Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2014, 11:31 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(04-12-2014 10:29 AM)anatevka Wrote:  
(03-12-2014 06:49 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Ahhh the ol' "you don't know how long a day in god's word is" weak sauce argument...yes, actually we do, all one has to do is a comparative study of the bible and the usage of the word....that would require you to read the bible though...and analyze it....Those who argue that the word "day" means "long age," point out that the Hebrew word, yom, can have a number of meanings, only one of which is "day of 24 hours." They further seek to strengthen their position with the use of Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8, comparing a day to a thousand years. Both of these verses, however, are simply using figures of speech (similes) to show that God is not constrained by the same time parameters as are humans. These verses are really irrelevant to the discussion of the meaning of "day," in Genesis 1.

It is recognized, of course, that the word "day" can be used with a number of variations. It can have any of five meanings: 1) a period of light; 2) a period of 24 hours; 3) a general, vague time; 4) a point of time; 5) a year. The context determines which of these is intended by the writer. The English language also can have up to 14 definitions for the word "day." The reader should be reminded that the purpose of language is to communicate. Moses wrote in a language that was meant to communicate to his readers. Words must be defined by their relationship to one another. Word meaning must be determined from within its context. It will be shown how the context defines the word in Genesis 1.

The use of a number with the word "day" is very illuminating. This combination occurs 357 times outside of Genesis 1. The combination is used in four different ways, but each time it is used, it must mean 24-hour periods of time. If the combinations had been intended to mean long periods of time, both the texts and contexts then become meaningless. A typical verse is Genesis 30:36: "And he (Laban) set three days journey betwixt himself and Jacob." God frequently issued commands that the people were to do or not to do certain things on a given day. This use occurs 162 times. A good example is Exodus 24:16: "And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days, and on the seventh day He called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud." These are the most typical uses of the word "day" with a number. Four times the terms are used to show a starting point. Ezra 3:6 says, "From the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings unto the Lord." A number may also be used with "day" to convey an ending point. An example is Leviticus 19:6: "It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire." It would appear, then, that whenever the Old Testament uses a number with the word "day," it means a 24-hour period of time without any demonstrable exception.

If the meaning of the word "day" with a number always means a 24-hour period of time outside of Genesis 1, then it should also mean a 24-hour period of time inside Genesis 1. The words that Moses used to communicate what God did during creation are very significant. If Moses had meant to signify that the "days" were more than 24 hours in length, he could easily have done so. If we are to understand what Moses wrote, then the language he used must be understood in its normal meaning. The normal meaning is that of 24-hour periods of time.


Do your homework. This theist may just be the definition of ineducable tyro

Consider

Smartass

Um, the word day with a number does *NOT* always mean 24 hour period outside of Genesis. Not even close. Instead of cutting and pasting someone
else's (shoddy) work, do your homework.

Yet you do not present any evidence that your assertion is credible. Consider

It is hilarious that you accuse goodwithoutgod of cutting and pasting when you have not presented one original thought or idea here, but have only regurgitated tired old denials of reality. Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
04-12-2014, 02:20 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(04-12-2014 11:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 10:29 AM)anatevka Wrote:  Um, the word day with a number does *NOT* always mean 24 hour period outside of Genesis. Not even close. Instead of cutting and pasting someone
else's (shoddy) work, do your homework.

Yet you do not present any evidence that your assertion is credible. Consider

It is hilarious that you accuse goodwithoutgod of cutting and pasting when you have not presented one original thought or idea here, but have only regurgitated tired old denials of reality. Facepalm

That is because he is unable to articulate, substantiate, or validate his faith (the belief in something without evidence). Here lets see if he can handle my next question....

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
04-12-2014, 02:22 PM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2014 02:28 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
Anatevka,

Name one person who wrote of jesus that knew him...just one.....


and by the way, it seems highly likely the whole story was based on Romulus...lets take a look..

Mythology has always fascinated me. When you research mythology, you find the common strains, a rhythm, a philosophical skeletal system where the “hero god” is constructed, and the same system is used time and time again. It is almost as if one borrowed from another throughout time. It is impossible to ignore the implication of systematic fabrication. The jesus story, however, was not original. The entire story seems to have been plagiarized in bits and pieces, and sometimes blatantly intact, from ancient god/man mythology passed down by Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures.

The list is long, from Horus in 3000 BCE Egypt all the way to jesus, but I will focus on just one…Romulus 771 BCE. In Plutarch’s biography of Romulus, the founder of Rome, we are told he was the son of god, born of a virgin; an attempt is made to kill him as a baby, and he is saved, and raised by a poor family, hailed as King, and killed by the conniving elite; that he rises from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news to his people, and ascends to heaven to rule from on high. Sound familiar? Just like Jesus.

Plutarch also tells us about annual public ceremonies that were still being formed, which celebrated the day Romulus ascended to heaven. The story goes as follows: at the end of his life, amid rumors he was murdered by conspiracy of the Senate, the sun went dark, and Romulus’s body vanished. The people wanted to search for him but the Senate told them not to, “for he had risen to join the gods”. Most went away happy, hoping for good things from their new god, but “some doubted”. Soon after, Proculus, a close friend of Romulus, reported that he met Romulus “on the road” between Rome and a nearby town and asked him, “why have you abandoned us?”, To which Romulus replied that he had been a God all along but had come down to earth and become incarnate to establish a great kingdom, and now had to return to his home in heaven. Then Romulus told his friend to tell the Romans that if they are virtuous they will have all worldly power (Carrier 56).

Folks, does any of this ring any bells for you? You do realize this story predates Jesus by 800 years right? Fabricators of religion borrow from previous religions Man/God/hero constructs and have all the way back to 3000 B.C.E.

So the fact that the jesus son of god myth story has clearly been plagiarized from older Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures, coupled with the fact that no one who wrote of Jesus actually knew him should make a thinking person take a pause, and reflect on the basis of their faith.

In regards to my posit; paragraph three speaks about the ceremony celebrating Romulus's ascension actually going on at the time, so he is a witness, unlike the lack of witnesses in the NT of jesus. More importantly the tale of Romulus itself though was widely attested as pre-christian: in Romulus (27-28), Plutarch, though writing c. 80-120 CE, is certainly recording a long established Roman tale and custom, and his sources are unmistakenly pre-christian: Cicero, Laws 1.3, Republic 2.10; Livy, From the founding of the city 1.16.2-8 (1.3-1.16 relating the whole story of Romulus); Ovid, Fasti 2.491-512 and Metamorphoses 14.805-51; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2.63.3 (1.171-2.65 relating the whole story of Romulus); a later reference: Cassius Dio, Roman History 56.46.2. The story's antiquity was even acknowledged by christians: Tertullian, Apology 21.

So as you can see, before christianity was even beginning to be fabricated, the story of Romulus was solidly incorporated into the Roman culture. So it would be a false and disingenuous posit to suggest that the story of Romulus was fabricated after jesus, and based on jesus, when it fact it is the exact opposite. It is also false to say it was interpolations (besides the fact it is all an obvious made up fabrication) as interpolations are additions to writings to make them seem more in line with whatever view the forger wishes to support after the fact. Conjecture? No, it was actually pre-christian, and as I provided above, easy to find within respectable writers from differing times and places. If Plutarch was the only one to write of it, OR he and the other writers were all writing about some "god" named Romulus from 800 years ago, and were writing it after jesus, then you could absolutely draw a correlation to the posit that the story of Romulus was based on jesus, or that it was fabricated to throw suspicion on the jesus story, sadly the facts do not reflect that.

Works cited:

Carrier, Richard. On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

Research, think, evolve beyond the myth..

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
05-12-2014, 06:34 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(04-12-2014 02:20 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 11:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  Yet you do not present any evidence that your assertion is credible. Consider

It is hilarious that you accuse goodwithoutgod of cutting and pasting when you have not presented one original thought or idea here, but have only regurgitated tired old denials of reality. Facepalm

That is because he is unable to articulate, substantiate, or validate his faith (the belief in something without evidence). Here lets see if he can handle my next question....

All he's done is quibble about the Hebrew word yom to prop up his weak world view, he hasn't addressed a single point made against his world view. I already made the point, which he didn't even respond to, that if day meant age then his creationist fantasy faces major problems because of the order of creation.

Here's the order of creation, let's pretend each day is an epoch:

Day one: God creates heaven and earth, and light and dark.
Day two: God creates the firmament.
Day three: God creates land in the water, then plants.
Day four: God creates the sun and moon; then, as an afterthought, he creates the other stars.
Day five: God creates water animals, then birds.
Day six: God creates land animals, then Adam.
Day seven: God rests.

Day 3 god creates plants and water an epoch passes and then god creates the sun and moon (which produces light according to the bible)

Day 4 god creates the sun, how long is this epoch (he won't say) how long did plants exist before the sun?

In the second creation account god creates Adam BEFORE the animals so I guess an epoch passes and then animals are created, then god creates Eve after another epoch passes.

So if a day is an epoch plants exist long before the sun, by the second creation account Adam exists long before animals.

Now it's up to him to provide scientific evidence of this insanity, oh and explain the firmament while he's at it.

I think he would be better off conceding that a day means a day, but of course the bible can't be read unless your a freakin' Hebrew scholar and know what the original words mean in Hebrew. Laughat

Of course mis-construing a word to make up a BS creation myth creates it's own set of problems, problems which he hasn't addressed, it's obvious that the word was meant to be interpreted as a day because the myth immediately implodes with the BS use of yom.

Bullshit is still bullshit no matter what language it's in.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheInquisition's post
05-12-2014, 08:52 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
I... don't think our friend is coming back... Sadcryface



Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 02:14 PM
Re: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
It's the playground equivalent of "I have a secret but I'm not telling because you're stupid and stuff!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Clockwork's post
27-12-2014, 01:32 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
Why is it not found to be more than one single common descent?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 02:24 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(27-12-2014 01:32 AM)ogfrag Wrote:  Why is it not found to be more than one single common descent?

a) because it hasn't been... yet. Doesn't mean that it wasn't
b) because the likelihood of two simultaneous trigger events e.g. the coinciding of the right conditions, are almost infinitely small.
c) 'single' = one. They'd have to think of a new name.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
27-12-2014, 07:09 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(27-12-2014 01:32 AM)ogfrag Wrote:  Why is it not found to be more than one single common descent?

I've got no idea what you mean by the question: Common Descent referrers to the idea that everything in our biosphere is related back to the initial reproducing organism. Why would there be two common ancestors that aren't also common descendants of the initial organism?

So why would there be "more than a single common descent?"

Edit: Understand now. Sorry. Had the post quoted from before DLJ posted his answer.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 11:06 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(27-12-2014 01:32 AM)ogfrag Wrote:  Why is it not found to be more than one single common descent?

Could you clarify this question please? I'm not sure what you're asking and would rather not make assumptions.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: