Providing proof that Biblical claims are not so farfetched

by sodbuster Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:04 pm

Well for anyone interested there is a good show coming on History channel that proves many of the miraculous events are in fact possible.

Check it out.

by Keli Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:40 pm

sodbuster wrote:Well for anyone interested there is a good show coming on History channel that proves many of the miraculous events are in fact possible.

Check it out.

If they are possible, how are they miraculous?

by bmd Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:40 am

Well, let's look at the "biggies".

1) Earth, heavens, Detroit, etc., all created in a couple of days about 10,000 ybp --- Astrophysicists, astronomers, geologists, etc., would, i dare say, beg to differ. The oldest rocks of terrestrial origin have been reliably dated at about 4,000,000,000 years, as a random example.

2) Man was created out of dust, or clay, or whatever, a few days later --- Too bad museums full of fossils, a veritable shitload of comparative studies (morphology, biochemistry, embryology, etc.), and another veritable shitload of genetic studies come to a completely different conclusion.

3) Woman was created from man's rib --- I'm not even gonna justify that steaming pile of bs with a retort. Besides, don't they know:

When God created woman
he gave her not two breasts, but three.

When the middle one got in the way
God performed some surgery.

Woman then asked of God
with the middle breast in her hand;

"What do we do with the useless boob?"
And God created man.

4) A flood covered the entire surface of the earth --- except that there ain't no place to hide all the water. Even if you melted all the glaciers, ice caps, frosted over refrigerators, etc., and managed to take all of the water out of the atmosphere, the oceans would only rise a few meters. Far short of the 10,000 or so meters needed to cover everything. Not to mention the complete lack of physical evidence that such a world-wide flood ever happened, and the lack of a genetic bottleneck in all species at about the same time, some 4,000 (or so) ybp.

Besides, for all the insight that the judeo-christian holy tomes are supposed to have, they fail to describe even the simplest details of the structure of the earth, the orbits of the planets, the existence of galaxies, the rise of the Bill Gates (the anti-Christ if ever there was one), or the miracle of the '69 Mets.

If the bible can't get the big stuff right, how are we to trust it for the details?

Please refer to the third quote, below.

by sodbuster Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:47 am

Well bmd I guess you did not see the story on History channel.

i.e. when Elijah made the fire fall.

Or the Tower of Babel.

And other interesting stuff.

Examined from a scientific pt. of view.

by SamCogar Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:53 am

Sherman, the History channel is like Fox News, ....... they report it, ..... you decide.

.

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:15 am

bmd wrote:Well, let's look at the "biggies".

1) Earth, heavens, Detroit, etc., all created in a couple of days about 10,000 ybp --- Astrophysicists, astronomers, geologists, etc., would, i dare say, beg to differ. The oldest rocks of terrestrial origin have been reliably dated at about 4,000,000,000 years, as a random example.

2) Man was created out of dust, or clay, or whatever, a few days later --- Too bad museums full of fossils, a veritable shitload of comparative studies (morphology, biochemistry, embryology, etc.), and another veritable shitload of genetic studies come to a completely different conclusion.

3) Woman was created from man's rib --- I'm not even gonna justify that steaming pile of bs with a retort. Besides, don't they know:

When God created woman
he gave her not two breasts, but three.

When the middle one got in the way
God performed some surgery.

Woman then asked of God
with the middle breast in her hand;

"What do we do with the useless boob?"
And God created man.

4) A flood covered the entire surface of the earth --- except that there ain't no place to hide all the water. Even if you melted all the glaciers, ice caps, frosted over refrigerators, etc., and managed to take all of the water out of the atmosphere, the oceans would only rise a few meters. Far short of the 10,000 or so meters needed to cover everything. Not to mention the complete lack of physical evidence that such a world-wide flood ever happened, and the lack of a genetic bottleneck in all species at about the same time, some 4,000 (or so) ybp.

Besides, for all the insight that the judeo-christian holy tomes are supposed to have, they fail to describe even the simplest details of the structure of the earth, the orbits of the planets, the existence of galaxies, the rise of the Bill Gates (the anti-Christ if ever there was one), or the miracle of the '69 Mets.

If the bible can't get the big stuff right, how are we to trust it for the details?

Please refer to the third quote, below.

1. If God created the heaven and the earth in one day--which has at least got to be a possibility--then how old would the earth be on that first day? How old would it appear to be?

2. According to neo-Darwinian theory, the process that accounts for the evolution of all life is that of random mutations shaped by natural selection. The theory says that evolution is built up by a long series of many steps. In each step many random changes occur in the hereditary storage of organisms. If one of these random changes should by chance happen to make the organism better adapted to its environment, then natural selection will spread that change through the population. Each of these changes is said to be small, but the accumulation of a long series of them is said to account for large changes in populations adapting them to their environment. This process is assumed to work, and on the basis of that assumption evolution is said to account for the development of all life. bm'd, believe what you want. Both of us believe what we believe. To assume makes an ass out of you--not me.

3. If God can create, then God can create however he wants. Right? If you want to believe that somehow the junkyard blew up and all the pieces assembled into a 747 with the junkyard dog evolved into a pilot at the controls, then believe what you want.

4. Could there have been one land mass originally called by some Pangaea? Could this land mass have been relatively flat? Could the earth have been influenced by plate tectonics resulting in the land mass dividing, continents being formed and mountains being thrust up to heights far above any flood level? Could this have happened in a relativley short period of time? Every time I hear about fossilized animals, I hear a story about how all of these different animals came down to a river to get a drink, then a sudden flash flood covered them--intact--in mud. I don't find it any more difficult to believe in one universal flood than to believe in millions of simultaneous flash floods. bm'd, believe what you want.

If God gave us the details of the creation of one blade of grass, one volume could not contain it--and only you and God would be able to understand it. So, for us knuckle-draggers, God gave us the simple--but sublime--Truth. Believe what you want, bm'd.

by bmd Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:09 am

Armon Ayers wrote:
1. If God created the heaven and the earth in one day

BIG, HUMUNGOUS "IF"

Armon Ayers wrote:--which has at least got to be a possibility

Why????????????????????????????
Is there ANY empirical evidence to back up such an assumption??????? I know of absolutely NO, NIL, NADA, NONE.

Armon Ayers wrote:--then how old would the earth be on that first day? How old would it appear to be?

Doesn't matter, 'cause IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Armon Ayers wrote:
2. According to neo-Darwinian theory, the process that accounts for the evolution of all life is that of random mutations shaped by natural selection.

Not exactly. You really should learn at least the rudiments of evolutionary theory before you go on making a bloody fool of yourself.

Armon Ayers wrote:The theory says that evolution is built up by a long series of many steps.

OK, that part you have right.

Armon Ayers wrote: In each step many random changes occur in the hereditary storage of organisms. If one of these random changes should by chance happen to make the organism better adapted to its environment, then natural selection will spread that change through the population.

So far, so good (but I'm waiting for the fiery crash)

Armon Ayers wrote:Each of these changes is said to be small, but the accumulation of a long series of them is said to account for large changes in populations adapting them to their environment. This process is assumed to work,

No, it has been demonstrated to work.

Armon Ayers wrote:and on the basis of that assumption evolution is said to account for the development of all life. bm'd, believe what you want. Both of us believe what we believe. To assume makes an ass out of you--not me.

No, TH. There have been countless demonstrations of mutation, drift, selection, and fixation; both in the lab and in the field. We KNOW that it "works". The only assumption is that the ONLY assumption is that the only mechanisms we KNOW to be valid are valid for all organisms. Absent empirical evidence to the contrary, we have to accept that assumption to be valid.

Armon Ayers wrote:3. If God can create, then God can create however he wants. Right?

More "IFs". If the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe, then you're in deep do-do. How is the first if any more valid than the second? They're both BS.

Armon Ayers wrote:If you want to believe that somehow the junkyard blew up and all the pieces assembled into a 747 with the junkyard dog evolved into a pilot at the controls, then believe what you want.

More bullshit lies about how natural selection works. Doesn't that tome you thump say something about bearing false witness?

Armon Ayers wrote:4. Could there have been one land mass originally called by some Pangaea? Could this land mass have been relatively flat? Could the earth have been influenced by plate tectonics resulting in the land mass dividing, continents being formed and mountains being thrust up to heights far above any flood level?

Except for the flat part, you're OK here. Pangea was just the latest coalescence or the continents. It other words, plate tectonics had been in effect long before Pangea formed. As such, it had mountains. Again, if you don't want to sound stupid either learn a little more about a topic than that which fits your BS notions, or shut up.

Armon Ayers wrote:Could this have happened in a relativley short period of time?

NO. the mechanism of plate tectonics is far too slow. There is absolutely NO mechanism capable of moving continents at such rates. Besides, Pangea broke up HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO, not a few thousand years ago.

Armon Ayers wrote:Every time I hear about fossilized animals, I hear a story about how all of these different animals came down to a river to get a drink, then a sudden flash flood covered them--intact--in mud. I don't find it any more difficult to believe in one universal flood than to believe in millions of simultaneous flash floods. bm'd, believe what you want.

Where's all the water needed to cover the earth with 10,000m flood waters? Where is the evidence of genetic bottlenecks in ALL organisms from a few thousand years ago? Where's the geologic evidence of such a flood?

Armon Ayers wrote:Yada.....yada.....yada.....

TH,

You're only missing three things:

Evidence

Evidence

Evidence

Other than that.......

by Keli Tue Jan 27, 2009 10:19 am

bmd wrote:
Armon Ayers wrote:
1. If God created the heaven and the earth in one day

BIG, HUMUNGOUS "IF"

Armon Ayers wrote:--which has at least got to be a possibility

Why????????????????????????????
Is there ANY empirical evidence to back up such an assumption??????? I know of absolutely NO, NIL, NADA, NONE.

Armon Ayers wrote:--then how old would the earth be on that first day? How old would it appear to be?

Doesn't matter, 'cause IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Armon Ayers wrote:
2. According to neo-Darwinian theory, the process that accounts for the evolution of all life is that of random mutations shaped by natural selection.

Not exactly. You really should learn at least the rudiments of evolutionary theory before you go on making a bloody fool of yourself.

Armon Ayers wrote:The theory says that evolution is built up by a long series of many steps.
OK, that part you have right.

Armon Ayers wrote: In each step many random changes occur in the hereditary storage of organisms. If one of these random changes should by chance happen to make the organism better adapted to its environment, then natural selection will spread that change through the population.
So far, so good (but I'm waiting for the fiery crash)

Armon Ayers wrote:Each of these changes is said to be small, but the accumulation of a long series of them is said to account for large changes in populations adapting them to their environment. This process is assumed to work,

No, it has been demonstrated to work.

Armon Ayers wrote:and on the basis of that assumption evolution is said to account for the development of all life. bm'd, believe what you want. Both of us believe what we believe. To assume makes an ass out of you--not me.

No, TH. There have been countless demonstrations of mutation, drift, selection, and fixation; both in the lab and in the field. We KNOW that it "works". The only assumption is that the ONLY assumption is that the only mechanisms we KNOW to be valid are valid for all organisms. Absent empirical evidence to the contrary, we have to accept that assumption to be valid.

Armon Ayers wrote:3. If God can create, then God can create however he wants. Right?

More "IFs". If the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe, then you're in deep do-do. How is the first if any more valid than the second? They're both BS.

Armon Ayers wrote:If you want to believe that somehow the junkyard blew up and all the pieces assembled into a 747 with the junkyard dog evolved into a pilot at the controls, then believe what you want.

More bullshit lies about how natural selection works. Doesn't that tome you thump say something about bearing false witness?

Armon Ayers wrote:4. Could there have been one land mass originally called by some Pangaea? Could this land mass have been relatively flat? Could the earth have been influenced by plate tectonics resulting in the land mass dividing, continents being formed and mountains being thrust up to heights far above any flood level?

Except for the flat part, you're OK here. Pangea was just the latest coalescence or the continents. It other words, plate tectonics had been in effect long before Pangea formed. As such, it had mountains. Again, if you don't want to sound stupid either learn a little more about a topic than that which fits your BS notions, or shut up.

Armon Ayers wrote:Could this have happened in a relativley short period of time?
NO. the mechanism of plate tectonics is far too slow. There is absolutely NO mechanism capable of moving continents at such rates. Besides, Pangea broke up HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO, not a few thousand years ago.

Armon Ayers wrote:Every time I hear about fossilized animals, I hear a story about how all of these different animals came down to a river to get a drink, then a sudden flash flood covered them--intact--in mud. I don't find it any more difficult to believe in one universal flood than to believe in millions of simultaneous flash floods. bm'd, believe what you want.

Where's all the water needed to cover the earth with 10,000m flood waters? Where is the evidence of genetic bottlenecks in ALL organisms from a few thousand years ago? Where's the geologic evidence of such a flood?

Armon Ayers wrote:Yada.....yada.....yada.....

TH,

You're only missing three things:

Evidence

Evidence

Evidence

Other than that.......

bm'd,
Believe what you want. Afterall, it is a matter of faith. You believe in the deity of science, I believe in God--Who transcends science.

by SamCogar Tue Jan 27, 2009 10:22 am

Armon Ayers wrote:
Each of these changes is said to be small, but the accumulation of a long series of them is said to account for large changes in populations adapting them to their environment. This process is assumed to work,

Armon, and just where have you been telling all your Creationist believing friends ....... where you have been assuming all the varieties of domesticated animals came from?

Maybe from a magic invisible zoo that your God recently created here on earth and only you and Him/Her knows where it is.

And just where have you been telling all your Creationist believing friends ....... where you have been assuming all the new varieties of edible plants and fruits came from that never existed 500 years ago? Maybe also from a magic invisible greenhouse?

.

by ziggy Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:02 pm

More bullshit lies about how natural selection works. Doesn't that tome you thump say something about bearing false witness?

BMD, bearing false witness in furtherance of spreading religious Gospel is OK, don't you know? It is a trademark of almost all religious indoctrinators.

by bmd Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:28 pm

ziggy wrote:
More bullshit lies about how natural selection works. Doesn't that tome you thump say something about bearing false witness?

BMD, bearing false witness in furtherance of spreading religious Gospel is OK, don't you know? It is a trademark of almost all religious indoctrinators.

True. Me thinks that while doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, many (but, interestingly not all) preachers must take a Hypocritical Oath. I think TH took it twice, just to make sure.

by Aaron Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:35 pm

by sodbuster Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:16 pm

Well do you guys know that Elijah could have created "instant fire" by pouring water on the fuelwood for his sacrifice as the Bible says?

They did a recreation of it on the tv show I alluded to.

by SamCogar Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:12 pm

Pour some water on a big handful of metallic sodium ........ and you will have some "instant fire".

And if you try that in a pan or bowl ....... it might probably burn a hole right through the bottom of it.

by Sponsored content

Providing proof that Biblical claims are not so farfetched

Providing proof that Biblical claims are not so farfetched

Re: Providing proof that Biblical claims are not so farfetched

Re: Providing proof that Biblical claims are not so farfetched

Re: Providing proof that Biblical claims are not so farfetched

Re: Providing proof that Biblical claims are not so farfetched

Re: Providing proof that Biblical claims are not so farfetched

Re: Providing proof that Biblical claims are not so farfetched

Re: Providing proof that Biblical claims are not so farfetched

Re: Providing proof that Biblical claims are not so farfetched

Re: Providing proof that Biblical claims are not so farfetched

Re: Providing proof that Biblical claims are not so farfetched

Re: Providing proof that Biblical claims are not so farfetched

Re: Providing proof that Biblical claims are not so farfetched

Re: Providing proof that Biblical claims are not so farfetched

Re: Providing proof that Biblical claims are not so farfetched