Us government's trick to violate civil liberties - Page 31

Human Rasengan · 02-06-2012, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kael03

No, the topic was correlations between scientific history and the bible. You made mention that the bible states water existed before land and was divided by the land. That is false and I explained why.

yes and i thanked your post for the information it included.. but I'm waiting to see what Numi has to say since he was keeping things in context

stubborn_d0nkey · 02-06-2012, 04:36 AM

A fun fact or two about the big bang theory* (I'm guessing most people know at least one):

1. It was first proposed by.... a catholic priest!

2. Several christian churches have recognized the big bang theory (I'm guessing they just add that God made the tiny little ball and made it explode/expand)

Anyways, I find it kinda funny how there are some religious Christians who are "anti-science" while their churches aren't. In fact, some embrace/support science (to an extent of course, which is still respectable), like the Vatican. Another lil fun fact;** you all know how small the Vatican is, yet it has an Academy of Sciences(another lil fun fact, it had many Nobel prize winners, take a look at the number of Nobel prize winners from there!)

*not the show

**@gramar nazis, did I use it write :P

edit: added the Nobel Prize lil fun fact after checking out the wiki

**Miburo** · 02-06-2012, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Rasengan

yes and i thanked your post for the information it included.. but I'm waiting to see what Numi has to say since he was keeping things in context

Kael's post fit perfectly into the context of that discussion too. Don't be such a douchebag. Especially when you're being hardcore retarded and people are still engaging in discussions with you instead of simply (and justifiably) calling you an idiot and telling you to fuck off.

Oh, and just for shits, it doesn't matter if it meant six days or six thousand years to go from nothing to human beings and animals and whatnot on the planet. Both are equally ridiculous. Besides, it makes no sense for the bible to call it a day and mean a day for God since the bible's target audience consists solely of people who see a day as the normal 24 hour day. It's not like that shit was written for God to read, if it meant thousands of years then logically God would have had them write it took thousands of years, assuming he's not an incompetent retard. It also makes no sense to suggest it wasn't meant to be taken literally since what would the fucking point be in that story otherwise? Not to mention the whole genesis thing plays a pretty big role as to why the whole original sin thing exists. It'd be extra hardcore dickish on God's part if that whole genesis shit never even happened. Not that it would matter because even without that God in the bible is portrayed as a pretty horrible thing. He had someone put to death via fucking stoning for picking up sticks on a sunday, for fuck's sake. Might as well worship demons or Freddy Krueger or some shit.

The only way that creation story makes sense is if you consider it some bullshit story made up by ignorant barbaric sand people. And then say God is the one who just put the big bang into motion.

kael03 · 02-06-2012, 08:29 AM

Fun fact: It took about 10-20 million years, not "6 days" or ~6000 years for the Earth to go from a solar nebula to ice/rock crystals to the planet we all know today.

almightywood · 02-06-2012, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kael03

No, the topic was correlations between scientific history and the bible. You made mention that the bible states water existed before land and was divided by the land. That is false and I explained why.

I would call what you did picking nits.

Unless you can prove that there was never a point where the surface of the Earth was covered with water before the emergence of complex lifeforms, you haven't disproved anything, merely picked on wording.

Numinous · 02-06-2012, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Rasengan

<< 2 Peter 3:8 >>

New International Version (©1984)
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

New Living Translation (©2007)
But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day.

English Standard Version (©2001)
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

International Standard Version (©2008)
Don't forget this fact, dear friends: With the Lord a single day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a single day.

Sorry, did you even read what I wrote?

Quote:

Which is a verse in one of the first cases of Christian Apologetics, since the author spent the entire chapter making up excuses to explain why the Second Coming didn't happen at the time Jesus mentioned (the "this shall not pass this generation" verse I mentioned in another thread about the Rapture) and pulled Psalm 90:4 out of context and now you (as many creationists) pulled once more the verses out of context for this silliness.

I did not mention in any way translations, I was pointing out that the guy who wrote the Epistles of Peter (I/II century A.C) was the one guilty of doing the apologetics. He clearly had the time to do so, since the Psalms were written since VI century B.C (and Genesis in the beginning of said century). So duh if the translations of 2 Peter 3:8 match, that's wasn't the problem to begin with, it was the chain of misquotations.

Quote:

Omnipotent means all knowing right.. just because you know how to do somethign doesn't mean you can expediate the time in which it takes to make somethign .. If you make bread with yeast you must still allow time for it to double before you can bake it.. you know how to make bread but you can't speed up the time in which to do so

Omnipotent means all-powerful. An all-knowing god is omniscient. Since he's described as capable of anything, why would he need time? A wiggle of the nose and voilà, evolution. Or do you have evidence of God needing enormous quantities of time to do anything (outside of warnings like the Flood or the smiting of Gomorrah and Sodom)? I'm all ears for that.

Quote:

Trees preceding the birds and fish makes sense to me ..

Of course it does, because you say trees (and bird). I didn't just say trees, I said fruit-bearing trees (like the Bible does... and I did not mention birds in the trees part).

Fishes first appeared in the Ordovician, 450+ millions of years ago. Fruit-bearing plants (angiosperms), only appeared in the Early Cretaceous, 140+ millions of years ago. A 300+ million years difference is quite a lot.

Quote:

if God evolved birds from sea creatures which he did pwuy [wuw hyj vpn xrv <ymh wxrvy - Let the water swarm with living creatures, and birds

Hummm...

Quote:

Amar Elohim sharats mayim sherets nephesh chay oph al erets uwph al panim raqia shamayim.

Well, still doesn't explain why you quoted the Hebrew just to slaughter it, but let's go back to good old evolution, shall we?

The Aves class (birds) first appeared in the Late Jurassic, 150 millions of years ago, so, trusting the bible, the last of the Pisces paraphyletic group that can be considered an ancestor should be at least near in the time scale to put them in the same verse, right? Hummm, the first tetrapods, the Superclass of animals (which includes Aves) with a cranium that doesn't belong to the Pisces group, appeared 360+ million of years ago, in the Middle Devonian. I think that 200 million years is still a fuckload of time of difference, don't you?

Hint: Tetrapods are land beasts, which is funny since the Bible puts them AFTER birds.

Quote:

then when these birds first appeared they would need food once they emerged.

Funny how fossils/coprolite suggest that early birds predated on smaller reptiles and/or were omnivorous, being fishes added much later to the diet of bird species.

But those modern paleontologists are just silly and the word of a 2600+ years-old verse is correct, amirite?

Quote:

Ummm where do you see large bodies of water in outer space?

Mars has large deposits of frozen water in its poles, Europa's surface is a 10~30 km layer of ice placed upon an submerged ocean, and many, many more instances of planets in outer space containing water. Not that I'm validating the verse that mentions said water, I'm just correcting your statement.

Quote:

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament

Quote:

Land

No, outer space.

Quote:

in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”

Quote:

don't the continents divide bodies of water?

Even today the oceans are continuous, much less back then when the land above water was gathered in a single supercontinent. It's more the other way around.

Quote:

Before land showed up everything was water and then land appeared and seperated the

The what? Well, Kael already answered, so I won't bother.
I would call what you did picking nits.

Quote:

Unless you can prove that there was never a point where the surface of the Earth was covered with water before the emergence of complex lifeforms, you haven't disproved anything, merely picked on wording.

Wow, you're stupid. He can't prove that because life itself emerged from the seas, so you're asking the impossible. The truth is, the Bible says water came to be before land on Earth, which is demonstrably false.

almightywood · 02-06-2012, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numinous

Wow, you're stupid. He can't prove that because life itself emerged from the seas, so you're asking the impossible. The truth is, the Bible says water came to be before land on Earth, which is demonstrably false.

Wow, you're stupid. That was the fucking point.

It says he created the heavens and the earth, then the oceans, then the land.

I wouldn't call a ball of molten lava land.
Besides which, this is a tale, how detailed a back story does it need to not be full of shit?

I would say there is no set answer for that.

In order to be full of shit you have to be wrong, not just unproven.

In order to be wrong, you have to be proven impossible.
You all have only made it unlikely with your assessments, not impossible.

ACt · 02-06-2012, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

Wow, you're stupid. That was the fucking point.

It says he created the heavens and the earth, then the oceans, then the land.

I wouldn't call a ball of molten lava land.
Besides which, this is a tale, how detailed a back story does it need to not be full of shit?

I would say there is no set answer for that.

In order to be full of shit you have to be wrong, not just unproven.

In order to be wrong, you have to be proven impossible.
You all have only made it unlikely with your assessments, not impossible.

Exactly, guys. The bible sets down an ambiguous and undetailed version of how the earth and heavens were made that it completely COULD have happened so long as we fill in the huge gaps that left unknown because "god did it."

Oh, and alter our definition of days.

So the bible isn't 100% wrong, it is just ambiguous, vague, empty, evidenceless, weakly supported and offers no real reasoning to the how we came to be. Not impossible by any stretch. Oh, and "god did it" so shut your pie holes.

Is there a sarcasm font?

Numinous · 02-06-2012, 10:13 AM

Quote:

I wouldn't call a ball of molten lava land.

I would. After all, molten lava as the same components of land and many landscapes of today were formed due to erupted lava. Water wouldn't be the first thing I'd call it, that's for sure.

Quote:

Besides which, this is a tale, how detailed a back story does it need to not be full of shit?

When it's pushed down the throats of students as science when it's precisely the opposite and thousands of dollars are spent in trials just to tell again and again creationists that they're full of shit, I say it fucking needs details that don't contradict reality.

Quote:

In order to be wrong, you have to be proven impossible.
You all have only made it unlikely with your assessments, not impossible.

Someone didn't listen to me when I talked about impossibilities in science. Thermodynamics alone disprove that there was liquid water before land, since the heat of newly-formed Earth wouldn't let water liquefy.

So why don't you go back to lurker status and pick a goddamn physics/biology book?

almightywood · 02-06-2012, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACt

Exactly, guys. The bible sets down an ambiguous and undetailed version of how the earth and heavens were made that it completely COULD have happened so long as we fill in the huge gaps that left unknown because "god did it."

Oh, and alter our definition of days.

So the bible isn't 100% wrong, it is just ambiguous, vague, empty, evidenceless, weakly supported and offers no real reasoning to the how we came to be. Not impossible by any stretch. Oh, and "god did it" so shut your pie holes.

Is there a sarcasm font?

It's not idiotic to believe in something with less evidence than others would desire, and still others would claim isn't evidence to begin with.

It is idiotic to think that you could actually change a person's desire to believe in that with something as unsure as probability, especially if claiming it as proof. I think it's downright rude to try.

The bible is filled with parables and platitudes. The whole thing is written in the same language I speak more or less. You guys just can't see the forest for the trees. Not saying I believe in the forest, but I can see it.

kael03 · 02-06-2012, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

I would call what you did picking nits.

Considering the topic went from evolution to the creation of Earth, I wasn't "picking nits".

By the way, it's nit picking, you half-wit.

Quote:

Unless you can prove that there was never a point where the surface of the Earth was covered with water before the emergence of complex lifeforms, you haven't disproved anything, merely picked on wording.

Again, the post I was responding to wasn't about when complex life emerged, it was about the creation of the planet. The bible has it wrong on everything including the time it took to go from a nebula of molecules, to a molten ball, to the ocean dominated planet we all know and love today, and the order in which land and water were created.

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

The bible is filled with parables and platitudes. The whole thing is written in the same language I speak more or less.

Um...wut? The bible is NOT written in the same language. The original texts were written in Aramaic, which is the parent language to Hebrew, not Latin, which is the parent language to English.

almightywood · 02-06-2012, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kael03

Considering the topic went from evolution to the creation of Earth, I wasn't "picking nits".

By the way, it's nit picking, you half-wit.

If backwards I said it, still not wrong would I be.

Quote:

Again, the post I was responding to wasn't about when complex life emerged, it was about the creation of the planet. The bible has it wrong on everything including the time it took to go from a nebula of molecules, to a molten ball, to the ocean dominated planet we all know and love today, and the order in which land and water were created.

You could choose to read it that way, but there are tons of obvious mistranslations in the bible. For instance calling months years. Methuselah lived to be 969 "years" If you broke that down as months it ends up being 80-81. I'm guessing that what we currently term a year came to be something closer to when we discovered that geocentricity was false, though this is pure speculation by me.

There could just as easily be misinterpretations of day from back at that point in time. Plus since a day is based on the rotation of the planet, do we have some kind of justification that this planet was always revolving at this rate, on this same course around the sun?

Quote:

Um...wut? The bible is NOT written in the same language. The original texts were written in Aramaic, which is the parent language to Hebrew, not Latin, which is the parent language to English.

i was talking about the manner in which it conveys information, not the actual language. You should really practice some creative thinking once in a while, it would do you good.

ACt · 02-06-2012, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

It's not idiotic to believe in something with less evidence than others would desire, and still others would claim isn't evidence to begin with.

You are correct. It is not idiotic to believe in something with minimal evidence. But to believe in something that has no evidence and oodles of evidence to the contrary is pretty idiotic. But, to give you a bone, the bible has a lot of worth as a book of tales, myths and fables - it can in some ways teach morality (though it also teaches a lot of immorality). It is just worthless as a text of "truth".

Quote:

It is idiotic to think that you could actually change a person's desire to believe in that with something as unsure as probability, especially if claiming it as proof. I think it's downright rude to try.

? You need to clarify because your sentence is vague. It reads like you think it is bad to teach people probability - which is something we do all the time in school.

What I think you are trying to say is that we shouldn't try and dissuade anyone from their beliefs with evidence that isn't 100% the truth. If that's the case, you probably reject pretty much everything because very little do we understand to the last letter. What a horrible progress humans would make with you in charge. All I do is provide evidence to the matter at hand and especially highlight the facts that disagree with someone's view. If they want to reject that, their choice, but they are idiots to do so. I think they are the rude ones to persist in false thinking and then demanding that the world conform to them (this prettty much breaks down into Church and State form here so I won't go on).

Quote:

The bible is filled with parables and platitudes. The whole thing is written in the same language I speak more or less. You guys just can't see the forest for the trees. Not saying I believe in the forest, but I can see it.

You don't believe what you are seeing?! What do you believe?

Here's the truth of the bible - written my multiple human authors over many centuries (old testament stolen largely from the Torah), many chapters or gospels or whatever pick and choose by organized Christianity to reflect the doctrine they wanted (there were pretty much gospels for every apostle and Jesus and, some suspect, even Mary and other followers... so why just four?), has been translated three or four times into different languages which rarely lead to a 1-to-1 meaning translation AND is generally viewed as largely fictitious or at least hugely skewed in terms of actual history by RELIGIOUS SCHOLARS! (That's god fearing people who believe in the heaven and hell god scenario but actually apply brains to religious teachings and texts.)

The smartest among the believers don't accept the bible as truly god's world or even an accurate account of the history of earth, but merely inspired teachers and philosophers who laid down accounts of what they felt god's word to be.

It isn't true.

Quote:

There could just as easily be misinterpretations of day from back at that point in time. Plus since a day is based on the rotation of the planet, do we have some kind of justification that this planet was always revolving at this rate, on this same course around the sun?

Um, laws of gravity. If it was in flux, the earth would not be in such a stable orbit. The rotation is set similarly and I think it would take a major shift (HUGE PIECE OF ROCK HITTING US!) to alter the rotation. I think the last theorized one of those was the theory that the moon was once a part of the earth and a giant rock hit the not fully cooled earth and spun off into the moon creating a stable satellite.

kael03 · 02-06-2012, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

If backwards I said it, still not wrong would I be.

An idiot, you are.

Quote:

There could just as easily be misinterpretations of day from back at that point in time. Plus since a day is based on the rotation of the planet, do we have some kind of justification that this planet was always revolving at this rate, on this same course around the sun?

The Earth has always held the same orbit around the sun, as this location is where the molecules of the solar nebula condensed when the gravitational anomaly that was the primordial sun formed. Our orbit hasn't fluctuated.

As for our day rotations, the planet's earliest rotations were fast enough that the day/night cycle was theorized to be about 6 hours in length around the time of the impact that created the moon. The moon's pull on the planet is what start slowing our rotation down. However, this does NOT give excuse for the giant glaring disparity of "6000 years", since the bible states that a day is like 1000 years in the eye of God, and 10-20 million years in the formation of the plant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

i was talking about the manner in which it conveys information, not the actual language. You should really practice some creative thinking once in a while, it would do you good.

No, you were specific with the term "language". Here, a little refresher:

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

The bible is filled with parables and platitudes. The whole thing is written in the same language I speak more or less.

If you were talking about conveying information, you would've used a different terminology than "language". Even with your whole "see the forest for the trees" analogy, that failed miserably. Sorry, but you failed at English on this one.

**Mal** · 02-06-2012, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

...Not to mention the whole genesis thing plays a pretty big role as to why the whole original sin thing exists. It'd be extra hardcore dickish on God's part if that whole genesis shit never even happened...

C. S. Lewis, being one of few Christians to believe in evolution, explains how he views this in Mere Christianity. Unfortunately I forget exactly how he does, and don't have time right now to check into it, but if you can find a copy online it should be near the end. Otherwise, I'll check into it when I get home from work.

02-06-2012, 08:29 AM	#454
kael03 Aspiring Physicist Join Date: May 2010 Age: 27 Posts: 4,664 Thanks: 4,949 Thanked 8,590 Times in 3,811 Posts	Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties Fun fact: It took about 10-20 million years, not "6 days" or ~6000 years for the Earth to go from a solar nebula to ice/rock crystals to the planet we all know today.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)