Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by D the Atheist
The nostrils are irrelevant if you read even more carfefully.

“All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, and all that was in the dry land, died” and it goes on and every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the foul of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive. and they that were with him in the Ark.”

So let’s have a look at the underlined. AND ALL that was on the dry land died. AND ALL means AND ALL.

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the literary devices of repetition and hyperbole.

 

[D the Atheist]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the literary devices of repetition and hyperbole.

Apparently you use such devices when they suit you and not when they do not.

Great way you have of not being able to answer something.

Do you sleep OK?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by D the Atheist
Apparently you use such devices when they suit you and not when they do not.

Great way you have of not being able to answer something.

Do you sleep OK?

I sleep just fine. Do you?

 

[D the Atheist]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I sleep just fine. Do you?

Of course I do, I do not have to engage in mental gymnastics.

I fear no one or nothing enough to cause that!

 

[avatar382]

I've already said that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, and that the farthest reaches of the universe are around 14 or 15 billion years old.

Not at all. I do believe the Earth was created before the stars.

If this isn't a contradiction, then what is?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by avatar382


If this isn't a contradiction, then what is?

It's not a contradiction at all, if you take time dilation into account. Which I do.

 

[D the Atheist]

Jack, I have only been frequenting this forum for a few weeks and I have noticed you tend to take existing science, expand on it into unproven and highly speculative territory and use conclusions drawn at moments of convenience to fit preconceived notions you have been brainwashed into believing without your knowledge.

You have placed yourself above the findings of highly intelligent people that are constrained from going too far into the fantastic by a system of science that produces inherent honesty in the main. You have no such system to restrain you and therefore your way of viewing nature can become a dishonest way of explaining the Universe et al. This shows up in your arguments and whether you consciously recognise it, is a question that is open.

A good example is the time dilation belief you hold. If you want to be able to use this and other unproven hypothesises in argument, then get them checked out by mainstream science as to whether they hold water or not, otherwise they remain just un-validated hypothesis.

I use the word brainwashed advisedly. All humans seem to be able to be brainwashed into believing just about anything. This is an inescapable conclusion when humanity is viewed with an open mind.

We have butchered, killed and maimed our way through history, but we have always had an excuse brainwashed into us to do so. Witches were in cohorts with the devil, the fields are not fertile enough so let’s sacrifice another virgin or two, and the list goes on in an endless fashion.

They are extreme examples but lesser and greater degrees exist down to our actions being totally robotically controlled on how we hold a knife and fork. In between these extremes is a whole host of possibilities of corrupted thinking.

Our contemporary time is no different and unless one realises this, admits that it has or could be happening to her/him right now, and takes effort to recognise if it is, then there is every chance the brainwashing is working and is overriding reasoning abilities to some degree.

Could it be the case with you?

It is no good saying that a god keeps you on the straight and narrow as that only begs the question. You have stated before that you cannot prove that a god exists and you should therefore not expect others to accept that a god is on your side. Others are left with no way of checking if a god is on your side or not. You could be lying your head off.

This is why that, if you do not stick to mainstream science and reasoning, no one is obliged to accept anything you say, if those utterances are outside of it.

Unfortunately, gullible people with little understanding of the above can be trapped into thinking that your statements and such like have godly correctness about them.

If you understand all of the above, then why do you not inform the reader to be wary of your posts for these reasons and why do you not tell them often?

I make no admission to being perfect in always posting correct information (But it can be checked) but you can be guilty of posting incorrect information that is not checkable at all.

I hope I have made myself clear.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I do believe the Earth was created before the stars.

This is something that can not fit in any way in any model about the origin of the solar system, since it is assumed by majority of cosmologists & astronomist that the stuff of which the solar system was made, was star stuff, of a previously exploding star.
Before there were stars, there was just mainly hydrogen, some helium, and little quantities of lithium and berylium. That could not have formed the earth.
We know of only one mechanism to turn the lighter elements into higher elements: thermonuclear fusion in stars.

 

[wicked atheist]

New Boy

New Boy

This is my first time on line. May I congratulate all Zakath's supporters and stand-ins on the high quality of their arguments. when I know what I'm doing, I hope to join in and contribute myself.

 

[Corky the Cat]

Hi wicked atheist, and welcome.

 

[wicked atheist]

Noah's Ark

Noah's Ark

Just a couple more points: from what I've heard, Irak,(Mesopotamia) is a land of desert and marsh. Was it much differnt in Noah's time? Whence therefore the massive supply of timber for the ark? Or maybe cedars were transported overland from Lebanon (probably all of them). Was Noah a professional Shipwright and Joiner, using nice dovetailed joints and wooden dowelling plugs? or was the whole thing knocked together with hundreds of thousands of copper nails, ( no Iron then); -and where did they come from, and all the hammers for them? Or maybe it was lashed together with rawhide, or hemp ropes. I wonder how long they would last in damp humid conditions.
Why not just settle for a poor farmer with a ready-made life boat in his back garden, all stocked up for the next inevitable flood, into which he and his family and a few domestic livestock could sit out the flood for a while. So much more reasonable.
Those who appear to know exactly what went on can't even agree on a date for the flood. I have seen 2300 BC mentioned. I always thought it was somehere between 4000and 5500 BC.

 

[Berean Todd]

Wicked, it is impossible to say what the area was like in the time of Noah, as everything was vastly different in the pre-flood world. The most common and popular Christian models have the whole of the pre-flood earth as a tropical climate, due to the green house effect of the canopy of water that was above the sky, but within the atmosphere/ozone. The fact of this is backed up by large finds of fosilized and quick-frozen tropical trees found in northern Siberia, Alaska, northern Canada and other remote areas of artic wasteland, which the evolutionary models can not account for.

 

[LightSon]

Greetings wicked atheist,
I'm curious about your handle.

Do you really consider yourself wicked?
By what standard(s) do you judge yourself to be wicked?
Are there any behaviors which even you would deem too wicked to engage in?

 

[LightSon]

Greetings Heino,

Originally posted by Heino
Then there is the Christian Fundamentalists. They promote a literal view of the Bible, and the idea that evolution is incompatible with the Bible.

You just described me, so I thought I would "ring in".
There is a panoply of worldviews and modes of thinking from which to choose. How do I make a decision? One of the values in my faith is that I have it on "good authority" that my worldview is arguably from God. God shows himself in nature. God shows himself in His Word. The Word of God is Christ. The Word of God is scripture. How do I know about God? I look to the Bible, those truths that God himself reveals. To the degree I believe it comes from God, I can have confidence in it.

Consequently, I draw my views of morality from the Bible. "Thus saith the Lord,” means a great deal to me. This separates me from those who do whatever is right in their own eyes. The word of God limits my choices between boundaries, not of my own choosing.

The reason this "works" for me is the presumption that the Bible is, in fact, from God and hence "true". If the flood is never happened or if the Genesis account is false, then I should not believe those accounts as being "true". If scripture has any error, then scripture might be lying to me about an array of issues, which heretofore I have accepted.

In short, for me to question the Genesis account is to question the resurrection of Christ. If one could be false, so could the other. Once Christ is dead, I have no compelling reason to trust the Bible or the God purportedly revealed therein.

As a specific aside, if evolution is true, then you must agree that man is evolved from lower life forms of life. God can no longer be said to have "breathed" into man. Man ceases to be a special object of God's love and interest. Do you see how the whole Biblical theme of redemption begins to fall over? There is no reason why a man should cleave unto his wife. Marital boundaries can be deemed anachronistic. If we are merely two biological life forms, looking to procreate, I might as well spread my seed wherever I choose.

I look forward to your thoughts.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by Berean Todd
The fact of this is backed up by large finds of fosilized and quick-frozen tropical trees found in northern Siberia, Alaska, northern Canada and other remote areas of artic wasteland, which the evolutionary models can not account for.

I assume mr Berean Todd, you never digged into any geologogy then? Perhaps you don't like geology cause not ONLY it explains why there were tropical forests on those parts of the world that are now in colder climates, it also explains that the climate itself and location of continents has not been the same throughout the history of earth. The history of earth goes back to about 4 billion of years; it is calculated from dating of rock on earth and the moon that the earth-moon system is around 4-4.5 billions of years old.

 

[wicked atheist]

Originally posted by Berean Todd
Wicked, it is impossible to say what the area was like in the time of Noah, as everything was vastly different in the pre-flood world. The most common and popular Christian models have the whole of the pre-flood earth as a tropical climate, due to the green house effect of the canopy of water that was above the sky, but within the atmosphere/ozone. The fact of this is backed up by large finds of fosilized and quick-frozen tropical trees found in northern Siberia, Alaska, northern Canada and other remote areas of artic wasteland, which the evolutionary models can not account for.

I have seen the giant tree fossils in Arizona, I think it was. What makes you think these fossils are anything separate from all other fossils which are fully explained by the death and preservation of plants and animals of all evolutionary stages over millions of years, and datable too.

 

[wicked atheist]

Lightson

Lightson

Originally posted by LightSon
Greetings wicked atheist,
I'm curious about your handle.

Do you really consider yourself wicked?
By what standard(s) do you judge yourself to be wicked?
Are there any behaviors which even you would deem too wicked to engage in?

Really, you creationists are lacking in humour. Can't you see that I am just trying to be whimsical? I don't consider myself wicked by my paradigm, but no doubt according to yours, I am the devil Incarnate himself! The trouble is creationists and evolutionists are busily evolving into two separate species,( from a cultural and memetic point of view). According to one definition of Species, they are two groups who are unable or unwilling to interbreed, for various reasons. Can you imagine a creationist and Evolutionist as soul-mates? I don't think it would have much future. They would end up killing each other first, (or converting each other). And yes, there are many things I would consider wicked and beyond the pale. Nothing to do with a God though.

 

[wicked atheist]

Berean Todd

Berean Todd

Originally posted by Berean Todd
Wicked, it is impossible to say what the area was like in the time of Noah, as everything was vastly different in the pre-flood world. The most common and popular Christian models have the whole of the pre-flood earth as a tropical climate, due to the green house effect of the canopy of water that was above the sky, but within the atmosphere/ozone. The fact of this is backed up by large finds of fosilized and quick-frozen tropical trees found in northern Siberia, Alaska, northern Canada and other remote areas of artic wasteland, which the evolutionary models can not account for.

you deftly ignored by queries re timber and copper nails.

 

[wicked atheist]

Lightson

Lightson

Originally posted by LightSon
Greetings Heino,



You just described me, so I thought I would "ring in".
There is a panoply of worldviews and modes of thinking from which to choose. How do I make a decision? One of the values in my faith is that I have it on "good authority" that my worldview is arguably from God. God shows himself in nature. God shows himself in His Word. The Word of God is Christ. The Word of God is scripture. How do I know about God? I look to the Bible, those truths that God himself reveals. To the degree I believe it comes from God, I can have confidence in it.

Consequently, I draw my views of morality from the Bible. "Thus saith the Lord,” means a great deal to me. This separates me from those who do whatever is right in their own eyes. The word of God limits my choices between boundaries, not of my own choosing.

The reason this "works" for me is the presumption that the Bible is, in fact, from God and hence "true". If the flood is never happened or if the Genesis account is false, then I should not believe those accounts as being "true". If scripture has any error, then scripture might be lying to me about an array of issues, which heretofore I have accepted.

In short, for me to question the Genesis account is to question the resurrection of Christ. If one could be false, so could the other. Once Christ is dead, I have no compelling reason to trust the Bible or the God purportedly revealed therein.

As a specific aside, if evolution is true, then you must agree that man is evolved from lower life forms of life. God can no longer be said to have "breathed" into man. Man ceases to be a special object of God's love and interest. Do you see how the whole Biblical theme of redemption begins to fall over? There is no reason why a man should cleave unto his wife. Marital boundaries can be deemed anachronistic. If we are merely two biological life forms, looking to procreate, I might as well spread my seed wherever I choose.

I look forward to your thoughts.

you ask how to make a decision between different world views. How about considering each one rationally, and weighing up empirical evidences for them?
You mention "faith" and "presumption", but these are no substitute for scientific evaluation. This would not matter, if you were not insisting on presenting a view of the world that is said to be, "scientific". you want the kudos of the word Scientific, but are unwilling to obey the rules. real scientists, and that includes Evolutionists use empirical methods, and falsification. there is no room for faith, in the religious sense.
Of course if (as) Evolution is true, then man is descended from lower forms of life. Why so worried? we have risen, not fallen, sice then. You ask why should a man cleave unto his wife. Does not a Goose cleave unto its gander? well they do, and they have evolved tyhat behaviour because it has goos survival value. And that goes for the rest of animal-kind including man.
I have not noticed good Christian men refraining from spreading their seed. It is the natural thing to do. however marriage still works as a bonding relationship, and for bringing up children. I myself have two beautiful grown-up unbaptised agnostic daughters, and I am still in the same marriage after 36 years. Christians did not invent marriage.

 

[Berean Todd]

Re: Berean Todd

Re: Berean Todd

Originally posted by wicked atheist
you deftly ignored by queries re timber and copper nails.

As to timber, I think I clearly stated - the whole world at the time would have been a tropical or sub-tropical climate and thus have trees somewhere readily nearby in order to use. As for nails or whatever else they used, I'm not a shipwright, so I wouldn't know.