Rob Osborn Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I asked you a question. I will answer nothing more from you until you answer me. What would it take to change your position? Ken Ham said nothing could. I wonder if you feel the same way. You have yet to answer this.You would have to completely destroy all scripture. Then the prophets would have to come out and say the whole thing about God and scripture is a fraud. Then the Church would have to fold. Then one woyld have to take all the evidence in the geologic column and destroy the whole of it. Then after all this one would have to come and brainwash me into not knowibg anything happened.
Rob Osborn Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Do you really want to claim these people.http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/17/judge-rules-against-creationist-teacher-who-called-buddhist-students-faith-stupid/Do you really want to claim the modern Darwin of our times- Dawkins? He hates Christians and thinks we as LDS are frauds.
David T Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 You would have to completely destroy all scripture. Then the prophets would have to come out and say the whole thing about God and scripture is a fraud. Then the Church would have to fold. Then one woyld have to take all the evidence in the geologic column and destroy the whole of it. Then after all this one would have to come and brainwash me into not knowibg anything happened.Its not possible in your mind that your approach to scripture might be mistaken? You are really willing to place all that Faith on your singular interpretational method? 1
katherine the great Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Testimony from a first hand witness is evidence, sis. Heck even testimony from a false witness is evidence too. I think what you mean is that you don't believe there was a global flood.Okay, let me rephrase that then. There is no credible evidence of a global flood. Evidence of a global flood during the timeframe that humans were on the earth would have to include broken fossil records (in Australia, Central America, Madagascar, etc.) with evidence that all living creatures migrated from the area they disembarked from the ark back to the area of their origin without leaving descendants along the way. The evidence would also have to include a pattern of DNA that points to recent common descent of all 7 billion living humans with a coalescence date of less than ten thousand years. It's absurd. It didn't happen. 3
cdowis Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 As I see, It comes down to the interpretation of scripture, the interpretation of the scientific evidence OR..... there are missing pieces of the puzzle. Both science and religion have unanswered questions with no indication of an answer in the near future. Whenever I consider a paradox in religion, I then think about quantum physics on the scientific side. I remember a dialogue on youtube, where Hawkins asked Dawkins a very simple question regarding his atheistic philosophy. The video then went into explosions and star bursts to avoid showing his drooling and slobbering while trying to answer the question.
Rob Osborn Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Its not possible in your mind that your approach to scripture might be mistaken? You are really willing to place all that Faith on your singular interpretational method?Hey, what can I say, all the evidence lines up with scripture. I have come from it from all angles and the scriptures appear to be correct.
bcuzbcuz Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Perhaps we should just burn the bible then?Looking through the lens of man...But believe this-9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend. (Mosiah 4:9)Burn the Bible? Aren't you being a little too melodramatic? The Bible makes interesting reading, why burn it?But that doesn't change the fact that the Bible, as we have it today, is a book made up of relatively modern parts. The first five books of the Christian "old" testament were composed just a little over 2600 years ago. By your calculation, that makes them 3400 years after the fact of your creation, and according to your chronology, the flood would have occurred around 2500-2300 BC, meaning the Tanakh/Torah was written 1900-1700 years after the fact.My point was simply this: Any story written down 2000 or more years after the events will get some details wrong. People's memories do not function like recalling information from a readable computer memory disk. In fact, people's memories function somewhat like Wikipedia. People can go in, knowledgable as well as unlearned, and change details. Most people are aware of their own fallability and try to leave details as they are, but others cannot resist the urge to "set the record straight". They change details. Human memory also suffers from the mere process of recall. One tidbit of information triggers a response from another part of the memory and changes occur in their re-telling of the story. An "eyewitness" to an event can mix up details, re-arranging details, changing time, place and even the people of an event.I can re-call telling events in my own children's growing up, saying son number 2 did such and such and their mother saying, "No, that wasn't son number 2 that did that, that was son number 3." An argument would then ensue as to who could recall the events best and which son was it, that did what. Now, I'm most certainly older than you and my kids have all grown up and flown the coop, but (despite my children saying the contrary), I'm not a drooling idiot.......yet. But don't you have similar stories of mixing up recall and getting details of an event wrong?Was it really so that Noah was 600 years old when he started building the ark? Or did the story change, somewhere along the line, and an extra zero get added to his age, and he was actually "only" 60 years old when he started such a massive building project? Was he 500 years old when he 'begat' Shem, Ham and Japheth? Or was he "only" 50?Admitting that the ages of Noah are incorrect, doesn't change the event, it doesn't mean that the whole story is false. It just means that the supposed chronology of the events are not a reliable way of determing the earth age of the event. The flood could have happened, but not at the date that Ken Ham or the 17th century James Ussher, said that it occurred. Ham and Ussher are/were, after all, humans, with human frailities. They could be wrong.
Anijen Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas. It is like administering medicine to the dead. With apologies to Thomas Payne (American Crisis). 1
volgadon Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Define "cultural differences" For example, the approach to large numbers. 1
volgadon Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 A relevant, recent find. http://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/1.580267 2
nosmelone Posted March 18, 2014 Author Posted March 18, 2014 A relevant, recent find. http://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/1.580267ya know its interesting that the article said it was found in digs that took place in 2007 and 2009. That is kind of confusing but it is interesting that it took 5-7 years for this to be reported.
katherine the great Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 ya know its interesting that the article said it was found in digs that took place in 2007 and 2009. That is kind of confusing but it is interesting that it took 5-7 years for this to be reported. Haha--kind of poorly written. One artifact found two years apart? Apparently their source wasn't sure if the wand was brought in during the first or second excavation.
Rob Osborn Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Burn the Bible? Aren't you being a little too melodramatic? The Bible makes interesting reading, why burn it?But that doesn't change the fact that the Bible, as we have it today, is a book made up of relatively modern parts. The first five books of the Christian "old" testament were composed just a little over 2600 years ago. By your calculation, that makes them 3400 years after the fact of your creation, and according to your chronology, the flood would have occurred around 2500-2300 BC, meaning the Tanakh/Torah was written 1900-1700 years after the fact.My point was simply this: Any story written down 2000 or more years after the events will get some details wrong. People's memories do not function like recalling information from a readable computer memory disk. In fact, people's memories function somewhat like Wikipedia. People can go in, knowledgable as well as unlearned, and change details. Most people are aware of their own fallability and try to leave details as they are, but others cannot resist the urge to "set the record straight". They change details. Human memory also suffers from the mere process of recall. One tidbit of information triggers a response from another part of the memory and changes occur in their re-telling of the story. An "eyewitness" to an event can mix up details, re-arranging details, changing time, place and even the people of an event.I can re-call telling events in my own children's growing up, saying son number 2 did such and such and their mother saying, "No, that wasn't son number 2 that did that, that was son number 3." An argument would then ensue as to who could recall the events best and which son was it, that did what. Now, I'm most certainly older than you and my kids have all grown up and flown the coop, but (despite my children saying the contrary), I'm not a drooling idiot.......yet. But don't you have similar stories of mixing up recall and getting details of an event wrong?Was it really so that Noah was 600 years old when he started building the ark? Or did the story change, somewhere along the line, and an extra zero get added to his age, and he was actually "only" 60 years old when he started such a massive building project? Was he 500 years old when he 'begat' Shem, Ham and Japheth? Or was he "only" 50?Admitting that the ages of Noah are incorrect, doesn't change the event, it doesn't mean that the whole story is false. It just means that the supposed chronology of the events are not a reliable way of determing the earth age of the event. The flood could have happened, but not at the date that Ken Ham or the 17th century James Ussher, said that it occurred. Ham and Ussher are/were, after all, humans, with human frailities. They could be wrong.The dates are right, mans understanding are not right.
bcuzbcuz Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 The dates are right, mans understanding are not right.Well, I know Anthony Quinn fathered a child when he was 81, but can you point me in the direction of any man.....living within the last couple of centuries, that comes anywhere close to Noah fathering three kids at the age of 600,( that's a six with TWO zeros after it)I stipulate the last couple of centuries because it simply is a lot easier to varify data that is more recent....instead of relying on tales or legends of age.OK, I give in. Name any man in the last 4 millenium, (that's a 4 followed with three zeros after it) that has fathered any children after he has reached the age of 100. It just doesn't happen.
volgadon Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 ya know its interesting that the article said it was found in digs that took place in 2007 and 2009. That is kind of confusing but it is interesting that it took 5-7 years for this to be reported. Haha--kind of poorly written. One artifact found two years apart? Apparently their source wasn't sure if the wand was brought in during the first or second excavation. It is a newspaper article, not an official archaeological report.
Rob Osborn Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Well, I know Anthony Quinn fathered a child when he was 81, but can you point me in the direction of any man.....living within the last couple of centuries, that comes anywhere close to Noah fathering three kids at the age of 600,( that's a six with TWO zeros after it)I stipulate the last couple of centuries because it simply is a lot easier to varify data that is more recent....instead of relying on tales or legends of age.OK, I give in. Name any man in the last 4 millenium, (that's a 4 followed with three zeros after it) that has fathered any children after he has reached the age of 100. It just doesn't happen.In the post flood world no one really lived old after that. Perhaps there was a change in the atmosphere or something that caused things to age differently or decay at a different rate. But just because man lives to a different age now doesn't mean that is how it has always been. The same goes for fathering children.http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/adam-and-noah-live
thesometimesaint Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Why? So you can laugh and hack at it. We already know each others references- each others sources and positions. False equivalency.
thesometimesaint Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 In the post flood world no one really lived old after that. Perhaps there was a change in the atmosphere or something that caused things to age differently or decay at a different rate. But just because man lives to a different age now doesn't mean that is how it has always been. The same goes for fathering children.http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/adam-and-noah-livehttp://gawker.com/watch-creationists-talking-about-creationism-1520841986
katherine the great Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 It is a newspaper article, not an official archaeological report.I know. But I'm an archaeologist and I can make fun of it if I want. 2
katherine the great Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 http://gawker.com/watch-creationists-talking-about-creationism-1520841986How do I know it is true? Because its God's word. How do I know it is God's word? Because its true... In my view, it's kind of lazy thinking.
Rob Osborn Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 False equivalency.Its called calling the kettle black. Were both guilty of ego blasting here. We each have our own sources and we each discout the others sources. its just a continual struggle that goes nowhere.
thesometimesaint Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 How do I know it is true? Because its God's word. How do I know it is God's word? Because its true... In my view, it's kind of lazy thinking. Agreed.
halconero Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 As I see, It comes down to the interpretation of scripture, the interpretation of the scientific evidence OR..... there are missing pieces of the puzzle. Both science and religion have unanswered questions with no indication of an answer in the near future. Whenever I consider a paradox in religion, I then think about quantum physics on the scientific side. I remember a dialogue on youtube, where Hawkins asked Dawkins a very simple question regarding his atheistic philosophy. The video then went into explosions and star bursts to avoid showing his drooling and slobbering while trying to answer the question. Interesting. Do you know which video?
Rob Osborn Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 http://gawker.com/watch-creationists-talking-about-creationism-1520841986You are like a stubborn machine- receive a certain type of input and it spits out a form answer- always the same, nere changing.Try updating your software for a change.
Rob Osborn Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 How do I know it is true? Because its God's word. How do I know it is God's word? Because its true... In my view, it's kind of lazy thinking."Hey Tom, how old is that bone"?"Well, we found it in a rock layer that was 10,000,000 years old""Well then Tom, how do you know that the rock is 10,000,000 years old"?"Well, it's because of the type of bone we found in it".... in my view, it's kind of lazy thinking.
Recommended Posts