http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-10...e+False+Teacher
If you have 2 free hours...
This is a video against evo.
Sudden petrification, layers aren't different ages, etc???
Dr Dino is a know fraud. His doctorate is from a religious institution that got it's accreditation from a degree mill.
His $250,000 is a sham, because not only has he changed the requirements after he was presented with evidence which met his original requirements, it is now worded so it's impossible to win. Infact, if you changed the challenge to "Prove gravity exist" you'd still not be able to win from his wording!
He regularly misquotes what evolutionists are saying, makes reference to theories over 100 years old and now no longer part of the theory of evolution.
His $250,000 is a sham, because not only has he changed the requirements after he was presented with evidence which met his original requirements, it is now worded so it's impossible to win. Infact, if you changed the challenge to "Prove gravity exist" you'd still not be able to win from his wording!
He regularly misquotes what evolutionists are saying, makes reference to theories over 100 years old and now no longer part of the theory of evolution.
Why do creationist pour so much time and energy into such utter crap?
There are only a few options
1) They "know" they are correct, and therefore take a Machiavellian approach to the evidence.
2) They are so blindly stupid that even the people who created this video actually believe the claims they are making
3) They "know" they are right, and have such an extreme confirmation bias that they convince themselves of the accuracy of their claims.(delusional acceptance of that which is false)
4) They are exploitive charlatans, purposefully manipulating those who are foolish enough to believe them.
These are the only options. Even if creationism is true, the evidence being presented is frequently, and absurdly, false. Why?
I normally believe in the good nature of mankind, so I would obviously remove the more malicious option like #4. However, recent experiences with evangelical ministers has convinced me that several of them might actually be operating under the reasoning of #4.
#1 seems to be common in many circles. It is most frequently demonstrated in debate when a person falsifies a source for their information. i.e. I know that X is true, I studied it recently as part of ****.(In this case **** may not exist, or may have been concerned with something else entirely). This is not seen as dishonest as long as the person making the claim is strongly confident in their opinion.
For the vast majority of the population I would have to say that #2 is true. Perhaps ignorant may be a better term than stupid...but the principle is still valid.
#1 and #3 seem similiar, but it is important to note the difference. In #1 the person knows the evidence to support their claim is false, but since they believe the claim to be true, the evidence is irrelevant. In #3 the person wholeheartedly believes in both the claim and the evidence, despite the evidence being obviously false, because of their absolute belief in the accuracy of their claims.
What do you all think?
Most of the "creationist scientists"...what category do you believe they fall under?
There are only a few options
1) They "know" they are correct, and therefore take a Machiavellian approach to the evidence.
2) They are so blindly stupid that even the people who created this video actually believe the claims they are making
3) They "know" they are right, and have such an extreme confirmation bias that they convince themselves of the accuracy of their claims.(delusional acceptance of that which is false)
4) They are exploitive charlatans, purposefully manipulating those who are foolish enough to believe them.
These are the only options. Even if creationism is true, the evidence being presented is frequently, and absurdly, false. Why?
I normally believe in the good nature of mankind, so I would obviously remove the more malicious option like #4. However, recent experiences with evangelical ministers has convinced me that several of them might actually be operating under the reasoning of #4.
#1 seems to be common in many circles. It is most frequently demonstrated in debate when a person falsifies a source for their information. i.e. I know that X is true, I studied it recently as part of ****.(In this case **** may not exist, or may have been concerned with something else entirely). This is not seen as dishonest as long as the person making the claim is strongly confident in their opinion.
For the vast majority of the population I would have to say that #2 is true. Perhaps ignorant may be a better term than stupid...but the principle is still valid.
#1 and #3 seem similiar, but it is important to note the difference. In #1 the person knows the evidence to support their claim is false, but since they believe the claim to be true, the evidence is irrelevant. In #3 the person wholeheartedly believes in both the claim and the evidence, despite the evidence being obviously false, because of their absolute belief in the accuracy of their claims.
What do you all think?
Most of the "creationist scientists"...what category do you believe they fall under?
I'm watching this video and most of it's just rubbish. He's talking about the Colarado river and it's origin as if this means anything to the development of life. Even if the Colarado river did form some other way than currently understood, it's hardly a major component in evolution.
This is typical of creationist. They think that everything which is against the Bible is part an parcel of evolution. The big bang is part of evolution, the Earth's age is part of evolution. No! They are totally seperate things. If someone supposedly as well educatied as this guy can't work that out, I wouldn't trust his knowledge of science very much.
Anyone even vaguely well educated in science can see through this guy.
This is typical of creationist. They think that everything which is against the Bible is part an parcel of evolution. The big bang is part of evolution, the Earth's age is part of evolution. No! They are totally seperate things. If someone supposedly as well educatied as this guy can't work that out, I wouldn't trust his knowledge of science very much.
Anyone even vaguely well educated in science can see through this guy.
Remember the “us versus them” mentality in all of this. The xian bible and related religion addresses all aspects of existence so anything that challenges one aspect of this bible and religion must address all the same topics as the bible and religion does in the minds of the theists. They seem either unwilling or incapable to distinguish the pursuit of one discipline of knowledge (for example evolution) from questions of the origin of the universe or questions of morality.
How about willful ignorance out of fear of the alternative? If a theist were to rationally examine the creationists view and had doubts themselves, would the grasping at anything to support their creationist view be simply out of fear of facing reality? Within religions in general, how often is fear a motivating factor like when dealing with individuals who do not believe as they do or engage in activities they find “sinful” or offensive?
QUOTE
Most of the "creationist scientists"...what category do you believe they fall under?
How about willful ignorance out of fear of the alternative? If a theist were to rationally examine the creationists view and had doubts themselves, would the grasping at anything to support their creationist view be simply out of fear of facing reality? Within religions in general, how often is fear a motivating factor like when dealing with individuals who do not believe as they do or engage in activities they find “sinful” or offensive?
QUOTE
How about willful ignorance out of fear of the alternative?
That would have ot fall under #3
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jul 14 2006, 02:56 PM)
That would have ot fall under #3
Okay. I can see that.
Okay. I can see that.
Francis Collins is the head of the project to map the human genome. He is also an evangelical christian. His view of the "creationist/ scientist" conflict is this:
I do not agree that a god is necessary, but his point that if a god exists he could use any mechanism(including evolution) is well taken.
Grumpy
QUOTE
COLLINS: If God is who God claims to be, and who I believe he is, then he is not explainable in natural terms. He is outside the natural world; outside of space and time. So if God chose to intervene from time to time in the natural world by allowing the occurrence of miraculous events, I don't see why that is an illogical possibility. Once one accepts that idea that there could be something outside the natural, then miracles also become possible. Lewis writes about this extremely well in his little book called Miracles.
However, I don't think miracles happen frequently. It seems to me reading the Bible there were times when miracles were occurring at greater frequency, such as in the time of Moses or Elijah or the time of Christ. I have not personally witnessed a spiritual miracle. And I reject the comments that people make sometimes like the fact that a flower is blooming is a miracle. I don't think so. That's a matter that science can actually explain. How did you go from that seed to that blooming flower? I can answer that. Now, why did the seed exist in the first place? That, perhaps, is a miracle. We don't really know how the universe got here.
Actually, I don't see that any of the issues that people raise as points of contention between science and faith are all that difficult to resolve. Many people get hung up on the whole evolution versus creation argument — one of the great tragedies of the last 100 years is the way in which this has been polarized. On the one hand, we have scientists who basically adopt evolution as their faith, and think there's no need for God to explain why life exists. On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings. It's unnecessary. I think God gave us an opportunity through the use of science to understand the natural world. The idea that some are asking people to disbelieve our scientific data in order to prove that they believe in God is so unnecessary.
If God chose to create you and me as natural and spiritual beings, and decided to use the mechanism of evolution to accomplish that goal, I think that's incredibly elegant. And because God is outside of space and time, He knew what the outcome was going to be right at the beginning. It's not as if there was a chance it wouldn't work. So where, then, is the discordancy that causes so many people to see these views of science and of spirit as being incompatible? In me, they both exist. They both exist at the same moment in the day. They're not compartmentalized. They are entirely compatible. And they're part of who I am.
However, I don't think miracles happen frequently. It seems to me reading the Bible there were times when miracles were occurring at greater frequency, such as in the time of Moses or Elijah or the time of Christ. I have not personally witnessed a spiritual miracle. And I reject the comments that people make sometimes like the fact that a flower is blooming is a miracle. I don't think so. That's a matter that science can actually explain. How did you go from that seed to that blooming flower? I can answer that. Now, why did the seed exist in the first place? That, perhaps, is a miracle. We don't really know how the universe got here.
Actually, I don't see that any of the issues that people raise as points of contention between science and faith are all that difficult to resolve. Many people get hung up on the whole evolution versus creation argument — one of the great tragedies of the last 100 years is the way in which this has been polarized. On the one hand, we have scientists who basically adopt evolution as their faith, and think there's no need for God to explain why life exists. On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings. It's unnecessary. I think God gave us an opportunity through the use of science to understand the natural world. The idea that some are asking people to disbelieve our scientific data in order to prove that they believe in God is so unnecessary.
If God chose to create you and me as natural and spiritual beings, and decided to use the mechanism of evolution to accomplish that goal, I think that's incredibly elegant. And because God is outside of space and time, He knew what the outcome was going to be right at the beginning. It's not as if there was a chance it wouldn't work. So where, then, is the discordancy that causes so many people to see these views of science and of spirit as being incompatible? In me, they both exist. They both exist at the same moment in the day. They're not compartmentalized. They are entirely compatible. And they're part of who I am.
I do not agree that a god is necessary, but his point that if a god exists he could use any mechanism(including evolution) is well taken.
Grumpy
Let's talk about the lisards-to-birds issue, and other things in his video [more fully].
Saying "creationsts" are stupid doesn't do anything for this thread.
Instead, let's talk about his specific claims in the video.
Saying "creationsts" are stupid doesn't do anything for this thread.
Instead, let's talk about his specific claims in the video.
QUOTE
Let's talk about the lisards-to-birds issue, and other things in his video [more fully].
Ok...let me propose a thought experiment that might help you understand this "issue".
If you have a boat, when you replace a single piece of your boat...you do not create a new boat. When you replace every piece of a boat....you might have created a new boat. If you changed most of the parts out for completely different parts...some would argue that you have created a new boat.
Here are the questions:
1. How many pieces does it take(same pieces) before it becomes a different boat?
2. How many different pieces before it becomes a new boat?
3. Does it ever become a new boat?
This thought experiment should at least help you comprehend the fatal flaw in the logic of the argument. Even if you are a creationist, much better logical arguments could be made than the ones presented.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jul 15 2006, 03:13 AM)
Ok...let me propose a thought experiment that might help you understand this "issue".
If you have a boat, when you replace a single piece of your boat...you do not create a new boat. When you replace every piece of a boat....you might have created a new boat. If you changed most of the parts out for completely different parts...some would argue that you have created a new boat.
Here are the questions:
1. How many pieces does it take(same pieces) before it becomes a different boat?
2. How many different pieces before it becomes a new boat?
3. Does it ever become a new boat?
This thought experiment should at least help you comprehend the fatal flaw in the logic of the argument. Even if you are a creationist, much better logical arguments could be made than the ones presented.
And the boat eventually turns into an air-plane?
If you have a boat, when you replace a single piece of your boat...you do not create a new boat. When you replace every piece of a boat....you might have created a new boat. If you changed most of the parts out for completely different parts...some would argue that you have created a new boat.
Here are the questions:
1. How many pieces does it take(same pieces) before it becomes a different boat?
2. How many different pieces before it becomes a new boat?
3. Does it ever become a new boat?
This thought experiment should at least help you comprehend the fatal flaw in the logic of the argument. Even if you are a creationist, much better logical arguments could be made than the ones presented.
And the boat eventually turns into an air-plane?
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jul 15 2006, 11:13 AM)
And the boat eventually turns into an air-plane?
Add wings, an engine and propellor and yes it could do. Ever seen those aeroplanes which can land on water?
Add wings, an engine and propellor and yes it could do. Ever seen those aeroplanes which can land on water?
QUOTE (yfh+)
And the boat eventually turns into an air-plane?
WRONG
WRONG
AlphaNumeric: Yes, "YOU can make small augments to a boat over time", but the BOAT can't "make small augments on its own", now can it? Do all of the "tweaking" that YOU want, but it is still YOU doing the "tweaking". Your analogy fails terribly.
SHUTUP
OK here was the original thought experiment.
Dont think about this in terms of evolution.
This is not an analogy to evolution.
The conclusion that should be reached is that when something transitions from one state to another...it is impossible to define a "moment of transition".
When dinosaurs evolved into birds...there is not true "transitional fossil". There is no organism that you can point to and say "This is half bird, and half dinosaur".
Transitional organisms are organisms that evolved between two organisms. They may, however, exhibit varying traits from both organisms(but not 50/50). They may actually exhibit traits that do not exist in either species.
The point of the "exercise" is to explain the utter absurdity of the claims against the "Transitional fossils". Even a creationist should admit that most of the arguments against the "transitional fossil" are clearly flawed.
I.E. it would be fair to argue that all "transitional" fossils are merely alternative species that resemble both species.
It would, however, be a logical flaw to request evolutionary biologists to present a true "missing link". The concept of a missing link is absurd...just as it is absurd for someone to claim they can tell you when the boat becomes a new boat. It obviously was an old boat before we replaced anything...and it is probably a new boat after we replace everything...
There is no "transitional" boat that exists....EVERYTHING BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AND THE TOTALLY NEW BOAT IS TRANSITIONAL
Evolutionary theory predicts that all living beings are merely transitional.(or evolutionary dead-ends).
Quit talking about intelligent agency, and boats vs. airplanes. Its a simple explanation of the flaws with the arguments...not an analogous situation to explain evolution.
??????
What???
No...I was just annoyed with the stupidity of the conversation.
Can a boat turn into a plane? How much sillier could the conversation have gotten?
Your analog was so stretched that any comments that you were making were just ridiculous.
??????
What???
No...I was just annoyed with the stupidity of the conversation.
Can a boat turn into a plane? How much sillier could the conversation have gotten?
Your analog was so stretched that any comments that you were making were just ridiculous.
AlphaNumeric: Yes, "YOU can make small augments to a boat over time", but the BOAT can't "make small augments on its own", now can it? Do all of the "tweaking" that YOU want, but it is still YOU doing the "tweaking". Your analogy fails terribly.
A mechanical, inanimate object is very different than a animate self-modifying object.
Even if someone had intelligently made the analogy between a boat and an organism....your still "attacking" the irrelevant non-analogous portion of the analogy.
It was just dumb...
BTW>>>when did you "silence me"?
Let's talk about the lisards-to-birds issue please.
Underdeveloped wings will not be naturally selected, they will be de-selected.
The transition time between a needed listard forearm and a wing capable of flight would be far too long a time. So many generations. The half-way point would be a handi-cap, which natural-selection would ROOT OUT.
Ok...we will...but first
It is dinosaur to bird...not lisard. Early dinosaurs were definately not lizards. They may have resembled reptiles...but most people who study this thing will explain that dinosaurs were proto-reptiles...not reptiles.
Ok...we will...but first
It is dinosaur to bird...not lisard. Early dinosaurs were definately not lizards. They may have resembled reptiles...but most people who study this thing will explain that dinosaurs were proto-reptiles...not reptiles.
The half-way point would be a handi-cap, which natural-selection would ROOT OUT.
The halfway point is nonexistent.
Let us compare the "evolution" of mechanical systems.
The wheel "evolved" into the motorcycle.
There were several stages in the development of the modern motorcycle. The bicycle was an important stage. The invention of the motor was an important stage.
Not really. This only holds true if you believe that evolution has some purpose.
Evolution, just like the early users of the wheel, had absolutely no idea where the invention would eventually go. The leap from wheeled cart to bicycle was a long time coming. The actually concept of the bicycle is not difficult. The technology existed for a long time before a bicycle was created.
Natural selection does not work on the idea of "the best organism survives". This is a common misconception. Natural selection works on the principle that "working organisms survive". A feature will not be deselected unless it inhibits an organisms chance of survival.
Also...given your fascination with flying organisms....
You might be interested in studying the wing structure of the 3-types of flying organisms
1. mammal fliers
2. avian fliers
3. Dinosaur fliers
They all found a different way to adapt to flight.
Okay...
Primordial soup, let's talk about it.
Your fellow human (yfh),
Mmmmm, delicious!!!
Life on Earth came from space on meteorites. Before you start to yell at me, I want to say that this is the hypothesis I support and I'm fully aware of the fact it's only hypothesis.
Now someone may say that if it didn't happen on Earth it must then have happened elsewhere. I agree that this is viable hypothesis, but I don't think that we should apply the conditions we think were present in the past of Earth to that place where the life originates. So, the "primordial soup" is only one of the billions of possible explanations.
Lol. What are you talking about?
I linked to the video of the preacher dude because of what he questioned about evolution, and I wanted to clear up his critisism.
Lol. What are you talking about?
I linked to the video of the preacher dude because of what he questioned about evolution, and I wanted to clear up his critisism.
The problem with the internet and intelligent people is that you cant really "catch us off guard". We all have ample time to go do research in between posts.
This means that Creationists actually have to come up with good arguments....which most of the time they fail miserably at.
The "valid" arguments that do exist...in other words arguments that cannot be easily dismissed and that do not lack logical reasoning are normally so far over the head of the normal person that they are useless as propaganda tools.
Just give up Fellow Human....
Your either going to get into discussions over your head(and run the risk of one of the other forum members being well-versed in the topic...)
Or your going to bring up "problems with evolution" that have been so thoroughly debunked that even most Creationists who debate regularly do not use them.
You seem to think that I'm a Christian...
Your Fellow Human's beliefs are still dubious....
He is still asking questions that consist of the "Christian ways to debate evolution" handbook of questions.
I doubt i would want to go to any church you attend newguy...
You seem to believe in Creationism, which implies that you believe that the bible is the absolute word of God...and any church that supports those kinds of silly and stupid beliefs is not worth attending.
I might be wrong though....i didnt really bother to research your "position" either.
Hmm...so answer a question
What is your position on the bible?
Do you hold it in any high esteem?
Perhaps as a "work of God"?
Perhaps accurate?
Let me know
Where did Jesus or the Bible say that this was a power of Christianity?
Upisoft: Thanks for sharing your "beliefs" and "thoughts" with us.
newguy,
I don't understand you. Why have you quoted words beliefs and thoughts? Don't you believe me that I have such?
You already know my argument.
The earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark that we have DO NOT contain Mark 16:9-20
This is not "open to debate". Most bibles even include a "disclaimer". If we have early documents that end at Mark 16:8...and Mark 16:9-20 dont appear until much later...then we can be almost certain that the original Mark did not contain Mark 16:9-20.
Now, most scholars who study this will agree that their probably was an alternative ending to Mark...or at least that Mark "seemed" like it needed a better ending. So the addition of the ending later is not absurd...but it is dishonest.
We could also get involved in a discussion about how the "alternative ending" of Mark uses words and grammitical structure that seem alien when compared to the rest of Mark.
MY question is this: If it took us several centuries and a good deal of investigation....to discover that this portion of the Bible was erroneous...then why do you trust the "absolute" nature of any portion of the bible.
The books of the Bible were written by men. It was codexed and assembled by men. It was then copied and manipulated(end of Mark...story of adulteress from John) by Men. Then it was translated by men...from poor quality original manuscripts...
None of that is open to debate. It is all true. Even the Bible claims to be the works of men(even though divine inspiration is sometimes mentioned).
So....knowing all of that...why would you ever decide to accept the bible as wholly true?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
Add wings, an engine and propellor and yes it could do. Ever seen those aeroplanes which can land on water?
AlphaNumeric: Whether you're referring to the "flying boat"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_boat
A flying boat is an aircraft that is designed to take off and alight upon water. Although some argue that it is a distinct class in its own right, others consider it as a type of seaplane which uses its fuselage as a floating hull (instead of pontoons mounted below the fuselage).
Flying boats were among the largest aircraft of the first half of the 20th century. Their ability to alight on water allowed them to break free of the size constraints imposed by general lack of large, land-based runways, and also made them important for the rescue of downed pilots, a capability put to great use in World War II. Following World War II, their use gradually trailed off, with many of the roles taken over by other aircraft types. In the 21st century, flying boats maintain a few niche uses, such as for dropping water on forest fires and for air transport around island clusters.
or the "seaplane",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaplane
A seaplane is an aircraft designed to take off and land (correctly, though less commonly termed, "alight") upon water.
These aircraft are occasionally called hydroplanes, based on usage in several Romance languages, which is rare in English.
BOTH are AIRCRAFT that were DESIGNED to land in water...NEITHER are BOATS that "sprouted wings" due to evolution. So, what then does your(yours and PuckSR's) analogy prove? Show me a boat that is left to itself for millions or billions or years and I'll show you a boat that will rust and corrode and more than likely wind up at the bottom of the ocean/sea/lake etc. Far from "taking flight" on its own, it will "plummet" to the lower depths.
Isn't this so?
If not, then please show some proof of a BOAT that "sprouted wings" all on its own. Thanks.
AlphaNumeric: Whether you're referring to the "flying boat"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_boat
A flying boat is an aircraft that is designed to take off and alight upon water. Although some argue that it is a distinct class in its own right, others consider it as a type of seaplane which uses its fuselage as a floating hull (instead of pontoons mounted below the fuselage).
Flying boats were among the largest aircraft of the first half of the 20th century. Their ability to alight on water allowed them to break free of the size constraints imposed by general lack of large, land-based runways, and also made them important for the rescue of downed pilots, a capability put to great use in World War II. Following World War II, their use gradually trailed off, with many of the roles taken over by other aircraft types. In the 21st century, flying boats maintain a few niche uses, such as for dropping water on forest fires and for air transport around island clusters.
or the "seaplane",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaplane
A seaplane is an aircraft designed to take off and land (correctly, though less commonly termed, "alight") upon water.
These aircraft are occasionally called hydroplanes, based on usage in several Romance languages, which is rare in English.
BOTH are AIRCRAFT that were DESIGNED to land in water...NEITHER are BOATS that "sprouted wings" due to evolution. So, what then does your(yours and PuckSR's) analogy prove? Show me a boat that is left to itself for millions or billions or years and I'll show you a boat that will rust and corrode and more than likely wind up at the bottom of the ocean/sea/lake etc. Far from "taking flight" on its own, it will "plummet" to the lower depths.
Isn't this so?
If not, then please show some proof of a BOAT that "sprouted wings" all on its own. Thanks.
The example is that you can make small augments to a boat over time, each augment little more than a tweak and eventually you can end up with a plane. Given someone with enough engineering knowledge and the right resources and I'm positive someone could actually do it.
Of course it's not meant to mean that a boat will change into a plane, a boat isn't a live and your "It'll rust" comment is silly because it's obvious that isn't what we're saying.
Of course it's not meant to mean that a boat will change into a plane, a boat isn't a live and your "It'll rust" comment is silly because it's obvious that isn't what we're saying.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 15 2006, 01:14 PM)
The example is that you can make small augments to a boat over time, each augment little more than a tweak and eventually you can end up with a plane. Given someone with enough engineering knowledge and the right resources and I'm positive someone could actually do it.
Of course it's not meant to mean that a boat will change into a plane, a boat isn't a live and your "It'll rust" comment is silly because it's obvious that isn't what we're saying.
AlphaNumeric: Yes, "YOU can make small augments to a boat over time", but the BOAT can't "make small augments on its own", now can it? Do all of the "tweaking" that YOU want, but it is still YOU doing the "tweaking". Your analogy fails terribly. Both BOATS and AIRCRAFT are DESIGNED. "SOMEONE with enough engineering knowledge" could probably change a boat into a plane, but it is still SOMEONE doing it. Are you seeking to support "Intelligent Design"? If so, you're doing a great job. YOU are the ones who chose an "inanimate" object and tried to compare it to an "animate" one. Don't turn around then and tell me that MY comments are "silly". No, MY comments are downright rational and logical. Have a nice day.
Of course it's not meant to mean that a boat will change into a plane, a boat isn't a live and your "It'll rust" comment is silly because it's obvious that isn't what we're saying.
AlphaNumeric: Yes, "YOU can make small augments to a boat over time", but the BOAT can't "make small augments on its own", now can it? Do all of the "tweaking" that YOU want, but it is still YOU doing the "tweaking". Your analogy fails terribly. Both BOATS and AIRCRAFT are DESIGNED. "SOMEONE with enough engineering knowledge" could probably change a boat into a plane, but it is still SOMEONE doing it. Are you seeking to support "Intelligent Design"? If so, you're doing a great job. YOU are the ones who chose an "inanimate" object and tried to compare it to an "animate" one. Don't turn around then and tell me that MY comments are "silly". No, MY comments are downright rational and logical. Have a nice day.
It was simply an analogy for life being able to slowly alter itself into something totally different, I never mentioned designer and I never said it was a perfect example, just that small changes can add up to big ones over time.
Examples of animals slowly changing until a new species is created have been observed quite a few times, sometimes in a lab and sometimes in the wild, so the creationist like "new species have never been seen to develop" is a false one.
Examples of animals slowly changing until a new species is created have been observed quite a few times, sometimes in a lab and sometimes in the wild, so the creationist like "new species have never been seen to develop" is a false one.
why it is false? thats a easy question, becuase it isnt
QUOTE
It was simply an analogy for life being able to slowly alter itself into something totally different, I never mentioned designer and I never said it was a perfect example, just that small changes can add up to big ones over time.
WRONG
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It was simply an analogy for life being able to slowly alter itself into something totally different, I never mentioned designer and I never said it was a perfect example, just that small changes can add up to big ones over time. |
WRONG
AlphaNumeric: Yes, "YOU can make small augments to a boat over time", but the BOAT can't "make small augments on its own", now can it? Do all of the "tweaking" that YOU want, but it is still YOU doing the "tweaking". Your analogy fails terribly.
SHUTUP
OK here was the original thought experiment.
QUOTE
Ok...let me propose a thought experiment that might help you understand this "issue".
If you have a boat, when you replace a single piece of your boat...you do not create a new boat. When you replace every piece of a boat....you might have created a new boat. If you changed most of the parts out for completely different parts...some would argue that you have created a new boat.
Here are the questions:
1. How many pieces does it take(same pieces) before it becomes a different boat?
2. How many different pieces before it becomes a new boat?
3. Does it ever become a new boat?
This thought experiment should at least help you comprehend the fatal flaw in the logic of the argument. Even if you are a creationist, much better logical arguments could be made than the ones presented.
If you have a boat, when you replace a single piece of your boat...you do not create a new boat. When you replace every piece of a boat....you might have created a new boat. If you changed most of the parts out for completely different parts...some would argue that you have created a new boat.
Here are the questions:
1. How many pieces does it take(same pieces) before it becomes a different boat?
2. How many different pieces before it becomes a new boat?
3. Does it ever become a new boat?
This thought experiment should at least help you comprehend the fatal flaw in the logic of the argument. Even if you are a creationist, much better logical arguments could be made than the ones presented.
Dont think about this in terms of evolution.
This is not an analogy to evolution.
The conclusion that should be reached is that when something transitions from one state to another...it is impossible to define a "moment of transition".
When dinosaurs evolved into birds...there is not true "transitional fossil". There is no organism that you can point to and say "This is half bird, and half dinosaur".
Transitional organisms are organisms that evolved between two organisms. They may, however, exhibit varying traits from both organisms(but not 50/50). They may actually exhibit traits that do not exist in either species.
The point of the "exercise" is to explain the utter absurdity of the claims against the "Transitional fossils". Even a creationist should admit that most of the arguments against the "transitional fossil" are clearly flawed.
I.E. it would be fair to argue that all "transitional" fossils are merely alternative species that resemble both species.
It would, however, be a logical flaw to request evolutionary biologists to present a true "missing link". The concept of a missing link is absurd...just as it is absurd for someone to claim they can tell you when the boat becomes a new boat. It obviously was an old boat before we replaced anything...and it is probably a new boat after we replace everything...
There is no "transitional" boat that exists....EVERYTHING BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AND THE TOTALLY NEW BOAT IS TRANSITIONAL
Evolutionary theory predicts that all living beings are merely transitional.(or evolutionary dead-ends).
Quit talking about intelligent agency, and boats vs. airplanes. Its a simple explanation of the flaws with the arguments...not an analogous situation to explain evolution.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
SHUTUP
PuckSR: "SHUTUP"? Still upset that I "silenced you" on another thread not too long ago? Get over it. Have a nice day.
PuckSR: "SHUTUP"? Still upset that I "silenced you" on another thread not too long ago? Get over it. Have a nice day.
QUOTE
PuckSR: "SHUTUP"? Still upset that I "silenced you" on another thread not too long ago? Get over it. Have a nice day.
??????
What???
No...I was just annoyed with the stupidity of the conversation.
Can a boat turn into a plane? How much sillier could the conversation have gotten?
Your analog was so stretched that any comments that you were making were just ridiculous.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| PuckSR: "SHUTUP"? Still upset that I "silenced you" on another thread not too long ago? Get over it. Have a nice day. |
??????
What???
No...I was just annoyed with the stupidity of the conversation.
Can a boat turn into a plane? How much sillier could the conversation have gotten?
Your analog was so stretched that any comments that you were making were just ridiculous.
AlphaNumeric: Yes, "YOU can make small augments to a boat over time", but the BOAT can't "make small augments on its own", now can it? Do all of the "tweaking" that YOU want, but it is still YOU doing the "tweaking". Your analogy fails terribly.
A mechanical, inanimate object is very different than a animate self-modifying object.
Even if someone had intelligently made the analogy between a boat and an organism....your still "attacking" the irrelevant non-analogous portion of the analogy.
It was just dumb...
BTW>>>when did you "silence me"?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 15 2006, 10:17 AM)
Add wings, an engine and propellor and yes it could do. Ever seen those aeroplanes which can land on water?
But wings and a propellor will never be needed for aquatic life, thus they shall not be naturally selected.
Really?
Well, a defective or tiny wing would not fit any purpose and would not give any advantage, thus it would be ignored by all gradual "tweaking" within natural selection.
But wings and a propellor will never be needed for aquatic life, thus they shall not be naturally selected.
QUOTE
No...I was just annoyed with the stupidity of the conversation
Really?
Well, a defective or tiny wing would not fit any purpose and would not give any advantage, thus it would be ignored by all gradual "tweaking" within natural selection.
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jul 16 2006, 07:19 AM)
But wings and a propellor will never be needed for aquatic life, thus they shall not be naturally selected.
...
Well, a defective or tiny wing would not fit any purpose and would not give any advantage, thus it would be ignored by all gradual "tweaking" within natural selection.
Both "wings" (hydrofoil) and related effects ("squat") are part of nautical engineering. "Squat" refers to a Bernoulli effect of fast speeds and shallow channels cause the ship to ride lower in the water. I watched a documentary where they had to get a ship under a bridge and this was part of the solution -- go faster not slower. A hydrodynamical screw is built with similaries to propellers and sailboats are "natural" aerodynamic innovations in aquatic craft.
Tiny wings ("canards") have use. Submarines have diving planes which are are similar to tiny wings in shape and function.
Many times the claim "an incomplete X would give no competitive advantage" has been shown to just a result based on unmotivated or unimaginative thinking.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921.html
...
Well, a defective or tiny wing would not fit any purpose and would not give any advantage, thus it would be ignored by all gradual "tweaking" within natural selection.
Both "wings" (hydrofoil) and related effects ("squat") are part of nautical engineering. "Squat" refers to a Bernoulli effect of fast speeds and shallow channels cause the ship to ride lower in the water. I watched a documentary where they had to get a ship under a bridge and this was part of the solution -- go faster not slower. A hydrodynamical screw is built with similaries to propellers and sailboats are "natural" aerodynamic innovations in aquatic craft.
Tiny wings ("canards") have use. Submarines have diving planes which are are similar to tiny wings in shape and function.
Many times the claim "an incomplete X would give no competitive advantage" has been shown to just a result based on unmotivated or unimaginative thinking.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921.html
By Aether Wave theory (AWT) the evolution is much more general concept, than we can maybe imagine. You can follow my semiserious post using an analogy between living cells and elementary particles for better illustration of this concept...
QUOTE
ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another.
The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.
n.
A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another.
The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.
Let's talk about the lisards-to-birds issue please.
Underdeveloped wings will not be naturally selected, they will be de-selected.
The transition time between a needed listard forearm and a wing capable of flight would be far too long a time. So many generations. The half-way point would be a handi-cap, which natural-selection would ROOT OUT.
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jul 16 2006, 02:44 PM)
Underdeveloped wings will not be naturally selected, they will be de-selected.
I Just covered this. How much time do you spend reading before you post?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html
Interested readers will look at the related links on my earlier post.
I Just covered this. How much time do you spend reading before you post?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html
QUOTE
Claim CB921.2:What use is half a wing? A leg evolving into a wing would be a bad leg long before it was a good wing.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7. http://www.creationscience.com/
Response:
Half a wing can have any of several uses:
Links:
Marden, J. H., n.d. Evolution of insect flight: a stepwise model based on weight-supported locomotion on the surface of water. http://www.bio.psu.edu/People/Faculty/Marden/project2.html
References:
Further Reading:
Brodsky, A. K., 1994. The Evolution of Insect Flight. Oxford University Press.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7. http://www.creationscience.com/
Response:
Half a wing can have any of several uses:
- In insects, half a wing is useful for skimming rapidly across the surface of water (Marden and Kramer 1995; Kramer and Marden 1997; Thomas et al. 2000).
- In larger animals, half a wing is useful for gliding. Airfoils for gliding appear in several different forms in many different animals, including
- skin between legs on flying squirrels (Petauristinae), scaly-tailed squirrels (Anomaluridae), flying phalangers, and flying lemurs
- flattened body of the flying snake (Chrysopelea)
- large webbed feet on gliding tree frogs (Rhacophorus and Polypedates)
- fins on flying fish (Exocoetidae) and flying squid (Onychoteuthis)
- expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated flexible ribs on gliding lizards (e.g., Draco)
- expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated jointed ribs on the Kuehneosauridae from the late Triassic
- lateral membrane supported by bones separate from the rest of the skeleton on
- Coelurosauravus jaekeli, an Upper Permian flying reptile (Frey et al. 1997)
- even an ant (Cephalotes atratus), when it falls, uses its hind legs to direct its aerial descent back to its home tree's trunk (Yanoviak et al. 2005).
- skin between legs on flying squirrels (Petauristinae), scaly-tailed squirrels (Anomaluridae), flying phalangers, and flying lemurs
- In immature chickens, wing-flapping enhances hindlimb traction, allowing the chickens to ascend steeper inclines. This function could be an intermediate to the original flight of birds. (Dial 2003)
- In some flightless birds (e.g., penguins), wings are used for swimming.
- In some flightless birds, wings are probably used for startling potential predators.
- Black herons use their wings to shade the water in which they fish.
- Some owls use their wings to hold their prey against the ground.
- Nighthawks, woodcocks, riflebirds, and several species of manakins make noises with their wings as part of sexual displays.
- Partial wings may have other useful functions that nobody has thought of yet.
Links:
Marden, J. H., n.d. Evolution of insect flight: a stepwise model based on weight-supported locomotion on the surface of water. http://www.bio.psu.edu/People/Faculty/Marden/project2.html
References:
- Dial, K. P. 2003. Wing-assisted incline running and the evolution of flight. Science 299: 402-404.
See also:
Pennisi, E., 2003. Uphill dash may have led to flight. Science 299: 329. - Frey, Eberhard, H-D. Sues, and W. Munk. 1997. Gliding mechanism in the Late Permian reptile Coelurosauravus. Science 275: 1450-1452.
- Kramer, M. G. and J. H. Marden. 1997. Almost airborne. Nature 385: 403-404.
- Marden, J. H. and M. G. Kramer. 1995. Locomotor performance of insects with rudimentary wings. Nature 377: 332-334.
- Thomas, M. A., K. A. Walsh, M. R. Wolf, B. A. McPheron and J. H. Marden. 2000. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of evolutionary trends in stonefly wing structure and locomotor behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97: 13178-13183.
- Yanoviak, Stephen P., Robert Dudley, and Michael Kaspari. 2005. Directed aerial descent in canopy ants. Nature 433: 624-626.
Further Reading:
Brodsky, A. K., 1994. The Evolution of Insect Flight. Oxford University Press.
Interested readers will look at the related links on my earlier post.
QUOTE
Let's talk about the lisards-to-birds issue please.
Ok...we will...but first
It is dinosaur to bird...not lisard. Early dinosaurs were definately not lizards. They may have resembled reptiles...but most people who study this thing will explain that dinosaurs were proto-reptiles...not reptiles.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Let's talk about the lisards-to-birds issue please. |
Ok...we will...but first
It is dinosaur to bird...not lisard. Early dinosaurs were definately not lizards. They may have resembled reptiles...but most people who study this thing will explain that dinosaurs were proto-reptiles...not reptiles.
The half-way point would be a handi-cap, which natural-selection would ROOT OUT.
The halfway point is nonexistent.
Let us compare the "evolution" of mechanical systems.
The wheel "evolved" into the motorcycle.
There were several stages in the development of the modern motorcycle. The bicycle was an important stage. The invention of the motor was an important stage.
QUOTE
Underdeveloped wings will not be naturally selected, they will be de-selected.
Not really. This only holds true if you believe that evolution has some purpose.
Evolution, just like the early users of the wheel, had absolutely no idea where the invention would eventually go. The leap from wheeled cart to bicycle was a long time coming. The actually concept of the bicycle is not difficult. The technology existed for a long time before a bicycle was created.
Natural selection does not work on the idea of "the best organism survives". This is a common misconception. Natural selection works on the principle that "working organisms survive". A feature will not be deselected unless it inhibits an organisms chance of survival.
Also...given your fascination with flying organisms....
You might be interested in studying the wing structure of the 3-types of flying organisms
1. mammal fliers
2. avian fliers
3. Dinosaur fliers
They all found a different way to adapt to flight.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 16 2006, 04:43 PM)
I Just covered this. How much time do you spend reading before you post?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html
Interested readers will look at the related links on my earlier post.
I missed it the first time around, but read it later.
Thanks for your time.
~
Let's talk about the "primordial soup".
How'd that all work-out?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html
Interested readers will look at the related links on my earlier post.
I missed it the first time around, but read it later.
Thanks for your time.
~
Let's talk about the "primordial soup".
How'd that all work-out?
Though not related to his comments on evolution and creationism, 'Dr' Dino has been arrested on 58 charges, mostly tax dodging.
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/p...NEWS01/60713013
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/p...NEWS01/60713013
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 20 2006, 09:03 PM)
Though not related to his comments on evolution and creationism, 'Dr' Dino has been arrested on 58 charges, mostly tax dodging.
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/p...NEWS01/60713013
Okay...
Primordial soup, let's talk about it.
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/p...NEWS01/60713013
Okay...
Primordial soup, let's talk about it.
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jul 21 2006, 12:09 AM)
Okay...
Primordial soup, let's talk about it.
Your fellow human (yfh),
Mmmmm, delicious!!!
Life on Earth came from space on meteorites. Before you start to yell at me, I want to say that this is the hypothesis I support and I'm fully aware of the fact it's only hypothesis.
Now someone may say that if it didn't happen on Earth it must then have happened elsewhere. I agree that this is viable hypothesis, but I don't think that we should apply the conditions we think were present in the past of Earth to that place where the life originates. So, the "primordial soup" is only one of the billions of possible explanations.
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jul 20 2006, 09:09 PM)
Primordial soup, let's talk about it.
Please be specific. Your dated jargon and pop science references make it hard to understand you. Are you talking about the pre-RNA world?
http://www.georgealozano.com/teach/evoluti...Lazcano1996.pdf
or the RNA world?
http://www.biology.buffalo.edu/courses/bio...20of%20life.pdf
http://web.wi.mit.edu/bartel/pub/publicati...el_Trends99.pdf
http://shiva.msu.montana.edu/courses/mb437...s/RelicsRNA.pdf
or a hypothesis of primative pre-DNA cells?
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pd...6.031902.105056
or how cells formed from the RNA-world?
http://shiva.msu.montana.edu/courses/mb437...ocs/pathRNA.pdf
http://shiva.msu.montana.edu/courses/mb437...fall/class.html
Please be specific. Your dated jargon and pop science references make it hard to understand you. Are you talking about the pre-RNA world?
http://www.georgealozano.com/teach/evoluti...Lazcano1996.pdf
or the RNA world?
http://www.biology.buffalo.edu/courses/bio...20of%20life.pdf
http://web.wi.mit.edu/bartel/pub/publicati...el_Trends99.pdf
http://shiva.msu.montana.edu/courses/mb437...s/RelicsRNA.pdf
or a hypothesis of primative pre-DNA cells?
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pd...6.031902.105056
or how cells formed from the RNA-world?
http://shiva.msu.montana.edu/courses/mb437...ocs/pathRNA.pdf
QUOTE
We describe a sequential (step by step) Darwinian model for the evolution of life from the late stages of the RNA world through to the emergence of eukaryotes and prokaryotes.
http://shiva.msu.montana.edu/courses/mb437...fall/class.html
Fellow Human isnt talking about any of those...
He is just randomly throwing out "Creationism Common Topics"...in the hope that one of his topics will catch us off guard and we will realize the authority of Christ...blah blah blah....
The problem with the internet and intelligent people is that you cant really "catch us off guard". We all have ample time to go do research in between posts.
This means that Creationists actually have to come up with good arguments....which most of the time they fail miserably at.
The "valid" arguments that do exist...in other words arguments that cannot be easily dismissed and that do not lack logical reasoning are normally so far over the head of the normal person that they are useless as propaganda tools.
Just give up Fellow Human....
Your either going to get into discussions over your head(and run the risk of one of the other forum members being well-versed in the topic...)
Or your going to bring up "problems with evolution" that have been so thoroughly debunked that even most Creationists who debate regularly do not use them.
He is just randomly throwing out "Creationism Common Topics"...in the hope that one of his topics will catch us off guard and we will realize the authority of Christ...blah blah blah....
The problem with the internet and intelligent people is that you cant really "catch us off guard". We all have ample time to go do research in between posts.
This means that Creationists actually have to come up with good arguments....which most of the time they fail miserably at.
The "valid" arguments that do exist...in other words arguments that cannot be easily dismissed and that do not lack logical reasoning are normally so far over the head of the normal person that they are useless as propaganda tools.
Just give up Fellow Human....
Your either going to get into discussions over your head(and run the risk of one of the other forum members being well-versed in the topic...)
Or your going to bring up "problems with evolution" that have been so thoroughly debunked that even most Creationists who debate regularly do not use them.
"The False Teacher" is an oddly appropriate title for this video. As AlphaNumeric points out this is not someone who "Honors the King" and is actually interested in following the law. Sadly, dealing with a power outage stole most of the time I needed to watch all of this, but this is clearly not an academic lecture. Time and time again, Kent Hovind shuts down all science that conflicts with his view of the bible.
Here are the outright lies about science (as opposed to unsubstantiated slanders against scientists) that I heard KH made in the first minutes of this video.
Going back to the "barbed canyons" bit -- this is nowhere indicative of lake drainage but of rugged terrain, like that of ridge formations. http://maps.unomaha.edu/maher/2003MBfieldt.../Pleistgeo.html
Here are the outright lies about science (as opposed to unsubstantiated slanders against scientists) that I heard KH made in the first minutes of this video.
- Earth is not (even) millions of years old -- not true http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH210.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
- Dinosaurs are not millions of years old -- not true http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html
- Grand Canyon is not formed over millions of years -- not true, it meanders more than is possible for fast water to do. It's too narrow for fast flood formation scenario. The rock walls were clearly already rock hard prior to being cut through. Since this is a PHYSICS board, this is the easiest for our users to see is clearly, how did Kevin Spacey put it? WRONG. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html
- Sedimentary rock is not formed over millions of years -- not true http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH550.html
- The Colorado delta is missing -- not true http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD210.html
- Barbed canyons confuse evolutionist -- not true. See this forum for example: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?act...g&f=7&t=152&m=1
- Plate tectonics, the explanation about why "a ridge runs through it" is wrong: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD740.html
- Geological Column is fictional -- see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD101.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD103.html
- No Erosion marks between the layers -- not true there are not only weathering effects, there are signs of life burrowing through mud: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/ and meteorites http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD111.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD110.html
- Hydrological sorting can explain layers -- not true http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_2.html
- Geological column is associated with fossils by circulars reasoning. -- not true http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC310.html (nor is it likely that the line of reasoning the daughter uses in the anecdote is original to her)
Going back to the "barbed canyons" bit -- this is nowhere indicative of lake drainage but of rugged terrain, like that of ridge formations. http://maps.unomaha.edu/maher/2003MBfieldt.../Pleistgeo.html
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jul 20 2006, 09:26 PM)
Your fellow human (yfh),
Mmmmm, delicious!!!
Life on Earth came from space on meteorites. Before you start to yell at me, I want to say that this is the hypothesis I support and I'm fully aware of the fact it's only hypothesis.
Now someone may say that if it didn't happen on Earth it must then have happened elsewhere. I agree that this is viable hypothesis, but I don't think that we should apply the conditions we think were present in the past of Earth to that place where the life originates. So, the "primordial soup" is only one of the billions of possible explanations.
I also believe that life had an alien origin, and that the aliens are/were "gods".
I don't believe ID or II has to have anything to do with any bible, either.
Mmmmm, delicious!!!
Life on Earth came from space on meteorites. Before you start to yell at me, I want to say that this is the hypothesis I support and I'm fully aware of the fact it's only hypothesis.
Now someone may say that if it didn't happen on Earth it must then have happened elsewhere. I agree that this is viable hypothesis, but I don't think that we should apply the conditions we think were present in the past of Earth to that place where the life originates. So, the "primordial soup" is only one of the billions of possible explanations.
I also believe that life had an alien origin, and that the aliens are/were "gods".
I don't believe ID or II has to have anything to do with any bible, either.
QUOTE
Fellow Human isnt talking about any of those...
He is just randomly throwing out "Creationism Common Topics"...in the hope that one of his topics will catch us off guard and we will realize the authority of Christ...blah blah blah....
He is just randomly throwing out "Creationism Common Topics"...in the hope that one of his topics will catch us off guard and we will realize the authority of Christ...blah blah blah....
Lol. What are you talking about?
I linked to the video of the preacher dude because of what he questioned about evolution, and I wanted to clear up his critisism.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Fellow Human isnt talking about any of those... He is just randomly throwing out "Creationism Common Topics"...in the hope that one of his topics will catch us off guard and we will realize the authority of Christ...blah blah blah.... |
Lol. What are you talking about?
I linked to the video of the preacher dude because of what he questioned about evolution, and I wanted to clear up his critisism.
The problem with the internet and intelligent people is that you cant really "catch us off guard". We all have ample time to go do research in between posts.
This means that Creationists actually have to come up with good arguments....which most of the time they fail miserably at.
The "valid" arguments that do exist...in other words arguments that cannot be easily dismissed and that do not lack logical reasoning are normally so far over the head of the normal person that they are useless as propaganda tools.
Just give up Fellow Human....
Your either going to get into discussions over your head(and run the risk of one of the other forum members being well-versed in the topic...)
Or your going to bring up "problems with evolution" that have been so thoroughly debunked that even most Creationists who debate regularly do not use them.
You seem to think that I'm a Christian...
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 21 2006, 12:23 AM)
"The False Teacher" is an oddly appropriate title for this video. As AlphaNumeric points out this is not someone who "Honors the King" and is actually interested in following the law. Sadly, dealing with a power outage stole most of the time I needed to watch all of this, but this is clearly not an academic lecture. Time and time again, Kent Hovind shuts down all science that conflicts with his view of the bible.
Here are the outright lies about science (as opposed to unsubstantiated slanders against scientists) that I heard KH made in the first minutes of this video.
Going back to the "barbed canyons" bit -- this is nowhere indicative of lake drainage but of rugged terrain, like that of ridge formations. http://maps.unomaha.edu/maher/2003MBfieldt.../Pleistgeo.html
It's going to take me some time to read through all of those, but I will.
Thanks again for your time.
My understanding of evolution is quite limited, that's why I made this thread, to see what woudl get cleared up.
Here are the outright lies about science (as opposed to unsubstantiated slanders against scientists) that I heard KH made in the first minutes of this video.
- Earth is not (even) millions of years old -- not true http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH210.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
- Dinosaurs are not millions of years old -- not true http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html
- Grand Canyon is not formed over millions of years -- not true, it meanders more than is possible for fast water to do. It's too narrow for fast flood formation scenario. The rock walls were clearly already rock hard prior to being cut through. Since this is a PHYSICS board, this is the easiest for our users to see is clearly, how did Kevin Spacey put it? WRONG. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html
- Sedimentary rock is not formed over millions of years -- not true http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH550.html
- The Colorado delta is missing -- not true http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD210.html
- Barbed canyons confuse evolutionist -- not true. See this forum for example: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?act...g&f=7&t=152&m=1
- Plate tectonics, the explanation about why "a ridge runs through it" is wrong: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD740.html
- Geological Column is fictional -- see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD101.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD103.html
- No Erosion marks between the layers -- not true there are not only weathering effects, there are signs of life burrowing through mud: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/ and meteorites http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD111.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD110.html
- Hydrological sorting can explain layers -- not true http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_2.html
- Geological column is associated with fossils by circulars reasoning. -- not true http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC310.html (nor is it likely that the line of reasoning the daughter uses in the anecdote is original to her)
Going back to the "barbed canyons" bit -- this is nowhere indicative of lake drainage but of rugged terrain, like that of ridge formations. http://maps.unomaha.edu/maher/2003MBfieldt.../Pleistgeo.html
It's going to take me some time to read through all of those, but I will.
Thanks again for your time.
My understanding of evolution is quite limited, that's why I made this thread, to see what woudl get cleared up.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Fellow Human isnt talking about any of those...
He is just randomly throwing out "Creationism Common Topics"...in the hope that one of his topics will catch us off guard and we will realize the authority of Christ...blah blah blah....
The problem with the internet and intelligent people is that you cant really "catch us off guard". We all have ample time to go do research in between posts.
Your fellow human: LOL!!! Yeah, PuckSR really did use his/her "ample time" to "go do research in between posts", didn't he/she? Too bad none of that "ample time" was used in "researching" some of your previous posts, eh? Glad you didn't catch him/her "off guard". 
So what time do you want me to pick you up for church? LOL!!!
He is just randomly throwing out "Creationism Common Topics"...in the hope that one of his topics will catch us off guard and we will realize the authority of Christ...blah blah blah....
The problem with the internet and intelligent people is that you cant really "catch us off guard". We all have ample time to go do research in between posts.
Your fellow human: LOL!!!
Yeah, PuckSR really did use his/her "ample time" to "go do research in between posts", didn't he/she? Too bad none of that "ample time" was used in "researching" some of your previous posts, eh? Glad you didn't catch him/her "off guard". So what time do you want me to pick you up for church? LOL!!!
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jul 21 2006, 04:50 PM)
I also believe that life had an alien origin, and that the aliens are/were "gods".
I don't believe ID or II has to have anything to do with any bible, either.
Your fellow human (yfh),
That's not what I believe. Aliens have nothing to do with life on Earth. I just think that abiogenesis didn't happen on Earth, but I still it happened. Life wasn't created by God. God created the entity that created and support the rules (physical laws), that made existence of life, as we know it, possible.
I don't think that we were intelligently designed, I think that we evolved. The rules allowed that to happen. So, I think that you're right on ID. It has nothing to do with any bible, but just because ID does not exist in this Universe.
I don't believe ID or II has to have anything to do with any bible, either.
Your fellow human (yfh),
That's not what I believe. Aliens have nothing to do with life on Earth. I just think that abiogenesis didn't happen on Earth, but I still it happened. Life wasn't created by God. God created the entity that created and support the rules (physical laws), that made existence of life, as we know it, possible.
I don't think that we were intelligently designed, I think that we evolved. The rules allowed that to happen. So, I think that you're right on ID. It has nothing to do with any bible, but just because ID does not exist in this Universe.
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jul 21 2006, 02:19 PM)
Your fellow human (yfh),
That's not what I believe. Aliens have nothing to do with life on Earth. I just think that abiogenesis didn't happen on Earth, but I still it happened. Life wasn't created by God. God created the entity that created and support the rules (physical laws), that made existence of life, as we know it, possible.
I don't think that we were intelligently designed, I think that we evolved. The rules allowed that to happen. So, I think that you're right on ID. It has nothing to do with any bible, but just because ID does not exist in this Universe.
Upisoft: Thanks for sharing your "beliefs" and "thoughts" with us.
That's not what I believe. Aliens have nothing to do with life on Earth. I just think that abiogenesis didn't happen on Earth, but I still it happened. Life wasn't created by God. God created the entity that created and support the rules (physical laws), that made existence of life, as we know it, possible.
I don't think that we were intelligently designed, I think that we evolved. The rules allowed that to happen. So, I think that you're right on ID. It has nothing to do with any bible, but just because ID does not exist in this Universe.
Upisoft: Thanks for sharing your "beliefs" and "thoughts" with us.
QUOTE
Your fellow human: LOL!!! laugh.gif Yeah, PuckSR really did use his/her "ample time" to "go do research in between posts", didn't he/she? Too bad none of that "ample time" was used in "researching" some of your previous posts, eh? Glad you didn't catch him/her "off guard". unsure.gif So what time do you want me to pick you up for church? LOL!!! laugh.gif
Your Fellow Human's beliefs are still dubious....
He is still asking questions that consist of the "Christian ways to debate evolution" handbook of questions.
I doubt i would want to go to any church you attend newguy...
You seem to believe in Creationism, which implies that you believe that the bible is the absolute word of God...and any church that supports those kinds of silly and stupid beliefs is not worth attending.
I might be wrong though....i didnt really bother to research your "position" either.
PuckSR: If you research YFH's posting history, then I trust that you will find that he oftentimes deliberately plays "the devil's advocate" in that he likes to "stir up" people to get them to express their views. I trust that you will also find that he is far from being a "professing Christian"...FAR FROM! If he didn't change the "signature" at the bottom of his posts so often, then you would have no doubts as to his views on Christianity(they're NOT favorable, by any means).
As far as my background is concerned, other than for funerals or weddings, I have only "stepped foot" in a church 2 times in about the last 6 years or so. Prior to that, most of my involvement "within church walls" was in trying to "fix the problem from within". I am, by no means, an advocate of "church"(at least not in its present condition here in the West), but I am fully an advocate of reconciliation to God through Christ. This seems to be the point that everyone "dodges" on this forum while running up and down "rabbit trails". Anyway...
As far as my background is concerned, other than for funerals or weddings, I have only "stepped foot" in a church 2 times in about the last 6 years or so. Prior to that, most of my involvement "within church walls" was in trying to "fix the problem from within". I am, by no means, an advocate of "church"(at least not in its present condition here in the West), but I am fully an advocate of reconciliation to God through Christ. This seems to be the point that everyone "dodges" on this forum while running up and down "rabbit trails". Anyway...
QUOTE
I am fully an advocate of reconciliation to God through Christ.
Hmm...so answer a question
What is your position on the bible?
Do you hold it in any high esteem?
Perhaps as a "work of God"?
Perhaps accurate?
Let me know
PuckSR: Yes, I hold the Bible in high esteem. I don't do this based upon what is commonly termed(at least on this forum) as "blind faith". I have personally been reconciled unto God through Jesus Christ(as a result of following the Bible) and I enjoy(better ask for my definition of that word) fellowship with God on a daily basis. I also have much "modern day evidence"(such as Divine healing, casting out of demons/spirits). Much of this has already been discussed throughout my posting history, although I suspect that you have something else in mind. Am I correct? Whatever it is, I'm getting ready for work, but I will view it later on. Until then...
QUOTE
I also have much "modern day evidence"(such as Divine healing, casting out of demons/spirits)
Where did Jesus or the Bible say that this was a power of Christianity?
PuckSR: This will be my last reply until late this evening(the earliest)...
"And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease."(Matthew 10:1)
That would be one place of several.
Let me ask you a question(please answer it honestly):
Were you hoping that I would say Mark 16:15-20 so that you could "challenge" the authenticity of that portion of scripture?
Gotta run...
"And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease."(Matthew 10:1)
That would be one place of several.
Let me ask you a question(please answer it honestly):
Were you hoping that I would say Mark 16:15-20 so that you could "challenge" the authenticity of that portion of scripture?
Gotta run...
Yes I was...since it ISNT an authentic portion of scripture...
Just like a good deal of the Bible
Just like a good deal of the Bible
QUOTE (newguy+Jul 21 2006, 04:34 PM)
PuckSR: Yes, I hold the Bible in high esteem. I don't do this based upon what is commonly termed(at least on this forum) as "blind faith". I have personally been reconciled unto God through Jesus Christ(as a result of following the Bible) and I enjoy(better ask for my definition of that word) fellowship with God on a daily basis. I also have much "modern day evidence"(such as Divine healing, casting out of demons/spirits). Much of this has already been discussed throughout my posting history, although I suspect that you have something else in mind. Am I correct? Whatever it is, I'm getting ready for work, but I will view it later on. Until then...
I have some questions (out of curiosity, nothing else) regarding your divine healing and casting out demons/spirits.
1) Do you look for a rational explanation (you know what I mean) first before going to your supernatural explanation? OR are you so "convinced" by your faith that you do not see any need for a rational explanation?
2) Are you 100% sure that these are not products of you over active imagination?
I have some questions (out of curiosity, nothing else) regarding your divine healing and casting out demons/spirits.
1) Do you look for a rational explanation (you know what I mean) first before going to your supernatural explanation? OR are you so "convinced" by your faith that you do not see any need for a rational explanation?
2) Are you 100% sure that these are not products of you over active imagination?
QUOTE
PuckSR: Yes, I hold the Bible in high esteem. I don't do this based upon what is commonly termed(at least on this forum) as "blind faith". I have personally been reconciled unto God through Jesus Christ(as a result of following the Bible) and I enjoy(better ask for my definition of that word) fellowship with God on a daily basis. I also have much "modern day evidence"(such as Divine healing, casting out of demons/spirits). Much of this has already been discussed throughout my posting history, although I suspect that you have something else in mind. Am I correct? Whatever it is, I'm getting ready for work, but I will view it later on. Until then...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| PuckSR: Yes, I hold the Bible in high esteem. I don't do this based upon what is commonly termed(at least on this forum) as "blind faith". I have personally been reconciled unto God through Jesus Christ(as a result of following the Bible) and I enjoy(better ask for my definition of that word) fellowship with God on a daily basis. I also have much "modern day evidence"(such as Divine healing, casting out of demons/spirits). Much of this has already been discussed throughout my posting history, although I suspect that you have something else in mind. Am I correct? Whatever it is, I'm getting ready for work, but I will view it later on. Until then... |
Where did Jesus or the Bible say that this was a power of Christianity?
This is shamanism, by exact definition of the word.
He's crossed the axis-mundi, and contacted the undead Jesus, somehow gaining powers..?
This is shamanism, by exact definition of the word.
He's crossed the axis-mundi, and contacted the undead Jesus, somehow gaining powers..?
QUOTE (vkamath+Jul 21 2006, 05:28 PM)
I have some questions (out of curiosity, nothing else) regarding your divine healing and casting out demons/spirits.
1) Do you look for a rational explanation (you know what I mean) first before going to your supernatural explanation? OR are you so "convinced" by your faith that you do not see any need for a rational explanation?
2) Are you 100% sure that these are not products of you over active imagination?
If he's doing healings and exorsism then he's a channeler and a psi-manipulator.
("Rational explanation" = life forms can consist of things other then solid matter.)
He's able to communicate with & alter energy with his mind, and this has led him towards the "spirit-world" as he can now effect energy-based-life-forms a fair bit.
newguy, how good is that clarvoyance of yours?
Could you ask an angel of some higher order how exactly the angelic species got its power? Ask them if they usedto be human. Ask if "God" helped them to evolve into a new species, and if an angel usedto be human.
Also ask them how much of a person's memories & IQ is lost after physical death.
~
Also, originally there was no solid matter, only energy, right?
Did the physical world have a spiritual pre-existence?
Is this why they say "God" "Created" it all?
1) Do you look for a rational explanation (you know what I mean) first before going to your supernatural explanation? OR are you so "convinced" by your faith that you do not see any need for a rational explanation?
2) Are you 100% sure that these are not products of you over active imagination?
If he's doing healings and exorsism then he's a channeler and a psi-manipulator.
("Rational explanation" = life forms can consist of things other then solid matter.)
He's able to communicate with & alter energy with his mind, and this has led him towards the "spirit-world" as he can now effect energy-based-life-forms a fair bit.
newguy, how good is that clarvoyance of yours?
Could you ask an angel of some higher order how exactly the angelic species got its power? Ask them if they usedto be human. Ask if "God" helped them to evolve into a new species, and if an angel usedto be human.
Also ask them how much of a person's memories & IQ is lost after physical death.
~
Also, originally there was no solid matter, only energy, right?
Did the physical world have a spiritual pre-existence?
Is this why they say "God" "Created" it all?
OP:
Abiogenesis & revolutionary morphology?
(more anti-evolution videos to rattle your cages)
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-84...746&q=evolution
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=165...496&q=evolution
[Modern naturalist evolution theory]
* Materialistic abiogenesis & changes per generation eventually causing drastic change, naturally selected by existential success rates.
Reality is ascending -- in some ways. What is simply gradually becomes more complex and advanced. Example: Technology growing.
Are these mutations a form of genetic "white noise" or are they modulations of already existing genetic code values? Would modulation of a single paradigm eventually lead to a more complex paradigm, eventually so complex that its copies split off into other new or different forms?
[Creationism]
* Poof. It was all built.
Reality exists within a descending order, in which greaters create lessers.
[Incarnation, energy to matter, spirit to body]
* Spiritualist abiogenesis.
The "spirit realm" is more hospitable to abiogenesis. Life was originally an energy form, eventually solidifying into material some place, and slowly developing itself farther from there. Material existence is just some sort of phase in a spiritual life cycle.
There is more then one realm or reality, and one reality can slightly effect the other through similarities & partial relativity, whilst staying fundamentally seporate.
[Reality is an illusion]
Here's a dead-end ideology, no need to explain why or how.
Origin of reality?
If time is quantified cause-and-effect & change does it need to be caused, effected or changed? Time, in and of itself, does not require a birth or a death?
Abiogenesis & revolutionary morphology?
(more anti-evolution videos to rattle your cages)
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-84...746&q=evolution
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=165...496&q=evolution
[Modern naturalist evolution theory]
* Materialistic abiogenesis & changes per generation eventually causing drastic change, naturally selected by existential success rates.
Reality is ascending -- in some ways. What is simply gradually becomes more complex and advanced. Example: Technology growing.
Are these mutations a form of genetic "white noise" or are they modulations of already existing genetic code values? Would modulation of a single paradigm eventually lead to a more complex paradigm, eventually so complex that its copies split off into other new or different forms?
[Creationism]
* Poof. It was all built.
Reality exists within a descending order, in which greaters create lessers.
[Incarnation, energy to matter, spirit to body]
* Spiritualist abiogenesis.
The "spirit realm" is more hospitable to abiogenesis. Life was originally an energy form, eventually solidifying into material some place, and slowly developing itself farther from there. Material existence is just some sort of phase in a spiritual life cycle.
There is more then one realm or reality, and one reality can slightly effect the other through similarities & partial relativity, whilst staying fundamentally seporate.
[Reality is an illusion]
Here's a dead-end ideology, no need to explain why or how.
Origin of reality?
If time is quantified cause-and-effect & change does it need to be caused, effected or changed? Time, in and of itself, does not require a birth or a death?
QUOTE (newguy+Jul 21 2006, 05:54 PM)
Upisoft: Thanks for sharing your "beliefs" and "thoughts" with us.
newguy,
I don't understand you. Why have you quoted words beliefs and thoughts? Don't you believe me that I have such?
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jul 21 2006, 09:01 PM)
newguy,
I don't understand you. Why have you quoted words beliefs and thoughts? Don't you believe me that I have such?
Upisoft: I was only pointing out that what you shared was your "beliefs" and "thoughts" and NOT "facts". That's all.
I don't understand you. Why have you quoted words beliefs and thoughts? Don't you believe me that I have such?
Upisoft: I was only pointing out that what you shared was your "beliefs" and "thoughts" and NOT "facts". That's all.
So...newguy...if you readily admit that parts of the bible are flawed...horribly...obviously wrong
Then how do you determine which sections of the bible to support?
Also...do you treat the bible as a collection of books...with each book being held to an independent question of validity?
Or do you consider the bible one book...that is either wholly correct...or wholly flawed?
Then how do you determine which sections of the bible to support?
Also...do you treat the bible as a collection of books...with each book being held to an independent question of validity?
Or do you consider the bible one book...that is either wholly correct...or wholly flawed?
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jul 22 2006, 06:32 AM)
So...newguy...if you readily admit that parts of the bible are flawed...horribly...obviously wrong
Then how do you determine which sections of the bible to support?
Also...do you treat the bible as a collection of books...with each book being held to an independent question of validity?
Or do you consider the bible one book...that is either wholly correct...or wholly flawed?
PuckSR: I "readily admit" no such thing. You said that the aforementioned portion of scripture from Mark chapter 16 "ISNT an authentic portion of scripture".
PROVE IT!
I will not go through each section of the Bible with you, piece by piece(I've already conducted my own studies over the last 17 years), but I will give you the opportunity to show me how "horribly flawed" this section of scripture is. Here's your moment in the spotlight. Don't "blow it". As I said to someone on this forum a long time ago, "I've been around the block" quite a few times. You seem to think that you're the one who will "knock me off the curb". Let's see what you've got. Here's your one chance(in regards to the authenticity of scripture). I hope you've done your homework...Let's see what you've got. I'll be busy with work throughout the better part of the day, but I will "check in" later on. Talk to you then.
Then how do you determine which sections of the bible to support?
Also...do you treat the bible as a collection of books...with each book being held to an independent question of validity?
Or do you consider the bible one book...that is either wholly correct...or wholly flawed?
PuckSR: I "readily admit" no such thing. You said that the aforementioned portion of scripture from Mark chapter 16 "ISNT an authentic portion of scripture".
PROVE IT!
I will not go through each section of the Bible with you, piece by piece(I've already conducted my own studies over the last 17 years), but I will give you the opportunity to show me how "horribly flawed" this section of scripture is. Here's your moment in the spotlight. Don't "blow it". As I said to someone on this forum a long time ago, "I've been around the block" quite a few times. You seem to think that you're the one who will "knock me off the curb". Let's see what you've got. Here's your one chance(in regards to the authenticity of scripture). I hope you've done your homework...Let's see what you've got. I'll be busy with work throughout the better part of the day, but I will "check in" later on. Talk to you then.
newguy, if you wish, could you please also answer my above questions?
I'm curious about the metaphysical species you may be possessed with.
I'm curious about the metaphysical species you may be possessed with.
QUOTE
PuckSR: I "readily admit" no such thing. You said that the aforementioned portion of scripture from Mark chapter 16 "ISNT an authentic portion of scripture".
You already know my argument.
The earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark that we have DO NOT contain Mark 16:9-20
This is not "open to debate". Most bibles even include a "disclaimer". If we have early documents that end at Mark 16:8...and Mark 16:9-20 dont appear until much later...then we can be almost certain that the original Mark did not contain Mark 16:9-20.
Now, most scholars who study this will agree that their probably was an alternative ending to Mark...or at least that Mark "seemed" like it needed a better ending. So the addition of the ending later is not absurd...but it is dishonest.
We could also get involved in a discussion about how the "alternative ending" of Mark uses words and grammitical structure that seem alien when compared to the rest of Mark.
MY question is this: If it took us several centuries and a good deal of investigation....to discover that this portion of the Bible was erroneous...then why do you trust the "absolute" nature of any portion of the bible.
The books of the Bible were written by men. It was codexed and assembled by men. It was then copied and manipulated(end of Mark...story of adulteress from John) by Men. Then it was translated by men...from poor quality original manuscripts...
None of that is open to debate. It is all true. Even the Bible claims to be the works of men(even though divine inspiration is sometimes mentioned).
So....knowing all of that...why would you ever decide to accept the bible as wholly true?
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
You already know my argument.
PuckSR: Well, at least you're right about one thing. I do already know your argument and that is why I rejected your conclusions a long time ago.
PuckSR: Well, at least you're right about one thing. I do already know your argument and that is why I rejected your conclusions a long time ago.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
The earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark that we have DO NOT contain Mark 16:9-20
This is not "open to debate". Most bibles even include a "disclaimer". If we have early documents that end at Mark 16:8...and Mark 16:9-20 dont appear until much later...then we can be almost certain that the original Mark did not contain Mark 16:9-20.
Now, most scholars who study this will agree that their probably was an alternative ending to Mark...or at least that Mark "seemed" like it needed a better ending. So the addition of the ending later is not absurd...but it is dishonest.
We could also get involved in a discussion about how the "alternative ending" of Mark uses words and grammitical structure that seem alien when compared to the rest of Mark.
MY question is this: If it took us several centuries and a good deal of investigation....to discover that this portion of the Bible was erroneous...then why do you trust the "absolute" nature of any portion of the bible.
Your conclusions are "erroneous", NOT "this portion of the Bible". Maybe you would like to tell us all why a number of early church leaders "quoted" from the disputed portion of Mark chapter 16 BEFORE "the earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark" that we presently have? Well?
http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkTwo.html
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE LONG ENDING
Some commentaries (and footnotes in some Bible translations, such as "The
Message") state that the Long Ending is found only in late manuscripts. That
statement is false. Many ancient manuscripts contain these verses (such as Codex
Washingtonensis, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi). Furthermore, the
abundance of manuscripts which contain the Long Ending implies that it was present
in their ancestor-manuscripts. Also, the earliest known copy of Mark -- p45, from
about A.D. 225 -- is damaged (and for this reason is missing all of Mark 16) but its
closest textual "relative" in Mark is Codex Washingtonensis (from ch. 6 on), which
softly suggests that p45 originally contained the Long Ending.
Of all undamaged Greek copies of the Gospel of Mark (and there are over 1500),
only two (or possibly three) can be shown to have not contained Mark 16:9-20 when
they were made. However, this numerical avalanche in favor of the inclusion of the
Long Ending is not as decisive as the evidence which shows the Long Ending's
presence in different text-types. (A "text-type" may be likened to a branch on a
family tree of manuscripts -- even if one branch has many more leaves than another
branch, one branch is still just one branch. Likewise, even though most manuscripts
display the Byzantine text-type, they descend from one branch.) Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus are both Alexandrian manuscripts (Vaticanus may be considered "Proto-
Alexandrian"). Other Alexandrian manuscripts contain the Long Ending. So do
Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine manuscripts. Because Mark 16:9-20 is found
in all four branches, and appears in each one with features not present in the other
branches, it is generally more likely to have originated in the trunk of the tree
rather than in one of the branches.
Furthermore, the evidence from manuscripts must be weighed alongside the
evidence from patristic writings -- the writings of leaders in the early church. The
earliest manuscripts of Mark 16 are not the earliest evidence. Not even close!
There are several quotations of, or references to, the contents of Mark 16:9-20
which are quite a bit earlier than Vaticanus.
Justin Martyr, who died in A.D. 165, wrote in his First Apology ch. 45 that the
apostles "going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere." The three words in
red here represent three Greek words identical to Greek words used in Mark
16:20, including the somewhat rare word pantachou. A comparison of this
paragraph of Justin's work shows that it is highly likely that he was borrowing his
terms from the Long Ending.
Tatian was a second-century writer who interwove the texts of the four Gospels
into one continuous narrative, called the Diatessaron, in about A.D. 172. He
included material from Mark 16:9-20 in the Diatessaron.
Irenaeus was a Christian bishop in the second century. He wrote in Against
Heresies (about A.D. 180), Book III, 10:5-6, "Also, towards the conclusion of his
Gospel, Mark says: 'So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was
received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God." This is clearly a
quotation of Mark 16:19.
Papias, a writer in the early 100's, recorded that Justus Barsabbas (the individual
mentioned in Acts 1:23) once drank a poisonous drink and suffered no ill effects.
(This statement is preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea and by Philip of Side). His
motivation for mentioning this story may have been to provide an example of the
fulfillment of Mark 16:18. Perhaps more significantly, Papias wrote that Mark did
not omit any of what Peter had preached (and Peter certainly preached about Jesus'
post-resurrection appearances and His ascension).
At the seventh Council of Carthage in 256, a bishop named Vincentius of Thibaris
said, "We have assuredly the rule of truth which the Lord by His divine precept
commanded to His apostles, saying, 'Go ye, lay on hands in My name, expel
demons.' And in another place: "Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'" Vincentius' second
quotation is from Matthew 28:19. Despite attempts by some interpreters to connect
the first quotation to Matthew 10:8, the references to going, laying on hands,
expelling demons, and doing so in My name add up to a reference to Mark 16:15-
18, especially when placed side-by-side with the parallel passage from Matthew.
Either Porphyry (an early opponent of Christianity who died in A.D. 305) or
Hierocles (a student of Porphyry, writing in the very early 300's) was cited by
another writer (Macarius Magnes) as having (mis-)used Mark 16:18 as an example
of absurdity in Christian teachings .
Prominent writers in the 300's and 400's also used Mark 16:9-20. Here are some
examples:
Aphraates (also known as Aphrahat), writing no later than 345, quoted clearly from
the Long Ending in Demonstration One: Of Faith, stating, "And again He said this:
'This shall be the sign for those that believe; they will speak with new tongues and
shall cast out demons, and they shall lay their hands on the sick and they shall be
made whole.'"
Eusebius and Marinus (c. 330?) both reflect knowledge of the existence of the Long
Ending, in Eusebius' work Ad Marinum.
Ursinus, in "Rebaptism" Part 9, strongly alluded to Mark 16:14. Ursinus wrote in
about 350. The testimony of "Rebaptism" may be earlier, though; he may have
been repeating a composition made in the previous century, around the the time of
Cyprian.
Augustine, who died in 430, used Mark 16:9-20 in Easter-time sermons, showing
that by the early 400's the Long Ending was established in the lectionary in North
Africa.
Ambrose, who died in 397, used the Long Ending as Scripture (one example is his
use of Mark 16:18 in his work The Prayer of Job and David).
When the patristic evidence -- which is not mentioned by most Bible footnotes or
headings attached to Mark 16:9-20 -- is added to the equation, it becomes clear
that the earliest evidence for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 (in the second century)
pre-dates the earliest evidence for its non-inclusion (in the fourth century). The
evidence for the Long Ending is spread over a broad geographical area: Justin (in
Rome), Irenaeus (in Gaul [France]), Eusebius (in Caesarea, in Israel), Vincentius
(in North Africa), and Tatian and Aphraates (in Syria). Against this, the ancient
Greek evidence for non-inclusion is confined to Egypt (and Caesarea, but this is
because the library at Caesarea included Egyptian manuscripts). The implication of
this is that copies of Mark containing the Long Ending were in use at all these
locations. And the blank column in Vaticanus indicates that the Long Ending was
known in Egypt also.
Some evidence from early translations -- especially the Gothic, Old Latin, Syriac,
Armenian, and Coptic versions -- may be considered here.
The Gothic version is known to have been translated by Wulfilas (who was
originally from Antioch) in about A.D. 350. Manuscript-evidence for the Gothic
Version is sparse, but it displays the Long Ending.
Quite a few Old Latin manuscripts are damaged, but all undamaged Old Latin
manuscripts of Mark 16 except Codex Bobiensis contain the Long Ending.
The Syriac evidence is divided: the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript ends the text of
Mark at 16:8; the Curetonian Syriac manuscript is mutilated but preserves part of
the Long Ending (the only part of Mark in the manuscript!). The Peshitta Syriac
Version (made some time before A.D. 400) contains the Long Ending.
Although a quotation by Eznik (an Armenian bishop in the mid-400's) shows that the
Long Ending was known in Armenia, the Armenian version almost certainly did not
contain the Long Ending when it was made (in about A.D. 410). Because the
Armenian Version seems to have originally displayed a "Caesarean" text of Mark,
it seems likely that it was based on manuscripts from Caesarea which had been
produced under the supervision of Eusebius of Caesarea. Later, though, the Long
Ending was adopted in the Armenian text-stream; it appears in most Armenian
manuscripts. One Armenian manuscript, produced in A.D. 989, contains the words
"Aristou eritzou" written between the lines between Mark 16:8 and 16:9. This may
indicate that someone regarded Mark 16:9-20 as the work of a first-century
Christian named Aristion. Another possibility is that this note appeared alongside
16:18 in an older manuscript, and meant that a fulfillment of part of 16:18 (about a
believer's imperviousness to poison) was recorded by Aristion, who gave the story
to Papias. Later, after the question was raised regarding whether or not Mark
16:9-20 ought to be included, such a note may have been misinterpreted to mean
that Aristion had composed the entire passage. (Somewhat surprisingly, another
Armenian manuscript at the same monastery (near Mount Ararat) contains the
Short Ending attached to the end of Luke. This is probably a result of a later
distribution of manuscripts between Egyptian and Armenian monks.)
The Coptic versions are divided. The earliest manuscript of Mark in the Sahidic
Coptic version (which is probably the earliest Coptic translation) does not have the
Long Ending. The next "layer" in the Sahidic tradition has both the Short Ending
and the Long Ending. Then the Long Ending dominates, fully included without the
Short Ending. This is what one would expect in a textual tradition which was
influenced, in turn, by the Proto-Alexandrian Text, the Alexandrian Text, and the
Byzantine Text.
For any manuscript of Mark, the less it is connected with the early Alexandrian
channel of textual transmission and the Caesarean channel related to it, the more
strongly it supports Mark 16:9-20. The same thing is true of patristic testimony
and versions. This suggests that the loss of these twelve verses occurred either in,
or en route to, Alexandria, perhaps sometime in the mid-second century.
Perhaps you would also like to tell us why in "Codex Vaticanus"(one of the "earliest manuscripts" that does NOT include Mark 16:9-20) there is an entire blank column following Mark 16:8 and preceding Luke 1 that occurs NOWHERE ELSE in the "Codex Vaticanus" in the New Testament? Why did the "scribe" leave this blank space if the disputed passage wasn't already in existence? Answer that for us, if you will be so kind.
Which question?
The one about PROVE IT!?
Hmmm....looks like I cannot argue with your rather LONG post.
I did actually read a translation of "Against Heresies"...and will therefore agree with you that there is a rather strong argument for the further ending of the narrative.
However, you only proved that a further ending of the gospel existed...you did not prove that the ending was the one we currently find in the bible.
I cannot prove something "doesnt exist". I can only say that the oldest text we have does not include the ending that is currently in the bible.
Also...no references contain the exact text of that passage.
What exactly should i be proving? ?????
But what about John?
I will gladly let you have Mark...if you can explain John.
This is not "open to debate". Most bibles even include a "disclaimer". If we have early documents that end at Mark 16:8...and Mark 16:9-20 dont appear until much later...then we can be almost certain that the original Mark did not contain Mark 16:9-20.
Now, most scholars who study this will agree that their probably was an alternative ending to Mark...or at least that Mark "seemed" like it needed a better ending. So the addition of the ending later is not absurd...but it is dishonest.
We could also get involved in a discussion about how the "alternative ending" of Mark uses words and grammitical structure that seem alien when compared to the rest of Mark.
MY question is this: If it took us several centuries and a good deal of investigation....to discover that this portion of the Bible was erroneous...then why do you trust the "absolute" nature of any portion of the bible.
Your conclusions are "erroneous", NOT "this portion of the Bible". Maybe you would like to tell us all why a number of early church leaders "quoted" from the disputed portion of Mark chapter 16 BEFORE "the earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark" that we presently have? Well?
http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkTwo.html
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE LONG ENDING
Some commentaries (and footnotes in some Bible translations, such as "The
Message") state that the Long Ending is found only in late manuscripts. That
statement is false. Many ancient manuscripts contain these verses (such as Codex
Washingtonensis, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi). Furthermore, the
abundance of manuscripts which contain the Long Ending implies that it was present
in their ancestor-manuscripts. Also, the earliest known copy of Mark -- p45, from
about A.D. 225 -- is damaged (and for this reason is missing all of Mark 16) but its
closest textual "relative" in Mark is Codex Washingtonensis (from ch. 6 on), which
softly suggests that p45 originally contained the Long Ending.
Of all undamaged Greek copies of the Gospel of Mark (and there are over 1500),
only two (or possibly three) can be shown to have not contained Mark 16:9-20 when
they were made. However, this numerical avalanche in favor of the inclusion of the
Long Ending is not as decisive as the evidence which shows the Long Ending's
presence in different text-types. (A "text-type" may be likened to a branch on a
family tree of manuscripts -- even if one branch has many more leaves than another
branch, one branch is still just one branch. Likewise, even though most manuscripts
display the Byzantine text-type, they descend from one branch.) Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus are both Alexandrian manuscripts (Vaticanus may be considered "Proto-
Alexandrian"). Other Alexandrian manuscripts contain the Long Ending. So do
Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine manuscripts. Because Mark 16:9-20 is found
in all four branches, and appears in each one with features not present in the other
branches, it is generally more likely to have originated in the trunk of the tree
rather than in one of the branches.
Furthermore, the evidence from manuscripts must be weighed alongside the
evidence from patristic writings -- the writings of leaders in the early church. The
earliest manuscripts of Mark 16 are not the earliest evidence. Not even close!
There are several quotations of, or references to, the contents of Mark 16:9-20
which are quite a bit earlier than Vaticanus.
Justin Martyr, who died in A.D. 165, wrote in his First Apology ch. 45 that the
apostles "going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere." The three words in
red here represent three Greek words identical to Greek words used in Mark
16:20, including the somewhat rare word pantachou. A comparison of this
paragraph of Justin's work shows that it is highly likely that he was borrowing his
terms from the Long Ending.
Tatian was a second-century writer who interwove the texts of the four Gospels
into one continuous narrative, called the Diatessaron, in about A.D. 172. He
included material from Mark 16:9-20 in the Diatessaron.
Irenaeus was a Christian bishop in the second century. He wrote in Against
Heresies (about A.D. 180), Book III, 10:5-6, "Also, towards the conclusion of his
Gospel, Mark says: 'So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was
received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God." This is clearly a
quotation of Mark 16:19.
Papias, a writer in the early 100's, recorded that Justus Barsabbas (the individual
mentioned in Acts 1:23) once drank a poisonous drink and suffered no ill effects.
(This statement is preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea and by Philip of Side). His
motivation for mentioning this story may have been to provide an example of the
fulfillment of Mark 16:18. Perhaps more significantly, Papias wrote that Mark did
not omit any of what Peter had preached (and Peter certainly preached about Jesus'
post-resurrection appearances and His ascension).
At the seventh Council of Carthage in 256, a bishop named Vincentius of Thibaris
said, "We have assuredly the rule of truth which the Lord by His divine precept
commanded to His apostles, saying, 'Go ye, lay on hands in My name, expel
demons.' And in another place: "Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'" Vincentius' second
quotation is from Matthew 28:19. Despite attempts by some interpreters to connect
the first quotation to Matthew 10:8, the references to going, laying on hands,
expelling demons, and doing so in My name add up to a reference to Mark 16:15-
18, especially when placed side-by-side with the parallel passage from Matthew.
Either Porphyry (an early opponent of Christianity who died in A.D. 305) or
Hierocles (a student of Porphyry, writing in the very early 300's) was cited by
another writer (Macarius Magnes) as having (mis-)used Mark 16:18 as an example
of absurdity in Christian teachings .
Prominent writers in the 300's and 400's also used Mark 16:9-20. Here are some
examples:
Aphraates (also known as Aphrahat), writing no later than 345, quoted clearly from
the Long Ending in Demonstration One: Of Faith, stating, "And again He said this:
'This shall be the sign for those that believe; they will speak with new tongues and
shall cast out demons, and they shall lay their hands on the sick and they shall be
made whole.'"
Eusebius and Marinus (c. 330?) both reflect knowledge of the existence of the Long
Ending, in Eusebius' work Ad Marinum.
Ursinus, in "Rebaptism" Part 9, strongly alluded to Mark 16:14. Ursinus wrote in
about 350. The testimony of "Rebaptism" may be earlier, though; he may have
been repeating a composition made in the previous century, around the the time of
Cyprian.
Augustine, who died in 430, used Mark 16:9-20 in Easter-time sermons, showing
that by the early 400's the Long Ending was established in the lectionary in North
Africa.
Ambrose, who died in 397, used the Long Ending as Scripture (one example is his
use of Mark 16:18 in his work The Prayer of Job and David).
When the patristic evidence -- which is not mentioned by most Bible footnotes or
headings attached to Mark 16:9-20 -- is added to the equation, it becomes clear
that the earliest evidence for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 (in the second century)
pre-dates the earliest evidence for its non-inclusion (in the fourth century). The
evidence for the Long Ending is spread over a broad geographical area: Justin (in
Rome), Irenaeus (in Gaul [France]), Eusebius (in Caesarea, in Israel), Vincentius
(in North Africa), and Tatian and Aphraates (in Syria). Against this, the ancient
Greek evidence for non-inclusion is confined to Egypt (and Caesarea, but this is
because the library at Caesarea included Egyptian manuscripts). The implication of
this is that copies of Mark containing the Long Ending were in use at all these
locations. And the blank column in Vaticanus indicates that the Long Ending was
known in Egypt also.
Some evidence from early translations -- especially the Gothic, Old Latin, Syriac,
Armenian, and Coptic versions -- may be considered here.
The Gothic version is known to have been translated by Wulfilas (who was
originally from Antioch) in about A.D. 350. Manuscript-evidence for the Gothic
Version is sparse, but it displays the Long Ending.
Quite a few Old Latin manuscripts are damaged, but all undamaged Old Latin
manuscripts of Mark 16 except Codex Bobiensis contain the Long Ending.
The Syriac evidence is divided: the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript ends the text of
Mark at 16:8; the Curetonian Syriac manuscript is mutilated but preserves part of
the Long Ending (the only part of Mark in the manuscript!). The Peshitta Syriac
Version (made some time before A.D. 400) contains the Long Ending.
Although a quotation by Eznik (an Armenian bishop in the mid-400's) shows that the
Long Ending was known in Armenia, the Armenian version almost certainly did not
contain the Long Ending when it was made (in about A.D. 410). Because the
Armenian Version seems to have originally displayed a "Caesarean" text of Mark,
it seems likely that it was based on manuscripts from Caesarea which had been
produced under the supervision of Eusebius of Caesarea. Later, though, the Long
Ending was adopted in the Armenian text-stream; it appears in most Armenian
manuscripts. One Armenian manuscript, produced in A.D. 989, contains the words
"Aristou eritzou" written between the lines between Mark 16:8 and 16:9. This may
indicate that someone regarded Mark 16:9-20 as the work of a first-century
Christian named Aristion. Another possibility is that this note appeared alongside
16:18 in an older manuscript, and meant that a fulfillment of part of 16:18 (about a
believer's imperviousness to poison) was recorded by Aristion, who gave the story
to Papias. Later, after the question was raised regarding whether or not Mark
16:9-20 ought to be included, such a note may have been misinterpreted to mean
that Aristion had composed the entire passage. (Somewhat surprisingly, another
Armenian manuscript at the same monastery (near Mount Ararat) contains the
Short Ending attached to the end of Luke. This is probably a result of a later
distribution of manuscripts between Egyptian and Armenian monks.)
The Coptic versions are divided. The earliest manuscript of Mark in the Sahidic
Coptic version (which is probably the earliest Coptic translation) does not have the
Long Ending. The next "layer" in the Sahidic tradition has both the Short Ending
and the Long Ending. Then the Long Ending dominates, fully included without the
Short Ending. This is what one would expect in a textual tradition which was
influenced, in turn, by the Proto-Alexandrian Text, the Alexandrian Text, and the
Byzantine Text.
For any manuscript of Mark, the less it is connected with the early Alexandrian
channel of textual transmission and the Caesarean channel related to it, the more
strongly it supports Mark 16:9-20. The same thing is true of patristic testimony
and versions. This suggests that the loss of these twelve verses occurred either in,
or en route to, Alexandria, perhaps sometime in the mid-second century.
Perhaps you would also like to tell us why in "Codex Vaticanus"(one of the "earliest manuscripts" that does NOT include Mark 16:9-20) there is an entire blank column following Mark 16:8 and preceding Luke 1 that occurs NOWHERE ELSE in the "Codex Vaticanus" in the New Testament? Why did the "scribe" leave this blank space if the disputed passage wasn't already in existence? Answer that for us, if you will be so kind.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
The books of the Bible were written by men. It was codexed and assembled by men. It was then copied and manipulated(end of Mark...story of adulteress from John) by Men. Then it was translated by men...from poor quality original manuscripts...
None of that is open to debate. It is all true. Even the Bible claims to be the works of men(even though divine inspiration is sometimes mentioned).
So....knowing all of that...why would you ever decide to accept the bible as wholly true?
Plenty is "open to debate". Did you graduate from dad1's school of "truth"? I "know" nothing of what you state. YOU are the "manipulator". If not, then answer the questions that I asked earlier in this post.
I await your reply.
None of that is open to debate. It is all true. Even the Bible claims to be the works of men(even though divine inspiration is sometimes mentioned).
So....knowing all of that...why would you ever decide to accept the bible as wholly true?
Plenty is "open to debate". Did you graduate from dad1's school of "truth"? I "know" nothing of what you state. YOU are the "manipulator". If not, then answer the questions that I asked earlier in this post.
I await your reply.
QUOTE
Plenty is "open to debate". Did you graduate from dad1's school of "truth"? I "know" nothing of what you state. YOU are the "manipulator". If not, then answer the questions that I asked earlier in this post.
I await your reply.
I await your reply.
Which question?
The one about PROVE IT!?
Hmmm....looks like I cannot argue with your rather LONG post.
I did actually read a translation of "Against Heresies"...and will therefore agree with you that there is a rather strong argument for the further ending of the narrative.
However, you only proved that a further ending of the gospel existed...you did not prove that the ending was the one we currently find in the bible.
I cannot prove something "doesnt exist". I can only say that the oldest text we have does not include the ending that is currently in the bible.
Also...no references contain the exact text of that passage.
What exactly should i be proving? ?????
But what about John?
I will gladly let you have Mark...if you can explain John.
QUOTE (newguy+Jul 22 2006, 07:50 AM)
Upisoft: I was only pointing out that what you shared was your "beliefs" and "thoughts" and NOT "facts". That's all.
newguy: That's obvious. There are no real "facts" in our heads, if you look it from this perspective. You can only think about whatever is in your mind. Facts are outside. You can't think about them, you can think about their images in your head.
Science overcame this problem by testing problems many times to exclude potential misunderstanding of real "fact". Well, I agree that there is a possibility that many people misunderstand something in same way, but this is very improbable.
Really, I don't want that you think I'm right or that I must be right. These are my beliefs and I understand that I can't prove them to you, so don't bother to point that out. I already know it.
newguy: That's obvious. There are no real "facts" in our heads, if you look it from this perspective. You can only think about whatever is in your mind. Facts are outside. You can't think about them, you can think about their images in your head.
Science overcame this problem by testing problems many times to exclude potential misunderstanding of real "fact". Well, I agree that there is a possibility that many people misunderstand something in same way, but this is very improbable.
Really, I don't want that you think I'm right or that I must be right. These are my beliefs and I understand that I can't prove them to you, so don't bother to point that out. I already know it.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Yes I was...since it ISNT an authentic portion of scripture...
Just like a good deal of the Bible
Just like a good deal of the Bible
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
So...newguy...if you readily admit that parts of the bible are flawed...horribly...obviously wrong
Then how do you determine which sections of the bible to support?
Then how do you determine which sections of the bible to support?
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
MY question is this: If it took us several centuries and a good deal of investigation....to discover that this portion of the Bible was erroneous...then why do you trust the "absolute" nature of any portion of the bible.
The books of the Bible were written by men. It was codexed and assembled by men. It was then copied and manipulated(end of Mark...story of adulteress from John) by Men. Then it was translated by men...from poor quality original manuscripts...
None of that is open to debate. It is all true.
The books of the Bible were written by men. It was codexed and assembled by men. It was then copied and manipulated(end of Mark...story of adulteress from John) by Men. Then it was translated by men...from poor quality original manuscripts...
None of that is open to debate. It is all true.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
I will gladly let you have Mark...if you can explain John.
PuckSR: No "surprises" here. You know, our discussion reminds me greatly of plenty of discussions that I've had with Jehovah's Witnesses in the past. They came at me with one of their great "truths" and as soon as I accurately refuted it, they just "moved on" to something else. No repentance. No "soul searching" as to why they held on to their so-called "truth" which was actually a LIE for so long. Yeah, in the famous/infamous words of Yogi Berra:
"It's deja vu all over again."
You'll gladly let me have Mark if I can explain John?!? No, you'll let me have Mark, whether you're "glad" to do so or not, because YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT. Different early church leaders "quoted" different portions of the disputed passage PRIOR TO the "earliest manuscripts" that we presently have. How did they do this? Lucky guesses? No, they did it because the disputed passage was in existence PRIOR TO your sacred "earliest manuscripts". Let me ask you another question(not that you're good at answering my questions):
Did you ever research the reliability of these "earliest manuscripts"?
Hmmm? I have and so have others before me. Being the gracious man that I am, I'll give you the following link that may help you get started on the path of researching the reliability of these "earliest manuscripts":
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/uncials.htm
Your trusted "earliest manuscripts" don't even agree with themselves. Let's see how good you are at "spotting" things. Here's the name of one of these "earliest manuscripts":
Vaticanus
Notice anything contained in that word? "Vatican", perhaps? Trust the anti-Christ all that you'd like. I'll stick with Jesus Christ.
PuckSR: No "surprises" here. You know, our discussion reminds me greatly of plenty of discussions that I've had with Jehovah's Witnesses in the past. They came at me with one of their great "truths" and as soon as I accurately refuted it, they just "moved on" to something else. No repentance. No "soul searching" as to why they held on to their so-called "truth" which was actually a LIE for so long. Yeah, in the famous/infamous words of Yogi Berra:
"It's deja vu all over again."
You'll gladly let me have Mark if I can explain John?!? No, you'll let me have Mark, whether you're "glad" to do so or not, because YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT. Different early church leaders "quoted" different portions of the disputed passage PRIOR TO the "earliest manuscripts" that we presently have. How did they do this? Lucky guesses? No, they did it because the disputed passage was in existence PRIOR TO your sacred "earliest manuscripts". Let me ask you another question(not that you're good at answering my questions):
Did you ever research the reliability of these "earliest manuscripts"?
Hmmm? I have and so have others before me. Being the gracious man that I am, I'll give you the following link that may help you get started on the path of researching the reliability of these "earliest manuscripts":
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/uncials.htm
Your trusted "earliest manuscripts" don't even agree with themselves. Let's see how good you are at "spotting" things. Here's the name of one of these "earliest manuscripts":
Vaticanus
Notice anything contained in that word? "Vatican", perhaps? Trust the anti-Christ all that you'd like. I'll stick with Jesus Christ.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Hmmm....looks like I cannot argue with your rather LONG post.
You're right(perhaps there's hope for you yet), you cannot argue with it. I find it rather humorous that you found my defense of "the long ending" to be "long". You really should stop your petty complaints(smoke screens), you know. I can still recall how you complained about my "grainy" picture(that refuted another of your great claims) on another thread.
I never "held onto that belief" in some religious way....to me it was a matter of history. I only held that belief because I knew that the earliest texts did not contain the ending of Mark. You SUCCESSFULLY found references to it that existed at around the same time.
I never "held onto that belief" in some religious way....to me it was a matter of history. I only held that belief because I knew that the earliest texts did not contain the ending of Mark. You SUCCESSFULLY found references to it that existed at around the same time.
Different early church leaders "quoted" different portions of the disputed passage PRIOR TO the "earliest manuscripts" that we presently have. How did they do this? Lucky guesses? No, they did it because the disputed passage was in existence PRIOR TO your sacred "earliest manuscripts".
True...but they did not quote all of the passage...nor did they quote the elaborate "granting of powers" that it apparently endowes to Jesus's followers.
The reliability? NO
What does that even mean....your not capable of researching the reliability either.
All you can do is compare the manuscripts to other known manuscripts of that time period......
You cannot compare it to future manuscripts...
You cannot make any individual judgement about it unless a great deal of history is known of the manuscript...which it isnt.
The reliability? NO
What does that even mean....your not capable of researching the reliability either.
All you can do is compare the manuscripts to other known manuscripts of that time period......
You cannot compare it to future manuscripts...
You cannot make any individual judgement about it unless a great deal of history is known of the manuscript...which it isnt.
Your trusted "earliest manuscripts" don't even agree with themselves. Let's see how good you are at "spotting" things. Here's the name of one of these "earliest manuscripts":
Yes...they dont agree with each other...but then again...where do you think we got all of the future copies? Do you think that some original existed, and they all went back to the original to make copies?
Do you realize that the copies "branched out". People copied the original...and then sent the copies out. People in other places copied the copies, then they sent them out to other places. So if 100 copies were eventually made...they didnt make a hundered copies of the original. They made 10, and then each copy was copied 10 times.
Vaticanus
Notice anything contained in that word? "Vatican", perhaps? Trust the anti-Christ all that you'd like. I'll stick with Jesus Christ.
That is the DUMBEST thing that I have EVER read.
NewGuy....
1. The Vatican is responsible for translating the bible, and preserving the bible
2. The Vatican, Rome, and the Papacy didnt exist when the Vaticanus was written
3. Rome was responsible for interpreting, preserving, and explaining all of Christendom for roughly 1300 years....so now that would be the antiChrist?
At this point I know that just not am I dealing with a very religious person, you are also a superstitious idiot.
Your arguments are googled links, and I know that you havent "studied" the early manuscripts or anything similiar to it.
If you were actually investing time into studying the "earliest manuscripts" then your argument against the validity of them would have contained links to site that actually carried direct translation of "Against Heresies" instead of a Christian site that refuted my arguments.
The site you recently linked to begins with a claim that the KJV of the bible is the best, and most accurate translation. Despite the fact that it was based on the WORST greek translation we have of the ancient bible.
That is the DUMBEST thing that I have EVER read.
NewGuy....
1. The Vatican is responsible for translating the bible, and preserving the bible
2. The Vatican, Rome, and the Papacy didnt exist when the Vaticanus was written
3. Rome was responsible for interpreting, preserving, and explaining all of Christendom for roughly 1300 years....so now that would be the antiChrist?
At this point I know that just not am I dealing with a very religious person, you are also a superstitious idiot.
Your arguments are googled links, and I know that you havent "studied" the early manuscripts or anything similiar to it.
If you were actually investing time into studying the "earliest manuscripts" then your argument against the validity of them would have contained links to site that actually carried direct translation of "Against Heresies" instead of a Christian site that refuted my arguments.
The site you recently linked to begins with a claim that the KJV of the bible is the best, and most accurate translation. Despite the fact that it was based on the WORST greek translation we have of the ancient bible.
You really should stop your petty complaints(smoke screens), you know. I can still recall how you complained about my "grainy" picture(that refuted another of your great claims) on another thread.
NewGuy...you mentioned that a few times.
I dont ever remember having that conversation with you.
Could you link back to the original topic.
Who in the Hell wants you to renounce Jesus?
Jesus was AWESOME....I want you to quit putting your superstitious faith into a book that was compiled by people. I want you to quit quoting direct passages as if they are the word of God.
Muslims, Jews, and Mormons all have holy text that they claim was the infallible work of God.(Qu'ran, Torah, and Book of Mormon respectively).
Your New Testament is a random assortment of early Christian books thrown together. Yet, somehow, a culture of religious zealots in the US have come to regard the entire KJV of the bible as the "
You're right(perhaps there's hope for you yet), you cannot argue with it. I find it rather humorous that you found my defense of "the long ending" to be "long". You really should stop your petty complaints(smoke screens), you know. I can still recall how you complained about my "grainy" picture(that refuted another of your great claims) on another thread.
QUOTE (newguy+)
I will not go through each section of the Bible with you, piece by piece(I've already conducted my own studies over the last 17 years), but I will give you the opportunity to show me how "horribly flawed" this section of scripture is. Here's your moment in the spotlight. Don't "blow it". As I said to someone on this forum a long time ago, "I've been around the block" quite a few times. You seem to think that you're the one who will "knock me off the curb". Let's see what you've got. Here's your one chance(in regards to the authenticity of scripture). I hope you've done your homework...Let's see what you've got.
Well, it's quite obvious that YOU'VE GOT NOTHING...other than a big mouth. Yeah, I'm afraid you "blew it". Pity. Looks like I won't be publicly renouncing Jesus Christ anytime soon. Amazing, isn't it, that it took me but a few moments to refute your "several centuries and a good deal of investigation" regarding Mark chapter 16? Oh well. You know what "they" say, don't you?
"All good things must come to an end."
Take care and enjoy your *AHEM* "studies".
Well, it's quite obvious that YOU'VE GOT NOTHING...other than a big mouth. Yeah, I'm afraid you "blew it". Pity. Looks like I won't be publicly renouncing Jesus Christ anytime soon. Amazing, isn't it, that it took me but a few moments to refute your "several centuries and a good deal of investigation" regarding Mark chapter 16? Oh well. You know what "they" say, don't you?
"All good things must come to an end."
Take care and enjoy your *AHEM* "studies".
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jul 22 2006, 12:43 PM)
newguy, if you wish, could you please also answer my above questions?
I'm curious about the metaphysical species you may be possessed with.
Your fellow human: I'll get to your questions when I'm able. I am off today, but I have a very busy schedule nonetheless. I also owe curious1 an answer on another thread. I do intend to answer your questions...I just don't know if it will be today. Talk to you later.
I'm curious about the metaphysical species you may be possessed with.
Your fellow human: I'll get to your questions when I'm able. I am off today, but I have a very busy schedule nonetheless. I also owe curious1 an answer on another thread. I do intend to answer your questions...I just don't know if it will be today. Talk to you later.
QUOTE (Upisoft+)
Really, I don't want that you think I'm right or that I must be right. These are my beliefs and I understand that I can't prove them to you, so don't bother to point that out. I already know it.
Upisoft: You sound offended. I'm glad that you admit that you can't "prove" what you said earlier on in this thread. I also assumed that you "already knew it". I posted what I did for OTHERS more than I did for YOU. Take care.
Upisoft: You sound offended. I'm glad that you admit that you can't "prove" what you said earlier on in this thread. I also assumed that you "already knew it". I posted what I did for OTHERS more than I did for YOU. Take care.
QUOTE
PuckSR: No "surprises" here. You know, our discussion reminds me greatly of plenty of discussions that I've had with Jehovah's Witnesses in the past. They came at me with one of their great "truths" and as soon as I accurately refuted it, they just "moved on" to something else. No repentance. No "soul searching" as to why they held on to their so-called "truth" which was actually a LIE for so long. Yeah, in the famous/infamous words of Yogi Berra:
I never "held onto that belief" in some religious way....to me it was a matter of history. I only held that belief because I knew that the earliest texts did not contain the ending of Mark. You SUCCESSFULLY found references to it that existed at around the same time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| PuckSR: No "surprises" here. You know, our discussion reminds me greatly of plenty of discussions that I've had with Jehovah's Witnesses in the past. They came at me with one of their great "truths" and as soon as I accurately refuted it, they just "moved on" to something else. No repentance. No "soul searching" as to why they held on to their so-called "truth" which was actually a LIE for so long. Yeah, in the famous/infamous words of Yogi Berra: |
I never "held onto that belief" in some religious way....to me it was a matter of history. I only held that belief because I knew that the earliest texts did not contain the ending of Mark. You SUCCESSFULLY found references to it that existed at around the same time.
Different early church leaders "quoted" different portions of the disputed passage PRIOR TO the "earliest manuscripts" that we presently have. How did they do this? Lucky guesses? No, they did it because the disputed passage was in existence PRIOR TO your sacred "earliest manuscripts".
True...but they did not quote all of the passage...nor did they quote the elaborate "granting of powers" that it apparently endowes to Jesus's followers.
QUOTE
Did you ever research the reliability of these "earliest manuscripts"?
The reliability? NO
What does that even mean....your not capable of researching the reliability either.
All you can do is compare the manuscripts to other known manuscripts of that time period......
You cannot compare it to future manuscripts...
You cannot make any individual judgement about it unless a great deal of history is known of the manuscript...which it isnt.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Did you ever research the reliability of these "earliest manuscripts"? |
The reliability? NO
What does that even mean....your not capable of researching the reliability either.
All you can do is compare the manuscripts to other known manuscripts of that time period......
You cannot compare it to future manuscripts...
You cannot make any individual judgement about it unless a great deal of history is known of the manuscript...which it isnt.
Your trusted "earliest manuscripts" don't even agree with themselves. Let's see how good you are at "spotting" things. Here's the name of one of these "earliest manuscripts":
Yes...they dont agree with each other...but then again...where do you think we got all of the future copies? Do you think that some original existed, and they all went back to the original to make copies?
Do you realize that the copies "branched out". People copied the original...and then sent the copies out. People in other places copied the copies, then they sent them out to other places. So if 100 copies were eventually made...they didnt make a hundered copies of the original. They made 10, and then each copy was copied 10 times.
QUOTE
Vaticanus
Notice anything contained in that word? "Vatican", perhaps? Trust the anti-Christ all that you'd like. I'll stick with Jesus Christ.
That is the DUMBEST thing that I have EVER read.
NewGuy....
1. The Vatican is responsible for translating the bible, and preserving the bible
2. The Vatican, Rome, and the Papacy didnt exist when the Vaticanus was written
3. Rome was responsible for interpreting, preserving, and explaining all of Christendom for roughly 1300 years....so now that would be the antiChrist?
At this point I know that just not am I dealing with a very religious person, you are also a superstitious idiot.
Your arguments are googled links, and I know that you havent "studied" the early manuscripts or anything similiar to it.
If you were actually investing time into studying the "earliest manuscripts" then your argument against the validity of them would have contained links to site that actually carried direct translation of "Against Heresies" instead of a Christian site that refuted my arguments.
The site you recently linked to begins with a claim that the KJV of the bible is the best, and most accurate translation. Despite the fact that it was based on the WORST greek translation we have of the ancient bible.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Vaticanus Notice anything contained in that word? "Vatican", perhaps? Trust the anti-Christ all that you'd like. I'll stick with Jesus Christ. |
That is the DUMBEST thing that I have EVER read.
NewGuy....
1. The Vatican is responsible for translating the bible, and preserving the bible
2. The Vatican, Rome, and the Papacy didnt exist when the Vaticanus was written
3. Rome was responsible for interpreting, preserving, and explaining all of Christendom for roughly 1300 years....so now that would be the antiChrist?
At this point I know that just not am I dealing with a very religious person, you are also a superstitious idiot.
Your arguments are googled links, and I know that you havent "studied" the early manuscripts or anything similiar to it.
If you were actually investing time into studying the "earliest manuscripts" then your argument against the validity of them would have contained links to site that actually carried direct translation of "Against Heresies" instead of a Christian site that refuted my arguments.
The site you recently linked to begins with a claim that the KJV of the bible is the best, and most accurate translation. Despite the fact that it was based on the WORST greek translation we have of the ancient bible.
You really should stop your petty complaints(smoke screens), you know. I can still recall how you complained about my "grainy" picture(that refuted another of your great claims) on another thread.
NewGuy...you mentioned that a few times.
I dont ever remember having that conversation with you.
Could you link back to the original topic.
QUOTE
Well, it's quite obvious that YOU'VE GOT NOTHING...other than a big mouth. Yeah, I'm afraid you "blew it". Pity. Looks like I won't be publicly renouncing Jesus Christ anytime soon.
Who in the Hell wants you to renounce Jesus?
Jesus was AWESOME....I want you to quit putting your superstitious faith into a book that was compiled by people. I want you to quit quoting direct passages as if they are the word of God.
Muslims, Jews, and Mormons all have holy text that they claim was the infallible work of God.(Qu'ran, Torah, and Book of Mormon respectively).
Your New Testament is a random assortment of early Christian books thrown together. Yet, somehow, a culture of religious zealots in the US have come to regard the entire KJV of the bible as the "