Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-03-2015, 12:48 PM
RE: Question about flood
(30-03-2015 11:23 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Luke and Paul don't even claim to be eyewitnesses, so their accounts are hearsay.

In the first 3 verses of the Gospel of Luke, he begins by saying that the information in his book was PASSED DOWN from EYEWITNESSES. So the source of the material was from eyewitnesses.

And Paul claimed to have witnessed the Resurrected Jesus, plus Paul met with Peter and James, brother of Jesus. So neither account was from third or fourth hand sources.

Try again.

(30-03-2015 11:23 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The number of different accounts is not at all impressive if said accounts are hearsay.

But they aren't.

(30-03-2015 11:23 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Furthermore, these are not all independent accounts. The three synoptic gospels have numerous passages that are word-for-word identical. If three people witness the same events and write about them 50 years later, there is no way they are going to write exactly the same words. It is obvious that they either copied from each other, or from some other common source. They are not independent accounts. And the odds are that none of them were eyewitnesses -- i.e., it is most likely all hearsay, written by "true believers". It is no more credible than the Book of Mormon. It is the kind of stuff that historians dismiss.

Yeah, it is said that Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source, yet, Mark is the shortest Gospel? Matthew and Luke has almost double the chapters that Mark has, so there is only so much "citing" that Matthew and Luke could have done. Second, it is obvious that they WERE eyewitnesses, or that their narratives came from eyewitnesses.

The Gospels are of the genre of BIOGRAPHY, and they give information that only those that were close with Jesus would have known. Third, it was uniform testimony among the early church that Matthew and John, disciples of Jesus, wrote their Gospels, and Mark, friend of Peter...and Luke, companion of Paul, wrote their Gospels.

So what you have is of the 11 remaining disciples, only two were said to have written Gospels...and Luke and Mark weren't even disciples, so why would they claim that two men that never even met Jesus wrote a biography about him? Because they were telling the truth, that is why.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 01:00 PM
RE: Question about flood
(30-03-2015 09:55 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Actually, what happened was..I didn't read the rules thoroughly, so I blindly accepted the terms and conditions...come to find out that the rules were so damn STUPID that I wouldn't have agreed to the terms had I thoroughly read them.

That sounds a lot like what many ex-Christian atheists say now.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like unfogged's post
30-03-2015, 01:01 PM
RE: Question about flood
Gosh man 45 pages of nanana i can't hear you from COTW. Lol. You guys are a patient bunch. Well I've learned a lot anyway. Thanks guys!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes photon9's post
30-03-2015, 01:11 PM
RE: Question about flood
(30-03-2015 09:59 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 09:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  [Image: Early_birds_dinosaurs.jpg]

Birds are from a branch of dinosaurs, they are still technically dinosaurs but their classification is Aves (which is a descendent of Theropods).

It is splitting hairs (or feathers if you will) for if they are or are not dinosaurs.

Dude, of all of the varieties of birds that there has EVER been, you have a few fossils of birds and you are determining that they evolved from reptiles? That is about as non sequitur as I've seen...which is saying a lot, considering of see a lot of non sequiturs on here.

Seeing as how birds evolving from dinosaurs was predicted and proven it shows. Also know birds are archosaurs (might have spelled that wrong) and crocodilians are the closest living relatives of birds and crocodilians are much related to dinosaurs. Fancy Murican

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 01:12 PM
RE: Question about flood
(30-03-2015 12:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 11:23 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Luke and Paul don't even claim to be eyewitnesses, so their accounts are hearsay.

In the first 3 verses of the Gospel of Luke, he begins by saying that the information in his book was PASSED DOWN from EYEWITNESSES. So the source of the material was from eyewitnesses.

And Paul claimed to have witnessed the Resurrected Jesus, plus Paul met with Peter and James, brother of Jesus. So neither account was from third or fourth hand sources.

Claiming to have been told a story by eyewitnesses is not the same thing as being an eyewitness. It is hearsay. And Paul, at best, "had a vision" (yeah, right) of the resurrected Jesus. He never claims to have seen Jesus in the flesh. And I didn't say anything about 3rd or 4th hand. Anything but 1st hand is hearsay. Period.

You try again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 02:04 PM
Question about flood
It's all true. Just turned BBC1 on and Frank Gallagher from Shameless is actually Noah.

Using Tapatalk
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 04:04 PM
RE: Question about flood
(30-03-2015 01:12 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Claiming to have been told a story by eyewitnesses is not the same thing as being an eyewitness.

Luke 1:1-3

"1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."

He is saying the content of his material originated from THOSE WHO FROM THE FIRST WERE EYEWITNESSES AND SERVANTS OF THE WORD.

In other words, the message can be traced back to the eyewitnesses. Now, either he is lying through his teeth, or what he is saying is true. You have no reason to say that he is lying, other than to play the role of the typical skeptic, basically being critical of anything the Gospels spews from its pages because if it comes from the Bible..oh, it just can't be true, can it?? Even if it is some simple shit such as "the message came from Jesus' followers"...even that is just to much too much to believe, huh?

No wonder you people might never believe in the Resurrection, you can't even believe the simple, non-theological shit such as "The message originated from Jesus' followers".

Freakin' laughable.

(30-03-2015 01:12 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  It is hearsay. And Paul, at best, "had a vision" (yeah, right) of the resurrected Jesus.

Well, if Jesus actually appeared to him in a vision, I will call that an "appearance".

(30-03-2015 01:12 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  He never claims to have seen Jesus in the flesh. And I didn't say anything about 3rd or 4th hand. Anything but 1st hand is hearsay. Period.

Again, Paul met with Peter and James...both whom WERE first hand eyewitnesses to the Resurrection account...and anything closer than Paul and James would be Jesus himself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 04:08 PM
Question about flood
(30-03-2015 04:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 01:12 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Claiming to have been told a story by eyewitnesses is not the same thing as being an eyewitness.

Luke 1:1-3

"1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."

He is saying the content of his material originated from THOSE WHO FROM THE FIRST WERE EYEWITNESSES AND SERVANTS OF THE WORD.

In other words, the message can be traced back to the eyewitnesses. Now, either he is lying through his teeth, or what he is saying is true. You have no reason to say that he is lying, other than to play the role of the typical skeptic, basically being critical of anything the Gospels spews from its pages because if it comes from the Bible..oh, it just can't be true, can it?? Even if it is some simple shit such as "the message came from Jesus' followers"...even that is just to much too much to believe, huh?

No wonder you people might never believe in the Resurrection, you can't even believe the simple, non-theological shit such as "The message originated from Jesus' followers".

Freakin' laughable.

(30-03-2015 01:12 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  It is hearsay. And Paul, at best, "had a vision" (yeah, right) of the resurrected Jesus.

Well, if Jesus actually appeared to him in a vision, I will call that an "appearance".

(30-03-2015 01:12 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  He never claims to have seen Jesus in the flesh. And I didn't say anything about 3rd or 4th hand. Anything but 1st hand is hearsay. Period.

Again, Paul met with Peter and James...both whom WERE first hand eyewitnesses to the Resurrection account...and anything closer than Paul and James would be Jesus himself.

Read up on those texts about evolution and geology yet?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 04:15 PM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2015 05:56 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Question about flood
(30-03-2015 12:33 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 10:51 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Evolution isn't a philosophy, it is based on observable evidence.

Observation? No, the observation is that we see fossils of once living dead animals. The interpretation of the observation is that these fossils represent macro level transformations of one animal to another animal (reptile to bird).

Do you see how that works? One is a direct observation (discovery of fossils), the other is an interpretation of the observation (evolution). It is a fact that fossils exist, it is an interpretation that these fossils represent macro changes...one is a fact, and the other is an interpretation of the fact.

Evolutionists want to link the interpretation in as a fact along with the observation...and that is where they've left science and dived right into the pool of religion.

(30-03-2015 10:51 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Religion is based on philosophy, as it has no evidence. Understand the distinction?

Christians believe there is evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. Now of course, this doesn't sit well with you atheistic worldview, but oh well.

(30-03-2015 10:51 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Evolution is science, 2+2 isn't jesus, it is 4.

2+2 isn't evolution, either.

(30-03-2015 10:51 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  You can continue to try to convince yourself that the plethora of evidence and findings by experts that show the synoptic gospels were not written when or by whom as per xtian tradition doesn't exist for as long as you like, but that doesn't change the facts.

Dude, are you freakin crazy? You don't know who WROTE ANYTHING in antiquity. You are making it seem as if your "evidences" are infallible or something. As if you were there when the shit was written. You sit there and talk about "facts" as if it is 100% beyond a reasonable doubt that the Gospels were written post 70AD...nothing in history is that certain.

Second, as I said, there are scholars that AGREE with me on this, and some don't...and believe it or not, there are scholars that disagree with you, and some agree with you. That is the nature of the beast, especially when talking about history.

That is why almost every single time I said "I have reasons to believe"...or "The evidence is convincing to me"...meaning that there are arguments on both sides of the coin, and there is where I stand.

But you, on the other hand, make it seem as if your way is the right way, and everyone else that doesn't share YOUR particular view is wrong...which is fallacious, close-minded, and arrogant.

(30-03-2015 10:51 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I have no reason to enter a different venue to debate you

Then stop posting that CRAP to me, then.

(30-03-2015 10:51 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  you can't even debate me here, neither can you refute my assertions, nor can you compete with me knowledge wise on the subject of theology.

You don't really believe that, do you?

(30-03-2015 10:51 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I gave you, and continue to give you, consistent schooling on this subject, yet you cling to delusion and ignorance like a stripper to a shiny pole, refusing to acknowledge even the basics that are accepted by pretty much every biblical historian like the dates and authors of the synoptic gospels for example. You probably believe the exodus really happened too, and noah and moses were actually historical people...these are also long debunked and fully refuted aspects of the fairy tale called Christianity. Your refusal to accept the facts, and refusal to read and learn from the copious amount of material laid before you is just an indicator of the epic level of "inability to learn" you epitomize.

take some courses

Let me know when you grow some hair on your chest and will accept the challenge, which still stands, btw.

Sigh, you really aren’t good at this are you Wail of the Child?

Let me try to explain this at the level you can comprehend…well shit, I can’t use crayons….oh well here goes…

Evolution isn’t a concept, it is observable, which means you can watch it in action right now *gasp*….also with evolutionary science, we can make predictions of what forms we should see in specific layers, and voila! We find those things, which further proves evolution….evolution can be seen in our own DNA, and in the vestigial organs and bone formations within our and other animal bodies. If we were created, we wouldn’t have those, get it?

Here child, learn:

I found you pictures:

http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reas...oftheEarth

evidence of evolution right now:

1) As the huge array of drug resistant pathogens grows we are learning that evolution is easiest to observe in species with a quick generation turnover. Since 1988, in the lab of Richard Lenski, the evolution of twelve E. coli populations from a single ancestor strain has been studied. Since then, over 50,000 generations of E. coli have been and gone, and the differences between the populations and each population from the ancestor strain have been documented. With samples of each population taken regularly the accumulated genetic changes can be followed with ease. Over time the bacteria have become far more efficient at growing under the conditions used. This study has provided evidence of how evolution actually occurs. One of the populations developed the ability to utilize citrate as a nutrient, something otherwise unknown in E. coli under similar conditions.

2) Studying evolution can take decades, but occasionally change happens incredibly rapidly. The Blue Moon Butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina) of the Samoan islands was being attacked by a parasite which destroyed male embryos. This led to a gender imbalance whereby males made up only 1% of the butterfly population. However, within ten generations (~1 year) males had returned to 40% of the population. This is not because the parasite has disappeared, it is still present, but it is no longer deadly to male embryos. This case shows how a mutation giving an advantage can rapidly spread throughout a population. Any male with the ability to survive infection would be able to mate with a great many females, due to the paucity of other males, and spread his immunity through the gene pool.

3) The medium ground finch was well established on the isle of Daphne, and had been studied in depth. Its beak was suited perfectly for cracking large nuts. In 1982, the large ground finch from a neighboring island arrived. These larger finches could drive away the native medium ground finches and would eat all the large nuts. Over the period of study, the medium ground finches of Daphne island were found to have developed smaller beaks more suited to the smaller nuts, ignored by the invading larger finches. This is a classic study in evolutionary biology.

4) In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards (Podarcis sicula) were introduced to the island of Pod Mrčaru from a neighboring island. The lizards were left for decades, and compared to the colony from which they were taken. The wall lizards on Pod Mrčaru, having passed through a tiny genetic bottleneck, were found to have thrived and adapted to their new island. They were found to have shifted from a mainly insectivorous diet to one heavy in vegetation. This diet change seems to have driven dramatic changes in the lizards. The head of the Pod Mrčaru lizards is larger, and has a far greater bite force. These are key adaptations for dealing with chewing leaves. The most exciting sign of evolution is the development of cecal valves, muscles used to separate portions of the intestine. These serve to slow the passage of food through the intestine and give time for the bacteria in the gut to breakdown the plant matter for absorption. This is an entirely novel development in the Italian wall lizard, and a major adaptation.

5) The example of the peppered moth is a nice one for textbooks because it uses a single trait. Speciation involves many mutations leading to significant changes. The yellow bellied three-toed skink (Saiphos equalis) is a lizard of New South Wales, in Australia, that appears to be undergoing the change from laying eggs to live birth. Since these skinks can either lay eggs or give birth, it gives scientists the chance to study the adaptations necessary for live birth. Skink embryos encased in an egg have an extra source of calcium that the live born skinks lack. It turns out that this nutritional difference is made up by the mother secreting extra calcium for the young held inside her. This looks like the first step on the road to developing a system like the mammalian placenta. Skinks living on the coast tend to lay eggs, probably because the warm weather is predictable and sufficient for embryonic development. Those skinks living in the cooler mountains tend to give birth to live young, the mother’s body providing a more stable temperature. It is to be predicted that these two populations will at some point separate into different species as each population becomes fixed in its reproductive strategy. This brings up a common question in creationists – If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Well, with the skinks we would see two species formed, an egg laying and a live birthing species. Each would be best suited for their habitat. If live birthing skinks evolved from egg layers, why are there still egg layers? Because each is adapted for its niche.

The eye is always a fun topic, The anatomy of the human eye, in fact, shows anything but "intelligence" in its design. it is built upside down and backwards, requiring photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, acquaeous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses....which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns. For optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards?

You say Christians believe there is evidence for the resurrection, great! You will be the first to prove it, prove away…I will wait patiently……..got one scrap of evidence? ….anything…no?

Actually 2+2 is evolution, 2 fossils here, 2 fossils there, commonalities in both *pats on head*

Crazy? Me? No, knowledge makes you smarter, not crazy. If you ever seek an education in christian doctrine and the historicity of the bible you will learn you CAN ABSOLUTELY narrow down WHEN a scripture was written. Guess what? THAT is why the dates show post 70CE starting with Mark. Looooooong after eyewitnesses were dead.

Heard of Hox genes? Of course you haven't: Embryos temporarily take on the characteristics of their ancestral species, such as human embryos having gill arches, a tail, eyes on the sides of the head, a tube-shaped heart, and ear-bones in the jaw during development, all of which vanish in later development. Just as Hox Genes make is possible for species to easily change forms and configurations, the stages of fetal development can change to produce very different characteristics in an organism.

Here let’s take it back to evolution, let’s take it up a notch, and look at the next deeper level of evolution. The human ABO blood group system is controlled by alleles at a single locus on chromosome 9. The alleles encode glycosyltransferases, which add different sugar residues to the terminal part of the oligosaccharide core, thus generating the A or B antigens; an allele encoding enzymatically inactive protein is responsible for the blood group O. The A and B antigens are present not only in humans, but also in many other primate species and it has been proposed that the AB polymorphism was established long before these species diverged. Here we provide molecular evidence for the trans-species evolution of the AB polymorphism. Polymerase-chain reaction (PCR) amplification and sequencing has revealed that the critical substitutions differentiating the A and B genes occurred before the divergence of the lineages leading to humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. This polymorphism is therefore at least 13 million years old and is most likely maintained by selection. Comparison of the sequences derived from different species indicates that the difference in enzymatic activities between the A and B transferases is caused by two single nucleotide substitutions responsible for Leu-Met and Gly-Ala replacement at positions 265 and 267 in the polypeptide chains, respectively.

The three living monophyletic divisions of Class Mammalia are the Prototheria (monotremes), Metatheria (marsupials), and Eutheria (`placental' mammals). Determining the sister relationships among these three groups is the most fundamental question in mammalian evolution. Phylogenetic comparison of these mammals by either anatomy or mitochondrial DNA has resulted in two conflicting hypotheses, Theria and Marsupionta, and has fueled a ``genes versus morphology'' controversy. We have cloned and analyzed a large nuclear gene, the mannose 6-phosphate/insulin-like growth factor II receptor (M6P/IGF2R), from representatives of all three mammalian groups, including platypus, echidna, opossum, wallaby, hedgehog, mouse, rat, rabbit, cow, pig, bat, tree shrew, colugo, ringtail lemur, and human. Statistical analysis of this nuclear gene unambiguously supports the morphology-based Theria hypothesis that excludes monotremes from a clade of marsupials and eutherians. The M6P/IGF2R was also able to resolve the finer structure of the eutherian mammalian family tree. In particular, our analyses support sister group relationships between lagomorphs and rodents, and between the primates and Dermoptera. Statistical support for the grouping of the hedgehog with Feruungulata and Chiroptera was also strong.

The genetic code, formerly thought to be frozen, is now known to be in a state of evolution. This was first shown in 1979 by Barrell et al. (G. Barrell, A. T. Bankier, and J. Drouin, Nature [London] 282:189-194, 1979), who found that the universal codons AUA (isoleucine) and UGA (stop) coded for methionine and tryptophan, respectively, in human mitochondria. Subsequent studies have shown that UGA codes for tryptophan in Mycoplasma spp. and in all nonplant mitochondria that have been examined. Universal stop codons UAA and UAG code for glutamine in ciliated protozoa (except Euplotes octacarinatus) and in a green alga, Acetabularia. E. octacarinatus uses UAA for stop and UGA for cysteine. Candida species, which are yeasts, use CUG (leucine) for serine. Other departures from the universal code, all in nonplant mitochondria, are CUN (leucine) for threonine (in yeasts), AAA (lysine) for asparagine (in platyhelminths and echinoderms), UAA (stop) for tyrosine (in planaria), and AGR (arginine) for serine (in several animal orders) and for stop (in vertebrates). We propose that the changes are typically preceded by loss of a codon from all coding sequences in an organism or organelle, often as a result of directional mutation pressure, accompanied by loss of the tRNA that translates the codon. The codon reappears later by conversion of another codon and emergence of a tRNA that translates the reappeared codon with a different assignment. Changes in release factors also contribute to these revised assignments.

I know, I know, lost you…..well buck up Wail of the Child, take some classes, you would be amazed at what you learn…you may learn facts which equal science because they are observable and proven, vice the three F’s of religion…Fiction, Forgery and Fantasy.

Let me know when you grow some brains in your cartilage.

"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
31-03-2015, 02:42 PM
RE: Question about flood
(30-03-2015 04:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 01:12 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Claiming to have been told a story by eyewitnesses is not the same thing as being an eyewitness.

Luke 1:1-3

"1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."

He is saying the content of his material originated from THOSE WHO FROM THE FIRST WERE EYEWITNESSES AND SERVANTS OF THE WORD.

Do you just not fucking read the posts you're responding to? Grasshopper's contention is clearly and unambiguously that the claim that the story you have is from eyewitnesses, is not the same thing as being an eyewitness. Why the fuck is your response "yeah, but he claims to have gotten the story from eyewitnesses!"

I mean, it's breathtaking that you didn't get the issue, from a sentence that is literally nothing but an explanation of that issue, but if we boil down your actual claim we get this: a guy whose name and history you don't know wrote a story in a book, and said that the people that told him that story, whom you also don't know because Mister Anonymous Gospel Author doesn't provide citations, claimed to be eyewitnesses. And "a friend of a friend told me," from long dead people who you know nothing about, is sufficient for you to believe the words in that book?

Really?

Quote:In other words, the message can be traced back to the eyewitnesses. Now, either he is lying through his teeth, or what he is saying is true.

Or the supposed eyewitnesses were lying, or exaggerating, or misremembering. Or that they mistook what they saw for something else. Or the entire book is a fiction sold as the work of some guy we have no reason to think wrote the book... I know false dichotomies are easier on your tiny little mind, but there are more than two options here.

Quote:You have no reason to say that he is lying, other than to play the role of the typical skeptic, basically being critical of anything the Gospels spews from its pages because if it comes from the Bible..oh, it just can't be true, can it??

Um, given that the claims contain numerous things that are impossible, and no evidence to consider the claims truthful, we do have reason to think them false. Besides the blatant shifting of the burden of proof, of course; we don't just accept a claim until its proven false.

Quote:Well, if Jesus actually appeared to him in a vision, I will call that an "appearance".

Seriously? "If this thing is true, then it's a true thing!" Rolleyes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Esquilax's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: