Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
30 online now:
Diomedes, jar, Tanypteryx (3 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 241 of 336 (637648)
10-17-2011 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 1:55 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
Swarms [small] of swarms [extremely small].

You are reading into this. The storytellers who concocted the Genesis story, knew nothing of life that was too small to see. The idea of swarm was such things as locusts which were a problem to the primitive humans. Swarm doesn't mean small, it means a large number of like things. Humans can form a swarm.

Yes; the Chaldeans [Assyrians] were vasal states of Babylon;

1) The Chaldeans were not Assyrians, they conquered the Assyrians.
2) they were not vassals of Babylon, they just made their capital at Babylon. The Babylonians had not been in power for nearly 1000 years before the destruction of the temple.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 1:55 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 5:26 PM bluescat48 has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 242 of 336 (637660)
10-17-2011 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Hawkins
10-17-2011 12:39 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
For example, if you claim that water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen. You'll be able to repeat the resolution unlimited number of times with each time delivering the same expected result (i.e. hydrogen and oxygen). This process is referred to as the predictability of science. If however, something unexpected are resulted instead of hydrogen and oxygen as predicted, the claimed laws/rules/theories (a chemical reaction in this case) are considered to be falsified. This is referred to as the falsifiability of science.

Unlike any other science posseses the characteristic of predictability and falsifyability, ToE is developed totally in another approach. So if all other science is confirmed using this approach while ToE uses another, it is thus doubtful that ToE can be confirmed as a science.

Here's an experiment for you:

You have a fire cracker.
You light the wick on fire.
You predict that when the fire reaches the core, the fire cracker will explode.
You can not predict reliably where the hole from the explosion will appear, nor can you predict where the particle the explosion will ultimately land.
Does that mean that predicting that the fire cracker will explode is unscientific?

Or this one:
You have two cars on a track driving at one another at 50mph each.
You predict that when they try to occupy the same space, they will 'crash'.
You can not predict every dent and crumple that will result from the crash, nor can you predict which windows will shatter.
Does that mean that predicting that the two cars will crash is unscientific?

Your complaint is that in the case of biology, some experiments would result in outcomes which, while predictable, would not be 100% knowable to begin with.

That effectively rules out all of science.

In your water experiment, can you predict WHICH hydrogen atoms and WHICH oxygen atoms will be released in what order? No? Not scientific enough.

If you declare that 100% species on earth are undergoing and are results of the repeating process of evolution/natural selection

I offered you an opportunity to disprove any of the fundamental pillars that result in that conclusion.

You failed to even try.

Why is that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Hawkins, posted 10-17-2011 12:39 AM Hawkins has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 243 of 336 (637664)
10-17-2011 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 4:40 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
Swarm of swarm, means smallest of small. It does align with nano as per the state of knowledge of this generation. Sorry to surprise you so much.

Setting aside the fact that your wrong about your definitions, this does not address my initial post.

A Bible scholar of 1000 years ago would NOT claim that "swarm" meant "nano life". Yet, they would be 100% certain that their understanding of the scripture was correct _and_ that the Bible was 100% accurate.

So, you disagree with a Bible scholar from 1000 years ago about "nano life".

That means that at least one of you is wrong.

How do you prove which one is wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 4:40 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 5:10 PM Nuggin has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1923 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 244 of 336 (637731)
10-17-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Nuggin
10-17-2011 11:35 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
Setting aside you appear fanatically predisposed to your deep auto rejection of EVERYTHING stated, I can only put down for other sane posters, the life form groupings is introduced in Genesis [not Darwin!], in their correct protocol [waterborne life is listed before airborne life and numerous transit life are mentioned], and that humans are listed as the final grouping. This includes life forms too small to discern with the naked eye. I imagine now you will deflect to questioning the use of my term 'naked eye' - that is how every post has been seen by you. You have a problem.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 11:35 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 5:18 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 245 of 336 (637733)
10-17-2011 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 5:10 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
Setting aside you appear fanatically predisposed to your deep auto rejection of EVERYTHING stated, I can only put down for other sane posters, the life form groupings is introduced in Genesis [not Darwin!], in their correct protocol [waterborne life is listed before airborne life and numerous transit life are mentioned], and that humans are listed as the final grouping. This includes life forms too small to discern with the naked eye. I imagine now you will deflect to questioning the use of my term 'naked eye' - that is how every post has been seen by you. You have a problem.

Again, you are making claims that are not backed up by your evidence.
Let's stick to the point we've been discussing.

You are claiming that the Bible specifically says that there are life forms too small to discern.

You attribute this to the word "swarm".

That definition of "swarm" is yours, it's not backed up by the text.

As I pointed out, a bible scholar from 1000 years ago would have the EXACT same source text you are working from. If he was asked the definition of "swarm", he ABSOLUTELY would NOT say that it referred to lifeforms which can not be seen.

Same text. Same amount of certainty about the meaning contained within.

So, one or more of the following must be true:

1) The text has changed.
2) Scholar's opinion on the text has changed.

If it's #1, then you can't claim that the text is accurate.
If it's #2, then you can't claim that your opinion of what's in the text is accurate.

Either way, you are boned.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 5:10 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 5:32 PM Nuggin has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1923 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 246 of 336 (637737)
10-17-2011 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by bluescat48
10-17-2011 10:59 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
quote:
You are reading into this.

There is only one reading of it possible. Else the text becomes incoherent with superfluous words. The Hebrew grammar is the epitome of writing, transcending Shakespeare and Isaiah. The term nano was my 'legitimate' input.

quote:

The storytellers who concocted the Genesis story,


Your proof? Any even miniscule evidence of your claim, notwithstanding it is a deflection from the issue, which remains viable of any selected dating?

quote:

knew nothing of life that was too small to see.

They knew how to write in advanced alphabetical books - show us another equivalence of people who knew nothing - or check the Nobels listing?

quote:

The idea of swarm was such things as locusts which were a problem to the primitive humans. Swarm doesn't mean small, it means a large number of like things. Humans can form a swarm.


Its 'swarm of swarms' - as in small of small. This cannot relate to mere small! Also, locusts are winged creatures - these were yet not emerged till airborne life emerged. Nor can this be related to 'creepy crawly creatures.

quote:

Yes; the Chaldeans [Assyrians] were vasal states of Babylon;

1) The Chaldeans were not Assyrians, they conquered the Assyrians.
2) they were not vassals of Babylon, they just made their capital at Babylon. The Babylonians had not been in power for nearly 1000 years before the destruction of the temple.


As I said before, the war which destroyed the temple was by Babylon and its allies; the exile was to Babylon:

quote:

Chaldean. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Look up chaldean in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Chaldean (or Chaldian) may refer to:

Historical Babylon



This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by bluescat48, posted 10-17-2011 10:59 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by bluescat48, posted 10-17-2011 9:31 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1923 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 247 of 336 (637740)
10-17-2011 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Nuggin
10-17-2011 5:18 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
quote:
That definition of "swarm" is yours, it's not backed up by the text.


Here we go again! The term swarm is NOT mine but a translation from numerous levels of languages of a little understood Hebrew by peoples who never spoke Hebrew or possessed alphabetical advanced books. The term is not swarm but emphasized as 'swarm of swarm' - it is indiisputably referring to small of small - small as can be - extremely small, which is the only reading and in its correct context here. Nor do you understand the term 'nano' was yet not invented.

I would say many anti-Genesis folk are actually astonished to learn what they never knew here and find it unacceptable their wrong understandings are being crrected and exposed.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 5:18 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 5:36 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 248 of 336 (637741)
10-17-2011 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 5:32 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
The term is not swarm but emphasized as 'swarm of swarm' - it is indiisputably referring to small of small - small as can be - extremely small

Swarm means many, not small.

You can have a swarm of mile wide meteors.

A swarm of swarm would be several collections of swarms. A galaxy cluster would be a "swarm of swarm of stars".

This idea that it means "small" is not supported by your claims.

which is the only reading and in its correct context here. Nor do you understand the term 'nano' was yet not invented.

Again, 1000 years ago, a Bible scholar would absolutely disagree with you.

So, there's no consistency in "Biblical Scholarship"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 5:32 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 5:44 PM Nuggin has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1923 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 249 of 336 (637742)
10-17-2011 5:39 PM


Play devil's deciple and assume everything in Genesis is correct. Then measure it against today's accepted science. It will be seen no writings even near its time comes close to correct science, and nothing has ever been disproven. Disregard the insane rebutters who invent antithetical readings - they have all been proven wrong in everything they said of this writings and this continues. This includes the greatest scholars, while the greatest scientific minds have aligned with Genesis in some form!

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1923 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 250 of 336 (637744)
10-17-2011 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Nuggin
10-17-2011 5:36 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
Bacteria. Main articles: Swarming motility and Microbial intelligence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm#Bacteria

Swarming is also used to describe groupings of some kinds of bacteria such as myxobacteria. Myxobacteria swarm together in "wolf packs", actively moving using a process known as bacterial gliding and keeping together with the help of intercellular molecular [[signal trC. Allison and C. Hughes. Bacterial swarming: an example of procaryotic differentiation and multicellular behaviour. Sci. Progress, 75:403–422, 1991. ansduction|signals].[92]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 5:36 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 5:49 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 252 by Percy, posted 10-17-2011 6:15 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 251 of 336 (637746)
10-17-2011 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 5:44 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
Swarming is also used to describe groupings of some kinds of bacteria

Yes, GROUPINGS OF _ANYTHING_.

"some kinds of bacteria" is a subclass of _ANYTHING_.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 5:44 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 252 of 336 (637748)
10-17-2011 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 5:44 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
I assume you're referring to this Biblical passage:

Genesis 1:20 writes:

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”

And you're claiming that the "swarms of living creatures" are nano-life instead of fish, amphibians, crustaceans, etc?

Bacteria are not nano-life. The smallest bacteria are around 300 nanometers, and they can range up to as large as 5000 nanometers. Most people would give the range as .3 to 5 micrometers. Bacteria would be micro-life. Even more accurately, they can be referred to as bacteria.

Swarm can refer to any large closely spaced grouping consisting of anything from atomic particles to stars. Use of the word swarm does not imply anything about the size of the individual elements of the swarm.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 5:44 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 6:24 PM Percy has responded
 Message 261 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 11:27 PM Percy has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1923 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 253 of 336 (637749)
10-17-2011 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Percy
10-17-2011 6:15 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
quote:
can refer to any large closely spaced grouping consisting of anything from atomic particles to stars.

"

Examine your contradictory terms:

quote:

"Use of the word swarm does not imply anything about the size of the individual elements of the swarm."


Swarms can of course relate to small - as in bacteria which is not seen by the naked eye. Bacteria and virus are both identifiable elsewhere in the text, in the case of contagious and infectous maligansies like leprosy, which is both incurable and resultant from life forms too small to see - in ancient times.

The small life forms would have no meaning to an ancient world - it is slanted at this modern generation and very well done. An intelligent reading must factor in how the descriptions suits all generations - a feat in itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Percy, posted 10-17-2011 6:15 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 8:46 PM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 10-17-2011 9:27 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 254 of 336 (637765)
10-17-2011 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 6:24 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
"Use of the word swarm does not imply anything about the size of the individual elements of the swarm."

Swarms can of course relate to small - as in bacteria which is not seen by the naked eye.

You are being dishonest (of course).

His statement is that "swarm" refers to the number and relative density. It does not say anything about the size.

You then respond that "swarm" can be used to describe small things.

Yes. We agree. "Swarm" can be used to describe ANYTHING from bacteria to stars. It's a term that relates to the number of individuals and their relative density.

One bacteria does not make a "swarm".

You are trying to redefine "swarm" to mean "something small". That's bullshit and if you don't know it, then that says something profound about your lack of education.

An intelligent reading must factor in how the descriptions suits all generations - a feat in itself.

Translation: "Anyone at any time decides what the words mean and then claims that that is evidence that the words at the truth."

Tautology much?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 6:24 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 11:10 PM Nuggin has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 255 of 336 (637769)
10-17-2011 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 6:24 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
The same issues that caused your initial misinterpretation are apparently still at work as you attempt to interpret the subsequent clarifying explanations. It almost seems as if the more people explain the worse your understanding becomes. Nuggin and I have done a pretty fair job of explaining how you're misinterpreting swarm. You have to understand the meaning of English words before we can discuss the actual topic.

I don't see why explaining the definition of swarm again would have any better likelihood of success, so I guess I give up, but I suppose this does represent another good example of creationist thinking. You and Robert Byers and Dawn Bertot and others display a profound lack of comprehension skills, and an inability to understand could be considered a type of creationist thinking.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 6:24 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Coyote, posted 10-17-2011 9:47 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019