LudvanB
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"LUD: Indeed we can do those things today but we cant see planets like neptune,uranus and pluto with the naked eye...we require powerfull telescopes which were not invented before the 18th century. That means that there was no way back then to tell from earth that there were planets beyond saturn,and much less describe them in detail like the Sumerians do in their tablets. And the Sumerians make no claim of having received this knowledge through "divine inspiration"...they are quite clear that this knowledge was communicated to them verbally by their GODS....one of them,more precisely,the goddess Ishtar."
--This would be expected, Gods are divine inspiration, it would be typical for beliefs such as these to be bent. People would have been very knowledgable in those days, and would have passed this knowledge to the summarians and other groups that may have had the knowledge before they split. LUD: The sumerians are not a post flood civilisation TC...historians place their origin 4000-5000 BC at least and thats from their tablets which were very clear and concise. Their writings are for the time being universally recognized as the first form of writings on earth. They kept very extensive writen historical records and thats where historians got their date of 4000-5000 BC. "LUD:Most of their knowledge is catalogued in hundreds of clay tablets. Contrary to what you implied the other day,Sumerians were prolific writers...their writings are the oldest on earth as far as we know,dating back 4500-7000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of their most famous story.lots of interesting info on the subject here...
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze33gpz/myth.html
--For one, I based the assertion that there werent many historical documents on what you previously stated. Also, you can't claim that they are dated at 4,500-7000 years without evidence, what would this evidence be? The epic of gilgamesh is very interesting. LUD:according to historians,the evidence are in the tablets themselves. "LUD:I'm curious TC....aside from the Bible and the cultures in the ME,is there any mention of Adam and Eve in any other civilisations? Do either the mayans,the Aztech,the norse,the celts,the aborigenals,the chinese,the africans,the native americans and so on mention them or people even remotely like them in any of their legends? Do you know of any mention in any of these cultures about this ME origin for all of humanity? even a word?"
--Besides the one's that you stated earlier, for the babalonians and summarians, there are many, I will site some that I have found --Many of the following creation stories have some interesting parallels in the biblical creation story. --Aborigenals
--iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip -- Here is where you can find more Creation legends, and there is also Flood legends. -- http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/uranus.htm -- As you see throught reading, many of them induce many parallels towards the biblical creation, more than half include the beginning as a creation of a man and a woman. LUD: Thats is indeed common to some cultures but the names given to these folks and the means by which they came about varie far too much to be considered evidence of common ancestry from the ME. And most of them have completely different tales as to where we do originate. "LUD: not all ancient cultures claim to have been visited by flying chariots...the aborigenals,africans,celts and native americans have no such claims in their legends."
--Expected, not all of the different cultures are going to have the same legends, if you were to put them all on a line, each of them next to their most simmilar ancient creation story, if you looked at the one at the beginning and the one at the end, they would sertainly be very different. This would be typical of creation stories passed on many of them by oral tradition. LUD: But,if the Bible is indeed THE one true creation story,IT too was passed down oraly for close to 3000 years and so it too could well have suffered from corruption. "LUD:the vast majority of young earth creationist subscribe to this notion of a water canopy around the earth...many of them,like Kent Hovind are convinced that it was actually a bubble of ICE."
--Majority doesn't mean anything though, The Majority of scientist may believe Evolution (I don't really know) but does that mean Evolution is right, it isn't based on majority. LUD: Evolution is not a cult TC...its a scientific theory. Scientists who believe in it dont do so in a void of evidence. "LUD: I would like you to explain to me TC how you go from cancer cells replicating themselve infinitely to people living 900 years."
--The thing is, is that what I explained was that by cancer cells, which are caused by mutation, can replicate forever, because I believe it is because they lost the gene that controls the ability to replicate at a set amount of replicates. this is controled by telemeres that are like the 'capping' at the end of chromosomes which after each replication, a tip is lost, thus controling the amount of replication the bodily cells can produce. All you really need to live 900 years, is a longer capping, or for the gene that creates this ability to control replication amount to not be active. LUD:indeed but is there any genetic evidence that we once had those longuer capings? any residual evidence of those supposed mutations? "LUD:The Bible does....it states that eating the apple gave man knowledge of good and evil."
--The bible does not say that the knowledge of good and evil came from the fruit, it says that when they ate it, they knew good and evil, it could be tied in with a simple concept of experience, they had not experienced sin, so they did not know it. LUD: thats an opinion TC,not a statement of fact...for all you know,the autors did indeed believe that the knowledge was contained within the apple. "LUD: i do not know where we originate from. I merely said that i see no credible reason why i should be convinced that we all originate from the ME...thats where Adam and eve supposadly came from,IF the book of genesis is true. But i have yet to be presented with imperical evidence that should lead me to conclude that there even was an Adam and a Eve at any point of history."
--How do you expect to find any imperical evidence of the origin of humanity out of the middle east, or that adam and eve creation story is true accept by ancient literature. Because I know of no scientific observational technique in which we can interperete the existance of this evidence leading to conclusions on these questions. To come to a conclusion or explination for answrs to these questions, there must be evidence to point either direction, I do not know of any evidence period of pointing either way accept by ancient literature. LUD: I believe that at one time there were large lizards gallavanting around on earth because there are countless traces of their passages found on earth. But they have yet to find traces of Adam's civilisation AS SUCH. The guy supposadly lived for 900 years...even with a world wide flood,we should find imperical evidence of his passing. "LUD: according to the description of the tower of Babel in the book of genesis,it reached into heaven...meaning it should have been as high as mount everest and pierce the clouds....the zigurats discovered were nowhere near as high."
--Actually the heavens are simply the sky, the birds as is depicted in the bible, fly in this expanse/firmament/heavens and birds sertainly fly at this hight. And to the people building the tower in that day, it sertainly would look as if it were reaching to inconceivable elevations in the time. LUD: opinion again and mine's diferent. I dont see why God would take offense at a building that dos not pierce the cloud in the context of the Bible... "LUD: So then how can your Bible be used in a scientific discussion since there is no way to falsify "divine inspiration"?"
--I am not discussing whether the bible is divinely inspired, thats your opinion on what the book presents, I am discussing biblical validity on historical accuracy. Thus it is a scientific discussion in which we are discussing what we can observe and present by historical records and various scientific attributes in the argument. LUD: There is absolutely no independant confirmation that the Bible depicts actual events of 6000 years ago and yet you accept it as fact. But when i present studies by historians that identify the oldest civilisation,the Sumerians as being 5000 years old at least,you refuse to even consider it,saying that i present no evidence. I'm not an historian but my opinion is that if there's a concensus on the age of the sumerian civilisation,there's got to be a reason why and so i trust them until evidence to the contrary. You present me with a book that says that those historians are in error...so present me with independent confirmation through either archeological or anthropological evidence that 5000 years ago,there was no Sumerian empire. "LUD:the Bible has some innacuracies...you just re-interpret them so they wont be inacurate anymore. Case in point,lust coming from the heart,which you point means from the soul. When i explain that lust is actually a chemical reaction in the brain,well you then say that by heart they meant brain. Also,the fact that lust is considered a sin is ridiculous...its a natural chemical reaction that cannot be controlled...we can control how we act on it but thats not at all what the Bible condemns...it condemns EXPERIENCING lust."
--First, the bible doesnt' say that it comes from the soul, it states that it comes from the heart as the same way we use it today when we would be to say 'have a heart', or 'its in the heart', or 'trust your heart'. These arent implications on a bodily organ, but as I stated previously, it contributes to the character or personality of a sertain someone. And considering the condemnation of lust, the bible does not condemn lust, it condemns a lustful heart (again the heart thing), ie someone that lusts to feel that serotonin get pumped into their brain when they see a naked girl, or something like that. The bible does not condemn experiencing lust in the scence that you describe, but it condemns the desire to experience lust. This is illustrated when david was on top of his house and spotted bathshebba taking a bath (what a coincidence) and he lusted with his eyes, the literal translation of the word that is used is 'gaze' he didn't just glance at her, this would not be a sin, but he gazed, as in, to view with interest, or study. LUD: desires ARE the result of this chemical reaction,not the cause of them. In the brain,everything(feelings,impulses,ideas,memories) all of it is CHEMICAL reaction,period. The male body reacts this way to either the image or memory of a naked woman because its PROGRAMMED to react that way...If God did indeed create man,as your Bible implies,thats how he created man. You cant NOT have the impulse unless you suffer from a chemical imbalance of some kind...that means that a healthy,functionning brain functions that way EVERY SINGLE TIME. How you ACT on those impulses MAY be sinfull or not...but FEELING that lust is what whoever designed us meant for us. Thats why i tell you that homosexuals are born that way...their sexual attraction toward members of their own gender is simply a chemical reaction in their brains,not a consious choice. I.e. Gay men dont choose to feel lust towards other men...thats happens despite them. What they chose is what they do about it. As for those expression,they were obviously born from that belief that the heart was the seat of the emotions in the human body and remained in use even when it was discovered that the brain was actually the muscle of emotions in humans out of habit. "LUD: So why should i assume that there ever was a disaster caused by God?"
--Whether it is caused by God is your own opinion, whether it happend is a scientifically valid question. Though I should say that with such a Flood for instance, it was an act of God. LUD: why exactly?...lets assume for a moment that the flood did happen. Couldn't the legend of Noah have been born from the survivors of the flood? Couldn't the belief that it was a Godly punishement be noting more than mere superstition? Are you saying that this is impossible? Here is some information and reading on this enzyme activity in its shortening telomerase: "LUD: I'm afraid your gonna have to provide me with a site where i can study the result of these researchs..." "This enzyme, called telomerase, was discovered in 1980 by the winner of the 1998 Australia Prize, Prof. Elizabeth Blackburn. Without telomerase, cells cannot copy their ‘caps’." New Scientist: November 22, 1997, p. 7; January 3, 1998, p. 6; February 7, 1998, p. 14; February 28, 1998, p. 23. ‘Can science beat the body clock?’ Sunday Times (London) January 18, 1998, p. 15. ‘Extraordinary lifespans in ants: a test of evolutionary theories of aging’, Nature 389:958—960, 1997. ‘Why do we age?’ U.S. News & World Report, August 18—25, 1997, pp. 55—57. ‘Genetics of Aging’ Science 278(5337):407—411, 1997. --As I would also get frustrated if I did not have these resources, here is a web page that seems to be focused on the telomere:
http://resolution.colorado.edu/~nakamut/telomere/telomere.html LUD:Interesting...i'll look into it,although i dont see why this absolutely has to be a condition that we had and not one that we are discovering for the first time. "LUD: Yes it is possible to evaluate all of those things simply by analysing the dent (crater) caused by the meteorit. Its a complex mathematic calculation but thats how they do it."
--Yes, but they must assume that the place of impact had the same viscosity, density, etc as their calculations will give. If I hit a brick wall with my fist, it isn't going to do much anything, If I hit a wall made out of mud, it might do something, If I hit a damp mud wall, it will make an even bigger dent, If I hit a liquid-like muddy area with my fist, I could possibly make my own little crater. Also, with the effects of this impact, the distribution of dust as a result of impact in the atmosphere, will also be assumed by its density, particle size, and so on, If I threw a cup of flour in the air, it would take much longer to settle as if I threw sand or mud in the air. As it would fall right back to the ground. LUD: again,i'm not an expert in astronomical impact so i rely on the experts for their judgement...Pope's research is being reviewed...lets see what the experts think about it. "LUD: Interesting Article indeed. Thats not the first time someone challenged the well accepted conviction that a large enough asteroid strike would plunge the earth into an ice age and it probably wont be the last but Pope is not refuting earlier claims...he's merely casting some doubts,having done no actual research on his own. It is also pointed out that the spectacular anture of his announcement is somewhat suspect...Usually,researchers consult their collegues before making such anouncements,to make sure that their data is not in error...Pope seems more concerned with flamboyant public display than scientific truth...interesting indeed..."
--Yes it was an interesting article, Pope does do his own research, as some of the article addresses some of it. But more than these implications on celectial body impacts on the earth, would be the assumtions in the calculations as I addressed in my last comment. LUD:again,lets wait and see if it holds. "LUD:as i said,not being an expert on the subject i go with what the experts say and most of them still say that big rock hitting the earth means disaster. they are reviewing the pope study...lets see if it hold or if it goes the same way as other challenge did in the past..."
--No doubt it would have been disaster, the question is, how much disaster, as I stated previously, I think that the argument I place against the evidence for calculation used is quite valid and needs explination. Also, I would not just go with what the experts say, one because, they could be totally wrong, and thus throw your beliefs way out of scale, or something of that nature. Also, because there are many experts that have different opinions and interperetations on the evidence, including the phenomena of astroidal impact. LUD:see above "LUD: I do not reject God....i do not even reject the Bible...i've never accepted the Bible as being THE truth so i cant reject what i never accepted to begin with. Thats doesn't necessarely mean its in error or that i buy the whole ToE head on...i go with the one i find the most credible...at the moment,thats not the Bible."
--I've been meaning to ask you, what would sway you toward the belief that the bible is in the least, scientifically accurate, and indeed has without a reasonable doubt, an accurate historical record. What is there that needs to be addressed to substantiate this question. LUD: anyone of a couple of things would do it...seeing a humanoid wigned man called Micheal,watching someone part the waters of the saint laurent's river by waving his/her arms. Watching a couple of guys inside a raging furnace,talking confortably,see a dead guy of three days come back to life...in short,being an actual witness to one of those flamboyand,visual miracles that the Bible so often talk about. These guys had the benefit of seeing miracles back then...why couldn't i get one to "aid my faith along"? But i return the question to you TC...what could make you believe that the Bible is in fact a collection of superstitious belief with no substance to back them up...US finding intelligent life/civilisations older than 6000 years on another planet perhaps? "LUD: i'm tired of this particular debate...i say poteto,you say potato and it never ends...I believe its been falsified,you dont,lets just agree to disagree on this for the time being."
--Ok thats fine, but I would just like to have a friendly discussion, what do you think is in the bible that you could point out is invalid? "LUD: God also showed me the truth and that truth was in the universe around us,not writen in any book."
--Then God doesn't seem to be interested in the previous living people, because they did not have the universe to look at to find answers, they just had a book inspired by God. LUD: By universe,i mean everything around us.i.e. the world we live in and so on,not necessarely the cosmos. "LUD: There now i did. happy now?"
--I'd have to say that I am very glad you were willing to discuss in this fashion, this it would greatly seem is an advancement in our discussion, more accurate and direct inductions are able to be induced.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 228 by gene90, posted 02-07-2002 11:28 PM | | LudvanB has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
