[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 580: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 636: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
snarescience.com • Question about a scripture in the bible - Page 2
Page 2 of 2

Re: Re:

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:43 am
by ottomagne
nescient7 wrote:But if evolution is really an observable process, we should have thousands upon thousands of fossils showing the slow transformation from one species to another, but that is not the case. And why couldn't God make owls with superior eyesight to humans? There is nothing in the Bible that states that humans are supposed to be a model of perfect superiority over animals.

Additionally, the major assumptions upon which C-14, K-Ar, and Rb-Sr dating are all based is that they all have a constant decay rate and that the atmospheric content of these chemicals has been constant, which is not provable nor reasonable.
Evidence of this: (PDF)

So I therefore cannot conclude that the fossils that scientists have identified are, in fact, in sequential order, and could very well have existed side-by-side, and been deposited by such a catastrophe as a global flood.
You should look up earlier posts in this forum by a member named "FlamingFlams" or something to that effect. He brought up every point you've made thus far and then some, and was refuted every time (back when ole BandScience was a religion hotspot).

I'd be more interested in your "evidence" if it was published by a publication without an inherent bias. If it has been published elsewhere, I'd love to see some peer reviews of it. It's also highly fallacious of you to extrapolate the findings of an isolated research study to discredit there different types of dating as opposed to the singular type that was discussed in your "evidence".

Also, the flood thing has been hit twenty million times from Sunday. That didn't happen.

Re: Question about a scripture in the bible

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:55 am
by TVOham
/face palm


You say you're a "fan" of science and yet you're calling the fundamental dating method of ALL science false? Is that a published/peer-reviewed article you just posted? No, it isn't. That's how science works. You publish your work and other scientists read it and run the same experiments as you to verify if your findings are correct. You can't just randomly post a pdf file from some non-scientific creationist and claim it to be true.

And your claim on fossils is clearly false, as we don't have MILLIONS of fossils from anything dated that far back simply because of pressure, time, and geology in general. I gave you an entire list of both HUMAN transitional forms and many other transitional forms that we've documented over the years. All of this has been peer-reviewed and such.

You don't have to try and boost your credibility by saying your a fan of science. You clearly aren't, lol.

Re: Re:

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:27 pm
by sxetnrdrmr
not meaning to jump your s**t, but you gotta be careful how you argue this topic. People here, for the most part, just don't want you to be misinformed. I really don't think they are judging your faith or foundation in that quest. At least I am not... I just don't want you to be one of those "Christians" who runs around with their foot in their mouth, losing credibility
nescient7 wrote:But if evolution is really an observable process, we should have thousands upon thousands of fossils showing the slow transformation from one species to another, but that is not the case. And why couldn't God make owls with superior eyesight to humans? There is nothing in the Bible that states that humans are supposed to be a model of perfect superiority over animals.
facepalm #1: another example of a "Christian" not knowing the dogma of their own claimed religion...and a non-Christian having to correct them:

God made Man in HIS OWN IMAGE and superiority over animals ARE IN THE SAME VERSE!:

Genesis: 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So does that mean that god doesn't even know if he is superior? According to the bible story, man is JUST LIKE god, and god is supposedly superior...or is he?

Re: Re:

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:06 pm
by Cubee
sxetnrdrmr wrote:not meaning to jump your s**t, but you gotta be careful how you argue this topic. People here, for the most part, just don't want you to be misinformed. I really don't think they are judging your faith or foundation in that quest. At least I am not... I just don't want you to be one of those "Christians" who runs around with their foot in their mouth, losing credibility

facepalm #1: another example of a "Christian" not knowing the dogma of their own claimed religion...and a non-Christian having to correct them:

God made Man in HIS OWN IMAGE and superiority over animals ARE IN THE SAME VERSE!:

Genesis: 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So does that mean that god doesn't even know if he is superior? According to the bible story, man is JUST LIKE god, and god is supposedly superior...or is he?
Atheist here. I agree with you guys most of the time, but I think this owl argument is a bit stupid. All that quote says is that man would have the capability to "rule" over the rest of the animal kingdom. The verse doesn't preclude animals from being superior to man in their individual biological components, like our lovely owl's eye.

There are plenty arguments against biblical christianity, but I think this is one of the weaker points I've seen brought up on this site.

Re:

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:36 pm
by TVOham
You're missing the point.

Re: Question about a scripture in the bible

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:39 am
by Cubee
How so?

Re:

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:18 am
by TVOham
Why would God give his beloved creatures an inferior and imperfect eye (we have a BLINDSPOT....) and give creatures he describes as unclean in the bible this terrific and extremely complex eyes?

The point is, the whole complexity of the eye argument is ridiculous. We KNOW how the eye evolved to be the way it is. It's not a mystery (except to creationists, but the age of the Earth is also a mystery to them).

Re: Re:

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:36 am
by sxetnrdrmr
TVOham wrote:Why would God give his beloved creatures an inferior and imperfect eye (we have a BLINDSPOT....) and give creatures he describes as unclean in the bible this terrific and extremely complex eyes?

The point is, the whole complexity of the eye argument is ridiculous. We KNOW how the eye evolved to be the way it is. It's not a mystery (except to creationists, but the age of the Earth is also a mystery to them).
That's what I was talking about...plus, the reason I referenced the passage was that when I was growing up, the bible I was forced to read did phrase that passage using the term "Dominion over", which I always read as superior to etc...it is one of the few things I still remember from those days (and that has been more than 30 years ago)

...and as most have mentioned, I can't believe in this day and age of mass information and media that we even need to argue the point at all.

Re: Re:

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:37 pm
by Cubee
TVOham wrote:Why would God give his beloved creatures an inferior and imperfect eye (we have a BLINDSPOT....) and give creatures he describes as unclean in the bible this terrific and extremely complex eyes?

The point is, the whole complexity of the eye argument is ridiculous. We KNOW how the eye evolved to be the way it is. It's not a mystery (except to creationists, but the age of the Earth is also a mystery to them).
All we know if that the Bible proclaims that man shall rule over animals (while speaking nothing of specific capabilities).

Discussing god's motivations is a waste of time. Obviously anything anyone says (on either side of the argument) is complete conjecture. If you're argument can be validly countered with 'god works in mysterious ways', it's not a very strong argument.

I agree wholeheartedly that the eye complexity argument is *beep*. All I'm saying is that it is better countered by showing what a load of *beep* irreducible complexity is, rather than talking about how our eyes actually aren't that great.

Re: Question about a scripture in the bible

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:18 pm
by lij2015
We're about to do evolution in science, it's gonna be great!
and I would disregard everything the bible says, considering it's complete horsecrap.

Re: Re:

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:29 pm
by nescient7
sxetnrdrmr wrote: facepalm #1: another example of a "Christian" not knowing the dogma of their own claimed religion...and a non-Christian having to correct them:

God made Man in HIS OWN IMAGE and superiority over animals ARE IN THE SAME VERSE!:

Genesis: 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So does that mean that god doesn't even know if he is superior? According to the bible story, man is JUST LIKE god, and god is supposedly superior...or is he?
Yes, I know man was formed in God's image and given dominion over animals. I suppose that my statement was a bit misleading; I meant that it does not state that humans are in every way superior in physical capabilities as compared to animals.

Additionally, something being made "in one's own image" does not mean an exact copy. Just like I could make a robot that looks remarkably similar to me, but is most certainly not me.

Re: Question about a scripture in the bible

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:43 pm
by TVOham
Again, we're straying away from the point here, which is that your arguments don't hold water and your views are about 300 years behind the rest of the world.

The thing I'm astonished at right now is that you said you were "a fan of science", and yet you just, in your superior knowledge to that of 100 (literally) % of all scientists who use radiometric dating strategies, discredited the way we date things.