Is the Bible the Word of God?

[QUOTE][b]Actually ice is one of the few solids that is less dense than its liquid state...[/QUOTE][/b]Ouch...sorry about that. I forgot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Ouch...sorry about that. I forgot.

---

Thats ok pal you caught me on the need for incident radiation earlier.....*red, Cobra take note what you just saw was on a very low level peer review......I am ideologicaly aligned with gene in this argument however we feel obliged to point out any falacies or missing conditions from each others arguments....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 02-07-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Doesn`t really matter though does it they believe in God and thus get to play the I go to heaven regardless of my actions card, just as Hitler and the KKK do, Me I`m off to hell by your rules and to be frank I think I will find a better class of person there.....

---

Yeah, I can't walk on gold floors anyway, I have an allergic reaction, it makes my skin go green (she said the ring was gold anyway).And all those sins that are now allowed, fornication outside of wedlock, &....., well, fornication outside of wedlock!! (there's no fornication inside of wedlock, it's until death do you part, remember!)There's gambling too! Though I'm just using matches when Lucifer plays a hand............Man, I hope Jack Daniels is down there too........ Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Man, I hope Jack Daniels is down there too........

---

he is if gods real name is Allah....

In that case,the words FUTUR mate would have been the accurate appelation...besides,at no place in the Bible is there any mention of Noah taking BABIES on board with him...the fact that the animals came to him and that they were refered to as MATES clearly implies that they were all adults. Some animals like turtles do have instinctive knowledge but most require adult supervision...especially animals who do not have more than a few cubs per birth. and frogs are not reptiles BTW...they're amphibians.As for Hitler,my point was not that he was a typical christian but that Hovind completely eclipsed the fact that he was christian born and raised and that he mentionned GOD as his inspiration in Mein Kaft,not evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
suspended no in orbit yes if it was a complete canopy of ice it would be a sphere with an axis of rotation at the points on the sphere near the axis of rotation the ice wouldn`t be moving fast enough to avoid gravitational collapse to a lower orbit (read as the surface of the earth) thus busting the canopy ....

​

*note* - claiming that it wouldn`t rotate merely spreads the problem of gravitational collapse to the whole structure...

​

*note* - this collapse would happen very quickly certainly to soon for all the pre flood events in the bible....

---

*also note that if the sphere were spinning any faster than necessary for the plane perpendicular to the rotational axis to form an orbit the material in this plane would be thrown up into a higher obit.*If the sphere were spinning at the correct obital velocity for the perpendicular plane then anything not in that plane would gravitationaly collapse....

[b] [QUOTE] gene90:
Because more transitionals are being found and there is no evidence that they are hoaxes. Just because you might find a three legged cat does not mean all cats have three legs, and the reasoning you are using here is unfounded and ridiculous.redstang281:
Scientist have created fraudulant fossils in the past, so I have no reason to trust them now.
[/b][/QUOTE]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------And yet you have no problem with the DEMONSTRATED dishonesty of certain YECists.
Why do you not hold YECies to the same standard you pretend to hold for mainstream science ?
I suppose, as long as one is lying for Christ — then being a liar is OK with you.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[b] [QUOTE] gene90:
Again, what makes us think they are a hoax, other than your unfounded belief that evolution is wrong?redstang281:
Because of the high demand for scientist to find transitionally fossils. As soon as one is found the scientist is instantly famous. It's like the temptation for athletes to take steroids.
[/b][/QUOTE]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Actually you have it backwards. Again. (Surprise!)
Any Scientist who could provide evidence to convincingly OVERTURN the ToE would be the most famous and highly sought scientist in the world.So what is this ‘demand for scientist to find transitionally [sic] fossils’ ?
Field paleontologists who find fossil evidence that is consistent with the ToE may make headlines in scientific journals but not much attention will be paid from the general public. However, if one finds the fossil that falsifies the ToE, she will make the front page on every new paper and be guesting every cable program on TV.Kind Regards,

"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: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: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

quote:

---

AND again like the Lord God, Baiame walked on the earth he had made, among the plants and animals, and created man and woman to rule over them. He fashioned them from the dust of the ridges, and said,
'These are the plants you shall eat--these and these, but not the animals I have created.'

​

Having set them in a good place, the All-Father departed.

​

To the first man and woman, children were born and to them in turn children who enjoyed the work of the hands of Baiame. His world had begun to be populated, and men and women praised Baiame for providing for all their needs. Sun and rain brought life to the plants that provided their sustenance.

---

--Chineese
--High Speed Internet | Business Phone | Syracuse, Utica, Oneida, Rome

quote:

---

The king was puzzled and asked, "Why don't you eat? Is it because I failed to keep my promise of marrying a dog?" To his surprise Pan Gu began to speak. "Don't worry, my King. Just cover me with your golden bell and in seven days and seven nights I'll become a man." The King did as he said, but on the sixth day, fearing he would starve to death, out of solicitude the princess peeped under the bell. Pan Gu's body had already changed into that of a man, but his head was still that of a dog. However, once the bell was raised, the magic change stopped, and he had to remain a man with a dog's head.

​

He married the princess, but she didn't want to be seen with such a man so they moved to the earth and settled in the remote mountains of south China. There they lived happily and had four children, three boys and a girl, who became the ancestors of mankind.

---

--Choctaw

quote:

---

At the beginning there was a great mound. It was called Nanih Wiya. It was from this mound that the Creator fashioned the first of the people. These people crawled through a long, dark cave into daylight. They became the first Choctaw.

---

--Comanche

quote:

---

One day the Great Spirit collected swirls of dust from the four directions in order to create the Comanche people. These people formed from the earth had the strength of mighty storms. Unfortunately, a shape-shifting demon was also created and began to torment the people. The Great Spirit cast the demon into a bottomless pit. To seek revenge the demon took refuge in the fangs and stingers of poisonous creatures and continues to harm people every chance it gets.

---

--Dingueno

quote:

---

"We are going to dig in the ground and find mud to make the first people, the Indians." So he dug in the ground and took mud to make the first men and the first women. He made the men easily, but he had much trouble making women. It took him a long time. After the Indians, he made the Mexicans and finished all his making. He then called out very loudly, "People, you can never die and you can never get tired, so you can walk all the time." But then he made them sleep at night, to keep them from walking in the darkness. At last he told them that they must travel toward the East, where the sun's light was coming out for the first time.

---

-- 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: 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: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: 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: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: 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: 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: 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: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: 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.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: 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: 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: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: 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: 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: 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.------------------

"I understand that you dont have a problem with the "goddidit" approach to explain just about everything,like most creationists...but thats not science i'm sorry to say. As for the canopy theory,yes it would deflect many of the harmfull rays of the sun but also most of the beneficial rays as well...the earth wouldn't be a greenhouse,it would be a highly pressurized meatlocker. On the talkorigin site,someone has estimated that a water canopy that would account for the alledged flood would have multiplied the weight of the atmosphere by 9,effectively crushing anything living on the planet."
--Actually it would be multiplied by a factor of 2, the effects of the water canopy would have been estimated by the amount and thickness, as I stated before, and I can almost truely assume without reading the article, that they assume that we account this water as a portoin of flood water. You would have to display exactly why it would have been a meet locker, and not act almost as if it were a magnifying glass.------------------

Mabye some people don't realize exactly how many people attempt to do the same think you seem as you portray would 'love to do'. To tell you the truth, after seeing his debates, It would be histarical to see an amature get into the ring. I think that Hovind does present some pretty erroneous claims in his seminars, but we should also notice, that his seminars were made years ago, in the midst of the internet 'bomb'. As for your comment regarding me re-interpereting it to mean what I want it to mean, advision is suggested on not using this claim, as you have yet to defend it.------------------

"So, the ToE ISN'T based on "pure faith", as you would like to believe."
--As a debater and discusser of the topic, I would be to believe that it isn't based on faith, but still not the best answer, is that it is based on indirect evidence, that is, a past deposition, we can only examine and dicree a plausable explination for the indications we find throughout the fossil record, genetics, and the like.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I understand that you dont have a problem with the "goddidit" approach to explain just about everything,like most creationists...but thats not science i'm sorry to say. As for the canopy theory,yes it would deflect many of the harmfull rays of the sun but also most of the beneficial rays as well...the earth wouldn't be a greenhouse,it would be a highly pressurized meatlocker. On the talkorigin site,someone has estimated that a water canopy that would account for the alledged flood would have multiplied the weight of the atmosphere by 9,effectively crushing anything living on the planet."
--Actually it would be multiplied by a factor of 2, the effects of the water canopy would have been estimated by the amount and thickness, as I stated before, and I can almost truely assume without reading the article, that they assume that we account this water as a portoin of flood water. You would have to display exactly why it would have been a meet locker, and not act almost as if it were a magnifying glass.

​

---

Well for one thing,ice thats more than a few centimeters think is never fully transparent like glass...its filled with cracks,twists and swirls as well as many air pockets that completely bend the light traversing it. Unless you can readily demonstrate that ice back then obeyed to different laws of physics,i think its safe to assume that a bubble of ice would have been the same. Furthermore,some folks,dont remember which ones today were explaining that ice so close to the sun cant last long in space without being vaporized. About the weight of the atmosphere,yes i believe that they do assume that the alledged canopy accounted for part of the alledged worldwide flood...So does Gish,Hovind and a myriad of other creationists. Perhaps you need to have a few arguments with them as well because many of your views are not shared by them anymore than by me. Hovind,for instance,tolerates no interpretation to the Bible...to him,heart does mean heart and he was quite clear on this throughout his seminars.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
Furthermore,some folks,dont remember which ones today were explaining that ice so close to the sun cant last long in space without being vaporized.

---

thats quite apart from the problems of gravitational collapse....

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
suspended no in orbit yes if it was a complete canopy of ice it would be a sphere with an axis of rotation at the points on the sphere near the axis of rotation the ice wouldn`t be moving fast enough to avoid gravitational collapse to a lower orbit (read as the surface of the earth) thus busting the canopy ....

​

*note* - claiming that it wouldn`t rotate merely spreads the problem of gravitational collapse to the whole structure...

​

*note* - this collapse would happen very quickly certainly to soon for all the pre flood events in the bible....

​

*also note* If the sphere were spinning any faster than necessary for the plane perpendicular to the rotational axis to form an orbit the material in this plane would be thrown up into a higher obit.

​

*and*If the sphere were spinning at the correct obital velocity for the perpendicular plane then anything not in that plane would gravitationaly collapse....

---

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 02-07-2002]

"If Noah had taken babies on board the ark with him,the word "mate" would be quite innacurate...babie animals have no mate,thats a basic principle of zoology."
--Right, mate isn't the right word, as it isn't the literal meaning."Furthermore,animals dont come programmed with all the knowledge they require to survive. They have to be taught certain things by their parents and require protection from other animals...that too is a basic principle of Biology...Who would have taught the animals what kind of food was good for them,how to recognize dangerous animals,and so on to the babies that supposadly came on the ark?"
--For one, Noah didn't snatch them from the mommies canal right after it popped out and threw it on the ark, the baby could have been at a somewhat mature age, a couple months to a couple years old. And being not as specialized in their diet, it would have been less of a factor. They would have recognized the dangers of various animals a little bit after the Flood when God gave his creatures the right to eat meat and be omnivorous/carniverous. When they saw them comeing, they would get out of there, and thus, spread over the planet."And also,dinosaurs,being reptiles,attain maturity within a year...that means that even if Noah had taken babies diplodocus on the ark with him,he would have had fully grown diplodocus by the time he got off the ark."
--Oh my goodness, to reach a full grown size (actually there isn't one for reptiles) for any dinosaur in a year, implying that full grown is the equivelant of the multi-ton animal, you would have to increase celluar replication million/billion fold! Also, as I stated reptiles don't really have a full grown state, repitles such as iguanas and other lizards, thus including dinosaurs, do not stop growing, dinosaurs could have just been overgrown lizards in unique characteristics, assuming it was the other way around, say one type of dinosaur didn't die out and was still abundant today, and the komodo dragon were the extinct one, the komodo would have been just as amazing as the rest of the dinosaurs."And since these animals would have been fed by men most of their lives,there is no way that they couldn't have learned to survive on their own in what would have been,lets face it,a completely different world that what they left behind when they alledgedly went on the ark."
--How could they not adapt after the flood, they were not as specialized and thus could attain more environmental pressure than today for many of the kinds, wherever one prey migrated, the predator would follow its migratory pattern.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
1)They would have recognized the dangers of various animals a little bit after the Flood when God gave his creatures the right to eat meat and be omnivorous/carniverous.

​

2)Oh my goodness, to reach a full grown size (actually there isn't one for reptiles) for any dinosaur in a year, implying that full grown is the equivelant of the multi-ton animal, you would have to increase celluar replication million/billion fold! Also, as I stated reptiles don't really have a full grown state, repitles such as iguanas and other lizards, thus including dinosaurs, do not stop growing,

​

3)assuming it was the other way around, say one type of dinosaur didn't die out and was still abundant today, and the komodo dragon were the extinct one, the komodo would have been just as amazing as the rest of the dinosaurs.

---

Just a few quick points.1)I thought you lot said animals started eating each other after adam and eve ate the fruit..... Bit befor3e noah that wasn`t it?2)I assume you are saying you would have to increase the replication rate that much to attain sizes that we see evidence of in fossils (given that they had no maximum size) in this case a factor of millions/billions would suggest the examples that we find fossils of lived to ages between 10^6 and 10^9 years, Given your assertion of a 6,000 year old universe how?3)Not really dinosaurs predominantly walked on 2 legs rather than 4, if say Allosaurs existed today they would be conspicuous as being the only lizards that walked on 2 legs.......quite apart from the "oh shit its the size of a small house and it wants to eat me" factor.......