Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ya think? I wonder why then you stated it could have come from Canada then? Point is it was and so was much of the OT
Quote:
His time just predates other text of the bible as he lived just after the flood. Job is probably the oldest text.
Probably is not definitive but sir your contradict
Quote:
This is considering that Genesis was a compilation by Moses. The original text of Genesis predates the book of Job and come from before the flood.
So Noah had a copy of the Torah then? So Moses did not write the Torah - I am so confused now BTW, the idea that Moses compiled the first five books is disputed by many scholars.
Bluethread feels that it is important for amateur Torah scholars to have a basic understanding of the documentary hypothesis in order to be able to evaluate the positions of commentors who are grounded in it.
Our tradition is that Moses wrote (or received) the entire Torah. However, scholars going back to the 2nd century CE, or for an example in medieval times, Ibn Ezra in the 12th century, found troubling evidence that Moses did not in fact write the Torah. For example, there are references in the Torah to Moses in the third person, such as his being modest, or naming Edomite kings (Gen. 36) that were known to have lived after Moses died.[Friedman, p. 19.] Subsequent scholars found more and more problems that suggested more than one source. Early in Exodus, for instance, 6:3 (P) and 3:14 (E), it is stated that the personal name of Yod-He-Vav-He was not employed prior to Moses. [Speiser, Genesis p. xxiii], even though that name permeates the book of Genesis.
In fact early bible's had the books names Mores 1, Moses 2... Just like the Scofield notes aka commentaries, they have become ingrained as fact when they are not.
Quote:
I think that your idea of culture is different then that presented in the bible. According to the bible we all come from Adam and Eve.
Were they white black or what? Please do not go the lame route of color vs. the equator again.
Quote:
After the flood Noah's sixteen grandson's became the fore-fathers of different nations. For example Eber became the father of the Hebrews. So, if you say from a different culture, Job may very well be a different culture or a descendant of a different grandson of Noah. This does not dillute the content of the book of Job who's story was past down in the Hebrew liniages as the histories prior to the flood belong to all nations, because it is every nations history.
A story passed down yes. Have you ever read the parallel account of Job where Abraham is the star of the script? Not in the bible but hauntingly similar. I cannot remember the name maybe "Acts of Abraham" but that google brings up no result. (Maybe someone else can help here with a link)
Your argument fails as it is circular. You assume (your belief) we are all descended from Adam hence you arrive back at the conclusion that Job was a descendant of Adam.
You take the creation story literal - I and many others do not. You take YEC to be true, I and many others do not.
The Assyriologist and SumerologistSamuel Noah Kramer in his 1959 book History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine "Firsts" in Recorded History (1956), provided a translation of a Sumerian text which Professor Kramer argued evinces a parallel with the Biblical story of Job. Professor Kramer drew an inference that the Hebrew version is in some way derived from a Sumerian predecessor.
See Ludlul bēl nēmeqi
Later interpolations and additions
Various interpolations have been claimed to have been made in the text of the central poem. The most common such claims are of two kinds: the "parallel texts", which are parallel developments of the corresponding passages in the base text, and the speeches of Elihu (Chapters 32-37), which consist of a polemic against the ideas expressed elsewhere in the poem, and so are claimed to be interpretive interpolations. The speeches of Elihu (who is not mentioned in the prologue) are claimed to contradict the fundamental opinions expressed by the "friendly accusers" in the central body of the poem, according to which it is impossible that the righteous should suffer, all pain being a punishment for some sin. Elihu, however, reveals that suffering may be decreed for the righteous as a protection against greater sin, for moral betterment and warning, and to elicit greater trust and dependence on a merciful, compassionate God in the midst of adversity.
Dentation does not dictate diet. Sharp teeth and Sharp claws do not mean that an animal must eat meat. Animals prior to the flood ate vegetation. Post flood environment, they began to eat mean. lions did not have teeth like a cow. They had teeth like they do today they just eat meat now. Deer in Alaska eat small birds. Have their teeth suddenly become sharp? No, they have remained the same.
You ignore the digestive tracts required for eating vegetation. A cow has three and chews the cud. Look up what that means. Animals like cows are prone to predators hence they eat fast and then regurgitate while laying under a tree and then re chew the grass. If you look a little deeper and see more on the digestive systems, what's involved, you will realize that teeth is not the only thing. The argument as far as claws is ridiculous as that is why they have them, the tools of their trade.
But what would be more interesting is a scripture that actually states all animals were herbivores. Don't forget the sharks and killer whales. This is all just spin to try and make logic fit illogic when it comes to the ark.
Pretty stupid of God to give lions claws and carnivore teeth it did not need.
Adam did not name species. Species is a modern (not well defined) classification. You can look at dog and regardless whether it is a terrier or a great dane they are both dog.
Nope that is not what it says. Amazing when confronted the YEC inerrant bible folk back away from what is written in the bible.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.
But staying with your argument, you actually then agree to mutation and evolution albeit in a 4000 year time-scale.
Quote:
Humans have bread out traits, but this is not evolution. Throw all the dogs together in one room for a couple generations and you will end up with dog. More similar to original dog God created.
Methinks not. What will happen is survival of the fittest and thus your argument fails again. You really think an alpha male German Shepherd is going to let a chewowow (sp?) mount his lady friend?
Quote:
Same is with humans. All our different colored skin comes from two people. Mendels law shows how you can have predictable traits in offspring.
Methinks you are misquoting here. Different traits are passed on from the male and female hence even in a black white relationship, (having plenty of children) there will be cases of whiter or darker children.
Assuming my wife and I were able to reproduce indefinitely, we would keep producing white children. They would all resemble us primarily or take on traits of our parents who's genes we inherited.
Even Mendel's experiments consisted of already different existing hybrids and seeing his were restricted to plants, peas to be exact, I am sure there are other factors to be considered in human biology. Take the mutants born post Hiroshima (mostly stillborn) Google you will find pics.
Quote:
If Darwin knew Mendels work, he would have thrown his own theory out.
No it did not throw his theory out.
Charles Robert Darwin FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist..
The laws of inheritance were derived by Gregor Mendel, a 19th century [1] monk conducting hybridization experiments in garden peas (Pisum sativum). Between 1856 and 1863, he cultivated and tested some 29,000 pea plants.
Unless you can prove Darwin did not know of Mendel, I have to call you on this one. In fact here it is:
Mendel's conclusions were largely ignored. Although they were not completely unknown to biologists of the time, they were not seen as generally applicable, even by Mendel himself, who thought they only applied to certain categories of species or traits. A major block to understanding their significance was the importance attached by 19th Century biologists to the apparent blending of inherited traits in the overall appearance of the progeny, now known to be due to multigene interactions
FAIL!
Do you not look at modern biology experts? Must all your YEC scientists you cite be dead? Science is dynamic and not static, we learn experiential.
From Wiki Thomas Hunt Morgan and his assistants later integrated the theoretical model of Mendel with the chromosome theory of inheritance, in which the chromosomes of cells were thought to hold the actual hereditary material, and create what is now known as classical genetics, which was extremely successful and cemented Mendel's place in history.
See a new perspective incorporating his findings. Nowhere does it suggest that one pair of humans could produce multiple traits. Unless you had a mixed gene pool to begin with (Eve was a clone of Adam) the likelihood of multiple races is thus implausible.
A Mendelian trait is one that is controlled by a single locus and shows a simple Mendelian inheritance pattern. In such cases, a mutation in a single gene can cause a disease that is inherited according to Mendel's laws. Examples include sickle-cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis and xeroderma pigmentosa. A disease controlled by a single gene contrasts with a multi-factorial disease, like arthritis, which is affected by several loci (and the environment) as well as those diseases inherited in a non-Mendelian fashion. The Mendelian Inheritance in Man database is a catalog of, among other things, genes in which Mendelian traits causes disease.
Disease <> race
This was a quick peruse so I may not have captured it all. Feel free to contribute.
What soul? The mythological "soul" doesn't exist. When a person dies, there's no life force or consciousness that continues on, you're just dead. Therefore, your "soul" never evolved and never existed.
there is no life force, sorry but this contradicts with the theory scientist or should i say evolutionist use. life cannot begin from nothing, evolutionist state that the universe begun from matter. a kind of force
The big bang thoery sounds like a fraud to my understanding, most notable gesture is a stupid child's imagination trying to be clever. i was more surprised that evolution is not taught as part of science in Malaysian schools when i spoke to my malaysian chinese friend. She first heard it from me, and she's studying a degree based on science and technology; how ironic.
Yet here in the west we want to accept fraud and it is fraud that makes millions of cash. I think evolution is not science it's more like an atheist religion, A religion that defends itse;f by using science, which does not comply
Last edited by jackdonekings; 03-31-2009 at 07:10 AM..
there is no life force, sorry but this contradicts with the theory scientist or should i say evolutionist use. life cannot begin from nothing, evolutionist the universe started from matter. a kind of force
all this big bang thoery sounds like a fraud to my understanding, i was more surprised that evolution is not taught as part of science in Malaysian schools when i spoke to my malaysian chinese friend. She first heard it from me, and she's studying a degree based on science and technology; how ironic.
Yet here in the west we want to accept fraud and it is fraud that makes millions of cash. I think evolution is not science it's more like an atheist religion
Wow do try and keep up this thread is already 70 something pages, you quoting from page 1. The soul matter was dropped ages ago.
Just curious as to the religion of evolution.
Who is the deity or what is his/her name?
What is THE holy book of evolution?
What is the article of faith of evolution?
As for money making, there are no believers in evolution that are making speeches, selling books and tapes aka snake oil salesman. If you know of one please post a link to his/her website.
5. If fossils are in order, why do we find fossils that are just as complex found in the cambrian layers?
Like rabbits in the Cambrian?
Quote:
6. As I pointed out, News in Science tells us the older the material tested, the less reliable the results become. Five samples of rock from Mt. St. Helens was tested not that long ago. The results were less then impressive. Yet if they did not know the actual age of the rock, many here would of believed those dates today as being confirmed true by science. Consider the link below.
The rocks in question from Mt St Helens did not go through a liquid state prior to ejection from the volcano. Therefore, K-Ar dating cannot be used. That method assumes that all of the Ar gas found within a given sample is a result of the decay of the K since the rock hardened; prior to that time, when the rock is in a liquid phase, the Ar simply gets away.
What is disturbing about this particular claim (that is, the one creationists typically make in this instance), according to this particular expert, is that those rocks are known not to have gone through the liquid phase shortly before they were ejected, and therefore that any K-Ar dates they yield are known not to give the date at which they were ejected. That is, all of this was known by the creationist "experts", so (as in the case with the RATE project) it is substantially about integrity.
The rocks in question from Mt St Helens did not go through a liquid state prior to ejection from the volcano. Therefore, K-Ar dating cannot be used. That method assumes that all of the Ar gas found within a given sample is a result of the decay of the K since the rock hardened; prior to that time, when the rock is in a liquid phase, the Ar simply gets away.
Campbell and Nikk should take time and read up on it. Maybe then you will stop posting and recycling stuff that has already been debunked thoroughly.
In the past w/o the tubes, the truth could be with held from the masses. Anyone with google sense can find the rebuttals (well written and properly contextualized with the proper links)
You guys really need to come up with some new material.
Of course, those who would embrace that belief, are usually those who do not actually believe the Bible anyway. Some folks go to great lengths to explain away the written Word. Dinosaurs eyes very well may of had a glow to them, and it has nothing to do with a mythical belief. Some animals eyes do glow at night. Consider the link below.
Animals eyes never "glow" unless they've been around the Hanford Nuclear Reserve too long. They do, however, reflect light due to an excess of quanine crystals deposited (via evlutionary adaptation) into the back of their retinas. Hence, when you shine your LED light at your pet cat at night, with her eyes wide open, it reflects back from those little mirrors. That way, the light travels through the light-sensitive neurons, then reflects and hits them again. Twice the bang for the one lumen buck!
No glowing eyes. Only in mythology. You've been mis-led again. See: Lord of The Rings (which, BTW, is far more believable than the bible to me, so I chose to believe it versus Genesis! Afre all, I saw it all, right there on the TV screen (wide-Screen, Blu-Ray Edition, which means "It's True!")
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
As for testing carbon ON the figurines- I don't know enough about this field. I'm sure Rifleman or SeekerSA would know more about how that's done.
My questions would be: Would someone be able to tell if some type of organic material was caked onto the object afterwards, or if it had been ON the object for a long time? What if the object was very recent but had been buried later in soil that contained organic material that was thousands of years old?
Well then, you'd be dating the outer deposits. If you smeared old mammoth tissue onto an ancient artifact, and then aged it, you'd have to define what it was that you were sampling. That does not make the underlying artifact just as old (or young) as the smeared mammoth tissue, Jay.
Dating technicians are extremely careful to pick out just a small part of what they are testing. It's not like I'm sure Tom imagines, that they toss it, whole and uncleaned, into a microwave-like box, and a date appears on the front screen ("This Mexican Artifact was made in 1765!"). Outside materials, also coincidnetally referred to as "artifacts", are always cleaned off, or some tiny piece of the item under investigation is placed in the sensor system. Generally, again, not the whole "enchilada".
Science is too careful for such gross mishandling of a potentially valuable sample. That sort of thing is reserved for pseudo-scientific "investigations".
Again, RadioCarbon dating compares the remnant percentage levels of the inherently unstable C14 isotope that was taken up along with regular C12 when an organism was alive. Ceramic figurines do not "take up" anything, especially hydro-carbon organic material (such as grass, animal meat, etc.) That uptake is categorically required in order to then take the old dead artifact and compare the amount of residual C14 isotope (which decays at a known and constant rate) to the still existing and very stable C12. The longer an organism (not EVER a ceramic coffee cup or play-dough toy) has been dead, the more the original resident C14 isotope has decayed, so it's relative percentage is exponentially reduced over a known time frame.
The varability in this technique relates to the fact that relative amounts of C14 versus C12 have varied slightly over time. Globally, at any point in history, the relative amounts have been pretty stable. But never "zero" as would have to be the case for it to be un-usable as a dating technique. But now, from countless millions of tersts, we pretty much know the limitations of it. One is, and always was, again, (repeat repeat), that it is pointedly USELESS on dating inorganic (such as ceramic or stone) items. If there was some donkey poo or old carbon ash on the outside of it, so what? Clean it off; that's not what we're aging. Only a desperate or purposefully deceptive cretin would confuse the two.
Even if these artifacts were immersed in a primordial broth of organic soup (which they were not, by accounts. Just soil), we're aging the artifact, not the surrounding soil. Was there evidence that the soil was undisturbed in over 4000 years, being in a local farming community and only 3 - 4 feet down, soft and loamy as described? No.
That's like saying the soil in my vegetable garden is reliably undisturbed at a level of 3 feet down. H$ll, I roto-till to a depth of 2 feet, and the gophers and earthworms do the rest! A bit of erosion, a bit of additional soil deposition from leaves etc. over that imaginary 4000 years, and we hardly have undisturbed soil here, now do we?
but, by his own statement, C34 believes this account despite factual opints to the contrary. What can yah do, eh?
While you sorta answered some of my questions, Tom, there's still that big one:
If your dating techniques and the scientists who did them are so reliable, and you defend them so vigorously, what about when they indicate that a dino fossil is 65 M years old? Though as I note so carefully above, with the El Toro figurines, they DID absolutely use the wrong techniques for the situation.
Ooooppps. But then, according to you, scientists are always sorta iffy and not to be trusted, right, Tom? Except now, right?
So... I'm quite confused. Should we only believe your scientists and their interpretations, and toss out all the carefully reasoned research and conclusions of literally tens of thousands of other ethical, honest and curious scientists & students the world over? But why? What did they do wrong?, aside from possibly questioning myths?
But if we do believe your heros, just to give them some considerable benefit of the doubt, what then should we also believe about what other, more credible, scientists have proven about the ages of their dino bones? The ones we've found literally all over the world, located exactly at depths predicted by evolution and not by myth?
I'm really confused, Tom! Help me here!
The only ones to be trusted are these Alcambera types, despite the fact that their credibility has been very much brought into question many many times.
Well, there you answered it. "The only ones to be trusted" are yours. Tom hath spoken, and it is thus!
But, do tell me why, Tom. Why? It doesn't make sense to me to toss out everythingelse that's been learned and carefully studied, only to then blindly agree with the least likely exlanation!!!
to that point, you really should read about Ockham's Razor. Read it. Educate yourself; it's secular so it won't scare you.
Dentation does not dictate diet. Sharp teeth and Sharp claws do not mean that an animal must eat meat. Animals prior to the flood ate vegetation. Post flood environment, they began to eat mean.
...you mean meat, don't you? Let's not assign attitudes, NIKK!
And it's not mandated as "must eat meat" as you so oddly try to imply, but it surely is a clear definer of their particular niche. They, unlike us, don't have a lot of dinner choices. "Let's see; shall I eat seals or lettuce this evening?", sayeth the wild polar bear out on the Arctic Ice in January.
lions did not have teeth like a cow. They had teeth like they do today they just eat meat now. Deer in Alaska eat small birds. Have their teeth suddenly become sharp? No, they have remained the same.
But their dentition is highly optimized for vegetation, and they only rarely eat small birds, which are notoriously hard to catch, esp. by a deer. You , however, want to imply that they have some ease and facility in carnivorous behaviour. Silliness, and you know it. My cat also eats grass, but it's hardly an herbivore, It just needs to vomit from time to time, like all good predatory carnivores,NIKK. Go take biology/ecology 001.
To set the record straight and correct yuor mis-information: Dentition, excluding micro-exclusions and tidbit variances, does exactly define eating behaviour and diet. Co-existant Vegan T-rexs happliy munching on oatmeal indeed! Wild animals, usually under significant and constant nutritional stress, do not have the time to "make do" with dentition that isn't precisely adapted to their diet. What hog-tripe!
Adam did not name species. Species is a modern (not well defined) classification. You can look at dog and regardless whether it is a terrier or a great dane they are both dog.
True. Both the same species. Canis, genus domesticus. Known for hundreds of years. nolo contendere!
Humans have bread out traits, but this is not evolution.
It can be. I'ts just been forced, not through "natural selection", but the end-result can be identical.
Throw all the dogs together in one room for a couple generations and you will end up with dog. More similar to original dog God created. Same is with humans. All our different colored skin comes from two people. Mendels law shows how you can have predictable traits in offspring. If Darwin knew Mendels work, he would have thrown his own theory out.
Your understanding of even the most base theoretical mechanics of Evolution is appallingly bad, NIKK. But then, as I recall from your past posts, your understanding of science as a simple tool is equally incomplete. I won't bother to try to educate you; it surely hasen't worked for Tom, and unlike such folk, I tend to learn from my mistakes.
Suffice to say though, as a categorical truth, you are completely wrong in any statements you make about Evolution.'s fallacy Proven time and again. An interesting position to be in during a supposedly intellectual debate about a topic, wouldn't you agree?
You might also want to read about Ockham's Oh-so Logical Razor. Before you completely bury yourself in your own intellectual offal!
Last edited by rifleman; 03-31-2009 at 02:34 PM..
Reason: clarifications
Just consider the continual misquoting and misrepresentation of radiometric work on the Hawaiian lava of 1801, claiming it gives dates up to 3 billion years. If one reads the papers this comes from it is soon apparent that the researchers were testing how reliable radiometric age-dating was, and where certain types of rock cannot be used.
A little more on this; A commonly cited example is lavas from Hawaii, which were "dated" in the 60s. “In 1968 scientists applied radiometric dating to some rocks which were known to be less than 170 years old. [1801 eruption on Hualalai.] The radioactive ages determined for those 170 year-old rocks ranged from 160 million to 3 billion years.” (Ackermann 1991 p81) Ackermann then commented, “Obviously, something is wrong with this method.” However if one reads the paper cited[1] a very different picture emerges. The material dated were ultramafic inclusions in the lava, which were mantle material and not lava.
The geochronologist Brent Dalrymple made this clear in 1982, but the Hualalai example is still cited today.
During these 25 years Dalrymple's criticisms were simply ignored.
------------------------------------------ [1] Funkhouser and Naughton, "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii," Journal for Geophysical Research 73, No 14 4601-7)
Those who misquote all this include Morris, Monty white,and many others. Can anyone explain why they still cite this 25 years after Dalrymple exploded it?
With the incessant misquotation and misrepresentation by so many these questions of false accusations, misrepresentation must be faced and answered.
Now you do realize that is not Tom you are debating with right ??? Again, it's Ryan. Tom's a bit immobile and hooked up to Kidney dialysis.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Point is it was and so was much of the OT
BTW, the idea that Moses compiled the first five books is disputed by many scholars.
Nonsense Lessons #3
