Shokushu
Except it's not. These are examples of the actions of God. You see what's moral because he's doing it, and you know who he is based on what he does.
Uh, no. Just because somebody does something in the Bible doesn't mean it's a moral thing to do. Sometimes, what's written in the Bible is there because it happened. No reason, no moral. Just a telling of something that happened. Don't overanalyze too much when not necessary.
Shokushu
Oh wow, those were all so unconvincing I thought you hadn't even started trying to defend it.
Reason any of them are unconvincing? You will tell yourself what the truth REALLY is and nothing anybody says will ever change your mind. This is called being close minded. Something Christians get accused of being, even though atheists are probably the most closeminded people I've met. NOTHING would convince you, becuase your brain will not allow you to think maybe you're mistaken about something. I was a psychology major (before changing majors) so I know a few things about how the mind works.
Shokushu
Most people in history didn't have the option of not being creationist. The literal interpretations of the whole thing we see from modern creationists are fairly new though, and a result of various spiritual thinkers realizing that belief was on the decline- they decided to create that whole "fundamentalism" view we see today to reinvigorate the belief, and I guess it worked.
It's not as new as you think, buddy. A common mantra of atheists is that people were primative back then, and now we're in the age of enlightenment so we know better. The fact is, that's just not true. People are more or less the same today as yesterday, and there is very little new today that wasn't there back then (Ecclesiastes 1:10). There were as many non-believers per capita back then as they are now. I'm sorry, most atheists like to believe they are more intelligent today than anyone was back then, but that's simply not true.
Shokushu
But no, the Bible is talking about a flat Earth. This is obvious. To me that's just a particularly old story handed down through an oral tradition and as they started to come into the knowledge that circles better described the Earth they couldn't just update it- the language was all wrong by that point.
Uh, no. That's not true at all. Just about everyone knew the earth was round. I know, atheists love to believe the Jews / Christians all believed the earth was flat, but I'm sorry, real history just doesn't match up to the atheist mantra.
Shokushu
We've been over this. If it was a miracle then you need to account for the moral it teaches or why it was important to God. Since you can't that's not a ******** miracle, some dude thought that was how he got the goofy looking cattle after they were taken away from him and wrote it down that way. This makes sense if there was trickery involved and the jerk wasn't going to tell how he got them so that people would give up on trying to take them away. Throw on some of the usual exaggeration and embellishments and they go from something like curly hair to zebra stripes and polka dots.
So a miracle requires a moral now? Wow. Maybe you should tell all the Biblical scholars so they'll know this too. Although what you suggested could be a possibility. Jacob WAS a trickster and a deceiver, and one possibility I read online somewhere is that Jacob did the thing with the sticks so anyone spying for Laban wouldn't know what the truth is. Seems possible, but I guess we'll never know for sure.
Shokushu
Yes, but it didn't change and the Jews didn't play with so much rabbit s**t that they could tell there was undigested food in it. Rabbit pellets just look like s**t. What a ruminant pukes buck into their jaw looks like they haven't finished digesting the food, much less taking ANY of the water and nutrients out of it. You're out of your mind if you think they used the same word for both of those things.
I don't play with dog droppings either, but I notice they leave behind some undigested food and other materials they didn't digest, which is why my dog tries to eat it (and therefore why I have to brush its teeth a lot). You just have to keep in mind what we mean by cud now, may not be the same thing it means today. Things could have been defined differently.
Shokushu
Quote:
Okay... it's a bird. An ancient bird that's dead. What about it?
It's an obvious dinosaur. Birds clearly come from a nearby branch of dinosaurs.
Uh, no. They don't "clearly" come from dinosaurs. You don't turn scales into feathers and say "Okay, now it's a bird." There are MANY differences between dinosaurs and birds. Feathers and wings don't give a creature power to fly, but the whole bird's body is designed for flight. Bird bones are hollow and very light. To become a bird, a dinosaur would a) have to have its front legs change into wings. b) have scales turn into feathers c) lighten its body enough so the wings can create enough lift to fly.... all three are evolutionary disadvantages btw.
Shokushu
I'm guessing you're going to try and argue that evolution on that scale doesn't happen (very anti-science of you,)
So it's unscientific of me to not believe something we dont' observe, test, study, or have any real evidence for? Is that what you're saying? So I guess science now involves "Just believe what we tell you and don't argue against it" now, huh? Man, I'm sure glad it's not your decision as to what science really is.
Shokushu
but if you really want to go down that road I can dig up a whole shitload of facts that you're not going to be able to counter- at least without being blatantly anti-science about it.
Challenge accepted. Though it sounds like YOU get to decide what is scientific and what isn't. I don't go by YOUR definition of science (which seems to be "believe we all evolved from a common ancestor or you're wrong."
wink . I go by what we can actually observe, test, study.... you know, the REAL evidence.
Shokushu
No, they don't mean the ground/planet. They mean it's sitting on ******** pillars.If you think that everybody else knew the Earth was a sphere then these two were just stupid. The metaphor doesn't even begin to work if you understand that people can live on the bottom of the Earth without falling off and it's a hell of a stretch at that point as well.
If I get a time machine, I'll go back in time and tell them what they meant so they can know too. In the meantime, yes, the verse DOES talk about the foundation of the earth. They knew people were on the other side of the earth, but they were not talking about planet earth. They were talking about the ground we're standing on. Earth refers to the ground, not just the planet. Oh wait, I forgot.... YOU make up the definitions now and the people that write the dictionary are all wrong.
Shokushu
Quote:
Okay, so you don't think Jews saw ships sink below the horizon? They lived next to the Mediteranean Sea. They would have seen this too. They also had exposure to other cultures, who also knew the earth was round. Nobody back then believed the earth to be flat. A simple look at the sky could tell you it's round. Yes, the Jews knew the earth is round.
They were xenophobic though. Doing the whole animal husbandry thing and being shocked by those crazy city folk that figured out crops better and earlier than the Jews. They eventually conquered enough of the local tribes to have their own cities but that was well after they had these backwards ideas stuck in the verbal tradition.
Very amusing story, but just doesn't match up to history. The Israellites already knew about tending to crops and such. It's even written in the Torah, which came before they conquered any lands. Ah, nevermind. I forgot, you don't care about facts as much as having the atheist mantras in your head you want to have going such as them being the only people who thought the earth was flat. Why do you cover your ears here and reject the possibility you might be wrong?
Shokushu
I'm making the story be consistent. If you can't find a floating olive branch THEN it must have all been buried. Floods do deposit a whole lot of slimy crap and sediment as they recede but altogether it doesn't make much sense when you try to work in fossils.
Okay... so by that logic, if I go to the beach, and I don't see an iceberg out in the ocean, does that mean there are none in the ocean? Maybe it could be..... somewhere else in the ocean? Same thing here. The dove didn't see anything the first time. That olive branch was somewhere else. Keep in mind, there's a week's time between flights and the ark would drift thanks to worldwide ocean currents and such.
Shokushu
As for incomplete skeletons (and your odd definition of humanist- what do you think that means?) that's because most corpses get picked apart by scavengers.
Humanist: The belief that there is no God, so we humans must be God. That's where the term comes from... though I don't know who made the term up. Anyways, yes, if an animal dies, first scavangers come along (vultures, dogs, etc), then things like ants and maggots... then the elements wash them away.
Shokushu
If we had 50 days of rain you'd think tons of animals would get buried whole in mudslides and the like. I could picture a lot of bloated corpses floating around if the water was calm enough to not sink them but either way these would pretty much end up buried whole as well- if you think dinosaurs were around at that point then they would be big enough to pop from internal decomposition but that couldn't account for things like monkey skeletons being scattered just as often.
Okay, if bloated corpses float around on the ocean surface, they'd get picked apart by sharks and things like that... as well as bacteria and also get ripped apart by waves and such. And perhaps some dinosaurs DID pop from things like decomposition and other natural processes such as waves. Have you ever noticed, we almost NEVER find a complete skeleton in nature?
Shokushu
Quote:
Hmmm reading this passage, it still looks like it's referring to the fact that people can't move the earth. It doesn't say the earth doesn't move. It says the earth can not be moved... as in we can't move the earth. Then again, Chuck Norris wasn't around at this time
razz No, people can move it easily with shovels or plows. Pick up big chunks of it to move around.
They're not talking about people being unable to move it and you've got to be really doing some mental gymnastics to make yourself think they were.
No mental gymnastics are needed. Just some reading of the whole passage instead of just picking a verse and taking it out of context. The planet can not be moved. If it's not talking about the planet, then the ground beneath you can not be moved... well some parts of it can be moved, but the ground will always still be underneath you. Again, you are trying to overanalyze something that's not even being said.
Shokushu
They didn't have multiple words for it because they didn't understand that there was a difference between what clouds move through and what planets move through, nor that stars were particularly large or all that far away.
You have to discard the Biblical explanation of the sky if you want to accept science.
No, they didn't have multiple words for it cause they didn't need them. Firmament was anything above you, basically.... just like we say "love" to mean brotherly love, romantic love, or family love. NOW we have different words for it, but back then, they didn't need to. They just used it to mean anything we see in the sky. I DON'T have to abandon anything in the Bible to accept science, but that attitude right there is the reason why a lot of Christians reject science... because people like YOU tell them they have to. Not cause they want to, but because you keep telling them they have to. THIS is very detremental to science, as it causes science to lose a lot of great minds.
Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
It SAYS that you WON'T get sick if you obey God.
Try again.
What passage of scripture are you referring to here?
Exodus 15:26 for starters. We can go into other passages that say faith muscles out disease if this is an issue for you though.
"Exodus 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee."
It says God won't bring anything upon the people that he brought upon the Egyptians.... meaning he won't bring the same plagues on them as he did on the Egyptians. God won't bring on them plagues of hail, lice, locuts, etc. if they keep his commandments. This verse doesn't even speak to people today, but of the Israellite nation.... JUST to the Israellite nation.
Shokushu
It is a simile. God was just compared to a non-reality based animal.
But as for unicorns existing it should be easy to find a fossil of one or of some horse-like species with at least a horn nub in the right position. Or maybe just some of the horns people held on to- you'd think at least one dude would glue gems to a unicorn horn.
Yet all we have is narwhal teeth,just like you'd expect with a fictional animal.
Yeah, unicorns are buried right next to the common ancestor that humans and apes have.... oh wait, neither of those have been found.
Shokushu
God says so. You're right though, he's an unchecked tyrant that can and will break promises whenever he feels like it.
But you've got a poor understanding of continents if you think these are mountains. The whole flat wide area we grow most crops in is very unmountainly.
I live in the mountains. This is not the same as most of the continent we're on. You might as well say the water is only in trenches- you wouldn't be twisting the word any harder than what you did with mountain.
Okay, from what I learned in Geology class, mountains are formed by colliding plates, or things like sea floor spreading pushing more land onto a continent. (yes I am greatly simplifying for the sake of anyone who reads this to be able to understand it). Continents are basically (and I simplify my explanation here) land that's been pushed above the water by collisions that are higher than sea level. Yes, some parts of a continent are not mountainous due to things like erosion, but it's still land that has been pushed up through the ocean more or less.
Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
That's only if you keep redefining microevolution every time we observe something bigger.
We've seen single cell bacteria evolve colonial forms. We've watched species split until they cannot interbreed anymore. We've seen species evolve too many new ways of handling food to count (on a forum- it's all counted in journals, one article at a time, wherever this work gets published.)
But all we really observe is just small genetic variations that happen. We never observe any new kinds of animals form. Microevolution would be defined as small genetic variations within certain kinds of animals. I prefer science just sticks to what we can observe more than speculation.
You obviously haven't looked into what we've observed-
but fine, I'll play along. What then are the criteria for "a new kind of animal"? Be careful because you can easily ask for something that doesn't at all fit macroevolution or I can probably give you a living example. Really narrow range where you don't fall into either trap, so be careful.
To be honest, I'm not sure what REALLY defines a "kind" except that creatures of the same kind can "bring forth." Now I know this doesn't work for a lot of creatures (such as the ones that reproduce asexually, for instance) and I'm not even calling for any reclassification either. Keep in mind, the words family, order, class, genus, and phylum dont' have any strict criteria either, and the whole classification system is kinda arbritrary. To be honest, I'm not sure where the line is drawn between "is a kind" and "is not of the same kind" but it mostly seems to be around the family / order level in classification, with some parts dipping into the genus level. I'll be honest, I can't find the exact line, but I'm working on it.
Quote:
Shokushu
But you've got a terrible understanding of science if you think we need to sit down and personally watch these things happen. Independent verification using different methods is really powerful, but I doubt I can make you appreciate that.
YES I believe science should be things we can actually observe. Are you believing that science should also be for things we can't observe? Are you wanting me to accept opinions and ideas as fact here?
I'm saying you never learned how to observe.
Shokushu
It's clear that folks like Dembski have been feeding you propaganda.
He hasn't fed me anything. I just read about him and that's it.
Shokushu
Here's a different, and much more even handed way of saying that:
Translation: Here's how the atheists see it and want you to believe is the absolute correct truth, when in fact it's just an interpretation.
Shokushu
You get fired if you keep pushing ideas that you can't present suitable evidence for. You get fired if you repeatedly show an inability to fix errors in your methodology. You get fired if you teach students unsupported or anti-factual information (which is very different from teaching
about those ideas.)
If that was the case, a LOT of teachers would have been fired by now. A LOT of teachers have tried to present the belief that we all share a common ancestor when in fact, a lot of misinformation is put in those books to try to convice people of something that there's actually very little evidence for. One thing that comes to mind here is what's called the recapitulation theory... which is claimed to have been dismissed by any atheist who is pressed with facts about what is really true about it... and yet, it's STILL in textbooks today.
Shokushu
There's zero scientific controversy about common descent and the evolution of life as we know it from much simpler beginnings.
As I said before, the reason there is no contraversy is because nobody is allowed to dispute it.... as it would cost a scientist his job or his funding. Scientists aren't deities above common human desires and flaws. Scientists need money to live, and no human, even a scientist is above lying, deceiving, misinforming, or not speaking the truth for the sake of money.
Shokushu
People doing science argue about the fine details like which factor has the bigger impact, but the stuff we teach in high schools (when taught properly) is long past the point that it's worth anybody's time to dispute it- or sometimes a simplification since high school courses don't have enough time to go into certain details.
This sounds like a cop-out to me. Though almost nothing is taught properly in our schools because funding has been cut to the bone and then some. The schools in America are VERY underfunded, which is why one math class I took was taught by a football coach.
Shokushu
Lots of religious controversy though.
Yes there is. I won't argue here.
Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
If you give a s**t just go look into it (and not on a creationist website. Something respectable please.)
By respectable you mean what? A biased atheist evolutionist site? What is respectable? Having scientists with degrees? Quite a few creationist websites have scientists with high level science degrees. What do you mean by respectable?
Mainly peer reviewed sources, but these days creationists have put out a few fake peer review journals so you have to be careful.
Right... all the fake ones are from creationists and all the real ones are evolutionists. No bais here, right? Right?
wink Truth is, it's not that cut and dry. Creationists DO publish in journals. They DO have science degrees... and DO produce peer reviewed papers. Although, the atheists scream pretty loudly to try to drown them out. However, I repeat the words of Christ here.... "Seek and ye shall find." If you can't find any peer reviewed creationist articles from scientists with high level degrees.... you just aren't looking, cause I found a lot of them with a quick Google search.
Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
But anyway that was exactly what I was talking about. You've just rejected the scientific explanation for how this works. You don't accept the mechanisms, but instead you think that macroevolution can't happen.
Uh, wrong again. I don't reject these mechanisms you mention. Natural selection DOES happen, but it just selects from what is already there. Random mutations DO happen, but there are limits to what can mutate and still survive.
Right there. You just rejected the scientific mechanism of mutation. This mechanism allows for any combination of nucleic acids and therefore any protein that can be built using our set of amino acids.
Right there, you left science in the dust because we've never actually observed that. Proteins BREAK DOWN in nature, they don't build up. The only way proteins get built up in nature.... is something building them up... an animal or a plant for instance. I never rejected genetic mutations, even though you said I do. I just reject the idea that genetic material doesn't just come from nowhere, or from random formulation... but I accept what is ACTUALLY observed in nature, which is all genetic material comes from a parent. THAT is science. ACTUALLY OBSERVING and not just making up ideas of what might have happened.
Shokushu
Also some harder to nail down chemistry but it's mostly just phosphate groups and such. The scientific mechanism allows for unlimited change, so long as it's done via the normal chemistry. Natural selection restrains it to certain functional avenues but never as some sort of limit keeping animals similar to some original stock.
I admit I know very little about chemistry (that is, I didn't study it so much) so I stay away from that topic... instead focusing more on astronomy, physics, and biology... the topics I have studied.
Shokushu
With these mechanisms you can turn a horse into a dolphin given enough time and the right pressure. The mechanisms you accept can't do that so it's only fair to say you don't accept the scientific ones.
And by scientific you mean what? I think you and I have a different idea as to what science is so I'd like you to explain to me what YOU believe science is. What it consists of.... what it is and what it isn't. What is science? Please tell me what you belive science is.
Shokushu
Quote:
No, I do not reject science.... but I only accept as science FACTS, not OPINIONS.
I hear this a lot but when I start really displaying the facts the people that say it tend to fall short of that. Are you willing to chain yourself to this conversation and not leave when it become uncomfortable?
What facts? I've seen very little facts from you, and what facts you DID give, I have met with an alternate interpretation, but they've always been addressed. So far, though, you've mostly given opinions and interpretations... not facts. Opinions are not fact, no matter who those opinions belong to.
Shokushu
*There's a reason I've been fairly crass. If you can't stand that there's no way you can stand the more physical displays that are incompatible with your beliefs. You've lasted this long, care to double down?
Hahaha. No, I think you've been crass because... I'm thinking because I don't think like you do and this bothers you. It seems you want everyone to think and believe exactly as you do, or they're wrong. I have met everything you have presented to me, and I have already shown you that there is STILL no incompatibilities between science and the Bible. I have shown already that one DOES NOT have to give up the Bible to accept science (despite the threats I've been given by atheists). I have shown that the belief of common descent is NOT fact, but is actually opinion, just ONE interpretation of the actual evidence, just one model one can use to explain the untestable past, but is far FAR from being an actual fact itself, as there are too many scientific flaws that people just ignore. Still, if there is anything else you'd like to present, I will meet them head on, using the logic and reason you claim only atheists have.... but in actuality, EVERY human has the ability to reason.... And NOBODY should take what ANYBODY else says as fact without actually looking at the evidence on their own.
Now how about you throw at me some actual SCIENCE instead of atheist mantras and opinions and beliefs.