arguments engaging is not simply two sides at one anothers throats, it is the way they use strong and tangible evidence to combat one another. However, on this forum, much of the coherent argument has turned to what-if rabble. At this point, people are not even reading and trying to digest opposing comments, their just waiting to send back venomous replies. With that, it brings me to my final issue. Respect. I understand atheist may not agree with religion, but their is a minimum amount of respect given to a persons beliefs.

Why is that? I might respect someone for having commitment to their beliefs, but not the actual belief itself. I don't respect the belief that because I don't worship a certain deity I will get sent to hell for the rest of eternity.

I sometimes get the impression that because atheist base their beliefs on scientific evolution

Let me stop you there. I think you are proceeding from a false assumption. Whatever an atheist might or might not believe is not based on evolution or any other scientific theory, rather a lack of or rejection of belief in a diety/dieties. Like Ken R. Miller, you can be a Catholic and accept evolution. I do not understand why people continue to lump atheism with evolution.

that they have a right to look down on believers who use faith to justify creation.

They don't.

If you are an atheist at your computer thinking you are more intelligent than me because your an atheist you are wrong. If you happen to be smarter than me it is not because you are an atheist and I am a catholic.

I agree.

I personally have no quarrels with atheist, but many others do precisely because of this. I simply dont understand how you can expect to be received  nicely if you continually call someones beliefs a childish myth. Thats why I feel bad for the other believers on the sight. Many of their post ended up sounding like ramblings mainly because of their frustration. Here you are trying to defend your religion when some guy comes out saying your religion is a myth. For atheist that dont know the feeling, its hard to keep composure. If you do not treat others with respect expect none. When you spend enough of your time calling someones belief a stupid fairytale, you start to come off as an *** hole.  Sorry, lost myself for a moment, my main points * respect others or expect none * the debate over creation is a roundabout discussion until the presence of indisputable evidence, so adamantly debating with what-ifs gets us nowhere

Belivers on this forum have attacked the scientific method as they think it will bolster their claim or position. Thats one way where they lose my respect.

It consists of  admittedly well spoken atheist ganging up on some not so well spoken believers, its like atheist win some unspoken prize from outwitting believers and denouncing religion. Not trying to step on any toes, but this is precisely the reason people generally preceive atheist as either pretentious, pompous, or simply *** holes

If it feel like we are ganging up on believers is probably because we have and can continually present lots of evidnce and facts that can dispute what they are saying or claiming. I don't care how I come across in what I say and it makes no difference to me whether I get anyones respect. What is important  to me is anything I say is to the best of my knowledge factually correct or not.

As faithful followers, there are certain things we soundly believe based on our faith. The same way atheist have sound faith in scientist and teachers, catholics have in god. Call it blind faith if you will its no different than any other trusting relaionship. When we were children, we beleived our teachers when they said 3 + 3= 6. Why couldnt it equal nine? What does 3 really mean? Why cant 3 be switched with 7? Why does + equal add. These questions can go on and on. Why should I believe in an atom, I havent seen one in person. Why should I believe supernovas exist, I havent seen one.

Ok, we might have believed that 3 + 3 = 6 when we were taught it, but we could go away and verify that was actually true. 3+3=6 because numbers are used to represent amounts of things. And we have defined what numbers represent certain amounts. 3+3 could never equal 9 as we know that two lots of 3 is defined as 6.
I don't have faith atoms or supernova exist, I accept they exist because of the available evidence.
I don't believe in or have faith in gravity, but I know (to the extent anything can be know) it exists.

My friends, it is that 'blind' Faith in mankind that allows them to believe.

But it doesn't allow anyone to claim anything is true.

And my skeptical atheist, it is that 'blind faith' that allows me to believe there is a god up there watching over me at night

Damn right I'm skeptical. I would never except anything on blind faith. I respect you for being truthful on that matter.


-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 10:25 AM on July 20, 2011 | IP
Catholic

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. This is going to be one of those roundabout comments:
'We' don't have to provide evidence/proof to discount a myth. Someone making a claim like: 'The Earth was created 6000 years ago' has to provide evidence. Otherwise, anyone can claim anything exists because you don't have evidence that it doesn't. Also discounting other options does not count as proof that your claim is true.
So, do you have evidence / proof of your myths? Before you answer that, what are your myths?


I did not intend the comment to become one of those round about comments but I felt I had to get to the crux of what some of the other believer post intended to say. By continuing to call the bible a myth proves to me that one, you dont care for what I wrote, or two, simply misunderstood it. What I was trying to get across was that since atheist and christians alike are unable to surface with sufficient evidence to disprove or prove gods existance, no concrete conclusions can be made. Greek myths are labeled MYTHS because they have soundly been disproven. Atheist have yet to soundly disprove the existance of god, therefore, it is difficult to call christianity a myth. If someone asked me if someone were getting shot in China or some foreign country, I would be hard pressed to answer. I could infer that someone could be getting shot, but I would have no viable evidence to prove this claim because I can only be in one place at a time. Regarding the earths chronology I am pressed to find a well educated christian who earnestly believes the earth was made in 7 days or 6000 years ago. As I said before, Genesis merely attempts to attribute life to god. The 7 days are  symbolical of  process of the earths creation. Basically it was not all created in one swoop which even supports atheist belief in the gradual developement of the earth. Quite frankly if you have met people who earnestly believe the earth was made 6000 years ago, they are most likely ignorant or poorly educated and do not represent Christianity on any level. I get this feeling atheist base christianity on the commentary of the most ignorant believers rather than on the assertions made by the majority.

2.Why is that? I might respect someone for having commitment to their beliefs, but not the actual belief itself. I don't respect the belief that because I don't worship a certain deity I will get sent to hell for the rest of eternity.

Why is that? Well Id assume that if you want someone to respect your lack of belief, you should have the same courtesy to respect their belief. I understand you an atheist, so Im not preaching for you to read the bible to get a better understanding of the christian vantage point (although it would help). All im requesting is that atheist not call someones lifelong beliefs a stupid fairytale. Its rude, obnoxious, and rather frustrating. That the respect Im talking about. I cant speak for us all, but based on how I was raised, that is a basic respect that should be shown to anyone. If you are capable of respecting someones commitments to a religion, turning around and calling their religion a myth somewhat defeats the purpose. But if you dont care about diplomacy then go right ahead and slander their religion. However, expect the same hostility and vapidity you project onto them. You might not know this christian verse, however, it perfectly applies to this situation: do unto others as you would have done unto you.

3.Let me stop you there. I think you are proceeding from a false assumption. Whatever an atheist might or might not believe is not based on evolution or any other scientific theory, rather a lack of or rejection of belief in a diety/dieties. Like Ken R. Miller, you can be a Catholic and accept evolution. I do not understand why people continue to lump atheism with evolution.

Regarding this post, I misspoke. I ultimately grouped evolution and atheism because in a way they go hand in hand. In most cases, the crux of atheist qualms with the bible stem from creation and evolution. It is not a coincidence that most evolutionist tend to be atheist as well. To them and many other atheist, evolution is a key component in disproving god. I conceed that I could have drawn a clearer line, however, I was not to far off in my grouping of the two groups.

4. Belivers on this forum have attacked the scientific method as they think it will bolster their claim or position. Thats one way where they lose my respect.

Sorry you view it that way, but to be fair, the believers were not given warm welcome either. As I said before, there is so much civility you can show someone who has called your lifelong beliefs fairytales and myths. Let me ask you a question. What does slandering christianity do for atheist? Does calling it a myth uncover mounds of evidence to disprove god? Does calling it a fairytale add any more credibility to your argument? Does calling religion insanity solve anything? No it does not. It just causes frustration and resentment. With that being said, I find it hard for me to see atheist as the victims here.

5.If it feel like we are ganging up on believers is probably because we have and can continually present lots of evidnce and facts that can dispute what they are saying or claiming. I don't care how I come across in what I say and it makes no difference to me whether I get anyones respect. What is important  to me is anything I say is to the best of my knowledge factually correct or not.

First off, its not what you say that frustrates people, its how you say it. See I have been debating on a site where believer to atheist ratio is 1:7 yet I have not slandered atheism once. Do you honestly believe what your saying currently is distressing me  no. Based on the developement of this debate, I find it hard pressed to find anyone linguistically or rhetorically skilled enough to stray me from my path, and you probably feel the same for that matter .At the end of the day you are an atheist and I am a Catholic. I am simply defending my religion and you are free to counter, however, do remember that respect is matched with respect.
       Regarding your claim that atheist disprove religion, I adamantly disagree. Atheist wether voluntary or involuntarily often mistake the bible as merely a history book which often leads to misconstrued messages and accounts. THE BIBLE CANNOT ALWAYS BE TAKEN LITERALLY. The main purpose the bible has is to be a moral guidance to believers, not a history book. with the bible you must explore the symbolism as well as the moral significance. Since atheist look at neither the symbolism nor moral significance, it is easy to understand why few of them understand the relevance of the bible.

6.Ok, we might have believed that 3 + 3 = 6 when we were taught it, but we could go away and verify that was actually true. 3+3=6 because numbers are used to represent amounts of things. And we have defined what numbers represent certain amounts. 3+3 could never equal 9 as we know that two lots of 3 is defined as 6.
I don't have faith atoms or supernova exist, I accept they exist because of the available evidence.
I don't believe in or have faith in gravity, but I know (to the extent anything can be know) it exists.


My point exactly. You dont know gravity exist. For all you know that is the power of god. Gravity is what you have been told by your teachers. Its gravity because scientist have determined and told you that it is gravity. If you were born in  world where gravity did not exist and only the power of god existed, you would say the force keeping you on the ground right now was god not gravity. Simply put, there is actually nothing we know for certain which solidifies my earlier assertion that nothing can be disproven or proven. You can say you know gravity exist and another can say they know gods power (acting as gravity) exist. The debate could go on forever because neither of you really know with 100% certainty what is keeping you on the ground. All you have are the assertions of what you have been told by who you want to believe



 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 1:06 PM on July 20, 2011 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Catholic at 12:06 PM on July 20, 2011 :
I did not intend the comment to become one of those round about comments but I felt I had to get to the crux of what some of the other believer post intended to say. By continuing to call the bible a myth proves to me that one, you dont care for what I wrote, or two, simply misunderstood it.

Most of the discussions here obviously revolve around creationism and evolution. Some people hold that the literal interpretation of the creation story in genesis is true, when there is no evidence to suggest that it happened, plus the fact that it has a supernatural origin. I think it is in that sense that calling the bible a myth is justified.

What I was trying to get across was that since atheist and christians alike are unable to surface with sufficient evidence to disprove or prove gods existance, no concrete conclusions can be made.

So do you think it's wise to believe in something when there is insufficient evidence for it?




-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 5:27 PM on July 21, 2011 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Catholic at 12:06 PM on July 20, 2011 :
My point exactly. You dont know gravity exist. For all you know that is the power of god. Gravity is what you have been told by your teachers. Its gravity because scientist have determined and told you that it is gravity. If you were born in  world where gravity did not exist and only the power of god existed, you would say the force keeping you on the ground right now was god not gravity. Simply put, there is actually nothing we know for certain which solidifies my earlier assertion that nothing can be disproven or proven. You can say you know gravity exist and another can say they know gods power (acting as gravity) exist. The debate could go on forever because neither of you really know with 100% certainty what is keeping you on the ground. All you have are the assertions of what you have been told by who you want to believe

I do know it exists, because its the force that is keeping my keyboard on the desk as I type. It is the force that attaracts every particle of matter to every other particle and is one of the 4 fundamental forces of the universe.
Now I don't know what it actually is, particles exchanging gravitons via a stressed energy tensor, or the higgs boson giving everything mass which allows it to curve space time. That is still being worked out. What ever it is, we have called it gravity.
I'm going to assume that by being born in a world that gravity not existing, you mean that no-one has built any mathematical frame work to describe it. In this world I would not say that the force keeping me to the ground is gods power without sufficient evidence to do so. I wouldn't say it was anything unless I have evidence to back it up. If I claimed it was gods power then I would have to produce evidence to support that, and if it turned out to be true then I would accept it.

I don't agree with the statement that nothing can be disproven. Everything in science must be able to be disproved for it to be science.
People used to think that the sun orbits the earth. That was disproved.






-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 03:29 AM on July 22, 2011 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Catholic at 12:06 PM on July 20, 2011 :
My point exactly. You dont know gravity exist. For all you know that is the power of god. Gravity is what you have been told by your teachers. Its gravity because scientist have determined and told you that it is gravity. If you were born in  world where gravity did not exist and only the power of god existed, you would say the force keeping you on the ground right now was god not gravity. Simply put, there is actually nothing we know for certain which solidifies my earlier assertion that nothing can be disproven or proven. You can say you know gravity exist and another can say they know gods power (acting as gravity) exist. The debate could go on forever because neither of you really know with 100% certainty what is keeping you on the ground. All you have are the assertions of what you have been told by who you want to believe


Do you believe that God can be mathematically analyzed?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:45 PM on July 22, 2011 | IP
NIF

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
It says this is the only place on earth these balls are found??  I don't think so.

i will take your word that this pic refers to some place other than the 'cities of the plain' around the dead sea. but next time could you please give us a reference point of some kind.



The results from the ‘ash’ (see chart below, right) were not consistent with what would be expected from incinerated ancient buildings, or rock ash of any sort. Instead, they clearly indicated an [evaporite] deposit of gypsum-type minerals. This crumbly, easily eroded material fully explains the visual impressions, and is consistent with the known features of this area.
your saying that the "remains" are nothing more than corroded rock. no surprise there. and i'm not going to argue against that beause you are probibly right.
if there ever was cities there they are long gone now. you know it. i know it. even 'Answers in Genesis' knows it

however ...
in regards to the existane of sulpher balls, and the impact pattern of said sulpher balls (shown in earlier links), you still have not even spoken against them. let alone disproven them.
so, keeping in mind that you yourself said that there would be nothing left of a city. and thus it is pointless for you to ask for evidence of said city... i once again fall back on some simple, lateral thinking
now for some lateral thinking:
does the precense of sulpher balls and melted rock indicate the possibility of it "raining sulpher" in that area?
if yes, does that leave open the possibility that a "city" in that area could have burnt to dust?
and then, does that leave the open the possibility that maybe, just maybe, this particular 'myth' in the bible may acctually be based on real life events that acctually took place, in REAL LIFE  !?  *gasp*




where does that leave your argument?
more or less where it started
[to show you] how / why some people would view the bible as "a story about the history of the planet"

we seem to have reached a stale mate on the whole Sodom and Gomorrah issue. i have an explanation that fits for both natural phenominon and hevenly intervention, and you have your principals to fall back on that say that the bible can't possibly be right.
so as far as i can see, this leaves us with 3 options
1) continue with Sodom and Gomorrah, focusing on some new facet of the issue that has so far been over looked
2) call it a tie and start to focus on other 'historical accuracys' in the bible
3) call it a tie and move to a different thread



So, what are your feelings about time dilation?
lol, thats going back a bit
in all honesty, deep down i still feel as though it should not be possible. (that whole part where it goes against common sense still bugs me)
but the few times i think about time dilation, the VERY few times i think about time dilation, i keep reminding myself that it actually eixsts

i suppose this is your way of judging wether or not i am actually able to change my mind on a subject...
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 02:32 AM on July 29, 2011 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've just returned from extended travel, I will respond later.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:59 PM on August 15, 2011 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.