Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2019 12:08 AM
27 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1 (2 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,245 Year: 5,282/19,786 Month: 1,404/873 Week: 300/460 Day: 0/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Why can creationists give straight answers?
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 46 of 56 (15949)
08-22-2002 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Randy
08-22-2002 6:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
...Sounds more like mildew than leprosy.

It is fortunate for them that the skin diseases weren't leprosy as the treatments described and the methods for deciding if a patient was clean or not are totally worthless for leprosy.

Randy


I hadn't read it for about 3 years now. But now that you mention it (you have a better grasp of the issue than I) it does seem absurd to think that washing tapestries and wiping the hearth with oil would be an efficient treatment for ANYTHING, much less leprosy.

But it is amazing - the Israelites had apparently been given from On High the original formula for Lysol.

Surely, that cannot be a coincidence....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Randy, posted 08-22-2002 6:36 PM Randy has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 47 of 56 (16498)
09-03-2002 12:42 PM


keeping it alive...
    
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 48 of 56 (17191)
09-11-2002 5:51 PM


Freddie?
Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Fred Williams, posted 09-11-2002 7:43 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 2967 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 49 of 56 (17198)
09-11-2002 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by derwood
09-11-2002 5:51 PM


Scottie?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by derwood, posted 09-11-2002 5:51 PM derwood has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Admin, posted 09-12-2002 9:05 AM Fred Williams has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12591
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 50 of 56 (17248)
09-12-2002 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fred Williams
09-11-2002 7:43 PM


If you click on any message's mood icon, located at the top of every message, you will be shown a webpage listing all messages of that thread, including a column listing the replies to each message with an indication as to whether the reply has been answered. I suspect that SLPx posted the one word message "Freddie?" as a hint that he has posted replies to messages from you that you haven't yet replied to. Looking at the message list for this thread, it appears that that would be messages 33, 34 and 35.

There is no forum rule obligating anyone to reply to messages, and I offer no assessment as to the content of SLPx's replies (in other words, perhaps replies are called for, perhaps not, I am not saying either way), but within the bounds of available time meaningful threads of discussion should not be purposefully left hanging.

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

--EvC Forum Administrator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fred Williams, posted 09-11-2002 7:43 PM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Fred Williams, posted 09-12-2002 8:29 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 2967 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 51 of 56 (17298)
09-12-2002 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Admin
09-12-2002 9:05 AM


quote:
There is no forum rule obligating anyone to reply to messages, and I offer no assessment as to the content of SLPx's replies (in other words, perhaps replies are called for, perhaps not, I am not saying either way), but within the bounds of available time meaningful threads of discussion should not be purposefully left hanging.

Well stated. It boils down to subjective opinion whether or not a thread is exhausted. In my opinion this thread is exhausted. Here is a summary from my POV:

1) Scott claimed my leprosy bit at my bibleevidences.com site was bogus.
2) I supported my claim with citations showing that leprosy can survive outside of the body for three weeks or more. It further puts into favorable light the associated Biblical requirements such as burning garments.
3) Scott then turned to a strawman argument by incorrectly claiming I said the Hebrews were educated in microbiology.
4) John, then later Randy if I recall, point out that the word leprosy in the Bible may cover a variety of diseases. This may be so, it may not. Regardless, it does not impact my original argument.
5) Randy protests that leprosy is not that contagious and requirements such as cleaning walls is not necessary. Perhaps, perhaps not. If #3 is valid and some other disease (or perhaps some other form of leprosy) is more contagious, it is very reasonable that walls also be cleaned. But again, this does not impact my original argument much if at all. The Biblical passage implies that leprosy can live on garments and walls, and we know that indeed it can. Whether or not washing the walls is worthwhile is not that crucial to my core argument. Burning the garments certainly makes perfect sense, but even it is not crucial to my argument. They are merely icing on the cake.
6) The thread moved to hyssop oil. Randy agrees it has some anti-bacterial agents, but claims it is a worthless remedy against leprosy. Perhaps, but perhaps not, particularly if claim #3 above is valid. Randy acknowledges hyssop would be effective against ailments that could easily be confused with leprosy. Moreover, in reading the Bible passage one gets the impression that in the case of leprosy hyssop is part of the ceremonial cleaning, and that shaving and washing is the medical prescription. However, in Numbers 19:18 hyssop oil is clearly part of the medical prescription, in the cleaning of vessels and people who come into contact with dead corpses.

What else is there to add? Nothing, really, other than to add that there is mounting evidence that non-random mutations occur.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Admin, posted 09-12-2002 9:05 AM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by derwood, posted 09-16-2002 1:57 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 52 of 56 (17541)
09-16-2002 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Fred Williams
09-12-2002 8:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Well stated. It boils down to subjective opinion whether or not a thread is exhausted. In my opinion this thread is exhausted.


Funny how that always seems to happen when the creationist has had his hat handed to him... Lets just hope that Williams doesn't spout his BS about polymorphisms in phylogenetic analyses again...

quote:

Here is a summary from my POV:

1) Scott claimed my leprosy bit at my bibleevidences.com site was bogus.
2) I supported my claim with citations showing that leprosy can survive outside of the body for three weeks or more.


How does that support your claim that the ancient Hebrews knew about microbes?

quote:

It further puts into favorable light the associated Biblical requirements such as burning garments.
3) Scott then turned to a strawman argument by incorrectly claiming I said the Hebrews were educated in microbiology.

And that is a strawman and a misrepresentation (whats new?). I never said such a thing at all. According to YOU, the ancient hebrews knew about microbes. Those are YOUR words. You failed to support THAT claim. It should come as no surprise that you are now trying to shift the burdena nd backtrack.

I wonder - can you find some citations indicating that leprosy really can be cured by killing pigeons, as described in the bible?

quote:

4) John, then later Randy if I recall, point out that the word leprosy in the Bible may cover a variety of diseases. This may be so, it may not. Regardless, it does not impact my original argument.

No, but you still have yet to support your orignal argument with anything relevant.

quote:

5) Randy protests that leprosy is not that contagious and requirements such as cleaning walls is not necessary. Perhaps, perhaps not. If #3 is valid and some other disease (or perhaps some other form of leprosy) is more contagious, it is very reasonable that walls also be cleaned. But again, this does not impact my original argument much if at all. The Biblical passage implies that leprosy can live on garments and walls, and we know that indeed it can.

Chapter and verse, please. You say "implies", I say wild, if not bizarre extrapolation...

quote:

Whether or not washing the walls is worthwhile is not that crucial to my core argument. Burning the garments certainly makes perfect sense, but even it is not crucial to my argument. They are merely icing on the cake.

Your 'core argument' is that the Hebes knew about microbes. Burning garments proves this how?

quote:

6) The thread moved to hyssop oil. Randy agrees it has some anti-bacterial agents, but claims it is a worthless remedy against leprosy. Perhaps, but perhaps not, particularly if claim #3 above is valid. Randy acknowledges hyssop would be effective against ailments that could easily be confused with leprosy. Moreover, in reading the Bible passage one gets the impression that in the case of leprosy hyssop is part of the ceremonial cleaning, and that shaving and washing is the medical prescription. However, in Numbers 19:18 hyssop oil is clearly part of the medical prescription, in the cleaning of vessels and people who come into contact with dead corpses.

You claimed that 50% of what is in hyssop oil is antibacterial.

Prove it or retract it.

quote:

What else is there to add? Nothing, really, other than to add that there is mounting evidence that non-random mutations occur.

Thats it, Williams. make a joke out of one of your more enduring blunders and falsehoods.

Best you can do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Fred Williams, posted 09-12-2002 8:29 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by John, posted 10-27-2002 9:56 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 53 of 56 (18887)
10-02-2002 5:23 PM


bump
    
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 56 (20922)
10-27-2002 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Fred Williams
08-21-2002 7:57 PM


I have recently been perusing this thread and found it hilarious that once again, the creationist has to call upon evolution to bail himself out of a tight corner!

Williams is the current world title holder for unsupported assertion now that Kent Hovind has literally lost it, and we see him running true to form here: "Who said the disease existed before the flood?...You are also surely aware that mutation occurs? I submit that the Mycobacterium leprae bacillus is a bacteria that was once a useful ecological agent before the flood, and mutated after the flood into its nasty form we see today."

How is this possible? The post flood world was supposed to be one free of sin! That was the whole purpose of the incompetent and klutzy flood that this god supposedly called down - to clean the world of sin. Apparently this god was so stupid that he could think of no other way than to mercilessly slaughter countless millions of living things, but when you worship a barbaric, child-murdering god, this is what you get.

So this god of love and mercy not only (literally) flushed the planet of sinners, but he then allowed every disease known to humanity to fester in this new, sin-free Eden? No wonder Noah got drunk.

Typically, all I see here is a just-so story, in which Fred Williams specialises. I see no effort whatsoever going into explaining what it was that leprosy did before the flood that was useful, nor what the mutations were which switched it from its benign role to that of gruesome disease. How did these mutations occur in a creature that was perfectly created by a perfect god? What were the mutations? What creationist research has there been to support these assertions?

Williams: "It is entirely reasonable and possible that a post-flood world would see a rapid increase in mutated bacteria, including undesirables such as Mycobacterium leprae."

And the evidence for this assertion is? Oh, I forgot, there is none. This is yet another just-so story made up especially to bolster the creation fairytale.

Budikka


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Fred Williams, posted 08-21-2002 7:57 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 56 (20924)
10-27-2002 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by derwood
09-16-2002 1:57 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by SLPx:
[B]4) John, then later Randy if I recall, point out that the word leprosy in the Bible may cover a variety of diseases. This may be so, it may not. Regardless, it does not impact my original argument.[/quote]

No, but you still have yet to support your orignal argument with anything relevant.[quote]
I think it does weaken the argument. Fred is claiming that the Isrealites had special knowledge of microbial life. If the word refers to various unidentified skin diseases it can hardly be said to represent any special knowledge. It is the difference between saying "You have the flu" and being able to name the strain of virus.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by derwood, posted 09-16-2002 1:57 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 56 of 56 (21198)
10-31-2002 1:43 PM


Still waiting for the documentation indicating that oil of hyssop is "50% antibacterial".....
    
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019