It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Seems like Flood of Junk

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Don't make me "actually" call you an idiot.


I'll do my best.



I have only been stating very basic vastly accepted facts. You shouldn't need any "sources" to know what I am talking about.


Riiiiiight, what "facts" were those exactly? Is this your way of saying you don't really know? Didn't you need any "sources" to study or did you 'divine' these things?


When the bible was written and translated, all of humanity had the perspective of a flat earth and the earth being the center of the known universe(which is where the Joshua reference comes in).


Patently, and absurdly false! What time are you talking about exactly? Back up this statement: "all of humanity had the perspective of a flat earth and the earth being the center of the known universe" and then show how it's Biblically based. *ECHO... ECho... echo*


Now obviously this means that the book was written in a time and by people of scientific naivety. So as I can see it the OEC theory is derived from intergrating modern science into a scientifically naive book.


I already showed where early church fathers believed the Earth was old and not flat (pre geology BTW.) The Bible is not a science textbook so what relevance does "scientifically naive" have? Some of the greatest minds in history (many of those theories you claim to "wade through" were probably authored by them BTW) found wisdom in Scripture. You dismiss it based on some superficial reasons that you seem unable clarify, ie 'you should know what I mean, don't make you call you an idiot." Seriously? Do you know people who are impressed by such tripe?


Also you believe that the first seven days represents 14 billion years, but that is all a scientific THEORY. The big bang and Evolution and all of the scientific theories on our origins are just that... theories. So you can back an already shaky book with a bunch of theories and base your beliefs and life on that, but I will just accept that I don't know or have the answer and probably never will.


So now I claim to have all the answers? Where did I say that (I can quote you where I said just the opposite on this page if you'd like.) You are the only one here stating absolutes, not I. You haven't bothered to read any of the material I've provided (you're making that obvious BTW) and, of course, you've supplied zero of your own. 'Cause you say so does nothing for me. As you don't seem to understand the basics of Christian theology, creationism or science, and are unwilling to consider another perspective, I'm done - talking in circles.

You seem to be pissed of at the world and for some reason you think me some coward who wont stand up to you or recognize your obvious BS. I will and I do kid, have Faith in that.

I wont be posting in your thread any further if you feel the need to mock me or my "shaky book" or whatever other bile you wish to spew in my direction, do so in a u2u otherwise I wont see it.

-Rren




posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Hello Free,




You also have to keep in mind that the Biblically the world is 6000yrs old


I missed this passage, where may I find it?




If you are a Christian and rebuke this fact and admit that you allow modern day scientific studies to change the way you read the bible then you have to let science in throughout the book(for instance when in Joshua it says God stopped the sun from revolving the earth... do you believe that)the geneology of the Bible is how they have come up with this figure


I'm sorry, but when did Scripture become a "science" book? This is a mistake made by many skeptics, especially dealing with Genesis. Moses did not write a science or biology book, nor was that his goal. He wrote in a time when his people were under Egyptian slavery, many of them took to the Egyptian gods and religous systems. So Moses wrote with ths in mind. There was not many gods, as in Egyptian polytheism, but ONE God. In Egyptian "creationism" their gods used already pre-exsistent matter, like mud, plants or planets. The God which called Moses created ALL things from no matter or pre-exsistent material. So I do not need to accept the 6,000 year idea. Also, if God is the creator of the sun and time, He can then control it as He pleases. That is not contradictory.




1. How did Noah get all of the animals from all the different continents to his boat.


If you read Scripture no where does Noah go animal hunting but God brings the animals to Noah. Noah had 120 years to prepare for this.




2. How did he fit all the animals on a boat 450 ft long, 75 ft wide, and 45 ft high. Considering there were hundreds of thousands possibly millions of species of animals.


Where does it state that Noah took all of the animals? How many different dogs do we have? There are around 300 different variety of dog yet they are all dogs so would Noah need to take all 300 variety? No.

Also, if Noah had 120 years to get ready and if God, being All Knowing, was in charge, would God have Noah take a full grown bull elephant or perhaps a young elephant which would take less space plus eat less food? Remember Noah could of breed animals specifically for this event.

How many animals hibernate when in enclosed spaces? As for food for tigers and lions? Again why did Noah need to take large full grown tigers? In times of drought big cats have been known to eat grass. They don't just eat meat.

What you must ask is, Is Noah's Ark feasible?



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
OMG... are you trying to tell me that the FACT of scientific naivety thousands of years ago when Genesis was written much less when everyone was laughing at Chris for wanting to sail around the world is something the I "divined". HA HA HA Man... go read you ELEMENTARY school history book. You are so wrapped around you BS sources and links you ignore BASIC modern knowledge.
I can't believe that you can't make the connection between the story of Joshua and the earth being center of the universe.

No the Bible is not a science book... but YOU... are TRYING to prove the book with science. The two do not mix.

I am glad that you can say you don't have all the answers. That is the first step in opening your mind. "applause"


On to next post... so god brought them to Noah... did he float them across the oceans or did they all swim. And don't say that Pangea was around 4000 yrs ago.
Do you believe it was a local or global flood?



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren

Don't make me "actually" call you an idiot.

I'll do my best.


Wow... nice thread here Rren.

Where do these people come from anyway?

I do believe that this statement:

Originally posted by freeyourmind
I have only been stating very basic vastly accepted facts. You shouldn't need any "sources" to know what I am talking about.

is one of those classics you really can only get here on ATS.

It's one nice thing about ATS, the moderation policy, while allowing a certain number of trolls through, does provide a fair amount of cannon fodder.

While I sometimes miss these ambush style posts, I just don't have the fortitude anymore.

Nice shootin' pardner....

Oh yeah... and I think your new friend has one of those ironic usernames... sort of like TS*.



*Note: TS... not trying to draw you out... strictly using you as a reference point for Rren.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I do believe that this statement:

Originally posted by freeyourmind
I have only been stating very basic vastly accepted facts. You shouldn't need any "sources" to know what I am talking about.

is one of those classics you really can only get here on ATS.

don't tell me that you as well look at the FACTS, that are tought to every preschooler, and say I need to give my source as well. Hey I guess when I said that columbus was ridiculed by many, you doubt that as well since I didn't give a "source".

Hey guys "nice shooting pardners" hahaha

you guys amaze me at first I tried to give a little credit for intellect but I take it back.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by freeyourmind]



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by freeyourmind
You are so wrapped around you BS sources and links you ignore BASIC modern knowledge.

No the Bible is not a science book... but YOU... are TRYING to prove the book with science. The two do not mix.



Perhaps we need to go back to a first principle, a starting point. You have a belief, a world view, as do I and everyone else. I have sought to reply to your first post as best as I can and will get to your other questions also but first lets forget Noah for a moment and focus on "knowledge"

You state that the other poster ignores "basic modern knowledge" and you then go on to state that science and the bible do not mix.

May I ask, where did you learn or gain "knowledge"? How did you learn that word?

Thanks



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by freeyourmind
don't tell me that you as well look at the FACTS, that are tought to every preschooler, and say I need to give my source as well. Hey I guess when I said that columbus was ridiculed by many, you doubt that as well since I didn't give a "source".

Normally, I wouldn't respond to such absurd drivel. However, the degree of arrogance coupled with such an enormous helping of ignorance practically forces me to partake.

I've looked over your joke of a thread here FYM, and I can't see where you've even posted a 'fact.' You certainly don't have any objection to writing a bunch of mindless garbage about your perception of the way things are. However your perceptions seems to be rooted in nearly complete ignorance regarding the history of religion or the history of science.

I know, I know... people like you think it's fun to belittle things they don't really understand, and I further realize you think it's a barrel of monkeys to read perhaps TV Guides take on the Intelligent Design movement and call it your own, but trust me on this one, you're only making yourself 'actually look like an idiot,' not the other way around.

Around here, people like to see you support your opinions/inferences with actual factual information. Dismissing something as "FACTS, that are tought [sic] to every preschooler," is really weak. Surely if something is a such a well known fact, then substantiating it should be a relatively simple process.

That you choose not to support such 'well-known facts' is the most telling information you've offered thus far.


Hey guys "nice shooting pardners" hahaha

While I'm glad you appreciate my sense of humor, this quote wasn't meant for you. and please don't misquote me, it was "nice shootin' pardner" singlular, not plural, and most likely stated with a thick, slow, drawl.


you guys amaze me at first I tried to give a little credit for intellect but I take it back.

It's cool. We understand, you certainly aren't an intellectual giant. We can live with it for the short term. A good step on the road that takes you from total ignorance to only partial ignorance has already been suggested. My personal recommendation is that you follow Rren's advice, read something about these alleged facts that everyone knows, and post a reference to it, with some explanation.

Hell, your post might even scratch the surface of "showing promise," with a lot of work, you could perhaps elevate yourself to the level of marginally competent in terms of these subjects, but it would take a serious amount of effort on your part.

Good luck!



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
OK I will not deny one fact of Ignorance on my part... I am very new to ats or this type of board in general so I really don't know how to post links to sources.
But anyway I am tired of trying to get you guys to accept some real basic stuff. Sorry I may have came off like a jerk. People who really know me outside the cyberworld find me very agreeable. I really did want to have a legitimate discussion on some questions I had. But some veteran ATS aholes turn the discussion into a revolving cycle of where are your sources... even though the FACTS need no source just as if I said George Washington was our first president.
If you cannot accept that people were and actually probably still are scientifically naive then you have the intellect of a slug. So many huge scientific discoveries have been made in the last half of a millenia and especially century... so obviously they were not aware of these things thousands of years ago. But go ahead and intergrate modern science theory like the big bang into the bible and when scientist come up with something new or discard the big bang or other vital theories you can change your beliefs along with the new scientific revelations. So unless there be some acceptance of basic FACTS I will retire my thoughts from this ridiculous board.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by freeyourmind
So unless there be some acceptance of basic FACTS I will retire my thoughts from this ridiculous board.


Ahhh yes.... the typical bow out we expected from you when put to the test.

Sorry that you feel the need to resort to a complete ad hominem attack, ie: 'veteran ATS aholes,' but it's typical of people in your position - that is one who makes a whole bunch of absurd claims that they've no hope of substantiating, and we really expected no more.

As I understand it, Nickelodeon now has some discussion forums. Perhaps this is a good place for you to hone your discussion board skills.

There's no guarantee that the kids over there won't ask for sources too though.

Good Luck!!



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
b4 I go here is a source on the earth being the center of the known universe...
"A brief History of Time" Stephen Hawking, pg 3 fig. 1.1

If you really want me to go back through this post and give some sources for all my statements I will. But to tell you the truth it seems like to me I am teaching 1st graders here and I am just not interested. You really are an idiot. Sorry. I just can't change the way you make me view you.

I take it since you know all about the Nick boards that you are a regular.

You have not tried to address any of my questions but only ridicule me, discredit me, and focus on me... seems like you are full of bullocks... if I were so stupid my questions and thoughts would be so easy to disprove. You are just a bully that rren(who has mysteriously disappeared since you started) called in to try to force me to quit posing thoughts and questions that he or you couldn't answer or disprove... that is when you resorted in questioning my sources(an obvious ploy to get a cheap victory) even though the statements made needed no sources, although I did give you one and if you want more I will give them to you. Just post what I said that you want a source for and I will provide.

The fact that I am having to do this is sooo incredibly stupid. Now if I were claiming some extreme things or some very new theory or idea then I could see your point for a source, but for elementary fact, like the perspective of the world being flat only a couple hundred yrs ago, needing a source for that makes you seem ignorant. But anyway that is your problem not mine and I am not responsible for trying to help you with that.

Good evening

[edit on 5-8-2006 by freeyourmind]

[edit on 5-8-2006 by freeyourmind]



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by freeyourmind
b4 I go here is a source on the earth being the center of the known universe...
"A brief History of Time" Stephen Hawking, pg 3 fig. 1.1

If you really want me to go back through this post and give some sources for all my statements I will. But to tell you the truth it seems like to me I am teaching 1st graders here and I am just not interested. You really are an idiot. Sorry. I just can't change the way you make me view you.

I take it since you know all about the Nick boards that you are a regular.

You have not tried to address any of my questions but only ridicule me, discredit me, and focus on me... seems like you are full of bullocks... if I were so stupid my questions and thoughts would be so easy to disprove. You are just a bully that rren(who has mysteriously disappeared since you started) called in to try to force me to quit posing thoughts and questions that he or you couldn't answer or disprove... that is when you resorted in questioning my sources(an obvious ploy to get a cheap victory) even though the statements made needed no sources, although I did give you one and if you want more I will give them to you. Just post what I said that you want a source for and I will provide.

The fact that I am having to do this is sooo incredibly stupid. Now if I were claiming some extreme things or some very new theory or idea then I could see your point for a source, but for elementary fact, like the perspective of the world being flat only a couple hundred yrs ago, needing a source for that makes you seem ignorant. But anyway that is your problem not mine and I am not responsible for trying to help you with that.

Good evening

[edit on 5-8-2006 by freeyourmind]

[edit on 5-8-2006 by freeyourmind]


Wow... all this, and still not a relevant ref...

Nothing in the Hawkings ref you tried above is in dispute with respect to ID, YECism perhaps, but not ID.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question about which 'facts' you've provided.

That would provide us with a good starting point.

And just to keep the record straight. Rren didn't 'call me in' and certainly doesn't need to do any such thing. In fact, I would imagine that he got bored with your innane rants... which is likely the reason your thread has digressed to such garbage... sort of like computers... garbage in, garbage out.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

You are just a bully that rren(who has mysteriously disappeared since you started) called in to try to force me to quit posing thoughts and questions that he or you couldn't answer or disprove... that is when you resorted in questioning my sources


Look kid,

*I* questioned your sources, in every single post prior to mattison posting. *I* told you I was done because you refused to back up anything you were asked about. *mattison0922* is a bully though and I hear he's also a vegetarian... I don't don't need to tell you what that means.

*I* never said that nobody ever believed the Earth was the center of the universe (remember me bringing uo Copernicus, Aristotle and Ptolme?)

You seem to think that ancient history started in the 16th century... what does that make you? A Really, really young earther?




(an obvious ploy to get a cheap victory) even though the statements made needed no sources, although I did give you one and if you want more I will give them to you. Just post what I said that you want a source for and I will provide.


Is the back button on your browser browser broken? You haven't sourced anything except Joshua, and now we get professor Hawking.... lucky I got the book here what page you wanna start at? We changing topics?


I realize this is a conspiracy oriented web-site but not everbody is out to get you.

*mattison0922* Blue Falcon, Green 32.... Abort



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
freeyourmind....

May I ask where the Scripture states the earth is flat?

Also, I had asked you how you gain knowledge, how is it you learn? Does your world view discount a Creator and if so have we then come about through time and random chance?

I propose that your pressupositions will not allow you to declare that there is a God. No amount of evidence will convince you, even the finding of Noah's ark would not convince you as your presuppositions, that there is no God, would attribute it to something other than the Noah of Scripture.

So again, how do you learn and gain knowledge?



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
All I have said is that the Old Earth point of view tries to explain and verify the bible using science(extremely modern at that) and the two do not mix. I just got through watching Dr. Kennedy's ranting about "evolution and you". He has a phd in theology and yet still adopts a YEC point of view. The OEC perspective is a little better, I just don't see how any intelligent logical mind could support the YEC perspective. It is for men like this that make me despise the bible. Back to OEC. You guys have only persisted in dancing around the issues and weaving a web of discredit on me. Matty since I gave you a source on the belief of the world being the center of the known universe but a mere few centuries ago... can you really dispute the FACT that the bible was written in a naive perspective comparitively to our modern science in which you use to describe what they wrote??

But I don't expect you to actually answer that question but just prance around it like the intellectually dim person you have shown me to be.

Hey did you here the one about the most famous man...
One day a kindergarten teacher says to the class of five-year-olds, 'I'll give $2 to the child who can tell me the name of the most famous man who ever lived.'

An Irish boy raised his hand and said, 'Miss, it was St. Patrick.' The teacher said, 'Sorry, Sean, that's not correct.'

Then a Scottish boy put his hand up and said, 'It was St. Andrew.' The teacher replied, 'I'm sorry, Hamish, that's not right either.'

Finally, Adam, raised his hand and said, 'Please, Miss, it was Jesus Christ.'

The teacher said, 'That's absolutely right, Adam. Come up here for your $2.'

As the teacher was giving Adam his money, she said, 'You know, Adam, since you're Jewish, I was very surprised you said Jesus Christ.'

'I know, Miss,' Adam replied, 'in my heart I knew it was Moses, but business is business.'

There you go got this discussion back on your level... a joke



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Sorry unrealza I have not tried to ignore you...

How do humans gain knowledge...

Knowledge is relative, these other guys might see their views as "knowledge" so I guess you could say we gain knowledge by reading mythical books with unknown authors and trying to pass that off as "knowledge" but some get into history and the present day earth with their bare hands and explore to come up with as much provable knowledge as possible.

How do I gain my knowledge...

As I said before knowledge is relative. You can be knowledgable about star trek, the flintstones or the bible... but those things are complete fiction or unprovable. I try to read into theories in both science and religion but take them with a grain of salt. I learn by reading the proven facts as in basic mathmatics and history. 2 + 2 = 4 (sorry matty & rren for not providing a reference on that one) is a FACT and a small bit of knowledge. Like I said knowledge is relative... depends on who you ask and their reality as to what knowledge they will depart to you. So you have to be careful on what and who you listen to. I do not have the answers to lifes ETERNAL questions but neither does anyone else especially Beavis and Butthead(sorry I mean Mattison and rren).

Another recommended bit of reading for you guys... "A History of God" by Karen Armstong she may have some views and questions for you to ponder that you haven't heard before.

[edit on 6-8-2006 by freeyourmind]



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Well thanks for your reply Freeyourmind.

You're an empiricist then. You would hold that we gain knowledge via our senses, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting and sight. Correct?

So in order for you to gain knowledge you believe we "observe" the world around us. If we wish to learn we read on a subject or watch how a certain something is done. We view things as ugly or pleasant. We taste and it tells us if it's pleasant or horrible. Certain sounds are pleasing to us while others make our skin crawl, etc.

Now according to the empirical world view this evolved. We have evolved this ability to learn, or gain knowledge by way of observation. Perhaps early man observed lightning strike a tree and it caught fire and through this observation he came to understand the benefits of fire. So again, the empiricist holds that we gain or get knowledge through observation yet we have a problem with this as it puts the cart before the horse.

How is it one can "know" they are "observing" anything at all without first having KNOWLEDGE that they are in fact "observing" anything?? In other words, how did you learn the word "knowledge"? Did you smell it, taste it or touch it? Obviously not as that would be like asking what does blue smell like? So that's 3 of your senses down. Did you then perhaps see the word knowledge and thus learn it? Or perhaps you heard the word knowledge and by this you came to know what "knowledge" is? I would ask you not to just brush this off as jibber but really think deeply upon it.

None of your senses could tell you what "knowledge" is nor could it tell you what "blue" is. In order for you to "observe" the color blue you must first have "knowledge" that you are in fact observing anything at all so just where did "knowledge" come from? Did it evolve also? If it did then how can the empiricist explain something like flight in a bird? Flight is a trait hardwired (know one teaches a bird to fly, not even another bird) into birds so if a bird must "observe" flight in order to fly then who or what did the first bird "observe" flying??

Let's take an infant for another example. At birth an infant will search for its mothers nipple so as to feed. A baby, like a bird, "knows" to do this but if it must "observe" to gain this "knowledge" who then did it observe? Or better, the very first mammal breast feeding sub-human infant observed who or what to learn this seeing as no other "sub-human" breast feed before it??

I await your reply, thanks.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by freeyourmind
All I have said is that the Old Earth point of view tries to explain and verify the bible using science(extremely modern at that) and the two do not mix.

Not exactly true. The OEC perspective formulates its models from a bible based perspective, that is they believe the bible is 'true' to varying degrees, and develop their models with this in mind.


I just got through watching Dr. Kennedy's ranting about "evolution and you". He has a phd in theology and yet still adopts a YEC point of view.

Oh I see... because you don't understand it... that makes it 'stupid' or 'unintellectual.'

Personally, I don't think those would be mutually opposing viewpoints. Specifically, why would someone with a Ph.D. in theology be opposed to a YEC perspective?


The OEC perspective is a little better, I just don't see how any intelligent logical mind could support the YEC perspective.

It's the same as the OEC perspective, they formulate their models from a perspective that the bible is true, they just have a different interpretation of what the creation stories imply.


It is for men like this that make me despise the bible.




YECist's make you despise the bible.... okay...



Back to OEC. You guys have only persisted in dancing around the issues and weaving a web of discredit on me.

Honestly, which issues are you referring to.


Matty since I gave you a source on the belief of the world being the center of the known universe but a mere few centuries ago... can you really dispute the FACT that the bible was written in a naive perspective comparitively to our modern science in which you use to describe what they wrote??


Note: I'll be answering the portion of the question in bold, as the portion in italics is pretty much unintelligible. I think fym is trying to claim that I stated the bible was not written during a scientifically naive period, which I certainly didn't do. Until this post, I've pretty much been belittling his posts and their lack of substantiation. While there's been much discussion of 'FACTS' (fym enjoys SHOUTING this word, as if this somehow makes it even more FACTUAL), so far, I've seen him present exactly one thing s/he believes to be a FACT: that the bible was written by 'scientfically naive' people.

Okay... this apparently is a first issue: Okay, a few centuries ago, there was a belief that the Earth was the center of the known universe. You've provided me with a reference but no description. Since I don't personally have this book... thought I did, but it doesn't appear to be here now, I'm sort of shooting in the dark here, but I'm imagining that this figure some how proves the point that the scientific consensus 'a few hundred years ago' was that the Earth was the center of the known universe. And because of this, you wish to state that when the bible was written the people were scientifically naive.

I don't know. I don't even think I know what this means. It certainly doesn't mean that when the Bible was written that's what people believed. While this certainly isn't my area of expertise, the Bible wasn't written a few hundred years ago. The KJV may have been compiled roughly 'a few hundred years ago,' but that certainly doesn't speak to when the individual pieces were written.

Perhaps when the Bible was written people didn't believe they were the center of the known universe, I don't know this. I do believe however, that Rren presented evidence somehow disputing the FACT that when the bible was written, people believed the earth was at the center of the universe. Furthermore if they didn't believe this, were they not scientifically naive. Does it somehow make them 'scientifically sophisticated' if they believed the Earth wasn't the center of the known universe?

I will grant you, there were not hundreds years of accumulated scientific knowledge, sophisiticated computer driven instruments, satellites, telescopes in space, and lots of other high tech things that astrophysicists use to look at the sky, a few hundred years ago, but this doesn't speak to Paul's, nor any of his contemporaries perspective on the position of the Earth in universe during their life.

And what does this matter? The YEC and the OEC perspective simply starts with the belief that the bible is 'true,' to their understanding, and they adopt their models accordingly. Diametrically opposed to, but fundamentally no different from adopting the perspective that the bible isn't true, and then developing a model accordingly.

I'm not quite sure how scientific sophistication fits in to this argument. It's not like the OEC, YEC, and ID camps ignore evidence, the difference is in the interpretation of said evidence. It's not as if Hugh Ross, picks up the most recent copy of Nature and looks at it and thinks it's all BS. He looks at it, and sees that it fits his model. Whether or not you like it, is irrelevant; this is what they, and other researchers who adopt a bible based perspective do.


But I don't expect you to actually answer that question but just prance around it like the intellectually dim person you have shown me to be.

I believe that science as a process was not as technologically advanced as it is today, but wheter or not their beliefs were 'scientifically naive' is open for discussion.


Hey did you here the one about the most famous man...

I can't say that I did hear this one...


As the teacher was giving Adam his money, she said, 'You know, Adam, since you're Jewish, I was very surprised you said Jesus Christ.'

'I know, Miss,' Adam replied, 'in my heart I knew it was Moses, but business is business.'

Perhaps I've grown to sensitive from being in academic environments for so long, but doesn't this 'joke' have vaguely anti-semitic undertones... maybe not anti-semitic, but perhaps 'stereotypical assumptions' are being played out.

I'm not Jewish... and if I were I doubt I'd be offended... but some Jewish person may find it offensive.


There you go got this discussion back on your level... a joke

Hmmm.... I was really going for insolence as opposed to humor. But in any case... it took a fair amount of prodding, but look what I was able to accomplish. Instead of simply posting your own vague ideas, you looked at a book, found some data, and tried to work it in to your model.

The problem in this case was your presentation. You see, all you did was publish a reference. You simply said: 'okay here's a figure.'

So... what's the significance? What's the relevance? How does this fit into the discussion at hand. And while I feel this question of scientific naivete is still open for discussion. I'd like to redirect here for a moment.

Here is a paper that is not written from perspective of 'scientific naivete,' recently written in fact, 'peer reviewed,' from a secular source that scientifically (in conjunction with nine other papers) describes that the Earth is at the approximate center of the known universe.

How does this affect your assumptions of 'scientific naivete?

[edit on 6-8-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
*mattison0922* is a bully though and I hear he's also a vegetarian...


Man... do they not have a vegetarians in your neck of the woods?


There's lots of famous scientist vegetarians... John Walker... Nobel prize in 1998, I believe, maybe '97... he's a vegetarian...

Vinodh Narayanan... he's a veg too... makes a mean curry, in fact.

mattison0922... scientist, insolent bully, and vegetarian.


See hugely famous people are vegetarians.

I've heard Narayanan... despite being a hindu and about 125 lbs. bullys people at the neuro meetings.

Maybe it's a lack of carnitine in the diet or something.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Ok maybe the joke was a little out of line. But in light of the Mel Gibson debalacle where during his arrest he made a remark about the Jews starting all of the wars... a Jewish person replied saying "the jewish people don't have time to start all of the wars, we are to busy running hollywood and the media". Although I guess they can stereotype themselves I should not reference a joke that does that since I am not Jewish. I have absolutely nothing against Jews. Used to have a good friend that was Jewish. Anyways

The Earth is not the center of the universe considering it is expanding in all directions at an incredible rate at all times from its center.

When you say Old Earth you mean to corrulate the idea of a 4.6billion year Earth and 14Billion year Universe with the first seven days right.

Well obviously moses and all the other writers were not aware of this since these theories were not around as far back as 3000 yrs ago.
So then you must have to imply that God inspired Moses to write it that way.
Then why would some of the other passages in the Bible be missing some of the omniscient wisdom(ex. the flood or Joshua and so on)
And what about Adam and Eve if the Earth is Old and evolved somewhat like scientist say it did were they the first humans and if so did a little snake come up to them and tempt them or is that all a moral lesson story. If it were just a lesson why would an omniscient God inspire men to present it as a historical event. There are just too many questions to talk about. Besides I have already posted enough questions on THIS thread that no one will touch why would I believe that you will start now, giving an earnest effort to tackle me ignorant inquiries.

If the first seven days = 14 billiion years
what about the next 6000 years in the bible.
Were the 2000 b4 the flood counted differently(say stretch them out more like 40 or 60 thousand yrs which to keep up on the scientific line of your Old Earth perspective) then Methusalah as well as many others would have been tens of thousands of years old.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by freeyourmind
The Earth is not the center of the universe considering it is expanding in all directions at an incredible rate at all times from its center.

So, you imply that you've read the Gentry paper I referenced and are somehow prepared to refute the mathematics? Wow, pretty impressive for about an hours work.

Obviously you didn't read it, and you didn't consider it, demonstrating your commitment to not increasing your own scope of knowledge, but perhaps to merely maintaining your own worldview.


When you say Old Earth you mean to corrulate the idea of a 4.6billion year Earth and 14Billion year Universe with the first seven days right.

When I say 'Old Earth' I merely am describing a philosophical assumption. I have made no correlations between creation days and the age of universe.


Well obviously moses and all the other writers were not aware of this since these theories were not around as far back as 3000 yrs ago.
So then you must have to imply that God inspired Moses to write it that way.

I have implied nothing of the sort. I merely elaborated on what the terms OEC and YEC refer to. I've made no statements re: moses.


Then why would some of the other passages in the Bible be missing some of the omniscient wisdom(ex. the flood or Joshua and so on)
And what about Adam and Eve if the Earth is Old and evolved somewhat like scientist say it did were they the first humans and if so did a little snake come up to them and tempt them or is that all a moral lesson story. If it were just a lesson why would an omniscient God inspire men to present it as a historical event. There are just too many questions to talk about.

Ohhh... okay, I see, I see, you're not really interested in discussing anything, nor are you interested in theories that contradict what you hold so dear. You are hear to bash the bible, and christians in general. Gotcha. Great M.O., very original



Besides I have already posted enough questions on THIS thread that no one will touch why would I believe that you will start now, giving an earnest effort to tackle me ignorant inquiries.

Which questions. So far, you posted one I am aware of, and I answered it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join