Tower of Babble (a bunch of baseless babble)

Biblicalists,Why EXACTLY did God object to the tower of babel?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

But why did he do that?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I want to ask this again, what specific criteria did the people building the tower of babel transgress to incur divine intervention?Must've been something.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
show me molecular evolution from single cell to multiple cells. i dare ya. show me it actually happening. dont just give links or say baseless arguments, SHOW ME!! also the bible is fact it is not however a a scientific journal.

​

---

1/ Before I take the time to reply at length, what would you accept as evidence of a transition of single to multicellular organisms?2/ Present evidence of the divine aspects of the bible.You used the word fact. I ask you to use it in the scientific sense, ie show, evidentially, to such a high degree, that it would be unreasonable for me to deny supernatural involvement. Really, KP, this is what it means to call things "fact". If you can't do this, & you still are calling it "fact", alarm bells of unreasonability should be ringing. It means you are claiming something is fact, whilst absolving yourself of the intellectual responsibility to back up that claim to yourself.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
1) actually seeing it occur.
2) intelligent design

​

also its fact because it is recorded history. you cant just say its wrong because its old, on that mentality we couldnt use any history books or previous experiences as usable information.

​

---

1/ As you very well know, evolution is a slow process, & such large changes are not going to take place "before your eyes", again, as you very well know.Did you think it was clever to ask something of evolution that it itself doesn't claim? What have you proved to yourself? It's a bit like me saying I need to see God do a miracle, & nothing else will do. I tell you what, I'll apply the same criteria to the bibles divinity (point 2/) shall I?2/ ID is a conclusion, not evidence. Try again.Also, please produce the independent, unbiased historical records that show the bibles divine nature.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
1/ As you very well know, evolution is a slow process, & such large changes are not going to take place "before your eyes", again, as you very well know.

​

--its not completly ignorant to assume that if evolution occurs so much that we evolved into different species that it would constantly occuring. im sure if you took enough samples under your theory it would provide pure evidence of molecular evolution from single celled to multiple celled organisms.

​

---

And the conclusion would be?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

i mean for all these different organisms with totally different purposes and ways of gaining energy im sure that single celled organisms would still be evolving into multiple celled organisms every so often. unless of course evolution doesnt occur.

---

So, you want a half single celled, half multicelled example, or something similar? If so, please say exactly what you will accept as that example.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

Did you think it was clever to ask something of evolution that it itself doesn't claim? What have you proved to yourself? It's a bit like me saying I need to see God do a miracle, & nothing else will do. I tell you what, I'll apply the same criteria to the bibles divinity (point 2/) shall I?

​

-- evolution doesnt claim molecular evolution? or is every action of a cell visible except evolution from single cell to multiple cell? also your very existence is a miracle; every day you have a good chance of dying. mans ever changing and advancing soceity is definetly a miracle in my eyes.

---

What has molecular evolution got to do with observing macroevolution in our lifetimes? Molecular evolution deals with the evolution of molecules, & has nothing per se to do with single celled to multi celled transitions.I hear the sound of goalposts moving. You wanted to SEE the transition occur, I pointed out to you that evolution claims to moves very slowly, & you will never see a complete transition. As such it was an unfair expectation to challenge evolution on something it never claimed in the first place. Now you are saying something about molecular evolution? What has that got to do with my original contention that evolution never claimed to move fast enough to produce such a transition?Nothing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

2/ ID is a conclusion, not evidence. Try again.
--a conclusion based on facts; like all theories of science

​

---

And if I asked you to produce those facts would they answer my original question? No.I want evidence of the divine nature of the bible, not ID. You said it was fact, I’m asking for the evidence that is required to make it so, stay focussed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

Also, please produce the independent, unbiased historical records that show the bibles divine nature.
--the bible makes several references to its divine nature or am i misundertanding your q?

​

---

The bible isn’t an independent source, it is the document in question. You say the divine nature of the bible is recorded in history, I’m asking for non Christian, non biblical texts to corroborate the bibles divine aspects. The bible can’t do it, it’s circular argument. It would be like saying evolution proves evolution. Or the defendants plea in court must be true because the defendant said so.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
And the conclusion would be?
----evolution should be visible very frequently if it does occur.

​

So, you want a half single celled, half multicelled example, or something similar? If so, please say exactly what you will accept as that example.
---yeah that would be the main part of what i want i want to see. i would want to see before definetly and after would help.

​

---

I shall type this V E R Y S L O W L Y. Macroevolution, which is what you’re talking about, should be observed happening all the time according to you. As I have explained, it occurs very slowly. You will not see generation 1 being entirely different to generation 2. Mutated alleles have to be fixed in populations, & then more build upon them, also to be fixed in populations. As such, in our lifetimes YOU WILL NOT DIRECTLY OBSERVE MACROEVOLUTION.Do you understand the reason why?Seeing a before & after the event isn’t going to happen unless you have a truly large amount of time to play with. You will only ever see a snapshot of macroevolution. This is PREDICTED by the ToE.So, evolution doesn’t say that you will see large scale changes in a few years, OK. So saying that it does is no challenge whatsoever to the ToE.If you want "snapshot" examples, I still ask that you tell me what you would accept as a transition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

​

---i was saying that molecular evolution would have to occur quite a bit and then macroevolution many more times than that. also molecular evolution would have to be spontaneous because it is very very very noticable and a very very large change. creationists are also treated very unfairly, get used to it.

​

---

Molecular evolution doesn’t need to even change the function of the protein, so regarding phenotype, it can, & mostly is, very, very, very, unnoticeable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

And if I asked you to produce those facts would they answer my original question? No.
I want evidence of the divine nature of the bible, not ID. You said it was fact, I’m asking for the evidence that is required to make it so, stay focussed.
---okay

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

​

The bible isn’t an independent source, it is the document in question. You say the divine nature of the bible is recorded in history, I’m asking for non Christian, non biblical texts to corroborate the bibles divine aspects. The bible can’t do it, it’s circular argument. It would be like saying evolution proves evolution. Or the defendants plea in court must be true because the defendant said so.

​

---thats probably almost impossible to find since all the other religions would be completely biased against christianity and only provide evidence against it, not for it. the bible is a collection of experiences from different men, which does help. i dont know of any nonreligous texts dating back to that time.

​

---

Why does an independent historical text have to be another religion? YOU said the bibles divinity was historically verified, not me.So, what you’re saying is, it isn’t verified historically, after all?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
ill say this V E R Y S L O W L Y............ what im saying is show me evolution of a single celled organism to a multiple celled organism.
i dont no of any historical texts that arent biased to a religion that date back to the time of the bible, theyre may be some but i have no idea of where to look for information like that.

​

---

1/ This is like asking to me to show you a liver evolving. It does not test the ToE.2/ Would you then agree there is no independent evidence, historical or otherwise of the divine nature of the bible?If you can't provide this evidence KP, you can't really claim it.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
1) so what did we evolve from? from what i was aware evolution still claimed to have started from single celled primordial goo or did that mechanism change too?

​

2) why does the bible need to have divine nature? its about god written by different men's experiences. thats what it is.

​

---

1/ This has nothing to do with single celled to multicelled transitions.2/ Creation, miracles, God him/herself are divine in nature, if it's not divine, then it s just a book of stories. A book without God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

show me molecular evolution from single cell to multiple cells. i dare ya. show me it actually happening. dont just give links or say baseless arguments, SHOW ME!! also the bible is fact it is not however a a scientific journal.

​

---

I have shown you why your challenge doesn't challenge the ToE, because the ToE never said you can observe such macroevolution.I have asked you for evidence of the divine nature of the bible, & you didn't deliver, despite claiming it was factual.So where does this leave you intellectually? You have no REASON to believe in Gods bible, or that God was involved in it. Don't claim now that it isn't important to have evidence, because your belief is a faith. You have inferred there was evidence, it was important enough for you to mention. I'll leave you to deal with the implications.I do not mean to undermine your faith, just your claims it is evidence based.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"2/ Would you then agree there is no independent evidence, historical or otherwise of the divine nature of the bible?"
--I think that this isn't what you would be looking for, you would be looking to see and test the 'accuracy' and infallability of the bible, as it has falsifications, divine nature does not.
--(added by edit) Potential falsifiability is a key in figuring plausability and validity in scripture. As many people seem to ask many questions that either cannot (or I know of no scientific technique or mechenism by which is testable) be tested or provide potential falsification in the scientific realm. Some of these questions would be like the evidence that can be provided that adam and eve originated in the middle east, or that the tower of babel was the origin of the races, ect.

​

---

Mister Pamboli stole my thunder somewhat. A historical text could be accurate, but if it said at the end "God did miracles", I would expect evidence of it, this aspect would be unsubstantiated until evidence was provided. ONLY evidence of those miracles is evidence of those miracles. Internal consistency elsewhere is means it was proof read, nothing more.Until evidence of the bibles divinity is brought forward, it is a hopeful assumption, not fact.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
Much of the problem here is semantics.
We must define the word "divine" and observe how it was used by, and what it meant to, the people of ancient time.

​

Divine may be used as a noun, a verb or an adjective, and in an informal sense may mean, "guess correctly" (Thorndike Barnhart).

​

Ancient kings, as representatives of the gods, were considered to be gods themselves. The word "divine" was included among their many titles.
The "divine word," was an ultimately reliable message because it came from the highest authority - the government (representative of the deity).
Diviners were people who figured out mysteries. Theirs was an honorable and high paying profession. In today's world, they might have positions in the intelligence service.

​

Whether a Bible qualifies as "divine" depends, in part, on whether it is recognized by the king (authorized version). Changes in the Royal house result in changes to the Bible. [See HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE, by Frederick Fyvie Bruce, Oxford University Press, 1978]

​

In our society (in the absence of a divine king), a Bible's divinity must be judged by how well it explains the mysteries of life, the universe and everything. And as former explanations are shown to be inadequate, the Bible loses some of its "divine" mystique.

​

As regards cosmogony and cosmology, the Bible provides a wonderful peek into the development of popular science, but as a "divine revelation" of the mysteries of the universe, it is obviously dated.

​

---

In this case divine is in the biblical sense, "Gods doing", miracles etc. There really isn't a definition problem here. If you take Gods work out of the bible, it's a story set against a historical background. So the elixir of the bible is God & his work, & this is the very bone of contention that needs evidence to make KPs bible "fact".Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
so if science cant find all the answers and the answers havent been found yet then its incorrect?

​

---

KP, please try to stay focussed. YOU said the bible was fact. I asked you to produce evidence. You didn't, so it isn't, OK?Stop trying to move the goalposts, & confess the supernatatural nature of the bible IS NOT FACT. (Since doctrbill objects to divine)This has NOTHING to do with science.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
There may be some confusion or misunderstanding of what the term implies in reference to the Bible. As far as I can tell, however, the scripture does not describe itself as "divine".

​

---

For divine, read supernatural then. It doesn't matter the argument remains the same.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
Did I miss something? Are you saying that the Bible is supernatural?

​

Never mind. Just read your previous post. Seems I was attempting to persuade the wrong fellow. Sorry about that.

​

--------------
db

​

[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 02-17-2002]

---

db, np.Whatever word you or I end up agreeing on, it has to mean Gods work, miracles etc. I actually don't mind which word. And yes, the bible infers the supernatural, God.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Mister Pamboli stole my thunder somewhat. A historical text could be accurate, but if it said at the end "God did miracles", I would expect evidence of it, this aspect would be unsubstantiated until evidence was provided. ONLY evidence of those miracles is evidence of those miracles. Internal consistency elsewhere is means it was proof read, nothing more.

​

Until evidence of the bibles divinity is brought forward, it is a hopeful assumption, not fact."
--Evidence for divine or supernatural nature is not exactly something your going to be able to look for accept by faith. As the bible could be the most accurate book known to man, but that still does not say the bible was inspired by a divine nature. Evidence of miracles if supplying potential falsification along with experimental and testabillity.

​

---

TC,KP said the bible was fact. He can't prove it, so it isn't.Christians claim the bible was divinely inspired. Their words, not mine.The Koran COULD be the most accurate known to man. If you have no evidence of that accuracy, why believe it?Do you realise how ridiculous a claim is that something "could be the most accurate book". Meaningless.I don't unserstand your last sentence.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.