Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-28-2017 6:34 PM
409 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), DrJones*, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 406 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: superuniverse
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,373 Year: 16,979/21,208 Month: 2,868/3,593 Week: 335/646 Day: 98/115 Hour: 1/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
2425
...
83NextFF
Author Topic:   The TRVE history of the Flood...
Faith
Member
Posts: 25341
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 331 of 1242 (805778)
04-20-2017 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by jar
04-20-2017 4:27 PM


Re: Misrepresentation of RCC by Faith
Go back and read what I wrote. I did not say Phocas declared him Antichrist. You are the liar, the most egregious liar. I put in parentheses the IMPLICATIONS of his being declared Universal Bishop. You vicious liar.

If you will not stop calling me names based on your stupid opinions, and you are not going to be disciplined by the mods for your personal attacks, I'm throwing them back at you where they belong. You're the ignoramus, you're the liar.

And it was some guy named Jesus who created the Apostolic Succession which is followed by much of Christianity today whether Roman Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox.

Peter was never a Pope and that is one of the biggest lies of the RCC. There IS no "apostolic succession." that's another big fat lie.

And you also again show your ignorance claiming Christianity itself is not and has not always been autocratic.

The ignoramus is you.

True Christianity is not autocratic. You big fat liar.l

You can't get more autocratic than claiming authority from God.

It is not claimed for any purpose than instruction, unless you're a tyrant like the Pope who given the opportunity kills people who disagree with him. You lousy liar.

Kinda the same thing King James tried to market as the Divine Right of Kings. You know, the guy that authorized the King James Version of the Bible.

Which was intended to counter the usurped authority of the Pope over kings, you lousy ignorant liar. Neither is defensible but King James didn't murder 50 million Bible believers either.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by jar, posted 04-20-2017 4:27 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by jar, posted 04-20-2017 4:36 PM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29042
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 332 of 1242 (805780)
04-20-2017 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Faith
04-20-2017 4:34 PM


Re: Misrepresentation of RCC by Faith
You posted "The RCC is a deviation from the true Church, starting with the declaration of the Bishop of Rome as Universal Bishop (Pope/Antichrist) in 606 AD."

You did not say anything about the part in parens being the rantings of nutjobs from over a thousand years later.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 4:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 4:54 PM jar has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1290
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 333 of 1242 (805781)
04-20-2017 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by jar
04-20-2017 4:27 PM


Re: Misrepresentation of RCC by Faith
So once again you admit you are simply lying. There was no declaration of the Pope as Antichrist in 606AD and in fact it is only some modern Christian Cults that make such silly claims.

quote:
Whosoever calls himself universal priest, or desires to be called so, is the forerunner of the Antichrist

That was a Pope. A few decades later, another Pope got the Byzantine Emperor to agree he was a universal priest. This is not a modern idea.

And you also again show your ignorance claiming Christianity itself is not and has not always been autocratic. You can't get more autocratic than claiming authority from God. Kinda the same thing King James tried to market as the Divine Right of Kings. You know, the guy that authorized the King James Version of the Bible.

Nonsense. Find yourself a book on the history of communism, and I can guarantee the opening chapters will be full of fundamentalist Christians arguing that we are all equal before God. Christianity has been used to support James' autocratic ideas of a Divine Chain of Being; but it has also been used over and over and over and over and over again to support the idea of universal equality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by jar, posted 04-20-2017 4:27 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by jar, posted 04-20-2017 5:03 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12772
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 334 of 1242 (805782)
04-20-2017 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Faith
04-20-2017 4:32 PM


Re: Two Evidences For the Flood and Against the OE/ToE
The fact that you label the changes in trilobites as "microevolution" - despite them clearly qualifying as macroevolution by scientific standards doesn't really say much without a clear way of telling the distinction between micro- and macro-.

quote:

It's the creatures in the fossil record that persist the longest that also evolve the least. That is a highly significant fact that gets ignored.

Is it ? The trilobites underwent a good deal of change. However according to you mammals underwent significantly greater change - and mammals are still here. And even more changed from their ancestors who lived at the time of the first trilobites.

i'd be interested if you can come up with a version that is still a fact and is highly significant. I think that you count the trilobites as persisting because you consider them to have changed only a little which makes the point somewhat tautologous. Those that survive longest with "little" change will naturally show "little" change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 4:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25341
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 335 of 1242 (805783)
04-20-2017 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by jar
04-20-2017 4:36 PM


Re: Misrepresentation of RCC by Faith
You called me a liar for a stupid mistake YOU made. I could have been clearer but what I meant is clear enough -- they are synonyms, they are in parentheses BECAUSE Phocas didn't use those words, and your calling me a liar is way out of bounds.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by jar, posted 04-20-2017 4:36 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by jar, posted 04-20-2017 5:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1290
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 336 of 1242 (805784)
04-20-2017 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Faith
04-20-2017 4:32 PM


Re: Two Evidences For the Flood and Against the OE/ToE
The main point I'm trying to make is that they span hundreds of millions of years with a normal degree of microevolution or variation and show NO signs of evolving beyond their Kind. NONE. Whereas reptiles show up in the geologic record for a lot less time and although they are far more complex creatures than a trilobite they are assumed to have evolved in gigantic leaps utterly transforming all their organs and their basic structure into those of mammals. WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE of such a transformation, nothing to prove that a reptile is anything but a reptile and a mammal a mammal without any genetic relation between them. Just an assumption.

The point I was trying to make (apparently badly) is that the trilobite 'kind' ismore like the tetrapod 'kind'; than it is the mammal 'kind'.

Eh? Huh? Wot? I made my point above. They are SHOWN in a whole series of time periods with changes consistent with ordinary variation through all that time, and those that do NOT persist through any great length of time, that also have no evidence whatever for any transformation at all, are assumed to be the ancestors of an antirely different kind of animal. COME ON!

I am unclear on your point here. That isn't meant as a dig - I just don't understand.

I grant that is a lot of variation, but I would put all of it into the built-in trilobite genome assuming the much greater genetic diversity in ancient creatures that has been severely decreased since the Flood. All those variations do not appear to be gradations over generations, but complete systems in themselves. I would also point out that the BASIC STRUCTURE of the trilobite remains unchanged and that is what defines the Kind, not its various faculties and organs. [/qs]

But the 'basic structure' remains the same across animals that you flatly refuse to accpt are related. This was recognised long before Darwin - its the basics of Linnaeus' classification. Without any evolutionary ideas he recognised that the basic structure of a mouse is the same as that of a horse.

It's nice to find out you know so much about trilobites.

Everyone should know more about trilobties. Trilobites are amazing.

I grant the enormous variation, but it doesn't change my point. None of that variation even given ten times the time to evolve that the reptile supposedly had (I'm guessing because I don't want to go look it up right now) REMAINED CLEARLY A TRILOBITE, all of them, all those great variations are still trilobites.

And when mammals evolved, THEY REMAINED CLEARLY AMNIOTES. Again, you're only seeing trilobites as all the same despite some variation because you don't have the same visceral understanding of how they differ from one another that you do for, for example, a crocodile and a horse. I will try to expand on this point either tomorrow or at the weekend, since now I need to stop this for one evening. Bear with me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 4:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 5:42 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29042
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 337 of 1242 (805786)
04-20-2017 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by caffeine
04-20-2017 4:41 PM


Re: Misrepresentation of RCC by Faith
caffeine writes:

Nonsense. Find yourself a book on the history of communism, and I can guarantee the opening chapters will be full of fundamentalist Christians arguing that we are all equal before God. Christianity has been used to support James' autocratic ideas of a Divine Chain of Being; but it has also been used over and over and over and over and over again to support the idea of universal equality.

Of course. the point is that Christianity has NEVER been a monolithic power. It's been used politically by Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox to build a power base, a political stance, garner wealth and even rarely for humanitarian efforts.

The important point is to get folk to stop claiming "this is Christianity" because there are almost no areas where Christians and Christianity are not represented on both sides.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by caffeine, posted 04-20-2017 4:41 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 5:12 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29042
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 338 of 1242 (805787)
04-20-2017 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Faith
04-20-2017 4:54 PM


Re: Misrepresentation of RCC by Faith
Faith writes:

You called me a liar for a stupid mistake YOU made. I could have been clearer but what I meant is clear enough -- they are synonyms, they are in parentheses BECAUSE Phocas didn't use those words, and your calling me a liar is way out of bounds.

If you had been clearer I would not have pointed out your misrepresentation.

I'm sorry if you get your panties in a wad but the reality is that neither Protestant nor Romanist nor Orthodox nor Christian nor atheist have any grounds to claim some moral high ground.

And the Biblical Flood still never happened.

AbE: And I am not Jar but simply jar.

Edited by jar, : see AbE


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 4:54 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25341
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 339 of 1242 (805788)
04-20-2017 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by jar
04-20-2017 5:03 PM


Re: Misrepresentation of RCC by Faith
The important point is to get folk to stop claiming "this is Christianity" because there are almost no areas where Christians and Christianity are not represented on both sides.

That is your own wrong opinion. There is a true Christianity and I'll keep saying it in the teeth of your utterly stupid ignorant lying objections as long as I want whether you agree or not, and you have no right whatever to tell me to stop it. You autocratic dictatorial self-inflated liar.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by jar, posted 04-20-2017 5:03 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25341
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 340 of 1242 (805791)
04-20-2017 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by caffeine
04-20-2017 4:55 PM


Re: Two Evidences For the Flood and Against the OE/ToE
The point I was trying to make (apparently badly) is that the trilobite 'kind' ismore like the tetrapod 'kind'; than it is the mammal 'kind'.

Well we are having trouble communicating. I really don't understand this point.

Eh? Huh? Wot? I made my point above. They are SHOWN in a whole series of time periods with changes consistent with ordinary variation through all that time, and those that do NOT persist through any great length of time, that also have no evidence whatever for any transformation at all, are assumed to be the ancestors of an antirely different kind of animal. COME ON!

I am unclear on your point here. That isn't meant as a dig - I just don't understand.

I am just making the same distinction again I think, that trilobites persist for a huge span of time according to the Geo Time Scale, although they remain trilobites, while the reptile is assumed to be able to evolve into a mammal in much less time.

But the 'basic structure' remains the same across animals that you flatly refuse to accpt are related. This was recognised long before Darwin - its the basics of Linnaeus' classification. Without any evolutionary ideas he recognised that the basic structure of a mouse is the same as that of a horse.

Well, I have a much more precisely defined structure in mind then. More on the level of how the structure of a cat differs from that of a dog. On that level they are clearly entirely different creatures. So are a reptile and a mammal. We can tell them apart by their basic structure and basic behavior even though yes of course all four-footed creatures also share a basic structure in a much broader sense.

But the 'basic structure' remains the same across animals that you flatly refuse to accpt are related. This was recognised long before Darwin - its the basics of Linnaeus' classification. Without any evolutionary ideas he recognised that the basic structure of a mouse is the same as that of a horse.

I am trying to point to a structural difference that is much more specific. It seems quite obvious to me but apparently I need a better way to make the difference clearer. The reptile does not look like the mammal at this level, but the trilobites all look like trilobites. The cat does not look like the dog at this level. Spiders all look like spiders despite their great variations. I think I can recognize a beetle no matter how outlandish its variations (maybe I'm wrong). A gnat looks like a fly but not like a bee. I don't know how to define this more precisely unfortunately. I'm tempted to say that whatever you tend to call it is the level I'm defining. You wouldn't mistake a cat for a dog or a horse for a mouse or a mouse for a salamander. Not to say there wouldn't be some difficult calls but I'm trying to define a general category by which structure defines the creature.

So when I say the trilobite remains a trilobite I mean it always has three lobes and other characteristics that link it to other trilobites and to no other creature despite their great variation in other respects.

And when mammals evolved, THEY REMAINED CLEARLY AMNIOTES. Again, you're only seeing trilobites as all the same despite some variation because you don't have the same visceral understanding of how they differ from one another that you do for, for example, a crocodile and a horse. I will try to expand on this point either tomorrow or at the weekend, since now I need to stop this for one evening. Bear with me.

I'm happy to bear with you because you are sincerely thinking about all this and you remain polite. I may have my limits, however, just because evolutionist thinking can drive me crazy, so we'll see. But I think this last paragraph of yours is answered by my paragraph above it, my attempted definition of the classifications I have in mind. I would suppose you think in different classifications because you habitually think as an evolutionist. I'd be happy just to get the category I have in mind well defined. abe: I suppose it's the Kind itself.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by caffeine, posted 04-20-2017 4:55 PM caffeine has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1361
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 341 of 1242 (805792)
04-20-2017 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Faith
04-20-2017 1:59 PM


Re: the idea of more than one biblical flood is what's silly, AND the date of course
Faith writes:

Could not care less about such incidentals. You have said absolutely nothing, not one thing, zip, about any of my actual arguments.


I have not seen you present any scientific arguments for a recent global Flood in this thread. All I've seen are some general observations that, in your opinion, seem to make sense in a global Flood context.

If you are interested in actual arguments, I've given you a number of links to Christian professional geologists who debunk "flood geology" arguments and claims.

Faith writes:

In case you haven't noticed, I don't normally talk "flood geology." That is something you are imposing on me. I argue from my own observations about how the Flood would have caused certain effects. As long as you are talking in generalities, arguing from authority, and ignoring all the arguments I've made, I consider your remarks on this subject to be irrelevant and insulting.


You certainly have the personal freedom to reject the authority of experts in the field, to reject scientific data, to reject history, and to add extra-biblical teachings such as "flood geology" to Scripture. But I don't recommend it.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 1:59 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29042
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 342 of 1242 (805797)
04-20-2017 7:22 PM


True history of that shows there was never a Biblical Flood
The idea that there ever was a Biblical Flood is of course simply silly and the evidence that it never happened is overwhelming.

Just a few but remember that is even one of these exist the whole Biblical Flood nonsense is refuted.

The Methuselah Bristle Cone Pine germinated around 2700 BCE and is still alive today.

The Old Kingdom of Egypt ran from 2700 BCE to about 2100 BCE

The Unified Indus valley Civilization began around 2500 BCE and various civilizations have continued there without interruption since

The Golden Age of Ur ran from about 2475 BCE through about 2000 BCE when it may have been the largest city in the world


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 7:58 PM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25341
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 343 of 1242 (805798)
04-20-2017 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by jar
04-20-2017 7:22 PM


Re: True history of that shows there was never a Biblical Flood
All your dates are off by a few hundred years; they refute nothing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by jar, posted 04-20-2017 7:22 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by jar, posted 04-20-2017 8:05 PM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29042
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 344 of 1242 (805799)
04-20-2017 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Faith
04-20-2017 7:58 PM


Re: True history of that shows there was never a Biblical Flood
Faith writes:

All your dates are off by a few hundred years; they refute nothing.

And your evidence is?

Remember, the first one is a firm date and it alone refutes the silly flood nonsense.

All it takes is one single piece of evidence and the flood myths get tossed on the trash heap.

AbE: We are back in reality forum territory now so the Bible is worthless as evidence.

Edited by jar, : see AbE:


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 7:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 8:16 PM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25341
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 345 of 1242 (805805)
04-20-2017 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by jar
04-20-2017 8:05 PM


Re: True history of that shows there was never a Biblical Flood
My evidence is the Biblical dates then. Yours are the product of the fallen mind. End of subject.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by jar, posted 04-20-2017 8:05 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by jar, posted 04-20-2017 8:35 PM Faith has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
2425
...
83NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017