20-02-2002 22:25									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Gospels were written from 70 CE onwards. So who's saying otherwise, and on what is that based?

Here, check this one:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm#matthew

It says some people say 45 CE or earlier.
And don't forget that the reason for the 70 CE date is because whoever believes it was written earlier, accepts the prophecy of the destrution of the temple by the romans. So it had to be written later, because there is no such thing as prophecies. Everybody who believes in such thing in not being logical, but dogmatic!


And my official standing about the year Mathews' gospel was written is now 41 CE.



Have a nice troll!

	21-02-2002 00:21									#122
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless They are not comparable. Evolution is entirely devoid of the problems creationism has: problems such as the existence of the fossil record, the overwhelming evidence for an ancient Earth, and all the rest.

Creation has no issues with the existance of the fossile record. They were created in the Flood.

quote: There is no genuine evidence that contradicts evolution:...

There is ample evidence for a young earth. I would prefer to get into that later in this thread since I haven't finished adressing the issues from some earlier posts yet.

quote: ... there is plenty that contradicts creationism. Science operates primarily by falsification. A theory is provisionally accepted as true if it fits the data, but must be discarded if it does not.

We are agreed on the fact that the vast body of scientific knowledge is in the negative form. We know a ton of stuff that does not work and did not happen.

quote: Creationism was discarded about two centuries ago.

And evolution was was discarded about 5,000 years ago, then again about 2,000 years ago but has been making a come back in the last couple hundred years. What's your point?

David

	21-02-2002 00:29									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: And evolution was was discarded about 5,000 years ago, then again about 2,000 years ago

How can a theory that didn't exist be discarded?

Your statement doesn't make sense.

	21-02-2002 01:35									#124
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Ah yes the Flood. IMHO believing in the Flood is even more dubious than believing in creationism.

I have a few questions regarding the flood:

How come large areas do not show any sign of being submerged in the last 4000 (?) years? If everything had flooded, and the flood subsided (where did the water go?) you would see the effects of the erosion on the landscape.

Fossils were laid down during the flood, you (big dave) say. So how come fossils are in completely different strata? If they all died at the same time when the floods happened, why aren't they in the same strata? How do you explain fossils of fish and shells, wouldn't you think they might survive a flood?

Was the Flood salt water or sweet water? If it was salt, why isn't there an obvious layer of salt at some point in the strata all across the world? If it was sweet how did salt water fish survive?

etc. etc. etc.

	21-02-2002 03:12									#125
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by lightblue Ah yes the Flood. IMHO believing in the Flood is even more dubious than believing in creationism. I have a few questions regarding the flood: How come large areas do not show any sign of being submerged in the last 4000 (?) years? If everything had flooded, and the flood subsided (where did the water go?) you would see the effects of the erosion on the landscape. Fossils were laid down during the flood, you (big dave) say. So how come fossils are in completely different strata? If they all died at the same time when the floods happened, why aren't they in the same strata? How do you explain fossils of fish and shells, wouldn't you think they might survive a flood? Was the Flood salt water or sweet water? If it was salt, why isn't there an obvious layer of salt at some point in the strata all across the world? If it was sweet how did salt water fish survive? etc. etc. etc.

You think you've got questions, you outta see my list.

However there is alot of evidence in favor of the Flood, too. Every race, tribe, people, whatever you want to call them, has a legend of a universal flood. And there's more, but I don't want to get off track from the other stuff I'm supposed to be researching.

David

	21-02-2002 03:21									#126
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin quote: And evolution was was discarded about 5,000 years ago, then again about 2,000 years ago How can a theory that didn't exist be discarded? Your statement doesn't make sense.

Confucius said "All reality unfolded gradually from a single entity."

Bhuddist teachers believed all living things evolved from a prior unitary nature

Anaximander and Anaximenes (6th Century B.C.) held that the sun's warmth generated all living forms by acting on some moist primeval element, and that plants, animals, and humans were generated in that order.

They all sound like evolution to me.

Evolution became popular again as a philosophy during the early 19th century, well before Origin of Species was written.

David

	21-02-2002 03:39									#127
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Big Dave You think you've got questions, you outta see my list. However there is alot of evidence in favor of the Flood, too. Every race, tribe, people, whatever you want to call them, has a legend of a universal flood. And there's more, but I don't want to get off track from the other stuff I'm supposed to be researching. David

Oh yes.

Floods are very cataclysmic events. I'd be pretty surprised if there were one single race which didn't fill its mythology with accounts of various cataclysms. That would certainly make very boring storytelling sessions after a day of hunting and foraging.

Besides, your use of the phrase "every race, tribe, people" sounds pretty suspicious to me. Maybe a lot, but not *every*.

Also, are you going to take the mythological traditions of the world as evidence? If so, then the majority of races in the world originally had pantheistic or polytheistic beliefs. So is that what you're planning to believe?

	21-02-2002 03:41									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Big Dave Confucius said "All reality unfolded gradually from a single entity." Bhuddist teachers believed all living things evolved from a prior unitary nature Anaximander and Anaximenes (6th Century B.C.) held that the sun's warmth generated all living forms by acting on some moist primeval element, and that plants, animals, and humans were generated in that order. They all sound like evolution to me. Evolution became popular again as a philosophy during the early 19th century, well before Origin of Species was written. David

So?
Some philosophers have had theories similar to Evolution.
Point being?

	21-02-2002 15:08									#129
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: However there is alot of evidence in favor of the Flood, too. Every race, tribe, people, whatever you want to call them, has a legend of a universal flood. And there's more, but I don't want to get off track from the other stuff I'm supposed to be researching.

Yes, the legends of various peoples could (if viewed in isolation) indicate that there might have been a Great Flood.

However, there clearly WAS NOT a Great Flood. It is not possible for such an event to have occurred: such an event would leave very obvious traces that simply do not exist. No worldwide flood deposits, no sign of any disturbance in the fossil record, no interruption of ice layers in Greenland, too much genetic variation for all species to be recently descended from pairs in the Ark, etc etc etc...

A scientific theory MUST fit the facts. Evolution does, creationism does not. Therefore it doesn't matter how much other stuff is compatible with creationism: creationism cannot be true.

That's how science progresses.

...Incidentally, those Flood legends mostly contradictthe Bible anyhow. The Ark story (apparently invented by the Sumerians and Babylonians) is common in the Middle East, but Flood stories from other parts of the world involve survivors clinging to floating trees and suchlike. According to the Bible, only Noah's family were supposed to survive. So God was careless?

	01-04-2002 14:22									#130
	Remove this text

Some one made the right question! Big Dave seems to be looking for answers. Hope he finds them.

	01-04-2002 15:01									#131
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Big Dave Confucius said "All reality unfolded gradually from a single entity."

He did? Where?

quote: Originally posted by Big Dave Bhuddist teachers believed all living things evolved from a prior unitary nature

IIRC Buddhism is not concerned with how things were evolved but how people can escape from suffering.

quote: Originally posted by Big Dave Anaximander and Anaximenes (6th Century B.C.) held that the sun's warmth generated all living forms by acting on some moist primeval element, and that plants, animals, and humans were generated in that order.

That might sound vaguely like evolution, but it is too general and (again) vague to make a comparison.

quote: Originally posted by Big Dave Evolution became popular again as a philosophy during the early 19th century, well before Origin of Species was written.

Any references to that?

	02-04-2002 01:34									#132
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

UR:

Are you having fun yet?

Last edited by loinburger on 02-04-2002 at 01:58

	02-04-2002 02:32									#133
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I noticed that the creationists on this board were unable to answer a single one of my questions. Not suprising.


Anyways in regards to evolution being popular prior to Origin of Species....it was in some circles. Mainly among biologists but among other materialists. However it was a pseudoscience, and not established until Origin of Speicies. After which the evidence for evolution was found to be so strong that it went from pseudoscientific to one of the strongest theories ever known to science. Likewise atomic theory prior to Dalton was a sort of pseudoscience, having its origins in Greece. Leucippus
was the first philosopher to advance the theory that all things around us are made out of tiny partcles called atoms, most of this was of course pure speculation that didn't become a strong scientific theory until John Dalton proved the existence of atoms via experimentation. Hence evolutionary theory, like atomic theory, may have started as pure speculation but like atomic theory was proven to be correct later on. Today evolutionary theory is so strong, in regards to evidence, that it is on par with atomic theory and denial of evolution is thus equal to the denial of atomic theory and the holocaust. (In fact evolution deniers and holocaust deniers are said to use very similar debate tactics by a historian who has argued with both.)

	02-04-2002 02:50									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Now on to Big Dave's pretend answers to a couple of my questions regarding the Noachian Flood: Note his scientific methods never suprise me.

quote: You think you've got questions, you outta see my list.

Well that's a red herring if ever I saw one.

quote: However there is alot of evidence in favor of the Flood, too. Every race, tribe, people, whatever you want to call them, has a legend of a universal flood. And there's more, but I don't want to get off track from the other stuff I'm supposed to be researching.

Not Dave is asked that you

quote: Please answer these questions with something more then speculation. Use hard empirical evidence. Thanks.

Tribal myths don't count as hard empirical evidence.

Scientists at SETI don't advance theories on alien abduction, people who theorize that dinosaurs died from diseases don't bring up the Lockness Monster. That's because those are myths....we are talking about science. And that demands some hard empirical evidence, not some superstitions that would rightly be laughed out of any scientific conference.

But to expose your hypocrisy for what it is keep in mind that when confronted with the fact of common descent you asked for:

quote: Reference a book, point me to a link. Show me some reputable scientific evidence, please.

Implying that your opponent gave you none. However from your answers you seem to think that "flood myths" count as "reputable scientific evidence"

In that case we could just point to those Greek tales of Anaximander as "reputable scientific evidence" if we were to go by your standards. Your standards are not scientific though, and hardly worth any respectable biologist's time.

	02-04-2002 05:09									#135
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

One thing intrigues me about evolutionists -

Why do they feel they need the blessing of creationists? Trying to convince them is a waste of time as no amount of evidence or even proof can convince them more than something which they were brought up with as total fact

After all, the point of science is to accurately predict events based on experimentation. Evolutionary theory already achieves this, so now we're only sorting out the fine details. We need not waste our time with people who are happiest in their own delusions

	02-04-2002 06:03									#136
	Remove this text

Well, would you rather they be falsely informed?

This is an important concept to teah because it deals with the origins of all life, something that has been speculated on by multitudes. I see it as a failing of the education system if a theory (remember all science is composed of theories, some are just a hell of a easier to demonstrate and remain constant than others) as well estabilshed as evolution cannot be understood by the general populace.

	02-04-2002 10:02									#137
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone Well, would you rather they be falsely informed?

They already are

Good luck banging your head against brick walls

	02-04-2002 10:11									#138
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: We need not waste our time with people who are happiest in their own delusions

Why don't you dig up the bodies of the member's of the Heaven's Gate Cult, Jone'stown and the Branch Davidians and tell them how happy they should be in their delusions?

I mean evolution just answers the question of life itself...not like the origin and development of life is important or anything.

Perhaps we should just let holocaust deniers go around and tell people that the holocaust never happened also....I mean they are happy in their delusions. Wouldn't want to hurt their feelings.

	02-04-2002 10:44									#139
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

loin,

I had no idea why this was dredged up. Be that as it may, I got some spare time.


lung,

Not that we have a facination with silly creationists - okay, can't speak for the psychologists among us - but we are just doing this to stop them from spreading their falsehood around.

The creationists are still going around with their own warped version of various scientific laws and theories to attack evolution. The best way to defend against this crap is an attack against creationism. Hey, if they got all tied up defending, they can't attack

Last edited by Urban Ranger on 02-04-2002 at 10:51

	02-04-2002 10:54									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

the other day my mother told me that science was just man making stuff up......
it's so absurd...but what do you SAY to such stupidity??????

	02-04-2002 11:33									#141
	Get a bigger avatar today!

That's correct, science is just stuff we made up. However, we can't just make any stuff up. This is good stuff Stuff that closely follows obervations and can make predictions that will be tested by experiments.

Stuff that can't do that is bad stuff (bad stuff in terms of science anyway).

	03-04-2002 03:58									#142
	Tired of ads?

I disagree with the idea that science is stuff we made up for a number of reasons. (One of which is that it seems to imply that we have some kind of idealism and another of which is that it defines that terms 'making stuff up' in a very..."unique" way so can be seen as a form of question begging).

The truth is that science, more or less follows realist principles and goes by realist axioms,(that we are studying a world "out there") and it tests observations and/or concepts against an ever increasing field of self-correcting data and conceptualization. Far from making things up science is the best tool ever used to describe reality. Any quarrel with that I say stems more from one of the many philosophical positions(concerning what science is) than an established view of science.

	03-04-2002 04:03									#143
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

LR: Never before have I seen somebody be so right, and yet be oh so very wrong...

Last edited by loinburger on 03-04-2002 at 05:02

	03-04-2002 04:57									#144
	Remove this text

LR, you've read Descartes, haven't you?

I tend to agree with Descartes in that we cannot really know anything in science, we can theorize, but everything that we theorize about is colored by our perceptions, which may or may not be reality. Granted scientific theories are *much* more accurate with how we percieve things, we still cannot say for sure that it's fact.

	03-04-2002 05:03									#145
	Tired of ads?

MacTBone: I bet LR will call Descartes a solipsist. As it stands, I may just do it for him...

Descartes is of the opinion that our only source of knowledge is our own mind. If we accept this, then, yes, all science is based on our perceptions. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody tis there to see it, then, it wouldn't make a sound.

However, this has been refuted since the time of Descartes. I'm sure LR will tell you how; I can't quite explain it. You could also look at this page:

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm

Last edited by Goingonit on 03-04-2002 at 05:09

	03-04-2002 05:14									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I guess bumping a dead thread is better than making a new one with no ideas on it.

	03-04-2002 05:18									#147
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well I think I will jump into this troll of a thread.

Big Dave stated in two seperate posts

First

quote: There is no "supposed" about it. There are sufficient extra-Biblical references to Jesus Christ that his existance is as much a proven fact as Napoleon's, or Shakespear's.

Second

quote: As for if Jesus existed, Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus, and numerous other Roman records all talk about Him.

Only what Josephus wrote was independent of christian claims. All others are dealing soley with claims made by christians. None, not even Josephus were comtemperary with Jesus. None give any evidence to support the existence of Jesus except for the one remark in Josephus.

Josephus was born AFTER the most likely dates for the crucifiction. The only thing he did write about Jesus was to make a reference to Jesus as being the brother of James. Which is a pain for Catholics and any other christians that think Jesus didn't have any siblings.

There is one other mention of Jesus in Josephus, it was clearly added in later by someone else. Its not in the same style as the rest and it refers to Jesus as the Messiah something Josephus would never have done since he did not like the christians.

All other reference to Jesus are based on things the christians said. Not one single bit of evidence for the existence of Jesus has come down from the time of Jesus itself.

Tacitus discusses christians not jesus. He refers to Christus as the founder of the christians. Then he goes on to slander the christians. That was written LONG after the time of Jesus.

So how about showing one of these alleged documents?

I have asked Fundamentalists for some of the documents they claim before. They never produce them. Just Josephus if they produce anything and they do that after I do.

I am curious though about the Creationists here. Do they all think the Bible is without error?

If so I have some annoying questions for them.

	03-04-2002 06:41									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I'm also going to jump in here...

I've been curious: If you believe in creationism, then how is it that we can see billions of light-years away? It seems to me that there would only be two possible explanations for this available to those who think the universe has only existed a few thousand years:

a) The light that seems to emanate from distant galaxies actually was "placed" there "in transit" by the Creator, or

b) The universal, constant speed of light is only constant at a given point in time, but over time it has decreased in speed (whether or not that decrease has continued into the present time).

The problem with the first is that this implies that the Creator is a great deceiver; the problem with the second is that it brings into question a number of other vital theories in physics (if the speed is decreasing, where is all the extra energy going? Unless, of course, they also do away with the law of the conservation of energy).

Since the second possibility is obviously absurd, do creationists admit they worship a deceiver??

Agathonist

	03-04-2002 07:35									#149
	Put an end to popups!

Hello Logical Realist. I happened to see your troll .. er I mean your legitimate questions. Sorry I don’t have to time to do them all justice here because I have a real job now. First, unlike Dave I am not what some call a “young earth creationist”. I am like you a “logical realist”. Click on my home page if you like and you can find out all about my views. Anyway I will begin with your bottom line qualifier i.e. “Please answer these questions with something more then speculation. Use hard empirical evidence.”

I hope you always do the same. Of course the many conflicting modern theories of evolution, speciation, origin of information, and various abiogenesis stories are built upon speculation based upon limited evidence but for some reason you require a handicap on your opponents. Now read carefully my following answers and you will see that your oft repeated questions to creationists are for the most part simply strawmen.

“Why are 99 percent of all animals that ever lived extinct? One would think God would have loved his creations and preserved them.”

God said in the Bible:

Is:24:4: The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish.
Is:24:5: The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Is:24:6: Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

One would NOT think that God would have preserved his creation when he clearly said he had cursed the earth and repeatedly promised destruction throughout scripture. The only one who would think the opposite is one who is not familiar with the Bible that they presumptiously ridicule.

“Why are there so many sedimetary layers? So many would have taken millions of years to develope.”

Genesis says; “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” There is no time line from that verse.” Most Christians that you continually ridicule do not believe in a young earth or universe. And the Bible itself forbids a strictly literal interpretation. But I understand that it is easier for you to defend your strawmen if you assume that they do.

“Why do animals get diseases? Why did God make diseases for animals?”

See above.

“How did Adam name deep sea fishes?”

The Bible never said that he named fish at all. It clearly says he “gave names to all cattle and the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field.” (Ge. 2:21).

“Why are squid eyes better then human's?(Squid's don't have a blind spot).”

Eagle eyes are even better. You really should study up on the human eye and you will find out the reason for the blind spot.

“Why are almost all marsupials in Australia? Especially when they can survive in other places. One would think that marsupials would spread out from the Ark...not all decide to head to a certain island. Also how did the Kangaroo's sim down there?”

You do not understand the spiritual significance of the Ark. The flood, whether taken literally or figuratively is an example of destruction of the old creation and creation of the new. The New
Testament uses the type of the Ark as an example of the new life available to the believer because of the death and resurrection of Jesus on the cross. There was death (destruction) and resurrection (new creation). In the flood there was death and destruction and then a new creation. “Kangaroos” may or may not have existed before then. The point is that there was a miraculous new creation so science really
doesn’t enter into the picture because it is in the realm of the supernatural and divine intervention.


“Why are only certain exotic species located on islands when they can survive elsewhere and other animals can flourish on those islands? Seems odd how they migrated from the Ark in such a orderly manner.”

See above.

“Why do certian moles have eyes which they never use? And which only become useless later as dirt is constantly shoved in them?”

Probably because they evolved that way in order to adapt to their environment.


“There are huge meteror craters on the Earth, many compable of wiping out many lifeforms with dust clouds and explosions which would kill almost all, if not all, complex animals at this time. Its amazing many lifeforms survived, afterwhich they recovered at an astonishing rate.

How did delicate ecosystems recover from a world wide flood and these meteor strikes so quickly and completely? They don't seem to recover THAT fast now at days.”

See the above concerning the Ark and age of the earth.

“There isn't enough water on Earth to make a world wide flood. So how did it happen?”

Do you really think that a God who claimed to make all of creation including the universe itself cannot make or remove water?

“Why hasn't anyone even found God? If they haven't ;is it really apropriate to posit God as a mechanism?”

If they did then it wouldn’t be the God described in the Bible because he said that he hides himself and that he is only know through supernatural revelation. The effects of his existence are clearly seen however.

“What is the mechanism for creation? How did God do it in seven days?”

Regardless of the number of days or ages it took you seem to have no grasp of the concept of God at all if you have to ask that question.

“Why are certain fossils always found in certain strata?”

Because that is where they ended up when they died.

“How come they found swamp plant fossils in Antarctica? If Antarctica wasn't always a frozen area; where did penguins live?”

I don’t remember anywhere in the Bible where it says that Antarctica was or was not always
frozen.

“Why do men have nipples?”

Read the Bible. It clearly says that God created man and woman and “called THEIR name Adam". They both share many of the same parts.

“Why are there deformities? And ugliness? Seems kinda messed up how God made some people ugly to others.”

Again read the Bible. There are scores of passages on why people are not all attractive or without handicaps.

“Many of you speak of mankind "devolving". In that case ancient civilizations should have left some amazingingly advanced artifacts. I mean such smart people should have been able to discover electricity. Where are these artifacts and huge monuments? Where are the signs of this civilization?”

I don’t speak of devolving. The Bible does speak of a general decline however which partly answers the above questions and it also answers the question of why you are now ridiculing your creator when you claim to be so intelligent.

“If all language were created at the tower of Babel; how come the English language wasn't around in Roman times?”

Again you may have to actually read the Bible. It no where says that “all languages were created at the tower of Babel”.

“How did the human race survive two inbreedings?(Noachian and Adam/Eve).”

You still do not seem to grasp the concept of God. No where does the Bible say that he created
mankind and then left him to run his own course without further intervention as he sees fit.

“There isn't enough capacity in a given person's DNA to account for all the variety contained within the human species. How did Adam/Eve and the Noachian family then contain all this DNA?”

There certainly is enough capacity or are you suggesting that a miracle happened?

“Why do whales have little feet?”

Perhaps for the same reason that Polywogs do. They may have evolved from an amphibious creature of some kind.

“How did fish survive the huge salinity changes of water during the flood? (Anyone with an aquarium knows how sensitive fish are to this).”

See above.

“Please answer these questions with something more then speculation. Use hard empirical evidence. Thanks.”

I’ll remember that requirement the next time I debate an atheist.

	03-04-2002 07:47									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

How exactly was it that the Far East had no knowledge of God? Or Jewish people?

Why did the Greeks worship a Pantheon?

Why were the Germanic tribes pagan?

Why did the Native Americans practice animism?

I would think that an all powerful creator would be able to get his message across, "Yo, I created you", or at least have some kind of prophet like he did for the Jews and Christians...