Inteligent Design
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16035
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Actually the "joke" is about hypocritical creationists, but...WTH.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Guest
that is funny. you go to a cartoon to back up your beliefs instead of science. that is good, wrong but good.Doonesbury has been around since the late 60's as a sort of left-of-center comment on the world and culture
since you didn't cite one, you just wasted everybody's time and i am sure i can find enough toprove the opposite. typical argument, just take my word for it. you bring nothing to the table.There have been numerous studies done about the physical characteristics of peoples of past times
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16035
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Arch, with all your bible bullshit you really deserve nothing better.
How better to counter fairy tales than with cartoons?
How better to counter fairy tales than with cartoons?
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Guest
prove it is a fairy tale. bring your facts to the table instead of going to the funny papers. all that does is undermine any crediblility you think you have. same goes for the following quote:How better to counter fairy tales than with cartoons?
if that is all you can do, then you have nothing, believe in nothing and can prove nothing.Arch, with all your bible bullshit you really deserve nothing better.
-
Rokcet Scientist
1 out of 3 is bad score, arch!archaeologist wrote:prove it is a fairy tale. bring your facts to the table instead of going to the funny papers. all that does is undermine any crediblility you think you have. same goes for the following quote:How better to counter fairy tales than with cartoons?
if that is all you can do, then you have nothing, believe in nothing and can prove nothing.Arch, with all your bible bullshit you really deserve nothing better.
Are you rusty or what?
You need practice! And lots of it!
Pull you finger out and get crackin'!
Or you won't get your 72 virgins!
-
Rokcet Scientist
-
Guest
here is an observation on evolution and its weaknesses:
have funI am not going to make this a religious topic, in fact I doubt if I will even use one scripture verse or any other religious word when talking about the theory of evolution.
In fact to disprove the theory, I will only use one aspect of its 'evidence' to show you why evolution cannot be true and ultimately not scientific. That aspect is the group called fossils.
The oxford dictionary defines the word fossil as: "the remains or impression of a plant or animal in rock." that is the definition that will be used here.
Here we find many weaknesses to the evolutionary claims when it comes to fossils and the example that will be used to demonstrate my points will be in theory a certified parent/child fossil. This illustration is to show where the weaknesses lie.
1. First off in looking at the two fossils, all you have are two rocks with some type of animal or plant imbedded in its structure. In and of themselves, they cannot tell anyone anything more than that. Geology can talk about the rocks, their make up and other vital details but it must remain silent on the fossilized creatures themselves, as they are outside the scope of what geology governs.
Geology cannot determine when the animals became fossilized, the time frame between fossilizations nor can it explain why the two animals are related.
2. Chemistry is of no use as the samples are contaminated not only by the rock but also by the weather these samples endured throughout time before being discovered. Any tests results are useless as no one knows the true chemical makeup of these fossils when they were alive
3. Biology can be of no use because you have no bodies to dissect and compare with present day living species. All you have, as oxford describes, are the remains or impressions of bodies. So anything biology can offer is moot and useless.
4. Physics does not apply here, as the samples are fossils in stone. There is no way to apply its capabilities to two pieces of rock just lying there taking up space.
5. So briefly, evolution is greatly limited in the ability to use science yet the most damaging evidence is yet to come.
6. History is of no use, as there are no ancient written records which record any observations of evolution in process thus we can not go to ancient civilizations and compare their experiments with modern day ones.
7. Observation is out of the question as we are told it takes millions of years to see a change. Thus in reality, no one has ever observed evolution in action because there is no control group, or verified process in action today that can be used to compare to see if the results are evolutionary or not.
We are told that there are some species still in the process of evolution but again; there is nothing to compare with to verify that the process observed in those species is actually evolution. It is a guess.
8. Charts are of no value as the drawings are just the artist conception of what an ancient animal looks like and rarely do we find anything more than bones in which to draw, specifically, its appearance. Thus we are left with conceptions that have no basis in reality and are drawn just to satisfy a scientist's theory and usually it is not fact.
9. Genealogy cannot be used with evolution for just looking at the fossils it is impossible to determine which is the parent and which is the child. With no evolutionary process observable today, especially for those fossils it is unrealistic to think one can say which came first and which came second. There is no knowledge to prove the process or the conclusion.
10. Dating with all of its controversies and subjectiveness and susceptibility to contamination cannot be trusted nor can its final date be counted as absolute fact. There is no ancient record to back up its findings, thus all conclusions are false.
There really is nothing for evolution to stand upon except guesswork, theory, concepts and conjecture thus evolution really is not scientific as there is not one science that can be used to prove it true. So evolution winds up to be a greater myth than the creation account found in you know where.
-
Guest
just in case you have forgotten the questions i asked, i have pasted them here again, to see if any evolutionist is brave enough to provide straight forwar, concis, understandable answers without complaint or excuses:
i have been waiting for some time now1. what are you afraid of? if evolution is true, then those that adhere to it would not be threatened by the teaching of other points of view. they would have the truth and be secure in that knowledge.
2. what makes you afraid of the intelligent design concept? i do not agree with their label as it opens the door to too many theories as to who started it all but in reality if evolution is true then i.d. can not be a threat.
3. why do all evolutionists have a closed mind to alternative thinking especially in light of the fact that their 'evidence' is so conveniently placed where it can not be observed and verified. at least with i.d. we can view their claims in the here and now and not wait for millions of years to see any change.
4. why do evolutionist resort to personal attacks or attack the credentials of the opposition? if evolution is true, the folly of their opponents would be seen very quickly and dismissed by their own futility in proving their viewpoint.
5. how do the evolutionists know that the earth is older than the i.d. supporters claim? there were no human eyewitnesses at the initial origination who recorded the event so how do they know they found the correct solution?
6. how do evolutionists know they have struck upon the correct interpretation of the evolutionary process? since no one really knows the original conditions nor have evidence of the evolutionary process at work as described, how do they know what they propose is correct? they have no control in which to compare data, they have no process active in the modern age that proceeds along the avenues that is described by evolutionists to provide as evidence to prove their findings so when do they know they have the answer?
they can't go to the fossil record as that is so limited in its scope that all it can prove is that all you have are two stones showing the remains of two animals, there is nothing in the fossil record which can prove the process actually happened.
7. why are evolutionists afraid to take off their rose colored glasses and honestly examine there own theory for intelligence and credibility? i do not care if you want to think you came from nothing but at least propose a theory that has some chance of being proven beyond conjecture, with the evidence having the ability of being observed in modern times, and in action.
-
Tech
Here is something to play with Arch
Evolution is the least of the Bible's problems. In fact, evolution isn't even mentioned in this list. Even the most basic grade-school understanding of how the universe actually works contradicts what is clearly stated in the Bible. How could the author of the Bible be the Creator when the Bible is so wrong about Creation?
God's Creation vs. the Bible
...or "Top 10 ways the Bible contradicts Creation"
"Long ago, when torture broke the remnant of his will,
Galileo recanted, but the Earth is moving still."
-Dr. Catherine Faber
The Bible has many harsh critics. The most notable among them is God.
God's own Creation discredits the Bible at every turn. If you believe in the Bible as the "Word of God", evolution is the least of your problems. Even the most remedial education in modern science definitively refutes what the Bible teaches about the nature of the universe. In fact, the errors are so severe that they can't be dismissed as metaphor. Even the most liberal interpretations of the Bible are in conflict with some of the most basic understandings of modern science.
In the "Top 10 ways the Bible contradicts Creation" below, I don't even mention evolution. I have restricted myself to the blindingly obvious absurdities of the Bible, contradicted by what even a child should know of science. Clearly, the author of the Bible could not have been the architect of this universe.
According to the Bible...
The sun moves around the earth.
The moon is a source of light.
The sky is a firmament (a dome) above the earth.
The stars are little lights set in the firmament
The earth is flat with four corners.
The earth has pillars that support it (also called "the foundations of the earth")
Creation took six days
A single man and woman can sustain a species and populate a planet
It rains whenever the Biblegod opens a window in Heaven.
You can get to Heaven by building a really tall tower. (deism.org's favorite absurdity)
Also see the Order of Events in Creation. The Bible can't even keep it's own story straight between the first and second chapters of Genesis. Neither chapter is consistent with the order of events indicated by science.
The Biblegod says the sun revolves around the earth.
Joshua 10:12-13 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Psalm 19:4-6 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
These two passages were written at a time when people thought the sun moved across the sky. The Joshua passage clearly says "the sun stood still". The Psalms passage seem reminiscent of the ancient Greek legends of Apollo and how his chariot pulled the sun on its daily circuit across the sky. Indeed, the Book of Isaiah with all it's Greek mythological creatures, indicates that the authors of the Bible were heavily influenced by the pagan mythologies.
Other passages of the Bible state that the earth is fixed in place rather than revolving around the sun.
Psalm 93:1 ...the world also is stabilized, that it cannot be moved.
Psalm 96:10 ...the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved....
Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
1st Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Indeed because of these passages, Christian leaders were slow to accept the heliocentric universe proposed by Copernicus.
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.... This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
-- Martin Luther, referring to Joshua 10:13, in his series of "Table Talks" (1539)
"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?"
-- John Calvin, citing Psalm 93:1 in his Commentary on Genesis
"... And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine -- which is false and altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture -- of the motion of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus in De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, and by Diego de Zuñiga On Job, is now being spread abroad and accepted by many... Therefore, in order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has decreed that the said Nicolaus Copernicus, De Revolutionibus Orbium, and Diego de Zuñiga, On Job, be suspended until they are corrected."
-- The Roman Catholic Church, from The Decree of the Roman Catholic Congregation of the Index which condemned De Revolutionibus on March 5, 1616
The early Christian resistance to the heliocentric model of the solar system was Biblically founded. They believed that Copernicus was wrong and the Bible was right.
Today, we know better.
The Biblegod says the moon is a source of light
Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night...
Isaiah 30:26 (prophecy) Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun
Isaiah's prophecy in the latter verse indicates his ignorance that the moon doesn't give off any light of its own. I expect that someone who truly speaks for God should know better.
Later in the Bible, there are prophecies of the end times when the moon won't shine. Here's how the Bible describes it (bold emphasis mine):
Isaiah 13:10 ...and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
Ezekiel 32:7 ...and the moon shall not give her light.
Matthew 24:29 ...and the moon shall not give her light...
Of course, today we know that the moon doesn't actually produce any light. It simply reflects the light of the sun.
This error of the Bible can't be dismissed as metaphor. A poet who knew better would have written that the moon might be "covered" or "blackened" or in some other way prevented from reflecting light. Instead, the Bible clearly states that the moon gives "her light" (not the light of what a poet might call "father sun").
Really, even the primitive authors of the Bible should have known better. The shadows on the waxing and waning moon should have been enough of a clue.
The Biblegod describes the sky as a dome over the earth
Genesis 1:6-8 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven...
Genesis 1:16-17 ...he (God) made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.
The "second day" in which the Biblegod creates the firmament in which he later fixes the little lights known as stars (see above) is apparently the dome that makes up the sky. This dome apparently separates heaven from earth which explains why in chapter 11 of Genesis the authors concluded that you could get to heaven by building a tower tall enough.
Curiously, there is much talk of "waters" in the first chapter of Genesis. It appears that the authors of the Bible believed that the universe was a great sea before the Biblegod got started to work.
Some have suggested that Genesis is a poetic metaphor for the actual creation of the universe but too many details are simply wrong. Space is a vacuum, not an ocean, the order of events in Genesis are completely wrong (and they contradict each other between chapters 1 and 2) and the descriptions of the heavenly bodies and their relationship to earth are also wrong, as detailed in this list.
The Biblegod says the stars are little lights set in the firmament
Genesis 1:16-17 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.
This passage in Genesis clearly describes the stars as little lights that are fixed in the sky (which in turn is described as a dome or firmament over the earth). The flippant nature in which God is said to have "made the stars also", almost as an afterthought, indicates that the authors of the Bible were unaware that each star was its own sun. The stars in Genesis were created on the same day as the sun (the "fourth day" in the first chapter of Genesis), implying that all stars were created at the same time. We know this is not true, as many stars are older than our sun and new stars are constantly forming.
The stars are also said to have been created to "give light upon the earth" but most of them don't. There are only thousands of stars visible with the naked eye from earth. This is only a tiny fraction of the billions and billions of stars that are out there.
Other passages in the Bible confirm this ancient view of the stars as little lights in the sky-dome over the earth. When the world comes to its predicted end, these little lights will fall to the earth.
Matthew 24:29 ...and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Revelations 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
Revelations 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;
Revelations 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth...
Knowing what we know today about the true nature of stars, we should realize that even as a metaphor the concept is silly. Even the most liberal of poetic license will not stretch to allow that the stars might one day fall to the earth.
The Biblegod says the earth is flat with four corners
Passages in the Bible that discuss the "four corners of the earth" (bold emphasis mine):
Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
Ezekiel 7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.
Revelations 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth,...
Of course, the earth has no "corners" since it's a globe. What really reveals the ignorance of those who wrote the Bible is the passage where the devil tries to tempt Jesus:
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him (Jesus) up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
This Matthew passage particularly underscores that the authors of the Bible had little understanding of the earth. Not only did they believe the earth was flat with for corners, they also believed the earth was so small that all of it could be viewed from an exceedingly tall mountain. Needless to say, the surface of all the earth and all of its kingdoms can't be viewed from on high. Even from space this would not be possible for the other side of the planet would not be visible. The only way to view all of the earth from on top a high mountain is if the earth were flat and very small.
The Biblegod says the earth has "foundations"
These "foundations of the earth" are often described as pillars.
1st Samuel 2:8 ...for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Psalm 75:3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.
Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
Jeremiah 31:37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.
Micah 6:2 Hear ye, O mountains, the LORD's controversy, and ye strong foundations of the earth...
Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth;...
Of course, the earth has no "foundation", whether composed of pillars or some other form. The earth is a spherical rock floating in space. It's completely unsupported and certainly not fixed in place.
The Biblegod says Creation took six (6) days
See all of chapter 1 of Genesis.
"How long did Creation really take?" we may ask. Were Nature's God to speak, It might ask why we're using the past tense. Scientists believe the universe is some 13.5 billion years old. Stars continue to form. The universe continues to expand. It appears the universe is still under construction.
The Biblegod says a single male and female can sustain a species and populate a world
We read about this twice in the Book of Genesis. The first was after the creation of Adam and Even in Chapter 2 who are said to be the common ancestors of all of humanity. The second occasion was during the Noah's Ark story in chapters 6 through 9 when Noah sustains the animal population by taking two of each kind aboard the ark. Frankly, even the primitive authors of the Bible should have known better. Common sense indicates that it takes more than two to provide sufficient genetic material to maintain a species for more than a generation.
After all, who are their children supposed to breed with? Each other?
It takes more than two, baby.
The Biblegod says he opens a window in Heaven to make it rain on earth
Genesis 7:12-13 ...and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
1st Kings 8:35 When heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee; if they pray toward this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou afflictest them
I guess the weather reports could be a lot more accurate if only they could detect those Heavenly windows.
The Biblegod says you can get to heaven if you build a tower big enough...
...and that really scares him.
Here's the story, bold emphasis mine:
Gen 11:1-9 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
I really am at a loss to decide where to begin in the analysis of such a ridiculous story.
I don't know which is sillier, the idea that you can get to heaven by building a really tall tower or the assertion that any activities by mortals can scare God.
From these nine verses that are the start of chapter 11 of Genesis, we learn that
You can get to Heaven if you build a tower tall enough.
Apparently, the people who wrote the Bible thought that Heaven was literally a domain in the clouds.
Apparently, the people who wrote the Bible thought it would be architecturally possible to build a tower that would reach into the clouds.
The Biblegod became afraid of these upstart humans and their project.
The Biblegod cursed the humans to end the project.
Different languages were instantly created in that moment.
I submit that anyone who has flown in an airplane knows that
Clouds are not solid domains but wisps of condensation.
Clouds are not the domains of angels or other divine beings.
God is not threatened by our traveling to the clouds and back. (God didn't smite the Wright brothers to prevent them from building the first airplane)
I submit that anyone familiar with architecture knows that
There is no way bronze age architects could have built a tower that would reach into the clouds, even if they all worked together.
Modern sky-scrappers reach much higher than ancient towers with the help of steel-reinforced concrete. So far, no one has made it Heaven in an elevator.
I submit that linguists know that
Languages evolve and take form as one culture is separated from another
Languages change over time. English certainly has. Anyone who's read old-English texts knows this.
Common sense tells us that
It seems pretty unlikely that the Creator of the entire universe should feel scared about the activity of humans.
Apparently, God isn't threatened by our traveling to the moon and back, since it was allowed to happen.
If there is a Heaven, it doesn't exist in physical proximity to the earth.
Contradiction: By the way, even though the Bible says in Gen 11:1 that there was only one language, the previous chapter indicates that there was more than one language. Bold emphasis mine.
Gen 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
Gen 10:20 These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues.
Gen 10:31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues.
Gen 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
So apparently there was more than one language before the Tower of Babel, according to chapter 10. Except that there wasn't, according to chapter 11. How could the editors of the Word of God be so sloppy?
Genesis 11:1-9, "The Tower of Babel" gets Deism.org's award for most absurd Bible story, barely beating out Noah's Ark and the incoherent Revelations. I submit that this story is completely indefensible, even with the most liberal allowance for metaphor and poetic license.
http://www.deism.org/deism%20vs%20the%20Bible.htm
And Oh so much more where that came from , and I didn't even mention the Nostic Gospels
Evolution is the least of the Bible's problems. In fact, evolution isn't even mentioned in this list. Even the most basic grade-school understanding of how the universe actually works contradicts what is clearly stated in the Bible. How could the author of the Bible be the Creator when the Bible is so wrong about Creation?
God's Creation vs. the Bible
...or "Top 10 ways the Bible contradicts Creation"
"Long ago, when torture broke the remnant of his will,
Galileo recanted, but the Earth is moving still."
-Dr. Catherine Faber
The Bible has many harsh critics. The most notable among them is God.
God's own Creation discredits the Bible at every turn. If you believe in the Bible as the "Word of God", evolution is the least of your problems. Even the most remedial education in modern science definitively refutes what the Bible teaches about the nature of the universe. In fact, the errors are so severe that they can't be dismissed as metaphor. Even the most liberal interpretations of the Bible are in conflict with some of the most basic understandings of modern science.
In the "Top 10 ways the Bible contradicts Creation" below, I don't even mention evolution. I have restricted myself to the blindingly obvious absurdities of the Bible, contradicted by what even a child should know of science. Clearly, the author of the Bible could not have been the architect of this universe.
According to the Bible...
The sun moves around the earth.
The moon is a source of light.
The sky is a firmament (a dome) above the earth.
The stars are little lights set in the firmament
The earth is flat with four corners.
The earth has pillars that support it (also called "the foundations of the earth")
Creation took six days
A single man and woman can sustain a species and populate a planet
It rains whenever the Biblegod opens a window in Heaven.
You can get to Heaven by building a really tall tower. (deism.org's favorite absurdity)
Also see the Order of Events in Creation. The Bible can't even keep it's own story straight between the first and second chapters of Genesis. Neither chapter is consistent with the order of events indicated by science.
The Biblegod says the sun revolves around the earth.
Joshua 10:12-13 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Psalm 19:4-6 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
These two passages were written at a time when people thought the sun moved across the sky. The Joshua passage clearly says "the sun stood still". The Psalms passage seem reminiscent of the ancient Greek legends of Apollo and how his chariot pulled the sun on its daily circuit across the sky. Indeed, the Book of Isaiah with all it's Greek mythological creatures, indicates that the authors of the Bible were heavily influenced by the pagan mythologies.
Other passages of the Bible state that the earth is fixed in place rather than revolving around the sun.
Psalm 93:1 ...the world also is stabilized, that it cannot be moved.
Psalm 96:10 ...the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved....
Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
1st Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Indeed because of these passages, Christian leaders were slow to accept the heliocentric universe proposed by Copernicus.
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.... This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
-- Martin Luther, referring to Joshua 10:13, in his series of "Table Talks" (1539)
"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?"
-- John Calvin, citing Psalm 93:1 in his Commentary on Genesis
"... And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine -- which is false and altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture -- of the motion of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus in De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, and by Diego de Zuñiga On Job, is now being spread abroad and accepted by many... Therefore, in order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has decreed that the said Nicolaus Copernicus, De Revolutionibus Orbium, and Diego de Zuñiga, On Job, be suspended until they are corrected."
-- The Roman Catholic Church, from The Decree of the Roman Catholic Congregation of the Index which condemned De Revolutionibus on March 5, 1616
The early Christian resistance to the heliocentric model of the solar system was Biblically founded. They believed that Copernicus was wrong and the Bible was right.
Today, we know better.
The Biblegod says the moon is a source of light
Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night...
Isaiah 30:26 (prophecy) Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun
Isaiah's prophecy in the latter verse indicates his ignorance that the moon doesn't give off any light of its own. I expect that someone who truly speaks for God should know better.
Later in the Bible, there are prophecies of the end times when the moon won't shine. Here's how the Bible describes it (bold emphasis mine):
Isaiah 13:10 ...and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
Ezekiel 32:7 ...and the moon shall not give her light.
Matthew 24:29 ...and the moon shall not give her light...
Of course, today we know that the moon doesn't actually produce any light. It simply reflects the light of the sun.
This error of the Bible can't be dismissed as metaphor. A poet who knew better would have written that the moon might be "covered" or "blackened" or in some other way prevented from reflecting light. Instead, the Bible clearly states that the moon gives "her light" (not the light of what a poet might call "father sun").
Really, even the primitive authors of the Bible should have known better. The shadows on the waxing and waning moon should have been enough of a clue.
The Biblegod describes the sky as a dome over the earth
Genesis 1:6-8 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven...
Genesis 1:16-17 ...he (God) made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.
The "second day" in which the Biblegod creates the firmament in which he later fixes the little lights known as stars (see above) is apparently the dome that makes up the sky. This dome apparently separates heaven from earth which explains why in chapter 11 of Genesis the authors concluded that you could get to heaven by building a tower tall enough.
Curiously, there is much talk of "waters" in the first chapter of Genesis. It appears that the authors of the Bible believed that the universe was a great sea before the Biblegod got started to work.
Some have suggested that Genesis is a poetic metaphor for the actual creation of the universe but too many details are simply wrong. Space is a vacuum, not an ocean, the order of events in Genesis are completely wrong (and they contradict each other between chapters 1 and 2) and the descriptions of the heavenly bodies and their relationship to earth are also wrong, as detailed in this list.
The Biblegod says the stars are little lights set in the firmament
Genesis 1:16-17 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.
This passage in Genesis clearly describes the stars as little lights that are fixed in the sky (which in turn is described as a dome or firmament over the earth). The flippant nature in which God is said to have "made the stars also", almost as an afterthought, indicates that the authors of the Bible were unaware that each star was its own sun. The stars in Genesis were created on the same day as the sun (the "fourth day" in the first chapter of Genesis), implying that all stars were created at the same time. We know this is not true, as many stars are older than our sun and new stars are constantly forming.
The stars are also said to have been created to "give light upon the earth" but most of them don't. There are only thousands of stars visible with the naked eye from earth. This is only a tiny fraction of the billions and billions of stars that are out there.
Other passages in the Bible confirm this ancient view of the stars as little lights in the sky-dome over the earth. When the world comes to its predicted end, these little lights will fall to the earth.
Matthew 24:29 ...and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Revelations 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
Revelations 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;
Revelations 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth...
Knowing what we know today about the true nature of stars, we should realize that even as a metaphor the concept is silly. Even the most liberal of poetic license will not stretch to allow that the stars might one day fall to the earth.
The Biblegod says the earth is flat with four corners
Passages in the Bible that discuss the "four corners of the earth" (bold emphasis mine):
Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
Ezekiel 7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.
Revelations 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth,...
Of course, the earth has no "corners" since it's a globe. What really reveals the ignorance of those who wrote the Bible is the passage where the devil tries to tempt Jesus:
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him (Jesus) up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
This Matthew passage particularly underscores that the authors of the Bible had little understanding of the earth. Not only did they believe the earth was flat with for corners, they also believed the earth was so small that all of it could be viewed from an exceedingly tall mountain. Needless to say, the surface of all the earth and all of its kingdoms can't be viewed from on high. Even from space this would not be possible for the other side of the planet would not be visible. The only way to view all of the earth from on top a high mountain is if the earth were flat and very small.
The Biblegod says the earth has "foundations"
These "foundations of the earth" are often described as pillars.
1st Samuel 2:8 ...for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Psalm 75:3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.
Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
Jeremiah 31:37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.
Micah 6:2 Hear ye, O mountains, the LORD's controversy, and ye strong foundations of the earth...
Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth;...
Of course, the earth has no "foundation", whether composed of pillars or some other form. The earth is a spherical rock floating in space. It's completely unsupported and certainly not fixed in place.
The Biblegod says Creation took six (6) days
See all of chapter 1 of Genesis.
"How long did Creation really take?" we may ask. Were Nature's God to speak, It might ask why we're using the past tense. Scientists believe the universe is some 13.5 billion years old. Stars continue to form. The universe continues to expand. It appears the universe is still under construction.
The Biblegod says a single male and female can sustain a species and populate a world
We read about this twice in the Book of Genesis. The first was after the creation of Adam and Even in Chapter 2 who are said to be the common ancestors of all of humanity. The second occasion was during the Noah's Ark story in chapters 6 through 9 when Noah sustains the animal population by taking two of each kind aboard the ark. Frankly, even the primitive authors of the Bible should have known better. Common sense indicates that it takes more than two to provide sufficient genetic material to maintain a species for more than a generation.
After all, who are their children supposed to breed with? Each other?
It takes more than two, baby.
The Biblegod says he opens a window in Heaven to make it rain on earth
Genesis 7:12-13 ...and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
1st Kings 8:35 When heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee; if they pray toward this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou afflictest them
I guess the weather reports could be a lot more accurate if only they could detect those Heavenly windows.
The Biblegod says you can get to heaven if you build a tower big enough...
...and that really scares him.
Here's the story, bold emphasis mine:
Gen 11:1-9 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
I really am at a loss to decide where to begin in the analysis of such a ridiculous story.
I don't know which is sillier, the idea that you can get to heaven by building a really tall tower or the assertion that any activities by mortals can scare God.
From these nine verses that are the start of chapter 11 of Genesis, we learn that
You can get to Heaven if you build a tower tall enough.
Apparently, the people who wrote the Bible thought that Heaven was literally a domain in the clouds.
Apparently, the people who wrote the Bible thought it would be architecturally possible to build a tower that would reach into the clouds.
The Biblegod became afraid of these upstart humans and their project.
The Biblegod cursed the humans to end the project.
Different languages were instantly created in that moment.
I submit that anyone who has flown in an airplane knows that
Clouds are not solid domains but wisps of condensation.
Clouds are not the domains of angels or other divine beings.
God is not threatened by our traveling to the clouds and back. (God didn't smite the Wright brothers to prevent them from building the first airplane)
I submit that anyone familiar with architecture knows that
There is no way bronze age architects could have built a tower that would reach into the clouds, even if they all worked together.
Modern sky-scrappers reach much higher than ancient towers with the help of steel-reinforced concrete. So far, no one has made it Heaven in an elevator.
I submit that linguists know that
Languages evolve and take form as one culture is separated from another
Languages change over time. English certainly has. Anyone who's read old-English texts knows this.
Common sense tells us that
It seems pretty unlikely that the Creator of the entire universe should feel scared about the activity of humans.
Apparently, God isn't threatened by our traveling to the moon and back, since it was allowed to happen.
If there is a Heaven, it doesn't exist in physical proximity to the earth.
Contradiction: By the way, even though the Bible says in Gen 11:1 that there was only one language, the previous chapter indicates that there was more than one language. Bold emphasis mine.
Gen 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
Gen 10:20 These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues.
Gen 10:31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues.
Gen 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
So apparently there was more than one language before the Tower of Babel, according to chapter 10. Except that there wasn't, according to chapter 11. How could the editors of the Word of God be so sloppy?
Genesis 11:1-9, "The Tower of Babel" gets Deism.org's award for most absurd Bible story, barely beating out Noah's Ark and the incoherent Revelations. I submit that this story is completely indefensible, even with the most liberal allowance for metaphor and poetic license.
http://www.deism.org/deism%20vs%20the%20Bible.htm
And Oh so much more where that came from , and I didn't even mention the Nostic Gospels
-
Guest
nice avoidance of answering my questions. proving again you can not do it and since you can not answer my questions how do you expect people to believe what you want. you can't even honestly and openly defend what you believe.
yes, when you read the Bible without investigation you will find seemingly contradictions but if you examine it like you should then you will see that those contradictions do not exist.
most of your post is just plain foolishness , demonstrating a lack of understanding and a lack of knowledge. if you are sincere maybe i would explain things to you but seeing that you are not, i would just be wasting my breathe and energy.
yes, when you read the Bible without investigation you will find seemingly contradictions but if you examine it like you should then you will see that those contradictions do not exist.
most of your post is just plain foolishness , demonstrating a lack of understanding and a lack of knowledge. if you are sincere maybe i would explain things to you but seeing that you are not, i would just be wasting my breathe and energy.
-
Rokcet Scientist
-
Leona Conner
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:40 am
- Location: Tennessee
"yes, when you read the Bible without investigation you will find seemingly contradictions but if you examine it like you should then you will see that those contradictions do not exist"
Excuse me, but don't you have this reversed. It's when you read the Bible without investigation and questioning you will not find the contradictions, and just accept what is says without thinking. It is the process of investigation that allows the contradictions to come apparent. I have yet to meet a Bible thumper who has done anything more than read it with an empty mind.
Excuse me, but don't you have this reversed. It's when you read the Bible without investigation and questioning you will not find the contradictions, and just accept what is says without thinking. It is the process of investigation that allows the contradictions to come apparent. I have yet to meet a Bible thumper who has done anything more than read it with an empty mind.
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16035
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Tech, I really hope that you enjoy doing all that because the Jesus freaks are just not worth the effort.
Better to find a cartoon or something.......
Better to find a cartoon or something.......
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Guest
that is because that is all you have. you can't use science because the evidence doesn't support evolution. you can't use history as it doesn't suport the theory either. you can't use archaeology because the discoveries do not support evolution and so on.Better to find a cartoon or something
eonce you get past the original conjectures, thereis nothing that evolution has tooffer. if it did you would be able to, without attacking the opponent, present scientific finds that ultimately prove evolution true.
'after 100 years and millions of pieces of evidence, you would think that scientists would be able to say, this is the way it is...'(darwin's enigma by lundgrin, if i remember correctly).
this is the other thing, with all this time and all this evidence you should be close to a solution and state how it all happened; but you can't because the evidence doesn't support the theory, there is no consensus among scientists as to how it works and which is the right way and you can not duplicate the theory in practice or we would see apes turning into humans in the laboratory even now.
without knowing the original conditions, without observation of the hypothetical, there is nothing...
no, for you need to study the Bible to get the full picture and that means using outside sources such as archaeology and history to aid in understanding what is being said, how it is being said and why certain actions took place.yes, we take it by faith that it is true and we really do not need proof but it helps when discussing the Bible and it helps when people use the physical evidence falsely like most researchers do.Excuse me, but don't you have this reversed
if you think that is me, you are wrong. i do see that in allthe opponents of the creation story. if you weren't intolerant, you would not be opposed to having it taught in the science classroom. also if you had the truth, you could answer the questions but you don't and you can't....I see a self-important, overbearing, intolerant, jealous, aggressive, machiavellian 'person'
-
Frank Harrist
Saying the same bullshit over and over doesn't convince anyone, because bullshit is just bullshit, reverend archie. You are a bullshit geyser. Keep saying it over and over and you'll convince yourself, but not intelligent people.archaeologist wrote:that is because that is all you have. you can't use science because the evidence doesn't support evolution. you can't use history as it doesn't suport the theory either. you can't use archaeology because the discoveries do not support evolution and so on.Better to find a cartoon or something
eonce you get past the original conjectures, thereis nothing that evolution has tooffer. if it did you would be able to, without attacking the opponent, present scientific finds that ultimately prove evolution true.
'after 100 years and millions of pieces of evidence, you would think that scientists would be able to say, this is the way it is...'(darwin's enigma by lundgrin, if i remember correctly).
this is the other thing, with all this time and all this evidence you should be close to a solution and state how it all happened; but you can't because the evidence doesn't support the theory, there is no consensus among scientists as to how it works and which is the right way and you can not duplicate the theory in practice or we would see apes turning into humans in the laboratory even now.
without knowing the original conditions, without observation of the hypothetical, there is nothing...
no, for you need to study the Bible to get the full picture and that means using outside sources such as archaeology and history to aid in understanding what is being said, how it is being said and why certain actions took place.yes, we take it by faith that it is true and we really do not need proof but it helps when discussing the Bible and it helps when people use the physical evidence falsely like most researchers do.Excuse me, but don't you have this reversed
if you think that is me, you are wrong. i do see that in allthe opponents of the creation story. if you weren't intolerant, you would not be opposed to having it taught in the science classroom. also if you had the truth, you could answer the questions but you don't and you can't....I see a self-important, overbearing, intolerant, jealous, aggressive, machiavellian 'person'