Getting to the Bottom of Evolution, page 11

reply to post by itsthetooth

---

Thats only from the perspective that you don't believe in any of it. So what are you saying, people were worshiping gods that didn't exist? Seriously?

So what are you saying, that every god ever worshipped by anyone on the face of the Earth throughout the history of our species did exist? Seriously?

There's zero objective evidence for the existence of the god of the Bible or any other god of any other religion. If there were, they would cease to be religions or faiths.

True, but I included that link to show you that they were just omitting that information as they had allready proven them in other ways. You have to extrapolate a little bit here, if there are space crafts, they obviously have to be manned by somone, most likely aliens. If there are aliens they most likely have some place to live, like other planets. It's just common sense.

Less extrapolation, more facts.

As an example, I have been taking the literal sense of words in the bible.

No, you have been doing the exact opposite of taking the Bible literally. You have been interpreting the entire text through the filter of your interventionist hypothesis. What's worse is that you interpret it that way and then claim that the Bible objectively supports your argument. It's the same circular argument creationists use for the veracity of the Bible: The Bible is infallible. How do we know it's infallible? Because the Bible is the word of God. How do we know it's the word of God? Because the Bible tells is it is. Why believe the Bible? Because the Bible is in fallible.

You don't even realize that you're on the same merry-go-round as the rest of them.

reply to post by iterationzero

---

So what are you saying, that every god ever worshipped by anyone on the face of the Earth throughout the history of our species did exist? Seriously?

Nope what I'm saying is when a god tells you there are other gods, he's probably being accurate.

There's zero objective evidence for the existence of the god of the Bible or any other god of any other religion. If there were, they would cease to be religions or faiths.

Unless they all happened at the same time.

The events in the bible are not bound to objective evidence, as I have explained many times over, supernatural events aren't bound to science limitations.

Here are some cues that hold some proof.
Bible history

Science and the Bible

Archaeologists are digging up bible stories!!!

Did the stories in the Bible really happen?

Less extrapolation, more facts

Again the only thing extrapolated is the witnessed accounts of UFO's has to obviously mean they are piloted by aliens and those aliens also have to have homes, it's more common sense then extrapolation.

No, you have been doing the exact opposite of taking the Bible literally. You have been interpreting the entire text through the filter of your interventionist hypothesis. What's worse is that you interpret it that way and then claim that the Bible objectively supports your argument. It's the same circular argument creationists use for the veracity of the Bible: The Bible is infallible. How do we know it's infallible? Because the Bible is the word of God. How do we know it's the word of God? Because the Bible tells is it is. Why believe the Bible? Because the Bible is in fallible.

You don't even realize that you're on the same merry-go-round as the rest of them.

It's an important history book, so I have to ask you, do you have some specific reason to ignore it as truth? I tend to believe history books.

reply to post by itsthetooth

---

Nope what I'm saying is when a god tells you there are other gods, he's probably being accurate.

What I'm saying is that when a fictional being tells you something, you should be able to understand that it's fiction. When Dumbledore tells me about Dementors, I'm bright enough to know that neither exist despite the Harry Potter novels being set in England.

The events in the bible are not bound to objective evidence, as I have explained many times over, supernatural events aren't bound to science limitations.

Convenient cop-out -- "my hypothesis is beyond facts".

Here are some cues that hold some proof.

No, they hold claims with no objective evidence to back them up. After all this time, you still don't seem to understand the difference between the following key concepts: facts, evidence, proof. You conflate them as if they're all identical when they're not. I can find just as many websites that show that the claims you've presented in those four links range from wild speculation to broad interpretation.

Again the only thing extrapolated is the witnessed accounts of UFO's has to obviously mean they are piloted by aliens and those aliens also have to have homes, it's more common sense then extrapolation.

So you're claiming to have identified the unidentified flying objects?

It's an important history book, so I have to ask you, do you have some specific reason to ignore it as truth?

You've got it backwards -- you need to show that it is, in all respects, historically and scientifically accurate, before you can claim that it is absolute, literal truth. I have already provided examples of where it is patently scientifically inaccurate.

I tend to believe history books.

Which ones? You know that they get revised rather frequently, right?

reply to post by iterationzero

---

What I'm saying is that when a fictional being tells you something, you should be able to understand that it's fiction. When Dumbledore tells me about Dementors, I'm bright enough to know that neither exist despite the Harry Potter novels being set in England.

People that believe today, that god is next to them, and near them are obviously wrong, they obviously missed the part where god made the comment that he will not be able to tend to man for much longer. Aside, he was a real being, do you have some historical book that disproves his existence? And your obviously STILL not getting the difference between supernatural and fantasy...

su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.


Synonyms: preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous

Supernatural
Please note the attributes.

fan·ta·sy/ˈfantəsē/Noun: The faculty or activity of imagining things that are impossible or improbable.


Verb: Imagine the occurrence of; fantasize about.


Synonyms: noun. phantasy - fancy - imagination - fantasia
verb. phantasy - fancy - imagine

Fantasy
As you can see, these two terms have nohing to do with each other, so your obviously far off base. I'm also not aware of anything in or about the bible that speaks about imagination or fantasy, much less do I understand how you came to this understanding.

The only thing I can assume is that you were obviously taught to believe the events in the bible to be false and fantasy with no merit

Convenient cop-out -- "my hypothesis is beyond facts".

Please share with me how your hypothesis supersedes the history written in the bible. And please don't claim that simply because the astronomy views are hellenistic, the entire contents of the bible can't be true.

No, they hold claims with no objective evidence to back them up. After all this time, you still don't seem to understand the difference between the following key concepts: facts, evidence, proof. You conflate them as if they're all identical when they're not. I can find just as many websites that show that the claims you've presented in those four links range from wild speculation to broad interpretation.

Ok, what do you get out of it when you read say the ezekiel chapter? Is it not clear to you that it's speaking of a space craft? If not then what is it?

So you're claiming to have identified the unidentified flying objects?

In our terms today it usually means a space craft from other worlds.

ufoNoun: A mysterious object seen in the sky for which, it is claimed, no orthodox scientific explanation can be found.


Synonyms: unidentified flying object

UFO

You've got it backwards -- you need to show that it is, in all respects, historically and scientifically accurate, before you can claim that it is absolute, literal truth. I have already provided examples of where it is patently scientifically inaccurate.

Honestly your example of the hellinistic view is the ONLY thing that I have ever heard of that has been proven scientifically wrong, and even at that, I would say it could be under strong debate. It is possible they were only concearned about our view and understanding of things from earth, which would mean it's not wrong.
In the movie Charriots of the gods, he explains that the damage from this event can still be found today..
Sodom and Gomorrah

Sodom and Gomorrah wiki

Which ones? You know that they get revised rather frequently, right?

There is good history in any of them, while I'm sure they vary a little.

reply to post by itsthetooth

---

Aside, he was a real being, do you have some historical book that disproves his existence?

The burden of proof doesn’t lie with me to disprove the existence of god. The burden of proof lies with you to prove the existence of your personal version of god. According to you, your god is “supernatural” and therefore unable to be proven. So, by your own admission, you can’t meet that burden of proof.

And your obviously STILL not getting the difference between supernatural and fantasy...

I get it. I’m just saying that what you’re claiming as “supernatural” is actually “fantasy”, or your own interventionist interpretations of allegorical stories. You’ve simply chosen to believe that the “supernatural” events which form the foundation of your interventionist religion are factual, despite the fact that you acknowledge these “supernatural” events are beyond the realm of objective evidence.

I'm also not aware of anything in or about the bible that speaks about imagination or fantasy, much less do I understand how you came to this understanding.

I’m not surprised that you don’t understand. You’re approaching this backwards. You see the Bible and take it as being literally true in all aspects because you ignore the evidence the contrary, rather than demanding that each aspect of the Bible be verified before believing in it. The Bible claims that the Earth is flat; this is demonstrably wrong. The Bible claims that we live in a geocentric universe; this is demonstrably wrong. The Bible claims that there was a global flood; there is no evidence for such an event. Why assume that the rest must be true without verification?

The only thing I can assume is that you were obviously taught to believe the events in the bible to be false and fantasy with no merit

Quite the opposite. You’re really bad at playing intarwebs psychologist.

Please share with me how your hypothesis supersedes the history written in the bible. And please don't claim that simply because the astronomy views are hellenistic, the entire contents of the bible can't be true.

I think you need to re-read whatever source you used to try and understand Hellenistic astronomy. Hellenistic astronomy says that the Earth is spherical and hypothesized that we live in a heliocentric solar system. Hellenistic astronomy is the exact opposite of Biblical cosmology.

Ok, what do you get out of it when you read say the ezekiel chapter? Is it not clear to you that it's speaking of a space craft? If not then what is it?

You want me to interpret the hallucinations of a probable epileptic? And it’s not as if all of it is as shrouded in mystery as interventionists like to think. Take the whole “wheels within wheels” concept. Go find a picture of solid disk chariot wheels, very common at the time, and you’ll see exactly what is meant by “wheels within wheels”.

In our terms today it usually means a space craft from other worlds.

UFO Noun: A mysterious object seen in the sky for which, it is claimed, no orthodox scientific explanation can be found.

“Claimed”… Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But you say that these things are “supernatural” and therefore beyond the scope of objective evidence.

Honestly your example of the hellinistic view is the ONLY thing that I have ever heard of that has been proven scientifically wrong,

Then you have done little to no research in to the scientific inaccuracies of the Bible.

and even at that, I would say it could be under strong debate. It is possible they were only concearned about our view and understanding of things from earth, which would mean it's not wrong.

That has got to be the lamest, weakest excuse for believing in something that I’ve ever heard… “it’s not wrong.” Well, it isn’t right either.

In the movie Charriots of the gods, he explains that the damage from this event can still be found today..

Van Daniken has zero credibility as a scientist. And the first sentence in the “Historicity” section of the article you linked to is:

The historical existence of Sodom and Gomorrah is still in dispute by archaeologists, as little archaeological evidence has ever been found in the regions where they were supposedly situated.

Hardly “proven”.

reply to post by iterationzero

---

The burden of proof doesn’t lie with me to disprove the existence of god. The burden of proof lies with you to prove the existence of your personal version of god. According to you, your god is “supernatural” and therefore unable to be proven. So, by your own admission, you can’t meet that burden of proof.

That depends on what you consider proof. If you talking about scientific proof when supernatural things cannot be proven with our standards.

There is documentation that is proof, and there is what is left here, from what he claimed to have left her as proof, there is also the proof in our DNA, as best described by Lloyd Pye, from what is obviously all of our punishments.

I get it. I’m just saying that what you’re claiming as “supernatural” is actually “fantasy”, or your own interventionist interpretations of allegorical stories. You’ve simply chosen to believe that the “supernatural” events which form the foundation of your interventionist religion are factual, despite the fact that you acknowledge these “supernatural” events are beyond the realm of objective evidence.

It's not my story, I'm simply following the definition.

I’m not surprised that you don’t understand. You’re approaching this backwards. You see the Bible and take it as being literally true in all aspects because you ignore the evidence the contrary, rather than demanding that each aspect of the Bible be verified before believing in it. The Bible claims that the Earth is flat; this is demonstrably wrong. The Bible claims that we live in a geocentric universe; this is demonstrably wrong. The Bible claims that there was a global flood; there is no evidence for such an event. Why assume that the rest must be true without verification?

There is no evidene to the contrary, I'm not aware of anything that has proven the bible to be completly false.

There are no versus that specifically claim the earth to be flat, that is just an interpratation, obviously a false one.

What do you mean there is no evidence of a flood, haven't you ever heard of the grand cannyon? Where did all that water come from?
There are marine fossil in the upper layers of rock.

Grand cannyon

Quite the opposite. You’re really bad at playing intarwebs psychologist.

Well so far the only thing you have managed to give me is that the bible is wrong from a hellinistic view and it also claims the earth is flat, but I'm not finding anything that agrees with you. So your whole basis for this argument is that because of these two things, which are totally subjective, your sure the bible is false.

I think you need to re-read whatever source you used to try and understand Hellenistic astronomy. Hellenistic astronomy says that the Earth is spherical and hypothesized that we live in a heliocentric solar system. Hellenistic astronomy is the exact opposite of Biblical cosmology.

I meant geocentric.

You want me to interpret the hallucinations of a probable epileptic? And it’s not as if all of it is as shrouded in mystery as interventionists like to think. Take the whole “wheels within wheels” concept. Go find a picture of solid disk chariot wheels, very common at the time, and you’ll see exactly what is meant by “wheels within wheels”.

The book doesn't say anything about him being epileptic, nor does it even speak of him having seizures. Where are you getting this from and why are you making assumptions? That frame of mind and assumptions might work when it comes to evolution but not in the bible. Do you really think that someone having a seizure would have so much vivid detail?

“Claimed”… Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But you say that these things are “supernatural” and therefore beyond the scope of objective evidence.

I see, so in other words you think that millions of people around the globe are just having the exact same hallucination? We don't know how, but the majority of them identify the grey aliens down to detail.

Then you have done little to no research in to the scientific inaccuracies of the Bible.

I still see that your missing the fact that supernatural events are not bound to the limitations of science, nor can they be understood in that way.

That has got to be the lamest, weakest excuse for believing in something that I’ve ever heard… “it’s not wrong.” Well, it isn’t right either.

Your also making the assumption that what we currently know in the science is correct, it's not like we have never been wrong before.

Van Daniken has zero credibility as a scientist. And the first sentence in the “Historicity” section of the article you linked to

reply to post by iterationzero

---

Van Daniken has zero credibility as a scientist. And the first sentence in the “Historicity” section of the article you linked to is:

That is probably because they are looking for a city in ruins, and it was totally decimated. It was strong enough to turn people into pillars of salt, just like an atomic bomb, which Von Daniken claims it was.

I take it you don't believe in the virgin mary either?

reply to post by itsthetooth

---

That depends on what you consider proof. If you talking about scientific proof when supernatural things cannot be proven with our standards.

You still don’t know the difference between evidence and proof.

There is documentation that is proof, and there is what is left here, from what he claimed to have left her as proof, there is also the proof in our DNA, as best described by Lloyd Pye, from what is obviously all of our punishments.

The Bible as “documentation” is not proof. It’s evidence, but only if it can be corroborated. I’ve already given you examples of where the Bible is either uncorroborated or demonstrably wrong. Your response to this is simply that “it can’t be supported by objective evidence”. Can you show me some examples where your claims of interventionism, and keep in mind that they are your claims based on your interpretation of the text, have been corroborated by objective evidence?

I'm not aware of anything that has proven the bible to be completly false.

Again, backwards. The burden of proof is on you to show that the parts you’re using as “documentation” are corroborated in some way. But you’ve stated multiple times now that these “supernatural” events are beyond the scope of objective evidence, so your means of doing so should be very interesting.

There are no versus that specifically claim the earth to be flat, that is just an interpratation, obviously a false one.

Sure there are. There are verses that use the Hebrew word for “disc” i.e. a flat, round object. There is a completely separate word for “sphere” in the same language which wasn’t used for those verses. Look it up.

What do you mean there is no evidence of a flood, haven't you ever heard of the grand cannyon? Where did all that water come from?

So you don’t seem to understand the concept of local flooding vs. global flooding…

There are marine fossil in the upper layers of rock.

… or the concept of geological uplift. Good to know that your grasp of geology is up there with your grasp of biology.

The book doesn't say anything about him being epileptic, nor does it even speak of him having seizures. Where are you getting this from and why are you making assumptions? That frame of mind and assumptions might work when it comes to evolution but not in the bible. Do you really think that someone having a seizure would have so much vivid detail?

Maybe you should do some research on the authors of what you’re calling “documentation”.

I see, so in other words you think that millions of people around the globe are just having the exact same hallucination? We don't know how, but the majority of them identify the grey aliens down to detail.

Present your evidence.

That is probably because they are looking for a city in ruins, and it was totally decimated. It was strong enough to turn people into pillars of salt, just like an atomic bomb, which Von Daniken claims it was.

Can you present some evidence that being near ground zero of a nuclear detonation would turn you into a “pillar of salt”?

I take it you don't believe in the virgin mary either?

Can you provide some kind of corroborating evidence that there was a woman named Miriam who lived in the late 1st century BCE / early 1st century CE that conceived a child while remaining a virgin? Especially given that the whole concept of her being a virgin was a mistranslation into Greek of the original Hebrew, which was “ha-almah” or “young woman”, not “virgin”? There was a separate word for “virgin” that isn’t used in the original texts: “bethulah”.

reply to post by iterationzero

---

You still don’t know the difference between evidence and proof.

Are you sure your not understanding the definition of the term supernatural?

The Bible as “documentation” is not proof. It’s evidence, but only if it can be corroborated.

Please enlighten me on how your going to corroborate supernatural events? And just because they can't be because of that does no automatically disprove them.

I’ve already given you examples of where the Bible is either uncorroborated or demonstrably wrong. Your response to this is simply that “it can’t be supported by objective evidence”. Can you show me some examples where your claims of interventionism, and keep in mind that they are your claims based on your interpretation of the text, have been corroborated by objective evidence?

Ok there are a few, for one Target food is corroborated on the fact that the bible claims we were given everthing, like plants herbs and animals, but that none of these things are from our home. What a coincidence, we appear to have no target food.
The bible claims we have every herb, every plant, every animal. What a coincidence, we appear to be in our 6th largest extinction.
God claims to hand down to us an unmesured amount of punishments, and he claims that these punishments will also be hereditary. What a coincidence, Pye exposes that we have over 4000 defects in our genes, that are explained to be only possible through cruelty or sloppy DNA work. This amount of defects tops any other species by over 1000%.
Another odd coincidence is how we appear to have to ties to this planet, while the bible also explains that earth is not our home. Aside from breathing air, and drinking water, we have no instinctive qualitys tied to this planet like some animals have. We can't even safely drink the water here unless its from a rare safe source or processed.
Another odd coincidence is how genesis looks like they were abducted, thats what aliens do, they abduct people.

Again, backwards. The burden of proof is on you to show that the parts you’re using as “documentation” are corroborated in some way. But you’ve stated multiple times now that these “supernatural” events are beyond the scope of objective evidence, so your means of doing so should be very interesting.

The fact that the astronimacal line up of our planets was included in the bible tells you it's not a fantasy book. Even if they thought the planet was flat, which is not what I'm reading, there was a period where people thought that. It sounds more to me like your grasping at straws to disprove the bible. I think its going to be pretty hard to disprove, or even prove for that matter. All of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today, except for the ones that were bombed.

Sure there are. There are verses that use the Hebrew word for “disc” i.e. a flat, round object. There is a completely separate word for “sphere” in the same language which wasn’t used for those verses. Look it up.

And you think by something being round and flat at the same time, that your understanding it correctly?

So you don’t seem to understand the concept of local flooding vs. global flooding…

There are many parts of this earth that appear to have been flooded at one time. Just out my West door, is a cannyon that could be several miles wide, and a good several hundred feet down to where the water now rests. This area I live next to appears to have been home to a large water way at one time. Now its just a small Spokane river. Where did all this water go, and where did it come from.

… or the concept of geological uplift. Good to know that your grasp of geology is up there with your grasp of biology.

Right and there is only uplift next to where water once appears to have been. Next thing your going to tell me it's plate techtonics at work. Either way, even with your example there is no excuse for the fossils.

Maybe you should do some research on the authors of what you’re calling “documentation”.

The authors are all fine, they can't all be wrong. People don't lie, the person lies, in most cases.

Present your evidence.

That is the evidence, millions of people can't be mind readers.

Can you present some evidence that being near ground zero of a nuclear detonation would turn you into a “pillar of salt”?

First it could have been a raw explanation that they turned to ash, however I'm sure with the right set up you can turn people into salt.

reply to post by iterationzero

---

Can you provide some kind of corroborating evidence that there was a woman named Miriam who lived in the late 1st century BCE / early 1st century CE that conceived a child while remaining a virgin? Especially given that the whole concept of her being a virgin was a mistranslation into Greek of the original Hebrew, which was “ha-almah” or “young woman”, not “virgin”? There was a separate word for “virgin” that isn’t used in the original texts: “bethulah”.

Well first off I'm living in 2012. And my calendar is based off those events. Which means that the people back in that time, started to keep a calendar track based on this event. ha-almah not being a virgin is just ones persons interpratation of the term. It is possible that all young women in that day remained virgins, which could also explain this. Besides there is nothing odd about a virgin being pregnant, if you follow alien intervention at all, its probably the second most common thing that they do. If they had the ability to alter our DNA, I would place money they know how to do an artificial insemonation.

reply to post by itsthetooth

---

Are you sure your not understanding the definition of the term supernatural?

You claim that all of the events in the Bible that support your interventionist hypothesis either have not or cannot be corroborated with objective evidence and are therefore "supernatural". So interventionism is, effectively, a religion.

the bible claims we were given everthing, like plants herbs and animals, but that none of these things are from our home.

The Bible states that God created all of those things, including us. Can you show where the Bible explicitly states that he transplanted us from another planet?

The bible claims we have every herb, every plant, every animal. What a coincidence, we appear to be in our 6th largest extinction.

The Bible also claims that bats are birds and that insects have four legs...

God claims to hand down to us an unmesured amount of punishments, and he claims that these punishments will also be hereditary. What a coincidence, Pye exposes that we have over 4000 defects in our genes, that are explained to be only possible through cruelty or sloppy DNA work. This amount of defects tops any other species by over 1000%.

You and Pye have never provided any evidence for the claim that we have over 4000 defects in our genes and that it's more than any other species "by over 1000%".

Another odd coincidence is how we appear to have to ties to this planet, while the bible also explains that earth is not our home. Aside from breathing air, and drinking water, we have no instinctive qualitys tied to this planet like some animals have. We can't even safely drink the water here unless its from a rare safe source or processed.

I think you're misunderstanding the "not our home" concept in the context of the Bible. A servent could be born on an estate, live his entire life there, and die there, never having traveled elsewhere, but it still wouldn't be his home in terms of ownership. The Bible is saying that we don't own the Earth, God does.

Another odd coincidence is how genesis looks like they were abducted, thats what aliens do, they abduct people.

Can you show where the Bible explicitly states that?

The fact that the astronimacal line up of our planets was included in the bible tells you it's not a fantasy book.

So the Bible mentions all of the other planets in our solar system? Fascinating. Can you show where?

All of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today, except for the ones that were bombed.

Beth Dagon (Joshua), Bozkath (Joshua & Kings), Halah (Kings & Chronicles), and Ziddim (Joshua) have never been located. And those were just the first couple I cam across. Not that the presence of cities would corroborate the events in the Bible -- the Harry Potter novels mention quite a few places that I could travel to today and still see for myself, this doesn't mean the events in the Harry Potter novels actually happened.

And you think by something being round and flat at the same time, that your understanding it correctly?

Seriously? You've never seen a coin?

There are many parts of this earth that appear to have been flooded at one time.

Yes, nearly every place on Earth has been flooded at some point in its past. But not the entire planet simultaneously, hence the difference between localized and global flooding. There is zero evidence for a global flood.

Right and there is only uplift next to where water once appears to have been. Next thing your going to tell me it's plate techtonics at work. Either way, even with your example there is no excuse for the fossils.

Yes, it is plate tectonics. Sorry that you don't like the scientifically verifiable answer, but there it is.

First it could have been a raw explanation that they turned to ash, however I'm sure with the right set up you can turn people into salt.

So you can't actually present any evidence?

Well first off I'm living in 2012. And my calendar is based off those events. Which means that the people back in that time, started to keep a calendar track based on this event.

No, BC and AD didn't come into use until AD 532, or Diocletian 247 as it was known back then. You fail at history.

ha-almah not being a virgin is just ones persons interpratation of the term. It is possible that all young women in that day remained virgins, which could also explain this.

No, they have two distinct words -- one for young woman, one for virgin. Sorry, but you don't get to rewrite someone else language on your whim.

reply to post by iterationzero

---

You claim that all of the events in the Bible that support your interventionist hypothesis either have not or cannot be corroborated with objective evidence and are therefore "supernatural". So interventionism is, effectively, a religion.

Actually quite the opposite, as there are to many people that have witnessed the events in the bible.
If anything your belief, or the lack of is a religion as it's based on nothing. The truth of the bible is based on many things, just because science can't prove them is not proof they didn't happen. Your assuming, a common trait amongst evolutionists.

The Bible states that God created all of those things, including us. Can you show where the Bible explicitly states that he transplanted us from another planet?

I think the quote of Hebrews saying "Earth is not our home" pretty much sums it up.

However genesis does appear to be that of an abduction scenerio. When Adam and Eve both eat from the tree of knowledge, and then all of a sudden are ashamed because they have no clothing. There is only one reason they would feel embarrased from not having clothing, and that is if they had reason to know that they were supposed to be clothed to beign with. It appears this tree of knowledge allowed them to regain their old memories back from a time when they were once clothed. Of course this also means that God did not just create them right then and there, as they have pror memories of life. In addition to this, they were said to be wanting to be like gods, as a result of eating from the tree, which again only explains that they once were gods. Of course this is also where the first known punishment is handed down.
However this is also where a big lie from God first occured, because they were told they would die if they eat from the tree, They in fact did not die but were punished.

The Bible also claims that bats are birds and that insects have four legs...

They both fly, and from a technical point of view, we as humans have identified that they are different, either way they both fly. Just because we have our technical beliefs, doesn't mean they were wrong. Some winged insects have six legs but most only walk on four.

You and Pye have never provided any evidence for the claim that we have over 4000 defects in our genes and that it's more than any other species "by over 1000%".

It's all part of the human genome which is public information.

I think you're misunderstanding the "not our home" concept in the context of the Bible. A servent could be born on an estate, live his entire life there, and die there, never having traveled elsewhere, but it still wouldn't be his home in terms of ownership. The Bible is saying that we don't own the Earth, God does.

That doesn't make any sense, why would he plant us here from what appears to be against our will, then say we don't own the planet. In addition to giving us dominion over all the other life, while we don't own it. Sorry makes no sense.
Either way if you were correct, your still admitting it's not OUR home as in we are supposed to be living somewhere else. The bible never talks about ownership of the planet, or about any ways that we are supposed to be trying to earn ownership of the planet.
Do you have something that supports your view?

Can you show where the Bible explicitly states that?

I just did earlier. Aliens have always been claimed with the ability to erase memory. If you do some research on this event, with people that just lose their memory for whatever reason, what you find is doctors claim that you need to expose the victim to as many things that they would have memory of, and this will usually cause them to get their memory back. In genesis where they eat from the tree of knowledge, it appears as though they got their memorys back as they then realized they were naked.

So the Bible mentions all of the other planets in our solar system? Fascinating. Can you show where?

No I thought that was what you claimed as it was from a geocentric period.

Beth Dagon (Joshua), Bozkath (Joshua & Kings), Halah (Kings & Chronicles), and Ziddim (Joshua) have never been located. And those were just the first couple I cam across. Not that the presence of cities would corroborate the events in the Bible -- the Harry Potter novels mention quite a few places that I could travel to today and still see for myself, this doesn't mean the events in the Harry Potter novels actually happened.

MT zion is a real place and still here. The red sea is also real and still here. Babylon was the capital of mesopotamia. And these are the first that just come to mind.

Seriously? You've never seen a coin?

If you were l

reply to post by iterationzero

---

Seriously? You've never seen a coin?

I have also seen images of earth taken from outspace.

Yes, nearly every place on Earth has been flooded at some point in its past. But not the entire planet simultaneously, hence the difference between localized and global flooding. There is zero evidence for a global flood.

100% of the planet may not of ever been under water, but there is evidence of large amounts of water that we can't figure out where it went and where it came from. Unless it has all settled to the oceans and some of the ocean floor used to be land.

Yes, it is plate tectonics. Sorry that you don't like the scientifically verifiable answer, but there it is.

Plate techtonics don't explain water displacement.

So you can't actually present any evidence?

I have no doubts that man has created a bomb so intense that it can turn people into salt. Probably an atomic bomb, if your close enough.

No, BC and AD didn't come into use until AD 532, or Diocletian 247 as it was known back then. You fail at history.

Then why do we use AD?

No, they have two distinct words -- one for young woman, one for virgin. Sorry, but you don't get to rewrite someone else language on your whim.

Assuming your translation is correct.

reply to post by itsthetooth

---

I can see we’ve reached that point that happens in every conversation with you, the point at which you forget what you yourself wrote recently. In the interest of abridging your wall of text and preventing this from becoming another one of your Gish Gallops, I’ll just point out the parts where you seem to have forgotten your own words. This should present a clear sign of just how befuddled you really are, with links to the original posts:

First, your treatise on the accuracy of the geocentric Biblical model of our solar system --

You: The fact that the astronimacal line up of our planets was included in the bible tells you it's not a fantasy book.

Me: So the Bible mentions all of the other planets in our solar system? Fascinating. Can you show where?

You: No I thought that was what you claimed as it was from a geocentric period.

In less than twenty-four hours, you went from claiming that the Bible includes the “astronimacal line up of our planets” to claiming that I was the one who said it. Since your grasp of astronomy seems to be as good as your grasp of biology, let me reiterate that we live in a heliocentric solar system while the Bible claims that we live in a geocentric universe. Where is the “astronimacal line up of our planets” included in the Bible?

Second, your discussion of the accuracy of Biblical locations –

You: All of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today, except for the ones that were bombed.

Me: Beth Dagon (Joshua), Bozkath (Joshua & Kings), Halah (Kings & Chronicles), and Ziddim (Joshua) have never been located. And those were just the first couple I came across. Not that the presence of cities would corroborate the events in the Bible -- the Harry Potter novels mention quite a few places that I could travel to today and still see for myself, this doesn't mean the events in the Harry Potter novels actually happened.

You: MT zion is a real place and still here. The red sea is also real and still here. Babylon was the capital of mesopotamia. And these are the first that just come to mind.

In less than twenty-four hours, you went from claiming that “all of the citys mentioned in the bible” still exist in modern times (except for the ones your interventionist religion tell you were “bombed”) to listing places that still exist, completely ignoring that I was able to find four Biblical places that aren’t “real places still today”. What about the four places I listed? If you know where those are because they’re “real places still today”, the archeological community would love to hear about it.

Third, and finally, your rather interesting concept of when the BC/AD system of dating came into existence –

You: Well first off I'm living in 2012. And my calendar is based off those events. Which means that the people back in that time, started to keep a calendar track based on this event.

Me: No, BC and AD didn't come into use until AD 532, or Diocletian 247 as it was known back then.

You: Then why do we use AD?

In less than twenty-four hours, you went from claiming that “people back in that time” started using BC/AD immediately after the supposed birth of Jesus Christ to asking “why do we use AD”. The fact is that the BC/AD system wasn’t developed until 525 years after the supposed event, wasn’t implemented until 532 years after the supposed event, and didn’t reach common usage until almost 800 years after the supposed event. So pretending that “people back in that time” just magically started using BC/AD right after the supposed virgin supposedly popped out the supposed avatar of God is patently false. Further, you are aware that there are other calendars in use that aren’t based on Dionysius’s BC/AD system, right? That the Jewish calendar is in year 5773 and the Muslim calendar is in year 1434 AH? And there are dozens more. The Gregorian calendar came into use because, at the time it was instituted, Christians (Catholics, really) controlled the “civilized” world. It has nothing to do with the inherent truth of the story behind it.

reply to post by MrXYZ
As soon as any Internet discussion devolves to the point where the debaters are invoking race or Hitler you know it's jumped the shark. This post does both. Just sayin'...

reply to post by iterationzero

---

You: The fact that the astronimacal line up of our planets was included in the bible tells you it's not a fantasy book.

Me: So the Bible mentions all of the other planets in our solar system? Fascinating. Can you show where?

You: No I thought that was what you claimed as it was from a geocentric period

So I thought you were stating a fact.

In less than twenty-four hours, you went from claiming that the Bible includes the “astronimacal line up of our planets” to claiming that I was the one who said it.

Yep, I took your word at it, but I still havent seen where it is.

Since your grasp of astronomy seems to be as good as your grasp of biology, let me reiterate that we live in a heliocentric solar system while the Bible claims that we live in a geocentric universe. Where is the “astronimacal line up of our planets” included in the Bible?

The astronomical line up is what I viewed when I read abou it.

geocentric

Me: Beth Dagon (Joshua), Bozkath (Joshua & Kings), Halah (Kings & Chronicles), and Ziddim (Joshua) have never been located. And those were just the first couple I came across. Not that the presence of cities would corroborate the events in the Bible -- the Harry Potter novels mention quite a few places that I could travel to today and still see for myself, this doesn't mean the events in the Harry Potter novels actually happened.

Very true except that Harry potter is written with fictitious characters and titled to be a fantasy book, where as the bible is written by real people that witnessed real events under the title of supernatural. Are you sure your understanding the difference between fantasy and supernatural? We have reviewed this several times and seem to keep revisiting it.

In less than twenty-four hours, you went from claiming that “all of the citys mentioned in the bible” still exist in modern times (except for the ones your interventionist religion tell you were “bombed”) to listing places that still exist, completely ignoring that I was able to find four Biblical places that aren’t “real places still today”.

True except your confusing the fact that some of those location while they may not be found today is not proof that they never existed at one time.

What about the four places I listed? If you know where those are because they’re “real places still today”, the archeological community would love to hear about it.

I'm not familliar with them

Third, and finally, your rather interesting concept of when the BC/AD system of dating came into existence –

BC/ AD are the time table that was issued referring to the birth and death of Jesus.

In less than twenty-four hours, you went from claiming that “people back in that time” started using BC/AD immediately after the supposed birth of Jesus Christ to asking “why do we use AD”. The fact is that the BC/AD system wasn’t developed until 525 years after the supposed event, wasn’t implemented until 532 years after the supposed event, and didn’t reach common usage until almost 800 years after the supposed event.

Your argument is irrelivent as it applys just in the way it is taught to be used, and stands exactly for what we are taught that it stands for.
I could just as easily say that when god said let there be light, at first there was nothing, then there was light. It makes no difference that it may not have been used at first, it counts today as a track of real time is all that matters, based on a true event, which again is all that matters. But you once again found a way to side step the fact simply because of something non rellivent that I didin't know about. The cruicifiction of Christ was obviously a real event that took place and our track of time today is based on that event. So hows that for fantasy?

So pretending that “people back in that time” just magically started using BC/AD right after the supposed virgin supposedly popped out the supposed avatar of God is patently false. Further, you are aware that there are other calendars in use that aren’t based on Dionysius’s BC/AD system, right? That the Jewish calendar is in year 5773 and the Muslim calendar is in year 1434 AH? And there are dozens more. The Gregorian calendar

reply to post by iterationzero

---

So pretending that “people back in that time” just magically started using BC/AD right after the supposed virgin supposedly popped out the supposed avatar of God is patently false. Further, you are aware that there are other calendars in use that aren’t based on Dionysius’s BC/AD system, right? That the Jewish calendar is in year 5773 and the Muslim calendar is in year 1434 AH? And there are dozens more. The Gregorian calendar came into use because, at the time it was instituted, Christians (Catholics, really) controlled the “civilized” world. It has nothing to do with the inherent truth of the story behind it

I'm sure there are even others as well. But as you try to side step the facts of the point here, maybe you can explain why the dominate choice of how we keep track of our days was ruled by a fantasy?

reply to post by itsthetooth

---

You’re still having trouble recognizing your own words as your own and understanding that you’re the one who said them, even after I quoted them for you and included links to the posts.

Yep, I took your word at it, but I still havent seen where it is.

I never claimed that the Bible explicitly describes the “astronimacal line up of our planets”, just that it claimed we live in a geocentric universe. You’re the one who has claimed that the Bible explicitly describes the “astronimacal line up of our planets”. Can you please show where in the Bible the “astronimacal line up of our planets” is explicitly described?

The astronomical line up is what I viewed when I read abou it.

Can you show me what verses from the Bible explicitly describe the arrangement of the other planets in the diagram you have linked to? The Bible states that we live in a geocentric universe, but I’d be interested to read where, for example, it states that Jupiter is farther from us than Mars and that Saturn is farther from us than Jupiter. Or are you just pulling blindly from sources that appear to support your argument again without actually reading them?

True except your confusing the fact that some of those location while they may not be found today is not proof that they never existed at one time.

But that’s not what you claimed. What you claimed was “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”. I have provided four examples of places mentioned in the Bible that are not “real places still today” and your lame excuse for why they have never been found is “I'm not familliar with them”. Either “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today” or they are not. Can you explain where these four locations are, keeping in mind that none of these were “bombed” in the Bible, or are you admitting that not “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”?

Your argument is irrelivent as it applys just in the way it is taught to be used, and stands exactly for what we are taught that it stands for.

But your claim was that “people back in that time” started using BC/AD immediately after the supposed birth of Jesus Christ. I have provided you with evidence that the BC/AD system wasn’t developed for over half a millennia after the supposed birth of Jesus Christ. And that it wasn’t in common usage for eight centuries after the supposed birth of Jesus Christ. What a momentous occasion it must have been that no other source contemporary with the Bible makes mention of it, that there is absolutely no corroboration from historical writings of the same period, but that “people back in that time” started using BC/AD immediately when it happened! Can you explain how “people back in that time” started using BC/AD immediately when it wasn’t devised until centuries after they were all dead?

I'm sure there are even others as well. But as you try to side step the facts of the point here, maybe you can explain why the dominate choice of how we keep track of our days was ruled by a fantasy?

Because controlling people’s perception of the afterlife, regardless of whether it is real or not, is a powerful tool for controlling people themselves. Religion and politics have always gone hand in hand. The use of the Gregorian calendar as the common calendar for our planet is the result of that relationship.

reply to post by iterationzero

---

You’re still having trouble recognizing your own words as your own and understanding that you’re the one who said them, even after I quoted them for you and included links to the posts.

Oh no, I'm agreeing with you, I'm just sayin that it's only because they were non important things to me.

I never claimed that the Bible explicitly describes the “astronimacal line up of our planets”, just that it claimed we live in a geocentric universe.

The link that I found appears to preach that everything evolves around the earth, this is what I mean by line up.

You’re the one who has claimed that the Bible explicitly describes the “astronimacal line up of our planets”. Can you please show where in the Bible the “astronimacal line up of our planets” is explicitly described?

I took your explanation as though this is what you meant.

Can you show me what verses from the Bible explicitly describe the arrangement of the other planets in the diagram you have linked to? The Bible states that we live in a geocentric universe, but I’d be interested to read where, for example, it states that Jupiter is farther from us than Mars and that Saturn is farther from us than Jupiter. Or are you just pulling blindly from sources that appear to support your argument again without actually reading them?

Neither, I assumed the bible explained these things, and that you were able to identify that they were referring to a geocentric system. Rather now I'm finding out that they actually use geocentric instead.

But that’s not what you claimed. What you claimed was “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”. I have provided four examples of places mentioned in the Bible that are not “real places still today” and your lame excuse for why they have never been found is “I'm not familliar with them”. Either “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today” or they are not. Can you explain where these four locations are, keeping in mind that none of these were “bombed” in the Bible, or are you admitting that not “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”?

Any that I have looked up are, and I'm not familliar with the ones you quoted. So are you saying you have proven that they never existed?

But your claim was that “people back in that time” started using BC/AD immediately after the supposed birth of Jesus Christ. I have provided you with evidence that the BC/AD system wasn’t developed for over half a millennia after the supposed birth of Jesus Christ. And that it wasn’t in common usage for eight centuries after the supposed birth of Jesus Christ. What a momentous occasion it must have been that no other source contemporary with the Bible makes mention of it, that there is absolutely no corroboration from historical writings of the same period, but that “people back in that time” started using BC/AD immediately when it happened! Can you explain how “people back in that time” started using BC/AD immediately when it wasn’t devised until centuries after they were all dead?

Maybe it would help if I explained that the point was that they were keeping track of time based on that event. Now you can aruge that the system wasn't devised untill later but the fact of the matter is they still managed to keep track based on that event.

Because controlling people’s perception of the afterlife, regardless of whether it is real or not, is a powerful tool for controlling people themselves. Religion and politics have always gone hand in hand. The use of the Gregorian calendar as the common calendar for our planet is the result of that relationship.

I think what your commonly referring to is the common understanding of the bible, which I'm not able to find any proof of.
From what I can tell the after life was an assumption based on a lack of understanding.. Can you give me something that supports why they would be referring to the after life?

reply to post by itsthetooth

---

Oh no, I'm agreeing with you, I'm just sayin that it's only because they were non important things to me.

Which are the "non important things" to you -- your own words or the facts that contradict your interventionist hypothesis?

The link that I found appears to preach that everything evolves around the earth, this is what I mean by line up.

Yes, the Bible teaches that we live in a geocentric universe i.e. that the Earth is at the center, surrounded by the firmament. The Ptolemaic system, which is what you linked to, added the concept of a spherical Earth (in contradiction to the flat Earth claimed by the Bible) but preserved the concept that the Earth was the center of the universe.

I took your explanation as though this is what you meant.

Neither, I assumed the bible explained these things, and that you were able to identify that they were referring to a geocentric system. Rather now I'm finding out that they actually use geocentric instead.

You need better reading comprehension skills. I never claimed or implied that the Bible mentioned other planets, just that it claimed a flat Earth, geocentric model of the universe. You're the one that claimed that the Bible included the "astronimacal line up of our planets”. Are you now claiming that the Bible does not include the “astronimacal line up of our planets”?

But that’s not what you claimed. What you claimed was “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”. I have provided four examples of places mentioned in the Bible that are not “real places still today” and your lame excuse for why they have never been found is “I'm not familliar with them”. Either “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today” or they are not. Can you explain where these four locations are, keeping in mind that none of these were “bombed” in the Bible, or are you admitting that not “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”?

Any that I have looked up are, and I'm not familliar with the ones you quoted. So are you saying you have proven that they never existed?

You claimed that “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”. I presented four that have never been found. Do you know where they are? Remember, you made the positive claim. It's up to you to provide evidence that “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”. Are you now claiming that not “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”?

Maybe it would help if I explained that the point was that they were keeping track of time based on that event. Now you can aruge that the system wasn't devised untill later but the fact of the matter is they still managed to keep track based on that event.

But your claim wasn't just that there's a calendar in existence based on the supposed birth of Jesus Christ, but also that “people back in that time” started using BC/AD immediately after the supposed birth of Jesus Christ. Every calendar system in existence is based on something: the Jewish calendar, where we are in year 5773 and the new year falls in September, is based on the claimed date of the creation of the Earth; the Islamic calendar, where we are in year 1434 and the new year falls in November, is based on the Hijra from Mecca to Medina; the Chinese calendar, where we are in year 4709 and the new year falls in late January, is based on the reign of Emperor Huang-Di; the Indian calendar, where we are in year 5114 and the new year depends on which Indian state you happen to be in, is based on when Krishna returned to his eternal abode. All of these systems, and the dozens of others that exist, "still manage to keep track based on that event" -- whatever event they chose to start their calendar.

From what I can tell the after life was an assumption based on a lack of understanding.

From what you can tell, DNA has a "blue laminate".

Can you give me something that supports why they would be referring to the after life?

Why? Because controlling people’s perception of the afterlife, regardless of whether it is real or not, is a powerful tool for controlling people themselves. Or are you claiming that the afterlife isn't explicitly mentioned in the Bible?

Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.
  Posted 15 days ago with 20 member flags

Christians help me debunk these non sense atheistic beliefs about Genesis please
  Posted 3 days ago with 14 member flags

Satan hid the fossils to trick everyone!
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags

Just ONE question on evolution
  Posted 15 days ago with 5 member flags

M U T A T I O N - Friend or Foe of Evolution?
  Posted 8 days ago with 5 member flags

When a Child is Born...the Evolution begins
  Posted 5 days ago with 5 member flags

Denisovans
  Posted 15 days ago with 3 member flags

Are Humans the result of Hybridization?
  Posted 14 days ago with 3 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: