Liars in Genesis: "6-7k" year-old Allosaurus

[realibrad]

Cannot disagree here, good points.



Of course, and that's the point, really, and people are colored by prejudice (as you well know with religious history) and other biases.

Not saying that science has this problem to the extent religion did, but I do understand that its hard to be objective, particularly if you happen to be one who gave strong and unwavering support for [insert theory here].



Agree, and this is a fair point.



Agree.



..but I don't need science to understand that if I walk off the ledge of a building, I will fall down to the ground.




Under this definition, anything can qualify as a myth.



I've read this before myself.



Well, with religion, things in holy books can be questioned, but not disproved per se'. So people end up simply deciding if that is something reasonable to believe, or if they're holy book has the credibility needed to trust what it says.

For example, if there is a God (as I believe him to be) would it be impossible for him/it to part a body of water? There is something the creator of the Universe cannot do?

That's just me, though.

Another problem is that religion is not confined to how all things started. Religion also talks about the past. There is a complete lack of evidence of a global flood, other than religious texts. So when a story is told and there is a complete lack of physical evidence, do we hold it as true, likely true, likely false or false? One thing is for sure, its impossible to disprove a negative.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

..but I don't need science to understand that if I walk off the ledge of a building, I will fall down to the ground.

Well, you kinda do. You have to make the same assumptions about reality that science requires. Particularly, you must assume that the universe is regular, which is just another way of saying you must assume that your observed phenomena are free of "supernatural" effects.

That means you expect gravity to act the same way it did in the past, and you won't suddenly go floating up into the air. That also means that you expect water to stay water, and not suddenly change to wine. That also means you expect bodies which have been dead for three days to remain dead.

The whole point here is that you only put on the "clothes" of naturalism when it suits you, but are perfectly happy to run naked as a jaybird when you want to protect your beliefs in the magical fairy tales of your pet religion.

 

[Retro Rob]

Another problem is that religion is not confined to how all things started. Religion also talks about the past. There is a complete lack of evidence of a global flood, other than religious texts. So when a story is told and there is a complete lack of physical evidence, do we hold it as true, likely true, likely false or false? One thing is for sure, its impossible to disprove a negative.

I've noticed that a lot of people really like to harp on the Flood, and not because it is recorded in the Bible, but because of most things that are mentioned, this one is seems like a "slam dunk...we've finally disproven something in the Bible" -- because science can actually test this claim, which makes it technically disprovable.

I don't hold the view that God deliberately hid the evidence of a flood, or that God snapped his fingers and the evidence suspiciously dried up...I just hold the view that of it did happen, evidence will eventually be found, or it may not ever because it simply isn't there, and never happened.

I do believe it did happen, though, because I do believe the Bible is telling me the truth...and I do believe that anything with supernatural origins won't leave much, if any, natural evidence behind. We will never prove Jesus rose from the dead, or that angels exists, or that God exists, or that a virgin became pregnant through a miracle, etc.

However, if you believe it didn't happen, then you have ample reason reject it.

My other views on this is that the subject is extremely taboo, and anyone going out to see if there is evidence of a Noachian Flood would be laughed out of town, personally. I did read some time ago that some religious guys from the UK (in the 1800s, IIRC) tried to find evidence for it, but nothing turned up.

I guess that basically ended that quest!

 

[realibrad]

I've noticed that a lot of people really like to harp on the Flood, and not because it is recorded in the Bible, but because of most things that are mentioned, this one is seems like a "slam dunk...we've finally disproven something in the Bible" -- because science can actually test this claim, which makes it technically disprovable.

I don't hold the view that God deliberately hid the evidence of a flood, or that God snapped his fingers and the evidence suspiciously dried up...I just hold the view that of it did happen, evidence will eventually be found, or it may not ever because it simply isn't there, and never happened.

I do believe it did happen, though, because I do believe the Bible is telling me the truth...and I do believe that anything with supernatural origins won't leave much, if any, natural evidence behind. We will never prove Jesus rose from the dead, or that angels exists, or that God exists, or that a virgin became pregnant through a miracle, etc.

However, if you believe it didn't happen, then you have ample reason reject it.

My other views on this is that the subject is extremely taboo, and anyone going out to see if there is evidence of a Noachian Flood would be laughed out of town, personally. I did read some time ago that some religious guys from the UK (in the 1800s, IIRC) tried to find evidence for it, but nothing turned up.

I guess that basically ended that quest!

The wall that science seems to always run up against when it comes to religion is lack of evidence in either direction. A global flood would leave huge amounts of data. The only way it could have happened is if God removed the data we look for. The event would have caused so much havoc and death that we should see something. Yet, we see noting that points to a global flood.

Much in the same way that one cannot disprove Jesus walked on water, one cannot disprove Evolution or Creationism. The difference is that we have data and conclusions that we can then test with evolution, but not of the other 2. So why hold onto religion?

 

[Retro Rob]

The wall that science seems to always run up against when it comes to religion is lack of evidence in either direction. A global flood would leave huge amounts of data. The only way it could have happened is if God removed the data we look for. The event would have caused so much havoc and death that we should see something. Yet, we see noting that points to a global flood.

I kind of disagree with the bold because the amount of havoc and death would be dependent upon how much life was around to be wiped out, and where we would find fossils.

For instance, if mammoths and rhino's were found in different places, or if they died suddenly (like while still eating).

I admittedly haven't done much research into the "lack of evidence" for the flood, to be honest.

So why hold onto religion?

I adhere to Christianity because the Bible answers life's questions; "why are we here and where did we come from", and "why is there so much badness and evil in the world", despite being in a world with what I consider are mostly good people.

Secondly, the Bible (or portions then completed) was copied over and over again, and that's because people used it everyday. I do not believe that writers (whomever you believe them to be) would record history about what happened during or after an event to make it appear legit, and then sprinkle in deliberate falsehoods (miracles, etc) with the intent to deliberately deceive people.

It was copied for use within its contemporaneous generation, and I simply reject the idea that nearly everyone was too ignorant to check their facts using whatever means they did. There were no scientists back then, but there were scholars and historians...people who studied texts and history.

If the bible writers were clever enough to make people believe bullcrap, then I think there were folks equally intelligent enough to sift through apparent and obvious bullcrap.

That is not proof that the Bible is true, though, but one reason why I believe it to be.

 

[realibrad]

I kind of disagree with the bold because the amount of havoc and death would be dependent upon how much life was around to be wiped out, and where we would find fossils.

For instance, if mammoths and rhino's were found in different places, or if they died suddenly (like while still eating).

I admittedly haven't done much research into the "lack of evidence" for the flood, to be honest.

I adhere to Christianity because the Bible answers life's questions; "why are we here and where did we come from", and "why is there so much badness and evil in the world", despite being in a world with what I consider are mostly good people.

Secondly, the Bible (or portions then completed) was copied over and over again, and that's because people used it everyday. I do not believe that writers (whomever you believe them to be) would record history about what happened during or after an event to make it appear legit, and then sprinkle in deliberate falsehoods (miracles, etc) with the intent to deliberately deceive people.

It was copied for use within its contemporaneous generation, and I simply reject the idea that nearly everyone was too ignorant to check their facts using whatever means they did. There were no scientists back then, but there were scholars and historians...people who studied texts and history.

If the bible writers were clever enough to make people believe bullcrap, then I think there were folks equally intelligent enough to sift through apparent and obvious bullcrap.

That is not proof that the Bible is true, though, but one reason why I believe it to be.

The havoc and death would not be limited to animals, but plant life as well. You would see a layer over the entire earth of death.

As for the belief that smart people would have been able to sift through the incorrect parts, I think you are wrong there.

99% of people were not around to see what happened in 1 place. Stories of magic and wonder were abundant back then, because people did not know what was going on. It was not out of their realm, because they did not know what was possible. So you would not have seen much from the smart people questioning the religions back then. Not to mention, that questioning a religion back then could easily mean harm or death. I don't find your argument to be compelling in this context.

 

[Retro Rob]

As for the belief that smart people would have been able to sift through the incorrect parts, I think you are wrong there.

Ok.

99% of people were not around to see what happened in 1 place. Stories of magic and wonder were abundant back then, because people did not know what was going on. It was not out of their realm, because they did not know what was possible. So you would not have seen much from the smart people questioning the religions back then. Not to mention, that questioning a religion back then could easily mean harm or death. I don't find your argument to be compelling in this context.

You must not be aware of the fact that the Bible specifically condemned magic, fortune-telling, astrology, under penalty of death. (Leviticus 19:26, 20:27, Deuteronomy 18:10-14).

So you're right, most people did, but not those who wrote the Bible.

 

[realibrad]

Ok.

You must not be aware of the fact that the Bible specifically condemned magic, fortune-telling, astrology, under penalty of death. (Leviticus 19:26, 20:27, Deuteronomy 18:10-14).

So you're right, most people did, but not those who wrote the Bible.

Come now, lets not argue over semantics. I said people of that era, and not Christians of that era. Further more, many Christians believed that magic was possible, just that it was not allowed because it was evil. Your very quote shows that it was possible, as to kill someone for magic would only have been possible if magic were possible.

My point is that questioning the stories in the bible would not have been likely, because of the 2 main reasons I pointed out. 1, that the stories were possible from the perspective of the people back then. 2, that speaking against the religion could have meant terrible things to the person.

BTW, lets not get into Leviticus, as he was kinda a douche bag. I dont need to quote why, as I'm sure you already know the reasons.

 

[Retro Rob]

Come now, lets not argue over semantics. I said people of that era, and not Christians of that era. Further more, many Christians believed that magic was possible, just that it was not allowed because it was evil. Your very quote shows that it was possible, as to kill someone for magic would only have been possible if magic were possible.

So what? The important thing is that whether or not they believed it was possible, it was condemned....they were not to follow or believe practicers of magic, so its hard for me to accept that they would believe in magical claims period.

Secondly, there were no "Christians" of that era, as Christianity didn't come into play until a thousand years or so after those verses I showed you were written.

My point is that questioning the stories in the bible would not have been likely, because of the 2 main reasons I pointed out. 1, that the stories were possible from the perspective of the people back then.

Of course, because they were distinct from the 99 percent of magical stories then, and magic was condemned.

For instance, the story about Elijah and the Baal prophets was a unique one, as Baal prophets were "cutting themselves until blood ran and yelling at the tops of their voices" for their god to consume an animal. This went on for hours -- nothing happened.

All Elijah did was pray to Yahweh, wet the sacrifice and even filled the trench around it with water, and God consumed it instantly along with the water.

Those stories would be more acceptable because they lacked the ritualistic chanting and begging, rain-dancing, sacred-pole bowing garbage nearly all religions practiced back then.

They could tell the difference.

that speaking against the religion could have meant terrible things to the person.

You don't speak against something you accept as truth.

BTW, lets not get into Leviticus, as he was kinda a douche bag. I dont need to quote why, as I'm sure you already know the reasons.

No changing the subject.

 

[realibrad]

So what? The important thing is that whether or not they believed it was possible, it was condemned....they were not to follow or believe practicers of magic, so its hard for me to accept that they would believe in magical claims period.

Secondly, there were no "Christians" of that era, as Christianity didn't come into play until a thousand years or so after those verses I showed you were written.




Of course, because they were distinct from the 99 percent of magical stories then, and magic was condemned.

For instance, the story about Elijah and the Baal prophets was a unique one, as Baal prophets were "cutting themselves until blood ran and yelling at the tops of their voices" for their god to consume an animal. This went on for hours -- nothing happened.

All Elijah did was pray to Yahweh, wet the sacrifice and even filled the trench around it with water, and God consumed it instantly along with the water.

Those stories would be more acceptable because they lacked the ritualistic chanting and begging, rain-dancing, sacred-pole bowing garbage nearly all religions practiced back then.

They could tell the difference.



You don't speak against something you accept as truth.




No changing the subject.

I think you missed my point about magic. You said part of the reason you believe is that you figure smart people would have looked at the stories and said, thats not true. From the perspective of people back then, amazing things were possible, even if they were not. So to hear a story of a man that walked on water would not have been too crazy. Zeus used to throw lighting from a mountain top, so crazy stores have been around for a while.

Also, if you think they did not believe in magic, then I'm not totally sure what to say. I mean, they had laws against doing magic, not just trying to do magic.

My point is that people accepted the stories, because it was not anything outside of what they thought was possible. As for people who were around and did not agree with what happened back then, they are called Jews.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Did man descend from apes?

All hominids are apes, of course the hominid that is the ancestor to humans was an ape just like all humans are per taxonomical definition apes too.

Or did man and apes descend from a common, ape-like ancestor?

You can't get more ape like than an actual ape, can you? So yes to that too.

It is NOT my fault that you don't get even the basics of taxonomy and thus cannot comprehend even the simplest things on the subject.

Both have huge support but both can't be right.

They both can and are correct except in the minds of those who know nothing and are entirely unwilling to learn anything beyond third grade biology.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Well, you kinda do. You have to make the same assumptions about reality that science requires. Particularly, you must assume that the universe is regular, which is just another way of saying you must assume that your observed phenomena are free of "supernatural" effects.

That means you expect gravity to act the same way it did in the past, and you won't suddenly go floating up into the air. That also means that you expect water to stay water, and not suddenly change to wine. That also means you expect bodies which have been dead for three days to remain dead.

The whole point here is that you only put on the "clothes" of naturalism when it suits you, but are perfectly happy to run naked as a jaybird when you want to protect your beliefs in the magical fairy tales of your pet religion.

As a test of true faith why not just walk off a tall building, if god actually gives a fuck about you he'll save your arse.

NOTE, i don't actually want anyone except a select few people to do this and none of them are posters on this forum.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

I've noticed that a lot of people really like to harp on the Flood, and not because it is recorded in the Bible, but because of most things that are mentioned, this one is seems like a "slam dunk...we've finally disproven something in the Bible" -- because science can actually test this claim, which makes it technically disprovable.

The term you are looking for is falsifiable, and yes, any claim that something happened in the natural world is subject to falsifiability.

I don't hold the view that God deliberately hid the evidence of a flood, or that God snapped his fingers and the evidence suspiciously dried up...I just hold the view that of it did happen, evidence will eventually be found, or it may not ever because it simply isn't there, and never happened.

You think the laws of physics will eventually change while remaining unchanged since the dawn of time itself? The physics of the event is impossible in this universe, make up another universe and pretend it happened there because it sure as hell didn't happen in this universe.
If the skies opened to rain down that much water everyone would drown standing, right there, it would create a local flood in every single place and cause mudslides that would drive everything into the oceans, an ark would be flooded and destroyed in minutes. This isn't even counting the amount of animals, food, shit, clean water that would have to fit on an ark that is fully comparable to you sailing on a penny when it comes to the actual dimensions. It is PHYSICALLY impossible in every single way AND it is impossible when it comes to geology and biology not to mention archaeology.

Literally EVERY part of geology, biology and early archaeology would be falsified in an instant.

I do believe it did happen, though, because I do believe the Bible is telling me the truth...and I do believe that anything with supernatural origins won't leave much, if any, natural evidence behind. We will never prove Jesus rose from the dead, or that angels exists, or that God exists, or that a virgin became pregnant through a miracle, etc.

If it happened in the natural world it would leave traces in the natural world as ANY event happening in the natural world does.

Your refusal to accept reality is like that of a child who wants to believe santa is real and will hear none of the evidence against it, with santa anything is possible.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

As a test of true faith why not just walk off a tall building, if god actually gives a fuck about you he'll save your arse.

NOTE, i don't actually want anyone except a select few people to do this and none of them are posters on this forum.

Oh, you went and quoted my post. Now Rob can actually read it instead of hiding his head in the sand of his ignore list.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Oh, you went and quoted my post. Now Rob can actually read it instead of hiding his head in the sand of his ignore list.

Had i known that he has you on ignore i'd quote every post you make out of general principle.

You also know your sheit, i like it when people know what the fuck they are saying rather than just rambling on about things they learned without having a clue what they are saying.

 

[Retro Rob]

Had i known that he has you on ignore i'd quote every post you make out of general principle.

You also know your sheit, i like it when people know what the fuck they are saying rather than just rambling on about things they learned without having a clue what they are saying.

Cerpin Taxt isn't on ignore...I've just made it my principle to simply ignore ***holes.

 

[justoh]

The joke is on you guys, trying to reason with racist rob.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Cerpin Taxt isn't on ignore...I've just made it my principle to simply ignore ***holes.

Really? Wouldn't ignoring your own thoughts make you a schizophrenic with a bit of a agressive/depressive second and third personality disorder?

Oh wait, i've read your posts, you don't even remember what you just posted and sometimes you argue against your own quotes in posts where someone got the quote markings wrong...

 

[werepossum]

What you're saying is true, to a certain extent, but it ignores a critical piece of information; as new evidence became available that showed the flaws in scientific theories, they were updated to reflect the new data or scrapped altogether when demonstrated to be false. When does that happen with religious texts? You point to these ridiculous scientific myths that were debunked - people not believing in Continental drift or misunderstanding the function of the appendix - as though they're evidence that science can't be trusted; after all, scientists have made mistakes. But your own OP is quoting a guy who believes in Noah's flood because a 5,000 year old religious text mentions it, never mind that science has repeatedly debunked the myth of a global deluge. Which is better, updating your beliefs about reality as new evidence is uncovered or stubbornly clinging to ideas that are proven falsehoods because a book told you to? No one is ever going to know the absolute truth of everything, but searching for new ways of thinking is a lot nobler than saying "meh, this here ancient text tells me everything I'll ever need to know, no need for all that thinky stuff."

Actually that continually happens with religion, or at least with non-Islamic religion. Most of us have no problem believing that the Bible is G-d's word as revealed through men, who are inherently biased and fallible. Comparatively few Christians or Jews today believe the world is 6,000 years old; that is Judao-Christian beliefs being updated as new information becomes available. Nor do most Jews or Christians advocate killing homosexuals, or non-virgin daughters, or people who wear cotton blends or eat shellfish. Religion evolves every bit as much as does science.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Actually that continually happens with religion, or at least with non-Islamic religion. Most of us have no problem believing that the Bible is G-d's word as revealed through men, who are inherently biased and fallible. Comparatively few Christians or Jews today believe the world is 6,000 years old; that is Judao-Christian beliefs being updated as new information becomes available. Nor do most Jews or Christians advocate killing homosexuals, or non-virgin daughters, or people who wear cotton blends or eat shellfish. Religion evolves every bit as much as does science.

1. Don't bring Jews into the Evangelical craphole that Christianity made for itself, we don't have a single Rabbi preaching any of that and you have at the very least thousands of them.

2. I wouldn't call 65% of the US population a small number.

Yes, i get that you don't buy it, i do get that, i think it's great that you have the ability to assess reality without having to filter it through your faith but you are not in the majority when it comes to that.

And again, leave Jews out of it, even the most ortodox of Jews do not require that others live under their rules like Evangelical Christians demand.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Actually that continually happens with religion, or at least with non-Islamic religion. Most of us have no problem believing that the Bible is G-d's word as revealed through men, who are inherently biased and fallible. Comparatively few Christians or Jews today believe the world is 6,000 years old; that is Judao-Christian beliefs being updated as new information becomes available. Nor do most Jews or Christians advocate killing homosexuals, or non-virgin daughters, or people who wear cotton blends or eat shellfish. Religion evolves every bit as much as does science.

Apparently in the U.S. it's just under 1/2 of the population that believes the earth is no more than 10,000 years old.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Cerpin Taxt isn't on ignore...I've just made it my principle to simply ignore ***holes.

Poor fwagile wittle Wob. He no wikey when other people make him wook siwwy.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Poor fwagile wittle Wob. He no wikey when other people make him wook siwwy.

Pwaise the lewd!

 

[Retro Rob]

Actually that continually happens with religion, or at least with non-Islamic religion. Most of us have no problem believing that the Bible is G-d's word as revealed through men, who are inherently biased and fallible. Comparatively few Christians or Jews today believe the world is 6,000 years old; that is Judao-Christian beliefs being updated as new information becomes available. Nor do most Jews or Christians advocate killing homosexuals, or non-virgin daughters, or people who wear cotton blends or eat shellfish. Religion evolves every bit as much as does science.

I was going to post something similar to what Victorian Gray posted; religion isn't "evolving", as you're implying...the laws against mixing fabrics and dietary restrictions were removed about 2000 years ago with the death of Jesus, biblically speaking -- they were abruptly and deliberately removed, it didn't change slowly over time. The laws were literally in force one day, and removed the very next.

I can tell you that the primary reason why gays aren't killed in the US is because the law doesn't allow it. People can still be jailed and mistreated for being gay in many parts of the world, killed in some Islamic nations.

I think you don't quite understand why religion no longer prohibit the mixing of fabrics, or eating of shellfish, therefore evolution did it.

 

[Thebobo]

Gallop poll is scary, This is why we need to be more educated. Mind you I am not talking about religion or god I am talking about creationism/intelligent design young earth stupidity.