Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

LivingLife

Why The Bible Claims Are Bs - Creation Vs. Evolution

Recommended Posts

There are Jews that take this all literally but they hide behind the mask that you need a Rabbi to teach you from the original language which is BS. Same shit the woos use claiming the holy spook.

 

As for the latrines brings a good argument to the table. With all the Jewish dietary and cleanliness law, they sure as hell would not be shitting on their own doorstep so to speak. Remember that cold day in hell aka Obama's inauguration GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif with a crowd of ±1.2M folk? Remember the logistics of getting them there the huge planning that went into a day trip for folk who I assume also had their own bottled water in mom's handbag. That was a cold day literally. Exodus is in hot desert conditions and of course we all know in the evenings, it gets so cold you can die of hypothermia if you do not have adequate protection.

 

The illegals coming into the US often don't make it through the desert, humanitarians place water for them to survive if they make it that far and then they are promptly arrested and sent back home. This is a flight of survival and to achieve it in the shortest time possible and yeah we get to see corpses of the failed attempts simply dying of dehydration. Now you have to take this reality and exponentially ramp it up to cater for 2M+ folk w/o humanitarians leaving water caches at strategic points. These Jews are hauling gold and other shit too for 40 years.

 

Their burial rights and traditions means there would not be abandoning those that dropped dead to the elements. There would be 2M x 7% (current daily birth rate) 140 births and about the same deaths per day. Of course the desert is the best place to give birth and expect 100% survivability right?

 

With all the sex laws, I often wonder how they policed this? The way the laws were written, it sure sounds like they did it in public like dogs.

 

As for the toilet duties, poor bugger that had gypo guts, it would not even make it out of the camp that huge.

 

Yes it all sounds so plausible if you have your head up your ass or in the sand.

 

In the end, even this tale requires the appeal to magic. Reality does not factor into fiction......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a number of these outcrops here in The Free State province

 

free_state.jpg

Golden Gate - Free State

 

This is wind erosion and is no canyon but a relatively flattish valley.

 

2337879941_01ab472cdd_z.jpg?zz=1

Titanic Rock - Clarens Free State

 

This one I have actually climbed 3 times

 

These are compressed sandstone. The area is known for dino fossils and one time must have been a huge dam

 

314007_10150345866034756_751394755_7872011_1529968610_n.jpg

 

 

 

Wow, Africa is beautiful. Lots of folks from the States think that the whole continent is nothing but sandy desert and grasslands with some jungle thrown in around the equator region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, Africa is beautiful. Lots of folks from the States think that the whole continent is nothing but sandy desert and grasslands with some jungle thrown in around the equator region.

This is called the jewel of the Freestate, the most of that province is pretty bland and cornfields like the prairies. That town was named after one in Switzerland where the first president Paul Kruger (no relation) came from.

 

My birthplace Livingstone is near the Victoria Waterfalls and the now Zambia is or was as I remembered it pretty dense bush as is much of the now Zimbabwe.

 

South Africa is a beautiful place, in fact the whole southern Africa has a lot to offer in the way of natural beauty, I have been privileged to be born and to have grown up here. Pretty bland where I stay, mostly cornfields and open cast coal mines and power stations but we are about a 4 hour drive from the Blyde river canyon. Maybe I will start a thread and post pics of all the places I have been to in Africa.

 

I wonder if I came to America if I would be classified as an African American, I was born here after all and 5th generation. Pretty stupid race classification IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been to Kenya myself. Quite beautiful, but I was seeing the stereotypical Africa most people think of with lions and elephants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting to note that the book of Genesis is not just some isolate work that can be divorced from Jesus, for Jesus apparantly believed that the flood happened, and was literal, because he said that in the days of Noah, they were eating, drinking and being married, and knew not until the flood came and destroyed THEM ALL. We know from archaology that man was living in the Americas (Clovis culture) 10,000 years ago, and man was in Australia about 40,000 years ago. It is hard to see how these dates can be reconciled with the timeline given for when man was created per the Bible.

 

We have ruins of ancient cities and population centers dating back well past 6000 years ago. For example, Gobleki tepe, which they date back to 10,000 BC. Hard to imagine how there could have been a literal world-wide flood that would not have knocked down and washed away those ruins. They are still there perfectly preserved, in place, as if built only yesterday practically. How about the pyramids which were being constructed at the time of the great flood? Or, stonehenge? And there are many other ancient sites predating 2500 years ago. Seems obvious that a grand flood would have destroyed them all. They say that Jericho dates to about 8000 b.c. and was continually occupied into the present day, with about 20 layers of habitation. No signs there of a flood destroying it.

 

What does that say about the other sayings of Jesus, if he believed the flood was literal, and it in fact wasn't? What else is then intended in the Bible to be taken only figuratively? Hell too?

 

As far as God hiding the evidence, that seems mischievous and deceptive, but can God lie? According to the Bible, He can't. And why would he lie to hide the truth, if He wills for all to be saved, as the Bible also says?

 

When you read the wording of the Bible account of the Great Flood, it seems to be making an unequivocal point that the flood was worldwide. It really could not be more clear in it being some emphatic that it was not local.

 

Either God performed an enormous undertaking of miracles to conceal all truth about the flood, all archaology is totally flawed in a major way, or the Biblical, world-wide flood never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for this straight-forward explanation, LL!

 

On the subject of YEC, it really only occured to me last night just how ridiculous the idea was, when I was watching Dawkin's The Root Of All Evil? It was something he questioned a Rabbi on, and I paused for a moment and thought about it. I thought, 6000 years equates back to 4000BCE... Wait a minute, don't we have even history records older than that? Man-made artefacts older than that? Let alone the science of it, which I am still very much learning about. it really just hit me with more force than ever before, just how ludicrous the whole idea was.

There are many records pre-dating the biblical time line. The epic of Gilgameshhas clay tablets dating to about 9000BCE

And if the whole earth flooded... How exactly was that physically possible? Where did all the water come from? It just doesn't seem possible, let alone likely.

Magic...

What is your take on that boat that the YEC's are always talking about, that they found up on some mountain somewhere? What do you make of that?

We had one (now deceased) YEC that was on about this alleged ark on Mt. Ararat but is likely just a rock outcrop. The folk at Answers in Genesis (ex Aussie BTW) have oodles of misinformation. There is also a Aussie site that counters all these claims No Answers in Genesis and points out all the absurdity of their claims and quote mining of scientific journals.

Just wanted to get more information on the Epic of Gilgamesh - I don't see anything on the Wikipedia entry stating the stories on the clay tablets go back to 9000BCE...can you clarify that for me? Maybe I missed it. The Wikipedia list of Ancient Literature shows the Epic at around 2250 - 2000BCE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_literature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that was a typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the 9000BCE refers to the the last great ice melt on a quick google search. Regardless a ww flood never happened as geological evidence negates that. Plus the known world back in those times was not global. Hell even in Columbus' era, folk still thought the world was flat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the 9000BCE refers to the the last great ice melt on a quick google search. Regardless a ww flood never happened as geological evidence negates that. Plus the known world back in those times was not global. Hell even in Columbus' era, folk still thought the world was flat.

 

I don't think anyone with an education thought the world was flat during the time of Columbus (the ancient Greeks had figured it out long before). Columbus just thought that the eastern side of Asia was a lot closer to Europe than was generally accepted at the time. It was only dumb stupid luck that he ran into an entire continent that happened to be in the way, instead of everyone on his ships dying of thirst somewhere in the ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not inferring educated people. The history we learned was that the folk went round the cape of good hope and ess hugged the coastline for fear of sea monsters and the like. They already had sextants and compasses but the general populace were the flat earthers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest reason to hug coastlines whenever possible wasn't because of belief in a flat earth, but because without accurate chronometers, sailors could never really know their longitude. This problem wasn't solved until the 18th century; before that, without a coastline to follow, sailors could never be quite sure where the hell they actually were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being lost on a ship sounds like the scariest thing I could possibly imagine. I once got lost in a Japanese city's alleys and the sheer terror of losing my moorings in a place with no real street names, much less signs, in a place where I couldn't read the language and where most of the residents had no idea how to speak anything I spoke, is something I'll carry with me forever. Must be much worse on a ship without any way of figuring out where you are and the certain knowledge that charging off in the wrong direction means a slow, agonizing death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being lost on a ship sounds like the scariest thing I could possibly imagine... ...Must be much worse on a ship without any way of figuring out where you are and the certain knowledge that charging off in the wrong direction means a slow, agonizing death.

 

Until the chronometer came along, while out in the open ocean, you could only try to stay at a latitude that you knew had some land along it somewhere, and hope for the best. It made being a sailor even more dangerous than it needed to be, and it caused all kinds of problems with trade. It's also why England offered a large prize for anyone that could solve the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey folks, sorry if this video has already been discussed. If it has, perhaps someone can direct me to the discussion. I'll have to get back to this thread later but want to post this video somewhere before I lose it. I was going to start a thread but it looks like this is the right topic. Will that be okay? I have some questions about the claims this guy makes.

 

 

At the end, there's a batch of names, among them being International Group of Creationist Scientists. This guy is apparently one of them. He provides things he calls fossils that are obviously less than two hundred years old. He also provides evidence that the dating system Carbon 14 used to date rocks, etc., is unreliable.

 

If his evidence and claims are valid, then he is correct in saying the dating system is unreliable.

 

However, I suspect he's hiding something important but I'm too ignorant about science to know what. Can anyone enlighten me?

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Pendelton debunked (video 1 of 4):

 

You know he doesn't know what he's talking about by claiming big bang being an actual explosion. No scientist in physics or astronomy believes that anymore. That false notion was dropped something like 40 years ago (IIRC). The big bang is a misnomer because of an earlier misunderstanding. Big bang was really a rapid expansion of space itself, and not anything "banging" involved. A bang or explosion (as John Pendelton "Chemist" says) involves a chemical process (as he should know). And that's not what big bang was. (He should know that, being a "scientist").

 

But you can see all this in the debunk video...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Pendelton debunked (video 1 of 4)

 

Thanks. I'm watching them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any dork claiming C14 is inaccurate to date rocks knows fuck all about science. Rocks do not contain C14 and if they do it is not an old rock and has clay containing carbon elements.

 

Radiometric dating uses the half life of isotopes to date shit and C14 is only good for 50k years. Whatever the scientists may have used and found wanting science not yahoos have corrected it. C14 is absorbed into carbon critters like us until we die. dating of stuff beyond 50k there are other isotopes measured and in the case of dino fossils, the strata they are fond in is dated.

 

The problem with the yahoos is that all their YEC biblical claims are refuted by science and so they have to try make a case that science is not reliable by cherry picking one of two cock ups scientists have let slip through. Most of these have been corrected anyway but they read no further than their narrow bias. The retards always need to be shown the full contexts of the shit they quote mine.

 

With an accepted 4.5Bn year old earth + fossils + a shitload of other evidence like the age of moon rocks, evolution has more than enough time to happen. They know this. Pretty hard to ignore all the evidence out there.

 

The petrified wood and incidences of rapid petrification due to other processes they now discredit the time line of that happening.

 

Know this, there is no such thing as a creation scientist. It is a misnomer and all that they are are woos trying to convince the gullible with sciency sounding terms to lend credence to their make believe shit. usually these "scientists" are commenting on stuff they are not trained in.

 

The initial posts with geological proofs of an old earth already debunks their timeline of 6-10k years.

 

These so called scientists I can debunk but they will never go to a site like here where they cannot delete posts or edit your comments or ban you when you have made them look stupid.

 

Most of the yahoos will believe anything they watch on Utoob. Reading science journals is way above their acumen so they do not even know when they are being lied to. Quite a lot of their science stuff they refer to is already ancient, self corrected and from a time when measurements were still primitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LL, thanks for responding. I had looked at the opening posts but what I wanted was a scientific refutation directed specifically at his goofy claims. The videos Ouroboros linked did that.

 

I must respectfully disagree with you that this guy is not reasonably smart. It takes some smarts--more than I've got--to put together a convincing hodge-podge of scientific-sounding stuff that supports creationism. Well, okay, it seems he just "borrowed" it from an earlier guy and pretended it was his own. In our circles that kind of behaviour is called plagiarism. As you say, any yahoo can do that. And I most heartily agree with you--the term "creation scientist" comes across as an oxymoron.

 

Even I could put on a lab coat. Or a clerical collar, for that matter. I'd be more believable in a clerical collar, given that I have some training in theology. But then we'd hear bitter sneering howls of "hypocrite!" from the believers.

 

However, when a missionary puts on a lab coat to lie for Jesus--since he does have an undergrad degree in chemistry, they conveniently forget that "All liars...have their part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone" (Rev. 21:8).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the yahoos is that all their YEC biblical claims are refuted by science and so they have to try make a case that science is not reliable by cherry picking one of two cock ups scientists have let slip through. Most of these have been corrected anyway but they read no further than their narrow bias. The retards always need to be shown the full contexts of the shit they quote mine.

 

 

I'm reading your post again. I really don't know how to solve this problem. It's much deeper than just showing them the context. I know what it's like being on the creationist side by default--by hearing the word "evolution" used in a sneering term so that you grow up thinking it's a dirty word, untouchable--almost worse than a swear word, on a different level of evil.

 

Your mind just turns off when talk turns to stuff that was supposed to have taken place more than six thousand years ago, or before the Bible/creation.

 

Of course, I was taken out of school at the end of Grade 8. I had no science education beyond simple things like identifying birds and flowers and the cycle of rain (water evaporates from the earth and comes down as precipitation). I don't know what the world looks like to a person who went through the public school system--elementary and high school--with a regular science curriculum that included things like biology, physics, and chemistry and the accompanying maths.

 

But it seems a lot of Christians who have been to high school, and even college, manage to turn their minds off, too, at whatever point they decide that the conversation has veered from the appropriate track. They're so scared the devil will lead them astray.

 

With an accepted 4.5Bn year old earth + fossils + a shitload of other evidence like the age of moon rocks, evolution has more than enough time to happen. They know this. Pretty hard to ignore all the evidence out there.

 

Again, I don't know what all of them know. I certainly didn't know it. One has to understand the evidence in order to know it. I believe some believers might understand the evidence but find it too unacceptable because it violates higher values, i.e. their sacred text.

 

The petrified wood and incidences of rapid petrification due to other processes they now discredit the time line of that happening.

 

That kind of thing has enormous persuasive power with a person who was raised to trust and believe the six-day creation of the Bible. It is very comforting as well as apparently scientific. The uneducated brain is incapable of investigating further and just accepts it.

 

Know this, there is no such thing as a creation scientist. It is a misnomer and all that they are are woos trying to convince the gullible with sciency sounding terms to lend credence to their make believe shit. usually these "scientists" are commenting on stuff they are not trained in.

 

The initial posts with geological proofs of an old earth already debunks their timeline of 6-10k years.

 

Yeah, well, I try not to be gullible. That's why I needed factual scientific explanations of these specific items in order to understand why this guy's claims were wrong. I couldn't just accept at face value the statements you posted. For an uneducated person like me (when it comes to science), that's just taking your word against his. That means choosing authorities. That, my friend, is what gullible is. I need empirical evidence based on tested fact, like they do in science, so that I can figure out for myself which statement is most likely to be true.

 

I am now free to do this "figuring out" because I am no longer bound by religion. I also feel considerable obligation to come up with a different "origins story" because as an atheist I cannot exactly continue to subscribe to the six-day creation story in Genesis. My deconversion had not a single thing to do with the bad science in the Bible but everything to do with the breakdown of its theological implications--or the non-existent logic. To me, this was--and remains--proof that God does not exist; he fails to do the things the bible claims he does such as give peace unavailable anywhere else. That leaves me an atheist, willingly or unwillingly. And a god who does not exist cannot exactly create a world in any amount of time. So I'm doing what I can, by fits and starts, at this late point in life to learn the fundamental rudiments of how the universe and life came into existence naturally.

 

I don't really know how to get a believing creationist to this point but I think there's probably much more to it than simply showing the context. The best I know to do is present the info, and to make laws that forbid the teaching of creationism in public schools as science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RSM

 

I was not inferring he is dumb, just that these so called experts really do not know the details of the shit they espouse. You have engineers commenting on biology, anthropology or cosmology and even I really do not comment on that. All that I am pretty well versed in out of personal interest is geology. The dating of rocks and stuff and how it is done, with the physics and chem background I have, it makes sense. There is really no way you can be an expert in all scientific fields as the are just too broad.

 

My entire education was in the hard sciences and even I cannot understand some stuff. I like to say I can whistle or hum the tune but I don't know the words. Most of these yahoos, I can see through their false claims immediately. If you are unsure or need facts they are out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm reading your post again. I really don't know how to solve this problem. It's much deeper than just showing them the context. I know what it's like being on the creationist side by default--by hearing the word "evolution" used in a sneering term so that you grow up thinking it's a dirty word, untouchable--almost worse than a swear word, on a different level of evil.

 

The quote mining is when they take scientist statement out of context and this is somehow used as a basis of scientists admitting that a certain approach is flawed esp in the fields of biology and evolution. They forget to include a paragraph of two later the guy will go onto explain in detail what has just been cited and in context, he is not saying that evolution is flawed, he perhaps disagrees on a conclusion then explains why and how to rectify it. The one dude they love to use is Henry Gee IIRC.

 

Furthermore many of these scientists did not have access to DNA/RNA mapping and that is the science of genetics. This mapping is the nail in the coffin and no one is looking for transitional fossils any more as they all are transitional IOW, there is no missing link. Of course the nitty gritty of how this was achieved is a lot more complex than that.

 

For an uneducated person like me (when it comes to science), that's just taking your word against his. That means choosing authorities. That, my friend, is what gullible is. I need empirical evidence based on tested fact, like they do in science, so that I can figure out for myself which statement is most likely to be true.

And that is how it should be, all I can do is point you in the right direction. You should never take my word for it, my word is but a summary.

 

So I'm doing what I can, by fits and starts, at this late point in life to learn the fundamental rudiments of how the universe and life came into existence naturally.

 

I don't really know how to get a believing creationist to this point but I think there's probably much more to it than simply showing the context. The best I know to do is present the info, and to make laws that forbid the teaching of creationism in public schools as science.

It really is a huge field and science has no equivalent short version to godunnit. For most lay people, even for me, the wiki level of explanations are usually suffice.

 

The geological proofs of an old earth is merely the starting point and I gave 4 different scenarios where this has been irrefutably shown to varying degrees. None of these could come about in a 6k time frame.

 

No one this side of the pond holds to a YEC perspective as it is not taught in schools here and furthermore we have so much proof in our own backyards. Selling the concept of a young earth is thus just not possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RSM

 

I was not inferring he is dumb, just that these so called experts really do not know the details of the shit they espouse. You have engineers commenting on biology, anthropology or cosmology

 

Oh I see. Yeah, I think if you want to make an argument for publication (or public consumption such as TV or YouTube) based in a field where you don't really know the facts, you need to get a knowledgeable person to fact-check your piece before you put it out there. Daniel Dennet is an example to hand. I'm reading his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea." He says he does not really know or fully understand all the science he discusses in his book but he had the scientists themselves read the parts that apply to their specialties.

 

I think that is the proper way to go if you want to make arguments using fields you have not had opportunity to study. I've seen lots of authors do that. Dennet always encourages readers to read the books and papers of the scientists themselves to get a real understanding of their view. This is where the Christians fail overtly and explicitly when making their "scientific" claims for religion.

 

All that I am pretty well versed in out of personal interest is geology. The dating of rocks and stuff and how it is done, with the physics and chem background I have, it makes sense. There is really no way you can be an expert in all scientific fields as the are just too broad.

 

My entire education was in the hard sciences and even I cannot understand some stuff. I like to say I can whistle or hum the tune but I don't know the words. Most of these yahoos, I can see through their false claims immediately. If you are unsure or need facts they are out there.

 

I suppose that is why I came here for help. The fields are so broad and there is so much out there that I didn't know where to start looking. Or have the time and inclination. Especially since I knew there might be people here who could show me in the right direction. Thanks for your help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C14 for rock dating? They use K-Ar. The problem with most christians is they try and make the data fit the theory. Look at the data and then try and come up with the theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What really urks me is Christians who try to use The Watchmaker Analogy to erroneously defend God. These credulous charlatan like morons are always pestering me because I'm an Agnostic Atheist. It doesn't matter how many times I open up the bible and show them that God's morality changes and is not consistent, or how the bible endorses slavery, they still believe in an anthropomorphic sky genie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My brother informed me that since evolution has been taught in schools, teenage pregnancy has increased, IQ has decreased, and divorce has become more popular. I'm still a closet atheist, but I could help but tell him that was complete bullshit. He was kind of taken aback haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.