DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> just another scientific debate
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 131, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/08/2007 03:01:22 PM · #101
Originally posted by milo655321:

have you ever wondered if the Brachiosaurus was a “clean” or “unclean” animal? Could you imagine seven pairs of those things on a barge?

Oh, but the STEAKS!
11/08/2007 03:06:20 PM · #102
Originally posted by milo655321:

have you ever wondered if the Brachiosaurus was a “clean” or “unclean” animal? Could you imagine seven pairs of those things on a barge?

I imagine things were pretty unclean after even one of those things had "processed" a few tons of vegetation a day for forty days ... must've made the Augean Stables look like a Porta-poti® ... ;-)
11/08/2007 03:36:06 PM · #103
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:

Does that mean that slavery should be considered as legitimate and and as valid as my belief that it is wrong?


With so many specific passages condoning slavery in the Bible (which in itself had long been used as justification for its practice), I'm curious to know what led to your belief that it's wrong?

The Bible.

Scripture says ( 1 Cor 7:21-23 ): "Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men."

And Scripture points out that trading in slaves is contrary to the gospel ( 1 Tim 1:9-11): "We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me."
11/08/2007 03:39:26 PM · #104
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:

I am claiming nothing about (macro) evolution either way. I am merely pointing out that theories predicated upon hypotheses are by nature unproven insofar as the hypotheses themselves are unproven. It's just logic.


You're dodging. You tried to dispel a theory using an hypothesis that isn't even a basis for that theory. You also make in plainly obvious that you still don't understand what a scientific theory is.

If I grant your argument, then perhaps you would be so kind as to state what exactly the basis for that theory is, if not hypotheses?
A scientific theory is a "best guess" based on the evidence available to date.
11/08/2007 03:42:48 PM · #105
Originally posted by RonB:

Scripture says [passages denouncing slavery]

Scripture also says:

And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Gen.9:20-25

But every man's servant that is bought for money.... Ex.12:44

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant.... Ex.20:17

If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. ... and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Ex.21:2-6

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master.... Ex.21:7-8

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. Ex.21:20-21

And in case you thought the New Testament did not approve of slavery:

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ. Eph.6:5

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. Col.3:22

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 1 Tim.6:1

Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. Titus 2:10-11

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. 1 Pet.2:18

So, which part of the bible doesn't condone slavery now?
11/08/2007 03:43:18 PM · #106
Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:

Then, too, your arguments are illogical. For example, your argument that the faith of the Aztecs being rooted in deeply held beliefs and carrying their civilization for centuries gives it legitimacy and validity.

That's not what I said. I said the two beliefs were as legitimate as each other, with one not being less valid than the other. It is merely a historical fact that Aztecs had deeply held religious beliefs, and that their very civilization depended on them. In that context, it is irrelevant what those beliefs actually were.

If not meant as support for your position, why did you include that "historical fact"?
11/08/2007 03:58:50 PM · #107
Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:

Then, too, your arguments are illogical. For example, your argument that the faith of the Aztecs being rooted in deeply held beliefs and carrying their civilization for centuries gives it legitimacy and validity.

That's not what I said. I said the two beliefs were as legitimate as each other, with one not being less valid than the other. It is merely a historical fact that Aztecs had deeply held religious beliefs, and that their very civilization depended on them. In that context, it is irrelevant what those beliefs actually were.

If not meant as support for your position, why did you include that "historical fact"?

Picking on this point mires us in a morass of detail irrelevant to refuting your supposition that faith in God is constant, but I'll humour you.

I say that Aztecs sacrificed children as part of their religious faith. I say that their religious faith is rooted in deeply held beliefs - obviously. Isn't every faith? I say that their practice of sacrifice and religion in general sustained their particular culture, on which their civilization rested, for centuries. You conclude that these statements legitimize and validate those very religious practices. I say byoo-lawx. :-)

Because you have committed a deductive logical fallacy. It went something like this:

Aztecs sacrificed children.
Aztecs had faith that this sacrifice appeased their gods.
Aztecs had other, deeply rooted beliefs based on this faith.
These beliefs were an important part of their culture for centuries.
The sacrifice of the children was therefore legitimate and valid.

[Insert emoticon of a frowny with rolling eyes, all confused - I don't have one.]
11/08/2007 04:49:39 PM · #108
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Scalvert:

Ah, so 100 ton dinosaurs (creatures that moves along the ground) WERE on the Ark alongside woolly mammoths, but simply weren't mentioned. That's priceless. :-)

If you say so.
Because, surely, I didn't.


Did I misunderstand or did you not answer the question? Where exactly do the dinosaurs fit in biblical accounts of history? If you say dinosaurs never existed or were some sort of unproven theory, I'm going to laugh myself into a coma. If you suggest that extinct 100 ton animals were kept on a wooden boat with humans during the worst storm in recorded history, it'll probably result in the same coma. If you claim that the vast majority of biodiversity that ever existed on this planet just popped into existence after humans, without a single historical mention of animals as impressive and unmistakable as an Apatosaur, and then became magically buried under hundreds of feet of rock much older than the earliest evidence of man... well, I'll try to contain my laughter, but the aforementioned coma still looms. Hopefully you have a better explanation. ;-)

1) Dinosaurs did exist
2) Extinct 100-ton animals were NOT kept on a wooden boat with humans during the worst storm in recorded history. On the other hand, it is not beyond belief that IF dinosaurs coexisted with man, AND that the story of Noah is true, that several pairs of pre-pubescent dinosaurs COULD have been kept on the ark. It is "generally accepted" ( Nature 412 ) that dinosaurs exhibited an adolescent "growth spurt". In the case of apatosaurus, the growth spurt is thought to have occurred at about 5 years of age. If a pair of apatosauri were to enter the ark at age 1, they wouldn't hit their growth spurt for another 3-4 years, well after the ark had been unloaded.

11/08/2007 04:54:25 PM · #109
Originally posted by RonB:

On the other hand, it is not beyond belief that IF dinosaurs coexisted with man, AND that the story of Noah is true, that several pairs of pre-pubescent dinosaurs COULD have been kept on the ark.

Whoa. That's the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that. How... erm... unique.

Since we're on this topic, did the ark also hold all ten million species of insects? Or did the fly-y ones just flit around for forty days, so that only about, say, five million species had to be on board?
11/08/2007 05:06:32 PM · #110
Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:

Scripture says [passages denouncing slavery]

Scripture also says:

And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Gen.9:20-25

But every man's servant that is bought for money.... Ex.12:44

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant.... Ex.20:17

If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. ... and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Ex.21:2-6

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master.... Ex.21:7-8

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. Ex.21:20-21

And in case you thought the New Testament did not approve of slavery:

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ. Eph.6:5

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. Col.3:22

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 1 Tim.6:1

Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. Titus 2:10-11

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. 1 Pet.2:18

So, which part of the bible doesn't condone slavery now?

The parts I quoted.
The New Testament does not APPROVE of slavery, as you say. It merely acknowledges it as something that was practiced AT THE TIME, and proposes that existing slaves be treated humanely and that slaves be obedient to their masters.

Christ was NOT an advocate of overthrowing the social orders of the time - including those related to marriage, family, culture, food, religion, etc.
11/08/2007 05:16:46 PM · #111
Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:

On the other hand, it is not beyond belief that IF dinosaurs coexisted with man, AND that the story of Noah is true, that several pairs of pre-pubescent dinosaurs COULD have been kept on the ark.

Whoa. That's the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that. How... erm... unique.


Unfortunatly, not unique. Also check out Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study by John Woodmorappe (aka Jan Peczkis).
11/08/2007 05:19:25 PM · #112
Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:

On the other hand, it is not beyond belief that IF dinosaurs coexisted with man, AND that the story of Noah is true, that several pairs of pre-pubescent dinosaurs COULD have been kept on the ark.

Whoa. That's the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that. How... erm... unique.

Since we're on this topic, did the ark also hold all ten million species of insects? Or did the fly-y ones just flit around for forty days, so that only about, say, five million species had to be on board?
Rather than engage in a Well, what about? . . .Well, what about?. . .Well, what about? round and round and round - let me just refer you to the Answers in Genesis page that explains how all the requisite animals could have fit into the ark.
11/08/2007 05:20:25 PM · #113
Originally posted by RonB:

The New Testament does not APPROVE of slavery, as you say. It merely acknowledges it as something that was practiced AT THE TIME, and proposes that existing slaves be treated humanely and that slaves be obedient to their masters.


In other words, "it's immoral to have slaves, but, if you were going to have slaves, here's the moral way to do it"?

(Edited: to make it more relevant to the discussion at hand. (Could have sidetracked things.)

Message edited by author 2007-11-08 17:28:09.
11/08/2007 05:23:13 PM · #114
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/38509/orig/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_464155.gif', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/38509/orig/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_464155.gif', '/') + 1) . '
11/08/2007 05:31:26 PM · #115
Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Scalvert:

You also make in plainly obvious that you still don't understand what a scientific theory is.

A scientific theory is a "best guess" based on the evidence available to date.


Nicely demonstrated. "Best guess" is exactly what a scientific theory ISN'T.

Originally posted by RonB:

...it is not beyond belief that IF dinosaurs coexisted with man, AND that the story of Noah is true, that several pairs of pre-pubescent dinosaurs COULD have been kept on the ark.


Mmmph...ack... somebody call 911...giggle... hurry! ;-)

I didn't think anyone with a driver's license still entertained the possibility that titanosaurs and humans ever co-existed (Raquel Welch notwithstanding). Nevertheless, that still doesn't explain why there's not a single mention of lifeforms- from trilobites to mastodons- that dominated most of this planet's history (with remains found on every continent) in a document that purports to explain the creation of life. Instead, this account seems to start with "In the beginning," and then skip straight from page one to contemporary animals of the last chapter.
11/08/2007 05:43:37 PM · #116
Originally posted by RonB:

let me just refer you to the Answers in Genesis page that explains how all the requisite animals could have fit into the ark.


Wow! Thanks for that... I may not need another laugh for months! One of my favorite gems:

"Another problem often raised by atheists and theistic evolutionists is ‘how did disease germs survive the flood?’ This is a leading question—it presumes that germs were as specialized and infectious as they are now, so all the Ark’s inhabitants must have been infected with every disease on earth. But germs were probably more robust in the past, and have only fairly recently lost the ability to survive in different hosts or independently of a host."

There's nothing quite like using evolution to refute those darn evolutionists. ;-)
11/08/2007 06:03:29 PM · #117
Originally posted by scalvert:

There's nothing quite like using evolution to refute those darn evolutionists. ;-)

Yes - that was going to be my response to Ron, but really, what on earth could possibly be the point?
11/08/2007 06:14:58 PM · #118
Originally posted by goc:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/38509/orig/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_464155.gif', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/38509/orig/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_464155.gif', '/') + 1) . '


I hear yaa

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=610049

Message edited by L2 - Please see Forum Rule #7.
11/08/2007 06:15:13 PM · #119
I see that this thread can go on forever, with people debating the point or around the point, but i have one thing to explain about the Bible, just so everyone understands this point, because this will clear up an incredible amount of seeming "contradictions" in the Bible. The Old Testament is all under the Old Covenant between God and man. When He came to earth and died, He broke the Old Covenant, and made a New Covenant with man. The Old Covenant was full of Rules that you had to live by because there wasn't a way for us to completely connect to God. When He died we were offered a connection to God, so that our relationship with Him wasn't just a set of rules, but a loving relationship where we can interact with Him rather than simply having to follow a bunch of old laws.

Message edited by author 2007-11-08 18:15:33.
11/08/2007 06:39:03 PM · #120
Originally posted by ryand:

... our relationship with Him wasn't just a set of rules, but a loving relationship where we can interact with Him rather than simply having to follow a bunch of old laws.

The Inquisition seemed to think we should be following a bunch of silly old laws -- or else ...
11/08/2007 06:53:33 PM · #121
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by ryand:

... our relationship with Him wasn't just a set of rules, but a loving relationship where we can interact with Him rather than simply having to follow a bunch of old laws.

The Inquisition seemed to think we should be following a bunch of silly old laws -- or else ...


You are exactly correct. The Roman Catholic Church believes that works are what get us into Heaven. I don't believe that, I know that it is absolutely impossible for me to be good enough to get into Heaven. The only way I'm getting into Heaven is by believing that Jesus died on the cross and accepting His forgiveness.
11/08/2007 07:15:22 PM · #122
Originally posted by ryand:

...The only way I'm getting into Heaven is by believing that Jesus died on the cross and accepting His forgiveness.


Does that mean that if I believe at the last minute I'm in... it's gotta be so, he is after all a forgiving God... OK I'll sign up later.

Ray

OOPS... Needed a big G...

Message edited by author 2007-11-08 19:16:26.
11/08/2007 07:22:22 PM · #123
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by ryand:

...The only way I'm getting into Heaven is by believing that Jesus died on the cross and accepting His forgiveness.


Does that mean that if I believe at the last minute I'm in... it's gotta be so, he is after all a forgiving God... OK I'll sign up later.

Ray

OOPS... Needed a big G...


Actually yes (technically), however the problem there is that there is no way of knowing what your last minute is. But yes you are correct in the fact that you can "sign up" anytime you want to. God doesn't expect us to be perfect, He just wants us to believe in Him and have a relationship with Him. But probably if you don't want a relationship you aren't going to want one later in life.

Message edited by author 2007-11-08 20:54:05.
11/08/2007 07:32:41 PM · #124
I'm sorry, but I'm still cracking up over the thought of baby dinosaurs on a big wooden boat. Seriously, I find that absolutely hilarious.

Of course just explaining how they might fit on the boat doesn't address the question of where they were before, what happened to them after the boat landed, or how they all got to the loading dock in the first place. I mean, all these animals didn't walk from distant continents, and charter boat service wouldn't be available for a few thousand years. I've asked that question before, and the only explanation offered was that the animals either swam or floated on natural rafts. That got me thinking about what such a scene must've looked like. Picture a couple of local guys chatting in a hut back then...

"Dude, yer never gonna believe this..."

"Whuh?"

"Me and Ephraim, we wuz out fishing at the point, and alluva sudden all these crazy animals started driftin by on logs and matted vegetation. I mean, CRAZY animals... stuff you never see around here."

"Noah way!"

"Yah, weh! We saw, like, kangaroos, giant tortoises, polar bears, mooses, dinosaurs, and a couple that looked like ducks with furry butts. I couldn't find them weird things in the Field Guide to Unclean Animals, but Ephraim sez they was prolly just mallardjusted beavers."

"Oh my Zeus... what'd ya do?"

"Well, they wuz all in little pairs, like, so we figgured they wuz prolly aliens going to an invasion or sumthin, and we started whackin as many as we could to sink em."

"Whoa, dude. That's awesome!

"Yah, I think we got all the dinosaurs, and the unicorns, but then it started getting dark, and a coupla skunks drifted in as I wuz beatin the dragons, so we had to stop."

"Oh, man! Well, maybe I can go out tomorrow and help you. I wuz gonna build a deck, but all the Home Depots around here have been backordered on lumber for, like, months."

"I dunno, man, from the looks of them clouds rolling in, we prolly won't get out tomorrow, but we sure could use the rain."

;-)
11/08/2007 08:52:30 PM · #125
Originally posted by scalvert:



"Noah way!"

"Yah, weh!

;-)


You're killing me! :-))

LMF(fanny)O

:-P
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/28/2021 10:41:53 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/28/2021 10:41:53 PM EDT.