Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (8962 total)
134 online now:
caffeine, dwise1, GDR, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (6 members, 128 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,207 Year: 2,955/23,288 Month: 1,146/1,809 Week: 265/313 Day: 6/71 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2087 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 261 of 336 (637784)
10-17-2011 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Percy
10-17-2011 6:15 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
I used the term nano life loosely. Its a diversion to focus on this. The point is about transit life forms between species, and this is well catered to in the Genesis texts, including swarms of swarms, creepy crawlies and 'every creature that lives.'

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 281 by Percy, posted 10-18-2011 9:12 AM IamJoseph has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2087 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 262 of 336 (637785)
10-17-2011 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Nuggin
10-17-2011 11:15 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
quote:

Can you cite ANY other examples in ANY other texts that use the word "swarm" to mean "something small"?


Swarms can refer to bacteria - I posted such a rendering. Swarms of swarms' do refer to size.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 11:15 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 11:48 PM IamJoseph has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2087 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 265 of 336 (637790)
10-18-2011 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Nuggin
10-17-2011 11:48 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
quote:

As we pointed out earlier, swarms refer to a number of individuals in a group


Swarms can refer to bacteria. And how come you never picked up this all encompasing statement listed prior to air borne creatures emerging:

quote:

and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 11:48 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 12:52 AM IamJoseph has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2087 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 266 of 336 (637791)
10-18-2011 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Rrhain
10-17-2011 11:47 PM


quote:
You do know what "millennium" means, yes? You do understand that the 5th millennium was before 1000 BCE, yes?

Yes, that is my error. I read as 5th C. There was no alphabetical writings then, but I believe the pyramids are older than 5000 years and these contain earlier writing modes.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
king David has been proven
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, not really.


He is mentioned in a relic 100 years after his death. Even 'House of David' is mentioned, which is a biblical term, as well as a war listed in the book of Kings. Are you saying David is a myth?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it still marks an advanced view placing winged creatures before water borne creatures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is completely backwards from what actually happened. Ergo, the Bible got it wrong.


Life started in water; next up is air borne life. This is correct, nor is the premise of making such a claim anything less than astounding for its time.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How did those ancient people determine such stuff - wiki!?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know of no ways in which stories are created? The only two ways are to witness it directly and to reference what someone else said?


You have no proof of your claim, which says it is without any merit and made only to reject as a predisposition, which is a wiodespread syndrome but not a legitimate one.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this event 'proves' the Hebrew bible predates 586 BCE by centuries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except it doesn't. Too many references to events that happened after then (such as cities that didn't exist until the first or second century BCE) as well as linguistic constructs that wouldn't come into play until hundreds of years after what you claim.


Does this apply also to a temple which was destroyed, listed in numerous books made before this date!?

quote:

There is history to be found in the Bible. However, it is not the history you want to learn.


We do need to learn it - it is indispensible: a host of primodial factors depend on it, and these are not found anywhere else. The origins of three religions depend on Abraham and Moses being credible entities else they fall in a heap, and this is derived exclusively from the Hebrew bible. Genesis stands in the face of all notions of human history as a yard stick - significantly, we have no 'name' older than Adam; the first 'king' is listed here as well as the first human cencus. Ancient names listed in the geneologies in Genesis are today used by archeology to verifiy dates. There is no other writings more important or offers more to learn from: name one?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Rrhain, posted 10-17-2011 11:47 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by bluescat48, posted 10-18-2011 1:00 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 269 by Rrhain, posted 10-18-2011 1:09 AM IamJoseph has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2087 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 271 of 336 (637800)
10-18-2011 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Nuggin
10-18-2011 12:52 AM


Re: Swarms
It is you not me repeating the same jorgon and hyping up some self imposed negation here. I already responded with an example from a major dictionary. Swarm: bacteria and any small life forms moving around in a relatively high density - or in one tragectory. This is very apt with throngs of small life of all kinds leaving the oceans, excluding winged life forms at this time.

Aside from this, I also posted the verse which applies to all life, as well as shown how these are listed in the text as transit life forms. You should have retracted or dropped your obsessive rejections long ago.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 12:52 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 2:40 AM IamJoseph has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2087 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 272 of 336 (637802)
10-18-2011 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by bluescat48
10-18-2011 1:12 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
Take a look:

quote:
The First Temple was totally destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE when they sacked the city.[4] According to the Book of Ezra, construction of the Second Temple was authorized by Cyrus the Great and began in 538 BCE, after the fall of the Babylonian Empire the year before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_in_Jerusalem


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by bluescat48, posted 10-18-2011 1:12 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by bluescat48, posted 10-18-2011 6:03 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2087 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 275 of 336 (637809)
10-18-2011 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Rrhain
10-18-2011 1:09 AM


quote:
Well, no, they're not, but that's beside the point (and if they are, there goes the global flood...there's no flood damage to the pyramids.) Hebrew is alphabetic.

Get yourself some books which are independent of European descriptions of history pre-2000! You have listed another reason which proves my assertion the flood was a regional one, the animals were domestic and limited to Noah's possessions [the texts!]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is mentioned in a relic 100 years after his death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, he's not.

Hint: This is where you mention the item you are referring to. I'm pretty sure I know which one you mean, but you have to go first. You're the one making the claim.


"HOUSE OF DAVID" is in the text of the Tel Dan relic and not open to any other reading.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying David is a myth?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm saying we have no real evidence for his existence. That doesn't mean he didn't exist, but he certainly didn't the way you think he did.


That is dishonest if not cowardly. Your answer in backing away when you should not do so is not credible here.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life started in water; next up is air borne life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the Bible has it the other way around: Airborne life is described as coming first when it was the other way around. It also describes terrestrial plants coming first and that's even more ass backwards.


No sir! Check:

quote:
'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open

In fact, the order of life is listed with greater credibility than any other scientific treatise today, and goes like this:

1. Light [universael action]
2. Seperation of light and darkness [universal action]
Next we zoom into life-anticipatory actions for the earth:
3. Critical Seperation of day and night by the action of focusing light and darkness on earth to suit numerous life forms which would come forth. [solar action]
Critical Earth actions:
4. Seperation of water from land.
5. vegetation.
6. Water life.
7. Airborne life
8. Land based life.
9. Speech endowed humans.
10. All creation ceased and completed; it was not extended and no creation of new stuff occured since then;this includes a song someone composes - its not new. ['There is nothing new'].

Remove anything from that list and life would not occur. Hello Darwin!

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have no proof of your claim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice try, but you're the one with the burden of proof. I don't have to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 in order to show that they don't equal 5. It would certainly be nice, but it isn't a requirement.


That is another way of saying you have no proof - of a statement you made here. There is a host of evidences which affirm the writings of the Hebrew bible - these are always avoided by anti-creationists. The Hebrew writings is in fact the most believable and vindicated humanity possesses - no other writings have been as much proven by archeology, to the extent it is varied from the much later Gospels in kind than degree. Yet it is questioned the most!

quote:

Since the Bible's description of the order of creation is not in agreement with the way life actually progressed, it is your burden to describe how they can be reconciled since you are the one claiming they can.

There is in fact no alternatives to how it is listed in Genesis. You have not given one.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this apply also to a temple which was destroyed, listed in numerous books made before this date!?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except there aren't any such references. This would be where you lay your cards on the table. You're the one making the claim. You're the one who needs to prove it.


One would think a debate would not refute what religionists do with each other - but we find that anti-religionists have become just another fundy Talibanic styled religion! The first temple needs no proof - I mentioned it to point out the five Hebrew books had to predate the temple, which is a result of those books' advocations, making all arguements about claims about datings as bogus.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do need to learn it - it is indispensible: a host of primodial factors depend on it, and these are not found anywhere else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The identical case exists for the Iliad and the Odyssey. Why do you accept the divine claims of one set of books and not another?


Because one marks the antithesis of the other;the Hebrew writings stands alone in changing the ancient world; it KO'd the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans. The Illiad is 100% mythical stuff of head butting deities, is post-Mosaic, and even its later dating is disputed and claimed as bits added to by a host of writers. It exposes the utter dishonesty and guile of anti-creationists

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The origins of three religions depend on Abraham and Moses being credible entities else they fall in a heap
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why does that matter? Are you saying that if a lot of people believe in a dumb thing, that makes it not a dumb thing?


Monotheism and Creation are not dumb things - there are no alternatives to it today, even when it is one of only two possibilities how the universe emerged. The point remains these are the most impacting factors of humanity today - by period of time, impact and cencus. Just about every law in every institution in the west is based on the 613 laws of the Hebrew bible. None come from another source.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
significantly, we have no 'name' older than Adam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Hindu would have something to say about that, seeing as how it's older than Judaism and its writings predate the Bible.


Yes, its older and also very great. But not older than the retrospective datings of Genesis. We still have no Hindu name older than Adam.

quote:

And by the way: "Adam" isn't a name.


Yes and no. In chapter one, it refers to the head of a specie, namely a human. There was no requirement of a name when only one human existed. But it becomes a name in chapter two, even mentioning the word 'NAME' for the first tme and aligned with Adam - when Eve appeared.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the first 'king' is listed here as well as the first human cencus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except they're not.


Nimrod. And the first scientific cencus refers to the Israelites in the desert, listed with sub-totals, gender and ages, in the millions. This is important for evaluating human populations in ancient times.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ancient names listed in the geneologies in Genesis are today used by archeology to verifiy dates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, not really. A couple, but only because we were able to validate their existence outside of the Bible]


Its the other way around. The name Adam [of the earth] does not appear elsewhere, nor a host of names in the geneology of Adam's tree, like Cain, Able, Noah, Shem, Ham, etc. All the names are authentic of its period - which is a mark of its accuracy.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no other writings more important or offers more to learn from: name one?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've named two and hinted at a third source. Have you read them?


Please repeat them.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Rrhain, posted 10-18-2011 1:09 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by bluescat48, posted 10-18-2011 6:16 AM IamJoseph has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2087 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 276 of 336 (637810)
10-18-2011 3:27 AM


How about this as a close off to "Topic: My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism) "

There is no problem, never mind 'huge', and these have been well squashed. There is no alternative to Creationism from a scientific POV; none came forth to name one - which is incumbent to do so.


IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2087 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 277 of 336 (637813)
10-18-2011 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Nuggin
10-18-2011 2:40 AM


Re: Swarms
Your list ignores the responses I gave, with links. Swarms can aso be applied to small things, while swarms of swarms refer to very small things. Here's another:

quote:

A gnat ( /ˈnæt/) is any of many species of tiny flying insects in the Dipterid suborder Nematocera, especially those in the families Mycetophilidae, Anisopodidae and Sciaridae.

In British English the term applies particularly to Nematocerans of the family Culicidae. The common gnat is the species Culex pipiens.[1]

Male gnats often assemble in large mating swarms or ghosts, particularly at dusk.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnat


I also responded such obsessive posts from you have nothing to do with the fact water borne life came before air borne life, and that is introduced in Genesis. You are a time waster.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 2:40 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 9:08 AM IamJoseph has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2087 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 282 of 336 (637835)
10-18-2011 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Nuggin
10-18-2011 9:08 AM


Re: Swarms
My claim is not that swarms means small only. I explianed this numerously. It can rfer to any size of a multitude of items hurling in one trajectory. Swairm of swarms defines the size in this instant, as well as the cntext.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 9:08 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 9:44 AM IamJoseph has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2087 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 283 of 336 (637837)
10-18-2011 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Percy
10-18-2011 9:12 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
Yes, the topic is ignored, as always with some posters who avoid numerous factors and focus on hyping up miniscule items as great errors. No retractions come from these posters when all their deflections are rebuffed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Percy, posted 10-18-2011 9:12 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 9:24 AM IamJoseph has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2087 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 285 of 336 (637843)
10-18-2011 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by bluescat48
10-18-2011 6:16 AM


quote:

One problem is that the term vegetation is vague.

Here we go again! Read the text, There is no confusion a host of vegetation, shurbs and sprouting kinds, are mentioned first.

Unlike Darwin, Genesis does cater to the sustainance of life forms with anticipatory pre-actions: the veg get the sun and water; the animated life forms get their sustainance from meat also. The premise is:

THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS.

ToE allocated the greatest wisdom behind complex life and their emergence to a mindless, fictional old man with a white beard called nature. None have seen this deity.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by bluescat48, posted 10-18-2011 6:16 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by bluescat48, posted 10-18-2011 7:48 PM IamJoseph has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2087 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 286 of 336 (637846)
10-18-2011 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Nuggin
10-18-2011 9:24 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
Your quite crazy. Swarms are not defined by size at all. Anything can be swarms, bees and spaceships. The mode of movement and multitudes [bulk movements] better describe swarms. I gave you two links showing that.

At least admit you error that the first listing of species is in Genesis, before obsessing what swarms of swarms emerging from the oceans mean, specially when the context is of life form origins and how they graduate to the next specie threshold. There is no other reading of this - name one?

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 9:24 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 9:50 AM IamJoseph has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2087 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 290 of 336 (637917)
10-18-2011 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Nuggin
10-18-2011 9:24 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
quote:
An example of that is your claim that "swarm" means "nano life" instead of "many things in close proximity".


This was never the issue, you made it your flagship, ignoring everything else the debate was about: this seems your agenda throughout all your postings in this thread. Swarms of life forms swarming in the waters is of course not the issue; swarms of life forms, small or very small or very large, is a factual item, as is the case with water life appeared before air borne life. Just because this is first listed in Genesis which you run away from, does not mean you are countering it.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 9:24 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 9:38 PM IamJoseph has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2087 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 291 of 336 (637918)
10-18-2011 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Nuggin
10-18-2011 9:50 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
quote:
There is no listing of species in Genesis at all.


Correct. That's why it is an authentic text affirming its period of listing. The term specie is of recent vintage [Hello!?]; but the listing of life form groupings by terrain and habitat is not recent. That life emerged in water is also not of recent vintage but introduced in a text which does not mention specie!

If you look carefully, the word SCUD MISSILES also do not appear in Genesis.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 9:50 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020