Freethought & Rationalism Archive

nogods4me · 07-31-2002, 06:38 AM

Oh I see, so the "Catholic Church" has a skewed view.
The original church, the church that as far as western europe is concerned was the only church for more than 1000 years. the church that has existed longer than all the others, the church that decided what was in and what was out of the bible, that church has a skewed view of the bible.
But your church, or is it just you Beach? you've got it all figured out, in what 10 years, or has your church been around longer? 50,100,200 years? so once again we hear that catholics aren't real christians. and a bunch of johnny come lately theologians have figured out in a brief time what the catholics couldn't get right in 2000 years. way to go!

CX · 07-31-2002, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
As far as the sources please don't tell me you seriously consider the Q theory to be true. The entire Q source is based solely off of speculation to contain anything that isn't in the other gospels. Where is the logic in that?

I'm curious how much study of the 2 source hypothesis you've done since your description seems overly simplistic and naive. The concept of Q is not based on speculation, but rather features of the texts we have. An Q isn't "anything that isn't in the other gospels", but rather those elements which are common to GMt and GLk which are not found in GMk. There is no particular reason to think that "Q" was one text only that ALk and AMt were working from the same written source or sources. Scholars generally treat "Q" as one source because it minimizes the number of hypothetical entities.

The fact is the verbatim agreement of some passages in AMt and ALk combined with common creative facets (i.e. arrangement of material that shows creative influence rather than a straight reporting of events) avails itself of only two possibilities. Either AMt and ALk are working from a common written source(s) for the non-marcan material or one used the other. The latter hypothesis raises more serious questions than it resolves and so we tentatively accept the former. It is a reasonable conclusion given the evidence we have.

Oolon Colluphid · 07-31-2002, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:

[ref ordering of fossils in the geologic column]

We have long ago established this statement but it still has no evidence supplied to back up the claim.

Try any palaeontology textbook. Try <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0632052384/qid=1028132053/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-3584038-2678203" target="_blank">Clarkson</a> for invertebrates, and Benton or Carroll for vertebrates.

Or pop over to Lyme Regis in Dorset (where Mary Anning found the ichthyosaurs). I�ll come with you. Let�s see if there�s any mammal bones in the rocks, yeah?

Funny how there�s not a sign of pollen before the late Jurassic, no? It�s bloody everywhere afterwards.

Quote:

As far as the idea that a flood would cause heavier bones to settle first, it is true that a heavier object sinks faster but given the time frame in which the creatures would have died(quickly) and the time frame necessary to make fossils (a long time) you wouldn't have these distinct layers as you suggest.

Sorry, you�ve lost me. The fossil record is jammed full of distinct layers. What you on about?

Quote:

and we still await your explanation on how all forms of radiometric dating are faulty, and yet they give remarkably similar results, so that amazingly they are all faulty to exactly the same degee.

Regarding this statement, am I on a timeline here that I am supposed to provide this evidence for you at a moment's notice?

Allow me. Here�s a <a href="http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html" target="_blank">Radiometric Dating Resource List</a> to start you off.

I look forward to your replies. Might I suggest that you come on over to Evolution/Creation? Show us why evolution is wrong. Please.

TTFN, Oolon

Beach_MU · 07-31-2002, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nogods4me:
Creationist arguement 1) there are not enough fossils to prove evoulution. if evolution is true where are all the fossils?

Have I at any point made this claim?

Beach_MU · 07-31-2002, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
Beach_MU,

Forgive me if you've touched on this, but what is your estimate for the date and length of the Flood?

While that is a perfectly valid question I don't have any particular estimate for the date or the length of the Flood. Any such estimate would be purely speculation, which doesn't prove anything.

Beach_MU · 07-31-2002, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson:
Yes, but Jesus said Peter was the rock and Jesus was founding his church on the rock. Peter started the Catholic Church, therefore, by the words of Jesus himself, the Catholics are indeed the only true Christian church.
This is the statement you'll get from Catholics when the issue of Orthodox and Protestants arise, and by that biblical definition, the Catholics are right.

I'm sorry but I think there is a flaw in your logic. Peter did start the church, but don't confuse the early church with the Catholic church. If something becomes corrupt and I don't think you're going to find much debate that the Catholic church was extrememly corrupt, that doesn't suggest that if a small group decides to break away and follow what the Bible actually says that they aren't Christian. I'm not really interested in getting into a debate about the Catholic church but there are many things they did/do that are clearly not Biblical. And further on Jesus' statement that Peter was the rock of the church, if someone tells you that you are a brilliant scientist/whatever does that mean that every one of your children are also brilliant scientists? You are grasping at straws.

Beach_MU · 07-31-2002, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Jedi:
This has strayed back on topic. Thanks folks.
I have been giving this thread a lot of leeway due to the gray areas between biblical accuracy and paleontology/evolution. I need you to please try to keep from straying too far off.
If not, I propose moving it to Evolution/Creation.

I agree whole-heartedly. If I was interested in debating evolution I would be in that forum.

Beach_MU · 07-31-2002, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nogods4me:
But your church, or is it just you Beach? you've got it all figured out, in what 10 years, or has your church been around longer? 50,100,200 years? so once again we hear that catholics aren't real christians.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Did I say catholics aren't real christians? No I said that the Catholic Church as a whole had a skewed view of the Bible. Read the Catholic Catechism. It isn't completely biblical. Are parts of it? Yes. Are there catholics who are christians? Yes. Don't confuse the issues.

Jayhawker Soule · 07-31-2002, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
While that is a perfectly valid question I don't have any particular estimate for the date or the length of the Flood. Any such estimate would be purely speculation, which doesn't prove anything.

Thanks. For what it's worth (absurdly little in my opinion) <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3563.asp" target="_blank">This 1981 Article</a> derives a date of 2304 � 11 BCE, after first noting:

Quote:

It is unlikely anyone will dispute that Christ was born approximately 1,984 years ago. Since Christ is recorded as having referred to Noah's Flood as a past event it should be obvious that we need data that will take us back beyond 2000 years.

Am I correct in assuming that you are a Young Earth literalist?

BTW, kudos for your efforts at dealing with so many opponents.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Beach_MU · 07-31-2002, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
Am I correct in assuming that you are a Young Earth literalist?

Please define what you categorize as Young Earth literalists lest I agree to something I don't believe. I don't label my beliefs in such terms though I do believe in Creation and a shorter time period for the earth if that answers your question, though Creation/Evolution isn't the topic of this forum.

BTW, kudos for your efforts at dealing with so many opponents.

Thank you, I can only hope that in trying to answer questions about so many different topics at once, that my "opponents" would grant me some leeway in "mis-speaking" or more accurately "mis-typing" as the case would be.

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

07-31-2002, 06:38 AM	#181
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	Oh I see, so the "Catholic Church" has a skewed view. The original church, the church that as far as western europe is concerned was the only church for more than 1000 years. the church that has existed longer than all the others, the church that decided what was in and what was out of the bible, that church has a skewed view of the bible. But your church, or is it just you Beach? you've got it all figured out, in what 10 years, or has your church been around longer? 50,100,200 years? so once again we hear that catholics aren't real christians. and a bunch of johnny come lately theologians have figured out in a brief time what the catholics couldn't get right in 2000 years. way to go!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.