Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Questions for creationists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by MacTBone
    According to what I've heard, mainly from my history prof., the NT was written mainly after Jesus died. Hmmmmm, doesn't the Bible contain a whole lot of info on that guy?
    Your history prof is correct. Jesus died around 33 AD, the earliest letters (books of the NT were all letters sent to the various churchs) were written after that. I forget the exact dates, either 45 AD or 60 AD was the earliest. The latest was written around 90 AD. But they were all written by eye witnesses.

    If half-lifes only work if we already know how much uranium is there then it would br pretty pointless, right? So why would the scientific community as a whole use it?
    Ahh, now you are begining to see my point. Don't forget that scientists are human beings with their own world views. They can live in denial as much as any of us. All I ask is that you don't take my word for what I have written about radiometric dating. Research it yourself. My reply to the first post in this thread (Urban Ranger's?) really sums it up.

    And this is why Creation vs. Evolution is such a hot topic. If we are not created by God, then maybe there is no God. And if there is no God then we can do whatever we please, making our own rules.

    So before you look into radiometric dating, evolution, or the historical accuracy of the Bible, make up your mind if you will be open to the facts, or decide before hand that your mind is made up and save yourself some time and effort.
    Respectfully,

    David
    Any flames in this message are solely in the mind of the reader.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by orange
      Problem: Pangea was not the beginning of Earth's history. This we know.
      I hate to seem boring with the same question all the time, but how do we know? What I've read seems to point to Pangea as a begining of Earth's history, but I haven't spent alot of time researching it.
      Thanks!

      David
      Any flames in this message are solely in the mind of the reader.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Big Dave
        The evidence is that the Bible was written concurent with the events described in it.
        There's no such evidence. The earlist Synoptic Gospel, Mark, was written in around 60-70CE IIRC. That would be several decades after the death of Jesus of Nazareth, if such a person ever existed. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the gospels were written by any of the so called "Apostles."

        The only person whose existence is certain is Paul. What's interesting is, of course, his acccount of the life of Jesus is very, very different than that of the gospels. What's even more interesting is Paul hardly used Jesus to promote Christianity, which would be extremely strange if Jesus did actually exist and had a life similar to the one described in the gospels.

        Originally posted by Big Dave
        We have historical evidence for most of the major players and can date the time of any given book's authorship with a fair degree if certainty.
        What major players?

        Originally posted by Big Dave
        Since the peoples of those times had no study of history or archeology we can also be certain (due to the historical accuracy of the content of the books of the Bible) that they were not written after the fact.
        On the contrary, the Romans were meticulous record keepers. Which is why historians could reconstruct most of the events that took place.

        Your passage confuses me however. Just because they didn't, eh, "study of history" doesn't mean the bible wasn't writtern after the "fact," assuming that you used "the bible" to refer to "New Testament."

        Originally posted by Big Dave
        The transmission of these books (actually scrolls at the time) was performed by a class of the priesthood called Scribes. Their job was not only to copy each scroll, but when finished to count the total number of characters in the scroll and make sure that it agreed with how many were supposed to be there. Then pick a letter, say an ayin (pronounce eye-in), and count that. So each scroll had the equivelant of two separate checksums performed on it to make sure that it was an accurate copy of the original.
        Just because the manuscripts were textually accurate has no bearing on it's historical accuracy. Take Moby **** for example. We can be rather sure that the books we can buy from bookstores today are very close to Hemingway's original manuscript. Still, it doesn't mean the work contained factual information.

        Originally posted by Big Dave
        That takes us up to 70 AD when the Romans sacked the Temple in Jerusalem. For the New Testament we have over 10,000 coppies and fragments of scrolls dating back to around 150 AD. Since there are no major differences in all these coppies we can be fairly certain that they are accurate representations of the letters (scrolls, books) of the New Testament.
        It seems that the NT weren't written by the Jews since a) they were mostly written in Greek and b) Jews reject the notion of Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah.

        Originally posted by Big Dave
        Subsequent translations were based on that, for example the Latin Vulgate. The oldest surviving manuscripts we had were from around 1300 AD (I'm not positive on that date, someone correct me if I'm wrong). This is for the Tanakh (OT). However opening up the caves at Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) and piecing together one scroll of Isaiah we found there revealed fewer than a dozen changes, and none of those changes changed the meaning of the text.
        The Dead Sea Scrolls. Now that's interesting since much of the infomation in them pointed not towards a Jesus of Nazareth. Of course, there are also two interpretations of the scrolls, esp in regards to dating them. The, *cough*formal*cough* school disregards all internal reference. This raises a serious controversy since there is a heavy Chritian influence within the "formal" school.

        Originally posted by Big Dave
        I'm familliar with the concept of radiometric dating. What I want to know is if you walk into a room and see a lit candle on the table, how long has it been burning? You have no idea how tall it was to begin with, so measuring it now, then after 30 minutes will tell you how far it burnt in 30 minutes, but it won't tell you how tall the candle was when it was lit.
        You got it completely wrong. Imagine this. You burn a candle in a sealed room. You know, with a very high degree of accuracy, the volume of room and the composition of the air inside in the room before lighting the candle. You also have a unit sample of the candle in question. As a matter of fact you sliced the top 1cm off the candle.

        With all this information you can tell how much of the candle has been burned, thus knowing how tall the candle was originally.

        Originally posted by Big Dave
        Three attempts at radiometric dating of one single rock can yield ages over a billion years apart.
        I have read this many times with no credible source given. This seems to be a creationist propaganda.

        Originally posted by Big Dave
        You have no idea how much U-235 you started with in that sample, so you can't possibly know what half of it is to determine what percentage of U-235 is left.
        You don't have to. That's the whole point. You know how much lead there is. You know how much other radioactive products there are. You know how much U235 and U238 is left. You know how the two isotope decays and how long a half-life each has.

        Originally posted by Big Dave
        And where exactly does "strain" fit in with Kingdom, Phylum, etc?
        A "strain" as in a strain of bateria or virus?


        Here's a good question. Why does the taxonomy based on the traditional methods fits perfectly with one based on DNA analysis?
        (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
        (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
        (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

        Comment


        • #94
          Refutations(LP)

          My repsonses will be devided into two parts so as to not be as imposing and tiresome as many find these posts to be. The first will deal with general evolutionary,philosophical and scientific questions,criticism and the ever present misconceptions; mainly in regards to Darwinian evolution. The second will be focused on a specific creationist...."BigDave" who is as text book model a creationist as one would hope to find.

          First to clear up some points I was making:

          lightblue
          I agree with you, but it wouldn't have been a virus.
          I agree. Viruse's require hosts and those wouldn't have been around at the time. What I was trying to say is that the "first" life form would be semi-life. Though modern day theories suggest that it wouldn't be a simplistic "nonlife-semilife-life" type deal many creationsts will assume the abiogenetic viewpoint is advancing. There would probably be tens of thousands of organisms between eachstep, each more and more like what we'd consider life as one went past. In this one improbability would be overcome by smaller, simpler steps instead of big ones. As when the steps get smaller,the chances of progress become much larger. Small steps equal more probability...creationists do not seem to realize this.

          Goingonit
          There is one irrefutable creationist answer: God created the world as it would have been if it were created by evolution.
          That is a rather philosophical point open to many logical disproofs. 1) If one proves that,there is no God.. the argument fails right off the bat.
          2) It is rather solipsist, again show that solipsism is wrong and again the argument fails. These sorts of arguments are more made for the Infinite Christian God. For lesser Gods one must use probable disproof. Which is always available when discussing any concept.

          One can shown that such an act is physically,chemically,geologically,astronomically or biologically impossible(as there might not be enough energy around to do that and such,such a being would have to go faster then light) with what we of these fields. Now everything we know in these fields is mostly probable, which is why this disproof(or disconfirmation) is only probable. In this way many explanations have been disproven in science, like Larmarckism,Spontanious Generation,Newtonian Physics and such). But whether or not it is albsolute or probable disproof, it is still disproof nontheless.


          Tolkien: Many of you talk about the big bang. And everything just "happened." If that is so, how was it possible? You place all the nessicary computer components in a bag, toss it around a bit, and wala!!! You have a computer!! hahaha, sorry, doesn't work.
          But according to Tolkien one does toss around the bag and get a big God out of nowhere. Interesting.

          The question is unfair as we "now" computers are man made. The very question of whether or not the universe is made by a consciousness is the issue. Tolkien is question begging by saying that the universe must be made because it is "complex" and complexity must be "made". Why? Two reasons: 1) Because it just "must be". and 2) Because a computer is man made, but a computer is very different than lots of things Tolkien. That's a non sequitur. That's like saying that "animals are born" God must have parents. Saying that since X is like this; the universe must be like X, is very flawed reasoning.

          Also its a bit of a straw man. Tolkien is assuming believers in the big bang think it "just happened". In reality that's not the case. Most do think there was a causal mechanism, we just don't know what that mechanism was. There is a difference between us knowing that there was a mechanism at all and us knowing what that exact mechanism was. Illnesses work that way, doctors don't always know what causes an illness, do they then believe that people "Just get sick"...no. They just admit to ignorance on the specifics while knowing that an unknown causal factor is present. Tolkien is the sort who would say it was a demon. Sometimes admitting that you don't know is the best answer and it is certainly better then just making things up. We know the Big Bang happened. What caused it is still unknown. To assume that lack of knowledge proves anything is fallacious.


          Also Evolutionary theory is stronger then ever in science; it is only (mainly in the US), in politics and majority opinion where its fails. I guess its a good thing for evolutionists that science is not a popularity contest is all.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Re: Questions for creationists

            Originally posted by Big Dave
            I'm trying to figure out why you're asking this. I don't know everything about how God designed us, I am not God. However this "vestigial" could be left over from before the Fall, hanging on as we devolve.
            I take that as "I don't know," then.

            Originally posted by Big Dave
            More to the point, why would we evolve something we don't need or use?
            Since you know the appendix is a "vestigial" organ, you should know that it wasn't evolved in humans. It is something left over from our ancestors who were vegetarian.
            (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
            (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
            (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Tolkien
              evolutionists you see...are so desperate to get the better of creationists, that they'll ask the dumbest questions.
              On the contrary, it's the creationists the keep asking dumb questions. Does the name Philip Johnson sound a bell?

              Originally posted by Tolkien
              Many of you talk about the big bang. And everything just "happened." If that is so, how was it possible? You place all the nessicary computer components in a bag, toss it around a bit, and wala!!! You have a computer!! hahaha, sorry, doesn't work.
              Clearly, you don't understand what evolution is. Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology.

              Speaking of dumb questions.

              At any rate, your analogy is nothing but the thoroughly refuted "Watchmaker" analogy.
              (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
              (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
              (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Urban Ranger
                Take Moby **** for example. We can be rather sure that the books we can buy from bookstores today are very close to Hemingway's original manuscript.
                [PEDANT]
                Quite close, except for the misspelling of "Hemingway" as "Herman Melville".
                [/PEDANT]
                "My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
                "The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Big Dave
                  And this is why Creation vs. Evolution is such a hot topic. If we are not created by God, then maybe there is no God. And if there is no God then we can do whatever we please, making our own rules.
                  David
                  There are plenty of philosophies out there showing us how human beings will and should act with morality even without a God. Basically morality exists because without it human beings can't survive in functioning, interdependent societies. I don't know much about this so perhaps someone more versed in philosophy can help in explaining a bit more.

                  Besides, i think it's pretty sad if the only reason you're going to act with morality is if you're afraid that God will punish you if you don't.

                  I hate to seem boring with the same question all the time, but how do we know? What I've read seems to point to Pangea as a begining of Earth's history, but I haven't spent alot of time researching it.


                  Pangeae dates from the Age of the Dinosaurs. The Earth's crust has been heaving and changing for many millions of years before that. Pangaea was merely an intermittent stage of several large continents subducting into each other. It's incidentally the most famous because it is the most recent.
                  Poor silly humans. A temporarily stable pattern of matter and energy stumbles upon self-cognizance for a moment, and suddenly it thinks the whole universe was created for its benefit. -- mbelleroff

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by ranskaldan
                    There are plenty of philosophies out there showing us how human beings will and should act with morality even without a God. Basically morality exists because without it human beings can't survive in functioning, interdependent societies. I don't know much about this so perhaps someone more versed in philosophy can help in explaining a bit more.
                    Hmp. Ever seen a room full of infants? One has a toy the other one wants to the second one comes up and takes it away, fighting for it as necessary? Who taught them that behaviour? No one taught them. They didn't have to learn selfishness.

                    Besides, i think it's pretty sad if the only reason you're going to act with morality is if you're afraid that God will punish you if you don't.
                    It's not fear of punishment or judgement that makes me want to obey God. It's the fact that God's way is a better way for me. It's also the fact that God sacrificed Himself for me because he loves me. He wants (not needs) a relationship with me that badly. So I try to maintain a relationship with Him.

                    And, like any relationship, if one party is constantly annoying the other, there's not much of a relationship there.

                    http://www.scotese.com/

                    Pangeae dates from the Age of the Dinosaurs. The Earth's crust has been heaving and changing for many millions of years before that. Pangaea was merely an intermittent stage of several large continents subducting into each other. It's incidentally the most famous because it is the most recent.
                    Thanks! I'll be checking that out.

                    David
                    Any flames in this message are solely in the mind of the reader.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Re: Re: Questions for creationists

                      Originally posted by Urban Ranger
                      I take that as "I don't know," then.
                      Correct. I don't know.

                      David
                      Any flames in this message are solely in the mind of the reader.

                      Comment


                      • Evolution is "taught as fact" because it IS a fact. There is no doubt that evolution is happening, it has been observed many times.

                        When and where? I'm not talking about micro evolution, I'm talking macro evolution. When has one species been observed transforming into another through breeding?
                        Observed Instances of Speciation
                        Some More Observed Speciation Events
                        Reference a book, point me to a link. Show me some reputable scientific evidence, please. The only transitional forms I have seen are artists conceptions. No fossiles exist that I am aware of.
                        Examples include Archaeopteryx (reptile/bird transitional), Therapsids (reptile/mammal), Tetrapods (fish/amphibian) etc. Along with the ape/human hominids, of course.
                        Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
                        Fossil Hominids
                        When has anyone observed a frog becoming a man? Outside a fairy tale I mean. Or any other change from one phylum to another? And what "beneficial mutation" has been observed?
                        A frog-to-man transition would take millions of years. But we have fossils and DNA evidence.

                        There are many examples of beneficial mutations. Antibiotic-resistance in bacteria is an example. Another is the Ames test, which detects mutagens (chemicals which cause mutations) by testing for the occurrence of a beneficial mutation in bacteria. Another good example is the nylon-eating bacterium, which could not exist before 1937.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Urban Ranger
                          The only person whose existence is certain is Paul. What's interesting is, of course, his acccount of the life of Jesus is very, very different than that of the gospels. What's even more interesting is Paul hardly used Jesus to promote Christianity, which would be extremely strange if Jesus did actually exist and had a life similar to the one described in the gospels.
                          Now this is an interesting opinion!
                          Where did you read such a remarcable information, that of Paul hardly using Jesus in his letters to the early Christian communities?
                          Not that he needed, though - if you think about it, you may agree that, being the first Christian communities, it wouldn't be difficult for them to follow His teachings - by then the problem was how to follow them.
                          But I assure you, none of Paul's letters misses the point the he, Paul, is but an emissary and the Christ is far greater than him.


                          Originally posted by Urban Ranger
                          It seems that the NT weren't written by the Jews since a) they were mostly written in Greek and b) Jews reject the notion of Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah.

                          Did you know some of the Old Testament books were also written in Greek? What's your point here?
                          Another thing: didn't you ever noticed that the first Christians were Jews? Only after a meeting in Jerusalem did the Apostles agreed to preach to the Gentiles (i.e. non Jews) also.
                          I'll bet that the Jerusalem Christian Community was mostly composed by Jews. Off course the question here is: are talking about Jews as a religious group or as an ethnic one?

                          Comment


                          • My question to creationists

                            Why do you think that refuting the Creation writings as they are (i.e., the literal interpretation of them as factual descriptions of the process by which all came to exist) leads to the refutal of the existence of God, as the Christian, Jew and Muslim religions believe?

                            Comment


                            • Ecowiz: Which OT books are written in Greek? Obviously all have been translated to Greek.

                              Logical Realist: I'm having a hard time defending my argument becaue I don't believe in it personally. Also, I couldn't post a defense of a solipsist viewpoint with my signature.
                              I refute it thus!
                              "Destiny! Destiny! No escaping that for me!"

                              Comment


                              • If I recall correctly, some of the books that were written in Captivity, were originally writen in Greek (I don't recall the reason for it though).

                                I found a link that talks about those books:


                                edited:
                                another link (in here it appears that the Septuagint version was only a translation, but doesn't explain why, latter, the Jewish religion decided not to aknowledge 15 books - the Apochripha )
                                The first translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, made into popular Greek before the Christian era


                                Note that this link only states that those Books appear in the Greek Old Testament. That doesn't mean they were originally writen in Greek. But, although I'm not 100% sure about this, I think they were.

                                futher editing:
                                The longer I read about this subject,the less clear it becomes...
                                The only thing that is clear is that, whether or not the Apocriphals were originally written in Greek, they were never accepted by the Palestinian Jews and it is not a pacific issue whether they were accepted by all the Alexandrian Jews. some chronology would help here but I couldn't find any.
                                Last edited by Ecowiz Returns; February 19, 2002, 11:24.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X