Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 07-31-2002, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
Please define what you categorize as Young Earth literalists lest I agree to something I don't believe.

If you read the 1981 article, generally agreed with the approach and (on a preliminary basis) had no substantive issues with the resulting date, I'd classify you as a Young Earth literalist.

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
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.

At least one does. ( But I still think it's bullpuckie.

)

Skeptical · 07-31-2002, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by peterkirby:
Skeptical writes: A 5% margin of error is acceptable in many areas of science.

This may be a nitpick, but 60 million is 20% of 300 million. Did you mean "1/5 margin of error"?

best,
Peter Kirby

Criminy, I really should check my figures before posting! Thanks for the catch Peter, my math was just wrong and I was a bit aggitated at the time and let me hands run a little freely without properly proof reading.

Skeptical · 07-31-2002, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:


I apologize if I implied that you agreed with what they said, that was not my intent. Also I apologize because I did misread your earlier post. I read each of these posts and when reading lots of posts it is possible to miss a word and unfortunately in this case it made a difference.

As far as the Q source is concerned. I do read posts and ideas that I don't agree with otherwise I wouldn't even be on this forum. I don't dispute that some of the material in Matthew and Luke probably came from Mark and perhaps some other written source simply based on the fact that there is similar verbage, but that doesn't suggest that all such content comes from one source and that Luke was merely copying it as Vork implied.

First, I'd like to offer an apology of my own for my attitude in my last few posts. I let my frustration at the bogus arguments put forward by YEC sites get the better of me. I have always tried to be civil on this board and I should do a better job of curbing my emotions. After re-reading some of my posts, I am sorry for some of the emotional content. (I do however stand by my fact related comments)

Having said this, I agree that particular reconstructions of Q are problematic if for no other reason than we have no objective way to determine what portions common to LUke and Mat. may have come from a single or multiple sources or even what portions may have been common through an oral tradition. There is some interesting speculation, but it is still speculation. We can say which parts appear common and make draw some conclusions from general themes but that's about as far as the evidence can take us.

Radcliffe Emerson · 07-31-2002, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
 You are grasping at straws.

The exact quote I made from the bible concerning Peter is the one the Catholics make. They say Peter started the Catholic Church, therefore, it is the only true church of Christ.
All of the different Christian movements, the deciding of what books to put in the bible, which manuscripts to use, which translation to use, forcing the doctrine of the Trinity on other Christian groups, then killing the ones that wouldn't accept it, etc, have all been decided on by groups of men. Nothing divine about it, or inspired, merely human men deciding their way was the right way (backed by the emperor Constantine in the beginning), and enforcing that way on everyone else.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Radcliffe Emerson · 07-31-2002, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
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.

Furthermore, this statement to me seems to be an interpretation of what Jesus meant by his comment. If it's the inspired word of God, it has to be taken at face value. One cannot interpret the inspired word of God to suit one's own ends or start one's own movement, which is exactly what Martin Luther did when he broke from the Church. The succession of popes trace back to Peter himself according to the Catholics, and their stance is Jesus told Peter he was founding the Church, therefore theirs is the only correct Christian church.

Skeptical · 07-31-2002, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:

You don't have to dig up references unless if you'd like to, but I do have one quick question that I would like to ask since you seem to have investigated this to some degree (and yes I do plan to investigate this as well, but it's late and I'm going to sleep soon and just figured I ask). Is there evidence in the fossil record that suggests the claim of macro-evolution? What I mean by this is, is there fossil evidence to suggest that any species has ever evolved into another species and if so could you please provide references (for this part at least).

Yes, there is evidence, please see the following link.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html</a>

It's a bit long, but I believe if you truly read all the information here you will see why the evidence we have from the fossil record is so strong. It's not just the fossils we find, it's the fossils we _don't_ find. For example, according to evolutionary theories regarding common descent, if we were to find a fossil that was a hybrid between a mammal and a bird, evolutionary theories would have a serious problem accounting for this. We have never found such a fossil. Numerous other examples are given at this link of ways in which portions of evolutionary theories could be falsified. To this point, none of them have been. It's interesting stuff.

I also highly recommend looking at this link if you have time, its a lot of good info on transitional fossils:

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html</a>

There is a lot of transitional fossil information, it's just not widley known among the general lay public. I'll let this short quote speak for itself (it's from the above link):

"Why don't paleontologists bother to popularize the detailed lineages and species-to-species transitions? Because it is thought to be unnecessary detail. For instance, it takes an entire book to describe the horse fossils even partially (e.g. MacFadden's "Fossil Horses"), so most authors just collapse the horse sequence to a series of genera. Paleontologists clearly consider the occurrence of evolution to be a settled question, so obvious as to be beyond rational dispute, so, they think, why waste valuable textbook space on such tedious detail?"

Quote:

Lastly, your precision for words is fine but please don't criticize me if I use a word that you don't feel 100% comfortable with. Pointing it out is one thing, but accusing me of "selective reading" simply because I'm not using the same "exactness" in my terms that you would prefer is unwarranted.

I will try to be less personal in future posts, I agree that personal attacks are unwarranted.

Radcliffe Emerson · 07-31-2002, 11:01 AM

I guess what I'm trying to say out of all this is:
When the most recent historical and archaelogical studies offer very little support for biblical accounts, when the different stories about Jesus do not agree with each other, or add new things to the story each time about what happened, or what he said, who he appeared to, why should we believe any of it?
Archaelogists now know that Egypt first had the concept of one God. The Israelites at that time do not have a one God concept, it suddenly emerges AFTER the Egyptian pharoah declares the sun god is the only god. Too much of a coincidence to me.
When it's known that the Gospels do not appear for decades after Jesus died, and when it's known that the early Christians did not teach about the resurrection, or the virgin birth, or eternal hell, and were killed by the scores by other Christians forcing their opinions on them, why should be believe the current Christian thinking is the correct one?
When there are other religions in the world that have just as many moral sayings in them as Christianity, and when Jews say the Christian concept of the Messiah doesn't even have its origin in Judaism at all, why should we believe the Christian way is the only right way?
When the bible in the time it was written teaches that heaven is right above the sky in the clouds, and hell is underneath the ground, yet we mine beneath the ground now, and have been above the clouds to space, and seen neither a heaven there or a hell, why should it be believed?
As we've learned more about science over the centuries, more and more of the bible stories have been re-interpreted to adjust to the times. More Jewish rabbis are now teaching their Torah and history as inspired myths, rather than literal history.
This in itself to me goes against it being the inspired word of a supreme being.
Why would a supreme being create all of mankind in its image out of love, then turn around and say everyone on the planet must accept Jesus as a personal saviour, dip their head in water to be baptized and believe he was born of a virgin and raised from the dead, or they will burn in hell forever? Why did Jesus say "Whatever you ask for in my name will be granted?" then people pray for their loved ones etc in his name, and nothing happens?
Why should any of this be believed as literal truth?

Jayhawker Soule · 07-31-2002, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson:
Why should any of this be believed as literal truth?

Given that you're a theist, I'd be interested to knowing how you select 'truth'.

Kosh · 07-31-2002, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson:
Why should any of this be believed as literal truth?

Church picnics?

Radcliffe Emerson · 07-31-2002, 11:28 AM

I select truth based on facts that can be proven.

I do tend to believe some kind of conscious force may have created the universe, but I am more agnostic in that regard, because I do not see any evidence of it, or think there is any way for us to know.
People that claimed to be inspired while writing the bible, or the Koran, etc to me are no more or less inspired than people that have lived in our times who claimed god was talking to them.
In today's day and age, whenever someone says god speaks to them, and they deliver messages different from the bible, such as Edgar Cayce, Christians instantly say 'well that's wrong, or they're being controlled by satan.'
If satan exists, and I don't believe in it, who's to say some of the writers of books in the bible weren't being controlled by satan instead of god?

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

07-31-2002, 11:01 AM	#197
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	I guess what I'm trying to say out of all this is: When the most recent historical and archaelogical studies offer very little support for biblical accounts, when the different stories about Jesus do not agree with each other, or add new things to the story each time about what happened, or what he said, who he appeared to, why should we believe any of it? Archaelogists now know that Egypt first had the concept of one God. The Israelites at that time do not have a one God concept, it suddenly emerges AFTER the Egyptian pharoah declares the sun god is the only god. Too much of a coincidence to me. When it's known that the Gospels do not appear for decades after Jesus died, and when it's known that the early Christians did not teach about the resurrection, or the virgin birth, or eternal hell, and were killed by the scores by other Christians forcing their opinions on them, why should be believe the current Christian thinking is the correct one? When there are other religions in the world that have just as many moral sayings in them as Christianity, and when Jews say the Christian concept of the Messiah doesn't even have its origin in Judaism at all, why should we believe the Christian way is the only right way? When the bible in the time it was written teaches that heaven is right above the sky in the clouds, and hell is underneath the ground, yet we mine beneath the ground now, and have been above the clouds to space, and seen neither a heaven there or a hell, why should it be believed? As we've learned more about science over the centuries, more and more of the bible stories have been re-interpreted to adjust to the times. More Jewish rabbis are now teaching their Torah and history as inspired myths, rather than literal history. This in itself to me goes against it being the inspired word of a supreme being. Why would a supreme being create all of mankind in its image out of love, then turn around and say everyone on the planet must accept Jesus as a personal saviour, dip their head in water to be baptized and believe he was born of a virgin and raised from the dead, or they will burn in hell forever? Why did Jesus say "Whatever you ask for in my name will be granted?" then people pray for their loved ones etc in his name, and nothing happens? Why should any of this be believed as literal truth?

07-31-2002, 11:28 AM	#200
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	I select truth based on facts that can be proven. I do tend to believe some kind of conscious force may have created the universe, but I am more agnostic in that regard, because I do not see any evidence of it, or think there is any way for us to know. People that claimed to be inspired while writing the bible, or the Koran, etc to me are no more or less inspired than people that have lived in our times who claimed god was talking to them. In today's day and age, whenever someone says god speaks to them, and they deliver messages different from the bible, such as Edgar Cayce, Christians instantly say 'well that's wrong, or they're being controlled by satan.' If satan exists, and I don't believe in it, who's to say some of the writers of books in the bible weren't being controlled by satan instead of god?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.