Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 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)
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 212 of 336 (637573)
10-16-2011 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by IamJoseph
10-16-2011 7:43 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
Show us the Egyptian text listing life form grouping seperations in their correct protocol
First, define "life form grouping seperations in their correct protocol". That's word salad.
The French rock color paintings were exposed as bogus: any intelligent person would have demanded a name of a human or a monument if they were able to perform color illustrations 30,000 years ago. This makes your rejections of my post equally bogus.
In the looooong history of incredibly stupid things Creationists have said, this is perhaps the MOST stupid thing any Creationist has ever said.
Brava!
You claim that the cave paintings are false because no one demanded that their name be put on them?!?!
REALLY?!
First of all, the paintings were done by MULTIPLE people over a LONG period of time.
Second, a hand impression is a signature
Third, they ARE a monument in and of themselves
And lastly, how does this claim make the cave paintings "bogus".
Are you claiming that they were faked? That some crafty scientist in the 70s developed a method to grow crystals at an astonishing rate so as to cover over some art and has kept that methodology absolutely secret by assassinating any scientists who come close to discovering it?
It remains the first advanced alphabetical book despite being surrounded by older and greater nations - that's a big anomaly.
Geez, talk about fail. So, the Hebrew bible is different than the book of the dead because the Hebrew Bible uses alphabetics instead of heiroglyphs. And it's different than cuniform tablets because it's written on goat skin instead of impressed into clay.
Drawing some pretty pathetic distinctions there, aren't you?
The book of the dead is a poem, and full of occultism which has no bearing on science and the modern world today; it is fully disimilar to Genesis and this forum's thread debates today.
Are you saying that the books of the Bible are not poetic?
As far as "no bearing", that's debatable. It's the source of the 10 commandments.
Further, it predates Genesis and mentions the idea of Death making it "the first scientific recording of the concept to death" thus proving that Genesis is not the first scientific recording.
See how easy it is to play this game?
When was medicine seperated from occultism?
With the development of the scientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 7:43 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 8:44 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 214 of 336 (637577)
10-16-2011 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by IamJoseph
10-16-2011 8:44 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
Word salad: life began in water [correct protocol]; next came air-born winged life [correct protocol]; humans are the last grouping [correct protocol];
There is a world of life between "life in water" and "air-born winged life".
Further, humans are not the last thing to evolve. There have been plenty of life forms since man came around.
Second, a hand impression is a signature
No, its not.
Sure it is. If I am an artist and I decide to make a handprint on my art to signify that it is my art, then that is my signature.
If you ask the aboriginal artists who make handprints, they will tell you it is to signify that they were there.
C14 is easilly doctored; contemporary names and events provable of an ancient period are not.
Wow have you got that backwards. Really really backwards.
For this reasoning we know that aboriginals in Australia are not 60,000 years old: it is the caves, not the cave markings, which reflect that conclusion.
You are confusing two different groups both of which predate your Bible, both of which make rock art.
No one is claiming that the aborginies in Australia are the ones responsible for the cave art in France.
Caves?
The art within the cave.
Absolutely. For all the above reasons you have avoided.
You haven't provided any reasons. You have said that a coin is evidence of a temple.
That's not an explanation of how the art work in the caves can be covered by thousands of years worth of crystal formation.
Nor is it an explanation how a cave bear (extinct) could have scratched through artwork which would have had to have been made AFTER the cave bears disappeared.
Come on. I know you're a Creationist and all, but this is particularly pathetic even for you.
the total absence of head butting dieties which seperate these writings.
The Book of Job disputes this claim rather soundly.
One of them nixes image worship and divine kings and professes monotheism of a form never seen anywhere else till today.
Jewish monotheism is based on the Egyptian cult of Akhenaten and Ra worship.
No sir. Taking one's earthly belongings to the grave in a monument which costed 1000's of lives for a divine king is hardly an understanding of death
So, you are now claiming within the same sentence, that only the pharoah can die and that the 1000s of people who died making the monument didn't die because they weren't buried within the monument?!
Does that make sense to you? It sure as fuck doesn't make sense to anyone out here in the real world.
Think treatment, ID, quarantine, burning and seperation of 'infected' and 'contagious' belongs of leprosy, instead of deeming deseases as curses of the gods.
Um, you need to go back and read your Bible.
Are you saying that Exodus does NOT include curses from God on the people of Egypt?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 8:44 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 9:24 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 230 of 336 (637597)
10-17-2011 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by IamJoseph
10-16-2011 9:24 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
Correct. Life forms which creep, where the waters swarm - these precede the winged creatures; and 'swarms' are nano life forms which cannot be seen by the naked eye. We also see that the transit point of life from the oceans to land is in creepings of life forms which extended out between the waters and land [namely 'wherewith']:
This is a lot of arbitrary definitions assigned to not very specific passages. "Swarms" = "nano life forms"? Why not schools of fish? Why not groups of insects?
If I asked a biblical scholar 1000 years ago what "swarms" referred to, he would have answered me with certainty. AND, his certainty would not include any "nano life forms".
So, has the Bible changed?
Has God changed?
Or does the assigned meanings change so that you can pretend that it keeps up with science?
Sure. But if you are already an artist, it infers such artistry is already an established vocation - it means you were not the first artist which popped from nowhere 30, 000 years ago, with the next artist emerging only recenty!
So, you believe that NO ONE has EVER been able to produce ANY work of art without art being their "vocation"?
Laughable.
A coin which mentions the temple and the year and name of the king, in alphabetical hebrew to boot. Not to mention that temple was destroyed by Babylon 600 BCE. This transcends any C14 dating and alledged 30K year paintings.
So, you believe that it is easier to force a change in radioactive decay (something that no one has ever been able to do) than it is for forge a piece of currency (something that people have been doing for as long as there has been currency).
This conversation is turning out to be a great example of "Huge problems with Creationist thinking".
Do you not see any difference between a C14 dating made with the total lack of proof seen with a coin!?
I do. C14 dating can not be faked. Nor can crystal growth rates.
Meanwhile, ANYONE can produce a fake coin.
Its based on the total reversal of Ra and a sun deity referred to as monotheism. Ask the nations of Arabia and Europe why they don't worship Ra and the sun instead. Your not talking science but as a fundamentalist who cannot be touched of his beliefs.
They don't worship Ra because the Romans were particularly good soldiers and Constantine took over the Roman Empire and decided that he would make Religion A the primary religion instead of religion B.
In the meantime, the Sun is actually responsible for everything you see around you.
Got anything the Jewish Wizard can be linked to through actual evidence?
Nope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 9:24 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 4:40 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 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 replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 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 replied

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

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 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 replied

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

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 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 replied

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

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 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 replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 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 replied

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

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(3)
Message 259 of 336 (637782)
10-17-2011 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 11:10 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
IMO, swarms can be any size when seen as identical similar things concentrated together and moving in a singular path - like locusts. However, it is also related to small and specially so when this is emphasized as 'swarms of smarms' and when airborn life cannot be allocated at this phase.
We keep going around and around.
Can you cite ANY other examples in ANY other texts that use the word "swarm" to mean "something small"?
Remember, we aren't looking for the use of the word "swarm" where it's used to mean "lots of" something and the thing happens to be small.
A "swarm" of ants mentioned in some other book is not evidence that swarm means small. It still means "lots".
Your entire argument has been that the use of the word "swarm" in the Bible is evidence that the Bible recorded microscopic life prior to its discovery by people.
But you ALONE are the only one using the word "swarm" in this way. Biblical scholars in the past, certainly didn't use the term this way. Modern day Rabbinical scholars certainly don't use the word this way. All these people are certain about their use of the word.
So, we're left with the impression that you will bend over backwards to redefine (read: make shit up) words to pretend they mean something they don't and then declare that as evidence.
Deep down, you know you are being dishonest.
That is our greatest victory. The fact that you are lying to yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 11:10 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 11:44 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 264 of 336 (637787)
10-17-2011 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 11:44 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
Swarms can refer to bacteria
As we pointed out earlier, swarms refer to a number of individuals in a group.
Swarms of bacteria is not a reference to the size of bacteria. It's a reference to their number.
You need to find a place where the word "swarm" is used in the singular as a description of the size of an object.
"The puppy was a swarm" would be a good example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 11:44 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 12:02 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 267 of 336 (637793)
10-18-2011 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 12:02 AM


Swarms
Swarms can refer to bacteria.
IamJoseph, here's a little tip for debating.
Repeating the EXACT SAME sentence as a response to a post in which I explain why you are wrong is NOT an effective way to win a debate.
Yes, swarms can refer to bacteria. And also comets.
A swarm of bacteria would be a whole lot of bacteria moving around in a relatively high density.
A swarm of comets would be a whole lot of comets moving around in a relatively high density.
Bacteria are very small.
Comets are very large.
Since "swarm" refers to both bacteria and comets equally, "swarm" can not mean "small".
I'm still waiting for you to find "swarm" used to refer to a single small individual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 12:02 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 2:16 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 273 of 336 (637805)
10-18-2011 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 2:16 AM


Re: Swarms
It is you not me repeating the same jorgon
Message #262
Swarms can refer to bacteria
Message #265
Swarms can refer to bacteria.
How exactly is that not "repeating the same jargon?
Swarm: bacteria and any small life forms moving around in a relatively high density
Can there be swarms of locust?
Are locust the size as bacteria?
Can locust be seen by the human eye?
Does "swarm" mean "life forms which can not be seen by the human eye" or does "swarm" mean "something moving around in relatively high density"?
This thread is about why YOU (Creationists) can't be taken seriously as a result of the "HUGE problems" with your thinking.
Trying to redefine a word to make a fairy tale say something other than what it says is at the very least dishonest.
Until you can admit you were wrong, this tread will continue to be about the fact that you are lying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 2:16 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 4:23 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 280 of 336 (637831)
10-18-2011 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 4:23 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:
Male gnats often assemble in large mating swarms or ghosts, particularly at dusk.
For the 5th time.
Yes, "swarm" which means "many things moving around together in close proximity" can be used to describe ANYTHING from something very small to something very big.
Your claim is that "swarm" means "small" not "a group of many things
Every example you have given is swarm being used to mean "a group of many things".
THIS example is "swarm" being used to mean "a group of many things".
The sentence reads: "Male gnats often assemble in a large mating _group of many things_ or ghost, particularly at dusk."
The sentence does not read: "Male gnats often assemble in a large mating _microscopic things_ or ghost, particularly at dusk."
All you've done is prove yourself wrong. AGAIN.
Do you see that?
This whole idea that "swarm of swarms" refers to "Very small things" is bullshit.
It means "a group of many groups of many things".
In other words, if you were at the Barrier Reef in the ocean, there would be a swarm of surgeon fish, a swarm of parrot fish, a swarm of mackrel, a swarm of sardines. There would be swarms of swarms of fish. Many groups of many.
Since swarm has NEVER meant "something small", then swarm of swarm has NEVER meant something very very small.
Continuing to repost examples of you being wrong make me serious wonder if you aren't suffering from some sort of pervasive brain damage.
You posts are a PERFECT example of the "huge problem with creationist thinking" in that you prefer to be dishonest rather than admit you are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 4:23 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:15 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 284 of 336 (637841)
10-18-2011 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 9:19 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.
No, the topic isn't being ignored.
The topic is "Huge problems with Creationist thinking".
A terrific example of a "Huge problem with Creationist thinking" is the trend toward making up new definitions of words in order to pretend that the Bible says something that it clearly doesn't say.
An example of that is your claim that "swarm" means "nano life" instead of "many things in close proximity".
This is my 6th or 7th time confronting you on it.
You have, over the course of many posts, caved to the point where you are now admitting that swarm does mean "many things in close proximity" however you are STILL insisting that it also means "something very small".
I've asked you for evidence 5-6 times. You've failed MISERABLY every time you try and present something.
In fact, every single example you've given has been "swarm" used in the context of "many things".
So, where are YOUR retractions?
There are none. Because you can't admit when you are wrong.
You've been caught in a lie and I sure as shit am not going to let you try and grease your way out of it by playing the "poor Christian card".
You LIED about what the word means and you've been caught. Admit it.
Continuing to LIE about it is just going to make me this go one infinitely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:19 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:34 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 290 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 7:08 PM Nuggin has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024