|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God's Place In Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Really the testimony of this common legend should behoove one to reconsider the falsifying "physical" evidence.
Why does legend trump evidence? It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
So produce your evidence that humans didn't have dominion over dinos.
It would probably be best for you to sit-in on a 3rd grade science class for that information. Are you really claiming primates and dinos co-existed? Seriously? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Really the testimony of this common legend should behoove one to reconsider the falsifying "physical" evidence. So you want to just "hand-wave" away the evidence I posted above? Or ignore it entirely? Why don't you try to address it instead? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
goldrush writes: Really the testimony of this common legend should behoove one to reconsider the falsifying "physical" evidence. The common connection though is clear, and does not lie. It speaks for itself. This is pretty short and pretty simple so I will repeat it here for you. Have you ever read the Bible? In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:
quote: In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:
quote: We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:
quote: and in Genesis 7:
quote: In both myths lots of critters get killed, in the myth found in Genesis 6 it seems to be talking about land animals and birds while the myth found in Genesis 7 goes even further and wipes out all living things. If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7. Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals). Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck. We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species. BUT... If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period. Talk about a big RED flag. That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticists in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Years Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see. So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood. If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support. If on the other hand that genetic marker is NOT there, then the Flood is refuted.
That genetic marker is NOT there. The Biblical Flood has been refuted. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Taq writes: Of all of the animal species, none have begun to advance to the level of brain capabilities as humans. The social, cultural, mechanical, industrial and scientific capabilities of humans is unique; immensely greater than that of any of the other species. All other species think and do in a simple and limited framework of capabilities.
Now please show the logic that leads us to the conclusion that this intelligence was produced by a supernatural deity. What you're requiring is to show the logic that something immensely more complex than the most advanced computers could have evolved naturally over millions of years as you are alleging. You're the illogical dreamers. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
Also you keep arguing that I am arguing from incredulity, yet you never show how. Your arguments are pretty textbook. Let's start with the definition of this fallacy, though:
quote: Now, let's look at some of your arguments that you believe support the existence of the Creator:
quote: Do you see the similarities? Do you see how these arguments are formally identical to the examples given in the Wiki article? If you do, then that's great! We're off to a good start. If not, then let me know what you think is different and we can go from there. Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
goldrush writes: No, this is an addition/clarification to a previous post where I stated that I believe our decision to reject or accept a Creator is not purely intellectual (or scientific). Goldrush, what you are doing is saying "I believe x,y, and z" but you are giving no rationale for why you believe x, y, and z and you seem amazed that people could think this is bad logic. This is a science part of the forum. Religious beliefs don't count (they are as you correctly point out, not scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
What you're requiring is to show the logic that something immensely more complex than the most advanced computers could have evolved naturally over millions of years as you are alleging. You're the illogical dreamers. Incredulity is not a logical argument. Again, you claimed that it is logical that a supernatural deity created our intelligence. Please spell out the logic. So far the only logic you have spelled out is an argument based your incredulity which is an illogical argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Really the testimony of this common legend should behoove one to reconsider the falsifying "physical" evidence. No, it shouldn't. Evidence always trumps stories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Taq writes: Really the testimony of this common legend should behoove one to reconsider the falsifying "physical" evidence. No, it shouldn't. Evidence always trumps stories. The legend evidence is telling LoL, Taq. You've learned nothing from the misgivings of the 19th skeptics who, one by one, have had to eat crow. One by one, the falsification attempts have failed to discredit the Biblical record. Like these agnostics and atheists, you're leaping far ahead of your knowledge. One by one, the evidence mounts, substantiating the existence of so much, once thought to be mythical legend. Bottom line: Goldrush is right. The similarities of cultural legends is, in fact, one of the corroborating supportive evidences, for the Biblical record.
quote: BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Using your logic
Troy has been found this is clear evidence of the Cyclops Poseidon and all the Greek gods and everything else in the odyssey. The places mentioned in the tales of Hercules have been found this is clear evidence that Hercules existed and was the sone of the God Zeus Mount Peca exist this is clear evidence that the sloveinan king Matja is sleeping under it with his army until his beard is long enough to encircle his table 7 times. Of course you will find evidence of SOME places and SOME people just not evidence of miracle floods and all the other gobely gook that does not adhere to reason and natural laws CAUSE ITS ONLY A MADE UP STORY.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Nonsense.
Legends are a dime a dozen (a little more now due to inflation). The issue was the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago. --On one hand we have a lot of non-specific flood legends. There is no reason to believe that they all described the same flood at all! And lots of reasons to believe they don't. The descriptions vary and the times are non-specific. --On the other hand we have hard evidence, the evidence of archaeology and the soils. We can see evidence of floods if they were there! Google "channeled scablands" and take a look at the post-glacial evidence for floods in the Pacific Northwest. Here is a good link: http://www.uwsp.edu/...ticipants/dutch/vtrips/scablands0.htm Evidence for a global flood 4,350 years ago would be a third the age and spread all over the world (including your back yard). If it was there it would be easy to find. --On the gripping hand we have the evidence of genetics. That was explained to you in a post upthread (for at least the dozenth time). And against this hard evidence that can be verified by anyone, even you if you dared to face it, you want us to accept myths! Get a grip! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Damn looks like the Iliad and the Odyssey are true. The found Troy so that guarantees it is all true.
ABE Oops just saw frako's reply. Sorry for jumping on the same thing. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The "no brainer" common evidence you cited is actually just bits and pieces of the major common theme and message of the flood legends I cited in my original post. (1) Yes, but the "common theme and message" doesn't actually exist. The flood legends are as disparate as can be. The gods send the flood because of the wickedness of mankind, or simply because of overpopulation --- or even by accident. The flood is local or global. People survive by means of a boat or climbing up a high mountain or clinging to driftwood or by the intervention of a giant fish; or there are no survivors and the gods repopulate the world by magic. What they have in common is that they are flood legends --- and that almost always the flood is attributed to supernatural beings, which is no surprise because primitive people attribute all meteorological events and all remarkable events to supernatural beings, and this was both. The legends most similar to the Biblical one are all found in the same region, and there is a fairly obvious non-magical explanation for that. (2) You have generally ignored the possibility of cultural transmission. In most cultures, the missionaries have turned up before the anthropologists. Many flood myths may have been seeded by missionaries, and this needs to be taken into account. Does the widespread myth of Santa Claus show that he really exists, or just that it's an appealing myth which has spread easily? (3) You have also not considered the possibility that these myths have sprung from common errors. What I mean is that people all over the world have been able to observe marine fossils in mountains. What could be more natural than to assume that at some time the water level was higher rather than the rock constituting the mountains being lower? (To witness a small flood is after all commonplace, whereas most people will not observe geological uplift, which is less dramatic.) (4) You do not say how your reasoning applies to other legends found all over the world. Stories of talking animals are very widespread; so are stories of fairy-like beings. Or take the legend of stealing fire from the gods. Some common (though not quite universal) features: * What is stolen is fire itself, not the secret of making it. This is odd when you think about it, because the cultures having such legends did in fact have the secret of making fire. (I know of no exceptions to this.) * The thief steals fire out of compassion for humanity, because they need fire to keep warm and cook. * The thief steals without fee or reward; the gesture is purely altruistic. * The thief is male (I know of one exception, in Hawai'i). * The thief usually is not himself human, and often would not qualify as a god either, but is a third class of being. * The thief is not subsequently caught and punished by the gods (I know of one exception, the Greek legend of Prometheus.) * The gods do not, of course, take fire back from humanity, explaining why we still have it. * The thief is sometimes marked by the fire; if this is the case, the marking is hereditary. I have found examples of the myth from India, South Africa, North America, Central America, Europe, Australia, and various Pacific islands. So, did it actually happen?
Also the flood date recorded in the Bible coincides with celebrations of the dead held in many lands. The date of the biblical flood and the massive loss of life resulting from it connects it with these celebrations and the common flood legends that share its theme. Where are you getting this from? The only thing I can find supporting this is this three-paragraph wikipedia article, which, instead of giving references to the various alleged festivals of the dead, has a single reference to a book by Charles Piazzi Smith, the well-known pyramidologist, numerologist, and all-round crackpot. Halloween, to be sure, is a day of the dead, but as I have pointed out, the Church that instituted it never said anything about it commemorating the Flood. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
LoL, Taq. You've learned nothing from the misgivings of the 19th skeptics who, one by one, have had to eat crow. I think you'll find that the nineteenth century skeptics are dead. What we have now are twenty-first century skeptics who are still laughing at you for believing something as unhistorical as the flood. Do you suppose that their numbers have decreased since the nineteenth century? Meanwhile you have apparently learned nothing from the rise of local-floodism and old-earthism amongst Christians defeated by the weight of the evidence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024