Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-18-2009, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Galileo did not use your Genesis, he used a telescope., mathematics, geometry and astronomy.

This is an excerpt of Galileo in his letter to the Grand Duchess.

U miss the point: Galeleo was subjected to the same scenario many scientists find themselves in today - only the church is replaced with a dictator called ToE. Woe be anyone who argues with them - it is heresy.

You mean no one can argue with bible passages from Genesis?

Quote:

".....they would have us altogether abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor of some biblical passage...."

It is not the church or the ToE, it is those biblical passages that are fables but believed to be true.

Minimalist · 03-18-2009, 08:38 PM

Quote:

The Persians put them there at Elephantine, where there was a colony of Jewish soldiers for well over a century.

That's hardly what he's talking about, Spin.

spin · 03-18-2009, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

The Persians put them there at Elephantine, where there was a colony of Jewish soldiers for well over a century.

That's hardly what he's talking about, Spin.

This is only partially true. I am explaining the exodus narrative.

spin

IamJoseph · 03-18-2009, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

U miss the point: Galeleo was subjected to the same scenario many scientists find themselves in today - only the church is replaced with a dictator called ToE. Woe be anyone who argues with them - it is heresy.

You mean no one can argue with bible passages from Genesis?

What sort of a question is that - what do you think were doing here? The idea is to prove Genesis wrong - and/or prove its counter as right. None of those has occured.

Quote:

It is not the church or the ToE, it is those biblical passages that are fables but believed to be true.

Thanks for your fantastic proof any particular fables in the Hebrew bible [no examples mentioned by you] - are fables. I can't argue with that kind of proof - you win. :wave:

aa5874 · 03-18-2009, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You mean no one can argue with bible passages from Genesis?

What sort of a question is that - what do you think were doing here? The idea is to prove Genesis wrong - and/or prove its counter as right. None of those has occured.

You mean prove metaphors or that figurative serpents and donkeys can talk or a some supernaltural God can philosophically make people talk "a foreign language" by building a tower to reach a place in the sky.?

What in Genesis is there to prove?

How do you prove a philosophical being did someting metaphorically in seven days?

By faith alone.

Quote:

It is not the church or the ToE, it is those biblical passages that are fables but believed to be true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Thanks for your fantastic proof any particular fables in the Hebrew bible [no examples mentioned by you] - are fables. I can't argue with that kind of proof - you win. :wave:

It is illogical to think that if someone makes a false statement that the statement becomes true if no-one detcts the falsity of the claim.

I consider Genesis as fables until you can provide historical evidence.

Can you tell me how did the author of Genesis get his information? Was it from dreams or imagination?

fatpie42 · 03-19-2009, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Why do you keep talking about red marbles turning into green marbles? It's an especially confusing analogy since marbles do not normally change colour.

It does not matter what example is used - inanimate examples bring it down to math. Now I find your arguement is not based on math but the consequences of incest - which I explained to you is in favor of my premise and contradicts yours. If incenst occurs - it does not mean there was no 'first human' - it means only that there was, and that it can also have adverse effects! Incest is the same as any other union, in the sense there is a mating and an offspring - nothing more than that in the context of the debate.

Yes, but if there had been incest then the human race would not have survived. You have two options:

1. There was only one couple, years of incest and then the human race died out.

OR

2. The human race developed as a group from earlier mammals just like the evidence shows and there was no such thing as a "first human".

If you choose option 1 we shouldn't be here having this conversation!

fatpie42 · 03-19-2009, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

the mutation does NOT cause new results - this is impossible.

Mutation involves creating new results. That's what mutation is. It's not impossible. It has been observed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

The passing of genes has nothing to do with the survival factor

No it's the other way around. Survival has everything to do with the passing on of genes. If they don't survive, they can't pass their genes on. It's that simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

genes cannot produce what they do not contain, even if they mutate. Genesis wins. :wave:

Yes they can. It has been observed. You are talking nonsense. You might as well try to tell me that water is not wet. If Genesis contradicts the known facts then no, it does not win.

Ohene · 03-19-2009, 03:48 AM

IamJoseph

Quote:

The reverse is the case. The first historically inclined descriptions of ancient Egypt come from the Hebrew: its two cities of Pithom and Ramessy built by the Israelites, that Joseph became a Vicar, there was a great famine surrounding Egypt and that it escaped this famine because the Nile never ran dry, the location of the town of Goshen, the King's [coastal] highway, the diets of the Egyptians [100% authentic], that a rebelian instigated by egyptian priests occured after the death of Joseph, and the authentic names of ancient Egyptians [Archeology is evidenced 90% via names]. The oldest egyptian writings is the first two words in the 10 Commandments: namely I AM ['Ano chi] - this was directed at the Pharoah who assumed himself divine, but spoke no Hebrew.

You couldn't be more wrong. Egyptians very capably left their own record of their own existence LONG before Hebrews even had a writing system!! We do agree on thing, Hebrews do appear to have based the 10 commandments on earlier Egyptian writings.

Quote:

Babylon came later. Prior to this, some 30 nations are listed, which do not exist anymore, but did in the past. E.g. Moab, Median, Amalakites, Philistines, Hittites, Amorites, canaanites, Jebusites, etc - these have their earliest record in the Hebrew bible - and have inter-nation writings as well. In most cases, the Kings are mentioned by name, and wars incurred are also listed.

No record or archeological evidence has been found for many of these peoples outside of Hebrew writings...how odd.

Quote:

The Bible marks them out as a miniscule group; there is vast archives and relics of them in archeology - more so than any other nation, including relatively recent entries like christianity and islam.

I know of not a single dis-proof of anything listed in the Hebrew bible, while over 70% has been proven. 3000 year figures like David and Solomon have now been proven; Moses is not proven [in allignment with its texts which says this will be the case], but we have loads of evidence for Moses, and his brother Aaron and sister Miriam, whose graves are shrines today. There is also an Egyptian stelle which is 3,300 years old and mentions Israel by name and a war with them. The Hebrew bible is also the first alphabetical books, with new vowels not contained in the pheonecian: e.g. the 'V' alphabet, thus the original AVraham is spelled ABraham in other languages.

Which other writings compares with the Hebrew bible as far as historical evidence is concerned? Which part of the Hebrew writings is NOT historical?

Are you referring to the Steels? Come now, historians and linguist are fighting over these objects as we type. All manner of interpretations exist, its no surprise that some see 'the house of david' and have ran with it as fact. Same applies to the steele that supposedly mentions a war with the "Hebrews". Poppycock. Historically speaking Hebrew writings are later, MUCH later the Egyptian, Phonecian and Persian writings.

spamandham · 03-19-2009, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

U miss the point: Galeleo was subjected to the same scenario many scientists find themselves in today - only the church is replaced with a dictator called ToE. Woe be anyone who argues with them - it is heresy.

That's right. Everyone who disagrees with the ToE priests is thrown into the dungeon for heresy. School children are required to pledge allegiance to one nation under evolution, and "The Origin of Species" is enshrined in public court houses all over the land.

spamandham · 03-19-2009, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

The earth is not flat - and genes cannot produce what they do not contain, even if they mutate. Genesis wins. :wave:

Genes that mutate now contain something different, and proceed to produce it. You are arguing against that which is directly observed.

Besides, didn't you already admit that Genesis is metaphorical? Why then are you still spouting this "genesis is a science book" nonsense?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.