 |
| |
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SkeleTony69
You are not making any sense here(or in any post you have made).You have not been able to offer ANY refutation to any of the points made by us "evolutionists" here but like David Lynch you seem to think if you throw enough nonsense at us no one will notice the lack of substance and then mistake you for someone of reasonable intellect or even genius. |
Reasonable intellect? I have a recommendation for one of the best universities in the world and you say that doesn't demand reasonable intellect?
quote:
Also,when you constantly write off another's argument with a statement like "these [b]kids[/i] crack me up!" or something similarly,thinly disguised insult you concede that reason and rational are not on your side. |
See your bold letters above? I guess the 'evolutionist' tactics in here are getting to me starting to use them myself, huh? Just look at Guynemer. There's been nothing but revealed insults from him all along. And I can mention others.
quote:
And of course you end your part in the debate by saying something like "I have done this before and now I'm tired of it so I won't reply any more".Typical creationist tactic designed to absolve you from ever having to address the holes in your argument or the irrefutable logic and evidence presented by others. |
Holes in my arguments? You're throwing insults and not providing any substance for them here. You're saying I'm a creationist? I didn't say that. You're drawing unsubstantiated conclusions. Who's being irrational?
I have posted a lot in here all day and yesterday and even Guynemer thinks it's too much. It is streneous. That's why I ask Zealot and others to reply. They answered some of the questions directed at me.
Anyways, your first post was interesting. But why do you think your one post will convince anybody. I'm sure the arguments convinced you, but ppl are different. And some might need more 
Last edited by Lars-E on 15-01-2002 at 22:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tolls
re: published PhDs
I'm sure he (and the other PhDs on ICR) have published in peer reviewed literature, but I would lay money that Kurt Wise's thesis did not deal in any way with a 6000 year old earth...which was my question, how many creationist articles are there in peer reviewed literature? If they have evidence then it will be printed, but they never do...in fact I don't htink they submit the bloody things in the first place! |
Guess what? So do I!
quote:
as for:
"Why would evolutionist magazines bring in something that oppose their views. Be rational. "
Smacks of conspiracy here...and I'm the one who isn't being rational? |
Not a conspiracy. But some evolutionists, at least in here for instance, think that creationists are stupid uneducated ppl. Who would accept papers from them?
quote:
The intermediates thing was pure and simple pointing out to you that you brought up intermediates, unlike your statement. |
No I didnt say that. I brought it up.
quote:
And you can rest your case, that's fine, doesn't prevent me from replying to some of your comments... |
There's no rest for the wicked.
quote:
...oh one more thing...I know this wasn't addressed to me, but:
"You see here's your problem: You haven't followed this thread very closely.
I never said "Anybody who would ask the question "why aren't all apes human?" "
No, it's true, you didn't...but Zealot did, and that is who Osweld was replying to...now who isn't following the thread?
|
You? At the beginning of those lines he wrote the name Lars.
Last edited by Lars-E on 15-01-2002 at 22:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Yes, that is the creationist view. There is no non-Biblical basis for acceptance of creationism or rejection of evolution. All creatioists are either religious fundamentalists or victims of fundamentalist propaganda. |
Easy answers. You have em all don't you. You have narrowed down the rejectors of evolution to 2 kinds of seemingly crazy ppl! 
quote:
Only religious fundamentalists assert that there are no transitional fossils (or very few transitional fossils). It is a creatioist lie, pure and simple. |
Likely. After all the creationists believe in the 9th commandment: You must lie.
quote:
Stephen J. Gould is not a moron (nor is he a creationist, of course). But Dr. Kurt Wise IS a religious fundamentalist. He freely admits that the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution: he chose to reject it ONLY because it contradicts his religion. Here is what happened after he took a pair of scissors and cut out the parts of the Bible that contradict evolution:
". . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science."
|
This is only about how he converted from evolutionism to creationism. See your bold letters? Where does he admit that the evidence support evolution?
quote:
You are lying, Lars. Nobody here has DENIED that most mutations are not beneficial (actually most are pretty neutral, but the "horrid" ones greatly outnumber the beneficial ones). That's where natural selection comes in.
|
Lying? Me being a raving lunatic religious bigot? That's right we believe in the commandment "You must lie". I didnt know that, neither that I was a mad religous terrorist. Because that's next, right?
quote:
There is nothing "improbable" about evolution. So far, you have not demonstrated any real grasp of "statistics and probabilities". |
Funny, being one of the best students at it in university. But there's a great conspiracy going on. The great uni's like Harvard, Northwestern, etc are crap. Any more amusing stuff? Wanna resort to rethoric or semantics perhaps?
West Virginia take me home to meet the evolved hillbilles of the mountains.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SkeleTony69
|
|
Tacoma,WA.,USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
Zealot and Lars, There is a clear pattern here of you misrepresenting science or displaying monumental ignorance of evolutionary biology,followed by clear and precise refutation by several "evolutionists"(as you call them/us) as well as pointing out flaws in the creationist argument which you ignore comepletely in order to quibble over what you percieve to be some minor insult(and/or deliver insults yourselves).
As I said,it is a hard thing to admit you are wrong or to admit that something you spend considerable time and effort justifying or defending may be inaccurate but it does you no good to cover your ears and pretend you don't hear it.
If something more probable and accurate than the theory of evolution comes along to explain how life on earth developed then I will be the first to admit it.That is the nature of science and reason(though I am NOT claiming to be a scientist)...to change according to new information and relevation.The nature of religion/creationism is stasis."We already have all the answers...God did it!".Convenient but hollow.
Just try and answer even some of the "simple" things I brought up in my first post in this thread.
And about the transitional fossils...I will have to do a cut & paste here since I am not a scientist and you would no doubt want your queries answered by someone better qualified...
"TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS
"There are no transitional fossils" is the battle cry of the ignorant Creationist. I will comment briefly on the history of this argument, show the various transitional species of human ancestors, and finally show the existence of transitional hominid individuals, between species.
Around the 16th century, people thought they were completely separate from the animal kingdom. At that same time, the great apes, the gorillas and orangutans, the chimpanzees and other monkeys, were all unknown. When the great apes were discovered, a fierce debate raged as to whether these creatures were a strange race of men, or just another animal. An English physician, Edward Tyson, wrote a book in 1699 concerning the anatomy of apes. Tyson listed 48 physiological characteristics that made the ape similar to man, and 34 characteristics that, on the other hand, connected the ape more closely to the animal kingdom.
The point I am trying to make is that the ape is, in a sense, a transitional form between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. Creationists can't accept that, however, and demand a transitional form between man and apelike ancestors. When Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon remains were first found, creationists demanded transitionals between them and an ape-like ancestor, and between these human ancestors and present day humans.
Present day knowledge from the fossil record show the following progression from modern humans to ancient ancestors, as the table shows: Name
Looks Brain Size in cc's. # of specimens Dates Tools
Ramapithecus Small, no forehead, very apelike very small 20, mostly jawbones and a few skulls 12 million years old None
Australopithecus Half-Ape, half human, slight forehead, upright walk 600 cc. 800 specimens, mostly skulls, a few near complete skeletons 4 million years old None
Homo Habilus Slightly human head, bigger brain 725 cc. 200, mostly skulls, some hips and femurs 2 million years old Stone tools
Homo Erectus Larger brain, almost human head 1000 cc. 1500+ fossil specimens, some very complete skeletons 1 million years old Stone, and Fire.
Homo Sapiens Some look more human than others. 1350 cc. Tens of Thousands 350,000 years old All
.
Homo erectus discoveries demanded that the creationists employ a more refined strategy. Homo erectus is just as human as us, sloped forehead and all. Or, they were diseased humans. Or, perhaps they were apes, eaten by humans, and the tools found with them are simply what the humans used to carve up the apes. The fact is, H. erectus has an apelike head, human dentition, an upright walk. This ape-headed, walking creature also used tools and made fires. Over a thousand fossil specimens have confirmed this.
Homo Habilus is a transitional form between H. Erectus and the Australopithecines. H. Habilus has a smaller brain capacity than H. Erectus, 725 cc as opposed to 950 cc. The slope of the forehead is greater, and only stone tools are found at the Habilus sites. There is no evidence of fire use by H. Habilus.
When the Australopithecines were found, the initial thoughts were they were knuckle walkers, like apes. Creationists took the position they were just extinct apes. However, finds of australopithecine hips, femurs, and other bones indicate it walked upright--while having the unmistakeable head of an ape. Australopithicines are transitionals between older, knuckle-walking ape-like ancestors, and the more modern, tool using H. erectus.
Transitional Hominid Individuals:
There are quite a few fossil finds which don't translate well into one species or another. These are called "transitional individuals", and are intermediate in characteristics between an older type and a more recent specimen.
The Omo skulls, found by a team of Paleontologists led by Richard Leakey in Ethiopia in 1967 are skulls with a large (1430 cc) cranium capacity, but which preserve features of H. erectus skulls such as a receding forehead and prominent brow ridges. This is regarded as an early example of a human, even though it has characteristics of an H. Erectus specimen. It is over 100,000 years old.
Vertesszollos skulls were found in 1965 in a site in Hungary. The thickness of the skull and the one-piece brow ridge are features of an H. Erectus, but the brain capacity is modern: 1400 cc. The brain, though large, is configured in a more primitive manner than modern humans. It is an extremely early, and very primitive, example of H. Sapiens, but with distinct H. erectus features. It is about 400,000 years old.
The Petralona skull, about 400,000 years old, is from a cave in ancient Greece. It is an H. erectus skull with some advanced features normally found only in modern humans.
Ngaloba skull is an an early H. sapiens specimen found in sandstone and clay deposits in Tanzania in 1976. It has mostly human features, while retaining some archaic H. erectus features in its shape. It is about 120,000 years old.
Tautavel skulls originated in the Arago cave in southern France, excavated in 1964. The skull has features of both H. erectus and Neanderthals, and is a transitional fossil between the two species. It is about 300,000 years old.
Creationists use the same strategy with Archeopteryx. It's just a bird. In fact, Archeopteryx is fossil bird with reptilian characteristics. It could just as accurately be described as a fossil reptile with bird-like characteristics.
Transitional Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals
There are many transitional forms at all stages of evolution. Here are a few of the more interesting ones:
An ancient transitional species between invertebrates and vertebrates is the Jamoytius, a sea creature similar to the modern lamprey. Its "backbone" was a stiff, unsegmented tissue known as a notochord.
Acanthodes is a primitive jawed fish. Jaws, a major evolutionary development, originated from bony gill arches.
The Osteolepis is a bony fish, with a skull and jaw structure very analogous to early land-dwelling vertebrates. This is a lobe-finned fish, different from the lungfish, and indicates that this is the transitional form from sea creatures to the early amphibians, not lungfish.
Seymoura and Lyccaenops are early reptiles with amphibian characteristics, and are almost exactly half amphibian, and half reptile. They are transitional forms between amphibians and reptiles.
The Synapsids are a subclass of early reptiles that bridge the gap between reptiles and primitive mammals.
Conclusion:
Isn't this exactly what we would expect from the fossil evidence, if humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor? If life evolved gradually, from simple sea creatures without jaws or backbones, to large brained, tool-using mammals?
On the other hand, if humans were created by divine fiat, why does the fossil record show a slow and gradual progression from creatures who neither walked upright nor had large brains, through upright-walking, small brained creatures, and then to large-brained, tool using, upright walking creatures, and finally to modern humans?
If you want, you can visit your local museum of natural history, and verify everything on this page. Or, if you're intellectually lazy, you can continue to believe that humans were created by the impulsive act of a lonely Hebrew deity. "
I will point out that the "anti-religious" sentiments of the author are his alone.I am only positing that his science is spot on as far as I can tell but I would be happy to be shown differently.
Rogan Josh-You should know full well why anecdotal evidence is not given any weight in scientific method.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SkeleTony69
|
|
Tacoma,WA.,USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
Sorry the pictures,I forgot about so it reads kindof weird but if any are interested I can post a direct link to the site.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Likely. After all the creationists believe in the 9th commandment: You must lie. |
It is a well-known fact that creationists lie often. Kent Hovind, Duane Gish, Walter Brown: they've all been caugght doing it! And creationist websites are full of "questions evolutionists cannot answer" that have been answered hundreds of times, "evidence" known to be false for many decades, and so forth. It's commonly known as "Lying for the Lord".
quote:
This is only about how he converted from evolutionism to creationism. See your bold letters? Where does he admit that the evidence support evolution? |
You obviously don't know much about Wise. He's just about the only prominent creationist who is regarded as basically truthful. He has been labelled a "closet evolutionist" by other creationists.
quote:
You are lying, Lars. Nobody here has DENIED that most mutations are not beneficial (actually most are pretty neutral, but the "horrid" ones greatly outnumber the beneficial ones). That's where natural selection comes in.
Lying? Me being a raving lunatic religious bigot? That's right we believe in the commandment "You must lie". I didnt know that, neither that I was a mad religous terrorist. Because that's next, right? |
You said (about harmful mutations) "I pointed that out early. No one in here believed it. And those who knew kept quiet". You lied. You were caught. Live with it.
quote:
Funny, being one of the best students at it in university. But there's a great conspiracy going on. The great uni's like Harvard, Northwestern, etc are crap. Any more amusing stuff? Wanna resort to rethoric or semantics perhaps?
West Virginia take me home to meet the evolved hillbilles of the mountains. |
Harvard, of course, teaches EVOLUTION. Like ALL real universities. Your pretense that 99.999% of all the world's scientists are "hillbillies" is surely a joke, right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bosh
|
 |
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
No, the book of Isaiah was written by Isaiah himself!
Was not! 
You say that the book was written by several authors, but the unity of this book can surely be pointed by the expression "The Holy of Israel" which shows up 12 times from chapters 1 to 39, and 13 from chapters 40 to 66, in a total of 25 times. In the rest of the OT this expression only appears 6 times.
So one common phrase sticks around throughout, while stylistically most everything else shifts a good bit and this is proof that they're all written by the same person??
Even the Apostle Paul testifies the unity of the book and that Isaiah wrote his book
Irrelevant, as the two/three "Isaiahs" were lumped together before Paul's time.
dated to be from the end of the second century BCE
Again irrelevent, since the two/three "Isaiahs" were probably lumped together under Persian rule, which is when the bulk of the bible assumed its present form.
But there's other evidence of Isaiah's book authenticity. Beside Moses, he's the most quoted by the Christian Bible writers.
This proves all of the book was written by the same person how?
And there's abundant evidence in history and archeology which prove that the book is genuine, such as the historical narratives of the Assyrian Monarchs, and the hexagonal prism of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, who made his own writtings about Jerusalem's siege
Right. All of the book was probably written at around the time of the events it discusses (with editing later of course) but as it talks about widely separated times it was written by two/three separate people. This is different from the book of Daniel, which was probably all written shortly before the Maccabean revolt.
Daniel will have to be for some other time.
NP
Any modern day experiments confirm your theory of beneficial mutations?
There's a great deal of evidence that the gene that makes most of us NOT lactose intolerant was a fairly recent mutation, there's plenty more examples like this.
What about 'evolution by leaps' which seemed to be a new craze a few years ago?
When the environment is disrupted and lots of ecological niches are freed up there tends to be a spurt of evolution until relative ecological balance is restored, but this still takes millions of years. A good example of this is the differentiation of mammals after the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Newton's mechanics have been proven right.
Actually they've been proven wrong by Einstein quite a while ago, but they're still a useful way of modeling everyday physics.
You need to tell tham about evidence for macroevolution.
The split between macroevolution and microevolution is quite arbitrary, kind of like the difference between, say, grey and dark grey and creationists have never been able to explain why there should be a magic barrier that allows X amout of evolution but no more.
Would you please give me the probabilities for this to happen?
Its immensely improbable that evolution would result in the species that we have today, (just like if you shuffle a deck of cards having the exact order of cards that you have is IMMENSELY improbable) but not that it has occured at all.
Seems like the writer of Samuel II thought God provoked David, while the writer of Chronicles saw satan behind the story.
Good, this is all we need, the admission that the writers of the Bible are fallible. A lot of Christians wouldn't make the above kind of statement. The logical question now is, of course, how do you separate out the true and the false bits of the bible?
can't find any contradictions
The bit about Chronicles and Samuel is exactly the kind of contradiction we're talking about.
In Matthew we have the lineage of Jesus' ancestors through his mother Mary
Hmmm the 14 generation bit is the clincher here, I concede the argument.
And believe me, you'll be guilty.
Fairly strange for a God to set up impossible standards and then punish people for an eternity for not meeting said standards (ie all the Jews that lived in the BCs for example).
In that case an eye can only 'evolve' in 100000 to the 11th degree cases.
You're making the incorrect assumption that there's nothing between "eye" and "no eye." There's evidence (which I can dig up if you want) that eye evolution started as a patch of light-sensitive flesh that couldn't do anything besides tell the difference between light and dark and then went from there.
It is impossible to believe in evolution theory, but I still believe it
I'm willing to bet anything that this statement was taken COMPLETELY out of context (a favorite creationist tactic) or is a bald lie. I did some research on Eigen and what he supposedly said and I couldn't find the completely quote or even any references to when/where he said it in the bunch of creationist sites that came up when I searched for this quote.
Anyways there are millions of focciles and many have been found. Mammals, insects, etc. But where are the intermediates?
Every fossil (except the dead ends) is an intermediary.
Why the heck doesn't every specie have exactly the same kind of eye, if they had exactly the same time to "evolve"?
Um, if you think this is how evolution works you have a LOT of reading to do. Evolution is not teleological, there is no pre-determined "best" endpoint and species evolve all over the place.
Why didn't every ape evolve into humans?
Because populations were separated and some populations evolved into humans and some didn't. This kind of claim makes about as much sense as wondering why there are still wolves when dogs were bred from wolves.
You just stare into the sun for one hour without blinking or having any eye protection. What will happen? You'll go blind! Every one's following up to here, right? Now, didn't the eye mutate? Didn't it lost some properties?... My point is that there are some event-driven mutations
Um, no. This is kind of Lamarkian evolution NEVER takes place and going blind is hardly a mutation.
but you just can't answer how did life appear in the first place!
Abinogenesis =! evolution.
Because if evolution did happen there's no way Earth would bear so much bio-diversity.
Why?
What happened to oldfashioned science where you observe something in nature and then make a theory out of it?
You mean like looking at the fossil record and then making an evolutionary theory out of it, which is the only theory that is capable of explaining the fossil record?
From this you conclude that since there's an equal chance that any of the 200 is right - evolution which is one of them is right. This is more like an logical error. It doesn't make sense.
Wha????????
Now can you tell me why the bananafly has reached the pinnacle of evolution?
Evolution doesn't have pinnacles.
Even flies. There has been done mutation-experiments on the bananafly. Guess what? They all died like flies. So according to your logic this experiment denies the theory of beneficial mutations.
Wha??????????
I have pointed out a vast difference of opinion on evolution theory between scientists and ppl in this thread.
No you haven't, creationists are a miniscule (as in under 1%) minority among scientists.
There's no scientific evidence that apes stoped being apes at one given time, neither that men weren't still "men" at a given time!
Well humans are just another kind of ape, but there's plenty of hominid fossils that show the development of our ancestors to us.
But why are men the only "animal" who have fat as a heat-retaining system, as do fish
Fish aren't animals?
could be needed in order to that amoeba to appear, and let me tell you: that's impossible[b]
Nobody argues that amoebas were the first life, it was probably something FAR simplier.
[b]In that case, have scientist discovered what the benefit of intelligence was in the human species habitat?[b]
Well once humans started walking upright, having an extra set of hands could do a lot of things with a little intelligence.
[b]OK, so how does the ability to comprehend the mathematics behind quantum mechanics
The human brain is incredibly inefficient (because evolution hasn't had long to work with it), the brain we have evolved to take advantage of tools and to organize human groups more effectively, its just a nice side-effect that it can also figure out quantum dynamics.
The problem with this is that you assume that the flora is immutable
We do? How? Plants evolve the same as animals.
Dr. Wise
He's quite an exception, an honest creationist:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/libr...wkins_21_4.html
Yeah, and turn a blind eye to the ones that fail and they are many, but who cares, right?
Um, did anyone ever say that all mutations are beneficial???
that's enough reading for today, but I would really appreciate it if I got a responce out of Zealot about Daniel/Isaiah...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
You obviously don't know much about Wise. He's just about the only prominent creationist who is regarded as basically truthful. He has been labelled a "closet evolutionist" by other creationists. |
You quoted something he said and said that he in there said that all the evidence points to evolution. Lying for whom?
quote:
You said (about harmful mutations) "I pointed that out early. No one in here believed it. And those who knew kept quiet". You lied. You were caught. Live with it. |
I did not lie. Pl said that evolution had been proven and came up with mutation experiments. They failed to mention that most mutations were harmful. Live with it.
quote:
Your pretense that 99.999% of all the world's scientists are "hillbillies" is surely a joke, right? |
Pretense? You're mixing and confusing stuff. I only said take me home to WV. I did not mean to joke about scientists. Come on. You can see my sig in some posts - it is about WV - a famous country song. I was playing with my sig.
Last edited by Lars-E on 15-01-2002 at 23:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
Its immensely improbable that evolution would result in the species that we have today, (just like if you shuffle a deck of cards having the exact order of cards that you have is IMMENSELY improbable) |
Good point.
quote:
It is impossible to believe in evolution theory, but I still believe it
I'm willing to bet anything that this statement was taken COMPLETELY out of context (a favorite creationist tactic) or is a bald lie. I did some research on Eigen and what he supposedly said and I couldn't find the completely quote or even any references to when/where he said it in the bunch of creationist sites that came up when I searched for this quote. |
This was stated in a religious book. The scientist in question won the prize in the 40s. If it was a lie? Hopefully not.
quote:
...creationists are a miniscule (as in under 1%) minority among scientists. |
Thus being wrong. Like the scientists in the medeval times. As has been mentioned in here the dogma of evolution seem to have the same dominating place today like the dogmas of the church in older times.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SkeleTony69
|
|
Tacoma,WA.,USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
...and a rather blatant example of biblical errancy which I do not suspect the creationists will be able to address:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8926.htm
It concerns the "fig tree story" from the gospels of Mathew and Mark.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
 |
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
that's enough reading for today, but I would really appreciate it if I got a responce out of Zealot about Daniel/Isaiah... |
Well, since you asked with good manners... 
quote:
Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
No, the book of Isaiah was written by Isaiah himself!
Was not!
You say that the book was written by several authors, but the unity of this book can surely be pointed by the expression "The Holy of Israel" which shows up 12 times from chapters 1 to 39, and 13 from chapters 40 to 66, in a total of 25 times. In the rest of the OT this expression only appears 6 times.
So one common phrase sticks around throughout, while stylistically most everything else shifts a good bit and this is proof that they're all written by the same person?? |
That is his style! What everything else "shifts a good bit"? What are you expecting as style?!? What are you doubting about? No, better, why are you doubting about?
quote:
Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
Even the Apostle Paul testifies the unity of the book and that Isaiah wrote his book
Irrelevant, as the two/three "Isaiahs" were lumped together before Paul's time. |
Zhu, I don't know what's going on in your mind, but you're sure not thinking straight! You're accusing my statement as irrelevant, and you only argument that Paul wasn't alive when Isaiah was? Don't you get that Isaiah was part of the Jewish history? And that Paul was an attorney, which means he was educated? Get this straight: the reason the Bible is valid is because of both arqueologic findings and because it's backed by Jewish history!
quote:
Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
dated to be from the end of the second century BCE
Again irrelevent, since the two/three "Isaiahs" were probably lumped together under Persian rule, which is when the bulk of the bible assumed its present form. |
Probably?!? How can I give credit to someone who just criticizes without providing evidence to doubt what I have argumented? Where did you get that idea of lumping the book when Persian arrived at Babylon?
quote:
Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
But there's other evidence of Isaiah's book authenticity. Beside Moses, he's the most quoted by the Christian Bible writers.
This proves all of the book was written by the same person how? |
It's part of Jewish history! It was known by the people! That's why it was never refuted!
quote:
Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
And there's abundant evidence in history and archeology which prove that the book is genuine, such as the historical narratives of the Assyrian Monarchs, and the hexagonal prism of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, who made his own writtings about Jerusalem's siege
Right. All of the book was probably written at around the time of the events it discusses (with editing later of course) but as it talks about widely separated times it was written by two/three separate people. This is different from the book of Daniel, which was probably all written shortly before the Maccabean revolt. |
How can I explain this without insulting you? 
It is so immature to think that one is either a liar or an opportunist. Yet, this is what you have been calling to Isaiah, to Jews who lived in the time of Isaiah, to Jews who lived under Roman domination, to the copy-writters of the scrolls, to historicians, arqueologists, and you even consider dumb those who believe in it!
And you still have the nerve to discard the authenticity of a book without showing any evidence whatsoever! I don't think I'm going to waste my time with you on Daniel's book. You just don't care if I'm showing reliable information or not!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SkeleTony69
...and a rather blatant example of biblical errancy which I do not suspect the creationists will be able to address:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8926.htm
It concerns the "fig tree story" from the gospels of Mathew and Mark. |
"Why would Jesus look for figs on a tree outside season? He cursed the tree and it withered away".
This is a story with more verses but the site you provided don't touch on them. After Jesus curses the fig tree he teaches the disciples a lesson on faith, proclamation and prayer. The emphasis is on the lesson he gave. Jesus sought an opportunity to teach the disciples something. It was not uncommon for him to do things in an unsual way. BTW, Jesus was amongst other things a Teacher.
Now, this is my simple spontaneous response to this based on what the scriptures say. I'm sure there are theologeans who have more profound insight.
DiniDoc provided a link where apparent bible contradictions are refuted:
http://www.godandscience.org/apolog...ontralinks.html
Have a nice day!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SkeleTony69
|
|
Tacoma,WA.,USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
And why are you asking me to "spread out what you just wrote?What the hell does that mean?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-01-2002 21:51
|