Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Von Smith · 11-18-2007, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

It shows that "tree" is a broad kind of word, most Hebrew words are.

It doesn't show that the word refers to "algae".

Quote:

Quoting verses showing usage supporting my conclusion is not evidence?

You haven't shown usage supporting your conclusion. Just because a word can mean "flax" doesn't mean it can also refer to algae.

Quote:

I seem to recall posting this?

Genesis 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

Broccoli and bananas too, I would say!

Neither of which are algae, and neither of which predate fish. And banana plants can reasonably be called "trees" even in English usage, so that isn't exactly the broadening of sense and usage you need.

Quote:

Nor need they, the point is that the words could include such.

You have provided no evidence that the words could include such.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-18-2007, 11:29 PM

Message to Lee Merrill: Please reply to my post #49.

lee_merrill · 11-19-2007, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Regarding simple to complex life, what is unusual about that?

Many creation stories start with the complex, we think it intuitive that it starts simple because we have the record in scientific discoveries--let's not mistake our privileges in having this knowledge, let's not mistake that for human tendencies.

Quote:

It would have been ridiculous for the writer to claim that animals were created before plants were created. What would the animals have eaten?

Plankton?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

lee_merrill:
But most every plant produces seed in a broader sense, which I hold may be the Hebrew sense, seed here certainly is not a technical term like the biologist meaning of seed.

spin:
Certainly algae do not have seeds. Algae lack everything you would need to fit it into the category you are cheating with. No roots, no leaves, no seeds, no flowers, no plant organs. In short you cannot make them into something they are not.

lee_merrill:
Well, algae have zoospore forms, the point is that the word seed is more general, and I did show that even "tree" seems to have had a range of meaning that includes flax stalks.

spin:
You are not a Hebrew scholar. You don't speak Hebrew. You don't have the means to justify your claims about the language, so when you say that "the word seed is more general" you are talking through your hat. You don't back up your claims with linguistic evidence.

Well, I'm not sure how this last statement you made continues the discussion, you resort here to saying I'm not an expert, I didn't claim to be, and I still stand by my point. Are you an expert? may I refute you in this manner?!

lee_merrill · 11-19-2007, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Von Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

It shows that "tree" is a broad kind of word, most Hebrew words are.

It doesn't show that the word refers to "algae".

Certainly, my point is to demonstrate that the word is broad enough to include such, if the Hebrews had known about bacteria and so forth.

Quote:

And banana plants can reasonably be called "trees" even in English usage, so that isn't exactly the broadening of sense and usage you need.

But this was in reference to the question of seed-bearing plants. And broccoli? But the point is that these would have likely been meant too, and they are here included in "I give you every plant bearing seed for food."

So broccoli and bananas are plants bearing seed, in the sense meant here.

lee_merrill · 11-19-2007, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: One would think that if the God of the Bible exists, and wants people to believe that intelligent design exists, he would show up and demonstrate that it exists. Wouldn't that be much more convincing than anything that Christians could come up with? Well of course it would...

Now Lee, what do you suppose that God is trying to accomplish?

Let's stay on topic please, Johnny. But recall that you have asked me essentially this question before, and recall how I have answered.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-19-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

So who back then would have thought of the appearance of light first, and then arrangement of land and sea and waters?

What is unusual about a Bible writer fantasizing that God created light before he created land? While working in the dark would not bother a God, it is reasonable to assume that the idea of God working in the dark did not appeal to the writer of the book of Genesis.

I recently started a new thread at the Science and Skepticism Forum that is titled "Biblical creationism." The link is http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=228702. I quoted your argument in the opening post. Following are the replies:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caine

Electromagnetic radiation, including light, has no priority chronologically or otherwise over other forms of energy in current scientific understanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjakey

Pretty much anyone who was writing the story. If "god" doesn't invent light first, how's he supposed to see what he is doing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

If you're making up a story, something has to come first. Seems to me that if you're making up a story about how everything got to where and how it is, you'd start with the non-material stuff like light, then go for the platform and scenery (the sky and earth and weather), then animals and plants. Isn't that how the story goes? You'd think, OTOH, that divine-obtained understanding would match what we've learned about the world, so that the ancient story would sound exactly like a modern (or even advanced to us) description of cosmology and evolution. Instead "God" sounds exactly like an ancient philosopher from a primitive farming culture -- why is that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

Sorry but Lee Merrill got even what the Bible says was first wrong.

Quote:

"In the beginning God Created the heaven and the Earth.

"And the Earth was without form, and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

"And God said. Let there be light: and there was light."

yadda yadda yadda.

Reads to me like the claim here is that god, the heavens, Earth, darkness, and water came before light.

ETA:
At a minimum you would have to say that the sequence (according the the bible) was
1. Heavens
2. Earth
3. Water
4. Light
5. etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

[replying to skepticalbip] True. Why is it that the very people who claim that a strict adherence to the Bible is required to save their everlasting souls don't actually seem to have a very accurate knowledge of this book? I've even seen such a person on these forums admit he hasn't read the book. If I thought adherence to such a work was required to keep me from everlasting punishment I'd know that thing by heart, backwards and forwards -- I'd be able to answer questions about it in my sleep. These folk --not so much.

Please be sure to visit that thread, Lee. The skeptics over at the Science and Skepticism Forum need a few laughs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

But again, we are skipping over the correspondences, where every thread like this becomes immediately "look at all the difficulties!" This ignores the substantial correspondences as if they were not there, correspondences such as light first and inanimate to animate, such as forming dry ground and simple to complex life, and finally man.

Well, your "light first" argument has already been demolished. What do you mean by "animate to inanimate?" What did God create that was inanimate before it became animate? Regarding simple to complex life, what is unusual about that? It would have been ridiculous for the writer to claim that animals were created before plants were created. What would the animals have eaten? What would Adam and Eve have eaten?

If the God of the Bible exists, what could he or anyone else possibly have to gain from his refusal to provide more evidence?

Johnny Skeptic · 11-19-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Now Lee, what do you suppose that God is trying to accomplish?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

Stay on topic please, Johnny. But recall that you have asked me essentially this question before, and recall how I have answered.

I am not aware that you have ever told me what you believe God is trying to accomplish. One of my favorite and most successful debate tactics has been to ask Christians what God is trying to accomplish. Whatever they answer, it is always easy to refute. Give it a try and see for yourself. A good place to discuss this issue would the GRD Forum, but I know that you would not be caught dead at that forum because philosophical arguments are allowed, and you know from past experience that you are quite inept at debating philosophical issues. You also know that you are inept at defending your supposed miracle healings. Even though personal experiences are a big part of your beliefs, you always refuse to discuss them in detail. It is telling when a Christian will refuse to discuss one of the main reasons why he is a Chrisitian.

Von Smith · 11-19-2007, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Von Smith

It doesn't show that the word refers to "algae".

Certainly, my point is to demonstrate that the word is broad enough to include such, if the Hebrews had known about bacteria and so forth.

The fact is that you have no idea what word the Hebrews would have used for bacteria, had they known about them. You have not presented any reason to think that it would be 'ets, or 'esev. The correspondence you are claiming is a figment of your wishful thinking.

Quote:

And banana plants can reasonably be called "trees" even in English usage, so that isn't exactly the broadening of sense and usage you need.

But this was in reference to the question of seed-bearing plants. And broccoli? But the point is that these would have likely been meant too, and they are here included in "I give you every plant bearing seed for food."

So broccoli and bananas are plants bearing seed, in the sense meant here.

You do know that broccoli is a manmade cultivar, don't you?

Johnny Skeptic · 11-19-2007, 02:42 PM

In a thread that I started at the Science and Skepticism Forum, Genesis Nemesis said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genesis Nemesis

Did light actually come first?

Sven replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Only if you stretch the meaning of "light" considerably. Given that during the cooling of the universe, quarks already formed at 10^25 K, almost 100% of the electromagnetic radiation would have been very hard gamma rays! (I used Wien's displacement law) Obviously, matter came first. Even protons and neutrons came before visible light ever appeared.

As usual, Lee Merrill loses.

spin · 11-20-2007, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Quote:

Regarding simple to complex life, what is unusual about that?

Many creation stories start with the complex, we think it intuitive that it starts simple because we have the record in scientific discoveries--let's not mistake our privileges in having this knowledge, let's not mistake that for human tendencies.

Plankton?

lee_merrill, you aren't grasping your task. You need to try to make sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

lee_merrill:
But most every plant produces seed in a broader sense, which I hold may be the Hebrew sense, seed here certainly is not a technical term like the biologist meaning of seed.

spin:
Certainly algae do not have seeds. Algae lack everything you would need to fit it into the category you are cheating with. No roots, no leaves, no seeds, no flowers, no plant organs. In short you cannot make them into something they are not.

lee_merrill:
Well, algae have zoospore forms, the point is that the word seed is more general, and I did show that even "tree" seems to have had a range of meaning that includes flax stalks.

spin:
You are not a Hebrew scholar. You don't speak Hebrew. You don't have the means to justify your claims about the language, so when you say that "the word seed is more general" you are talking through your hat. You don't back up your claims with linguistic evidence.

Well, I'm not sure how this last statement you made continues the discussion, you resort here to saying I'm not an expert, I didn't claim to be, and I still stand by my point. Are you an expert? may I refute you in this manner?!

You demonstrate that you are not an expert to anyone who knows the field. I'm someone who knows the field. That doesn't make me an expert, but that in a specialist field you need knowledge to understand what the field is about.

It is without difficulty that I can say that you don't know what you are talking about when you meddle in the meaning of Hebrew words. How does that help? Because it shows why you don't take notice of philological arguments. You don't know how to deal with them. You merely think that if you blather back you've done your apologetic necessities.

If someone asks you in Hebrew MH-$MK what efforts will you have to make to be able to respond? You need to understand the field you are trying to deal with to be able to make sense. So far, you haven't made any sense in your haphazard philological efforts.

spin

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

11-18-2007, 11:29 PM	#52
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to Lee Merrill: Please reply to my post #49.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.