|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
 Posted - 12/24/2003 : 14:41:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
But the Bible does mention the event of the breakup of Pangea, and that's... very interesting.
Additionally, the bible doesn't mention much about the geography of the planet beyond the middle east. This geography would clearly have been known by the human authors of the text in question. I find that interesting. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
 |
|
|
Stargirl
Skeptic Friend
USA
94 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2003 : 20:41:37 [Permalink]
|
Dave W, from what I remember from my anthropology and ancient civilization classes, (we're talking 25 years here so I may not have all facts exact but I think I remember the gist of it), the extremely young ages of marriage and childbirth were the norm. IIRC girls were usually married with children by the age of twelve. It wasn't until the last few centuries that marriage started coming later. The legal age for marriage in many countries and some US states is still twelve. When I was in fourth grade there was a girl in my class who got pregnant at the age of nine. I realize that is unusual but not unheard of. I don't know how old a male has to be before his sperm becomes viable for fertilization but the age of ten probably isn't impossible.
My ancient civilization instructor was almost; no I take that back she was really obsessed about ages. She critiqued the movie The Greatest Story Ever Told and a couple other films depicting ancient civilization. It pissed her off that they had people in their 30's, 40's and 50's playing people who were probably in their early twenties at best. One comment in particular that I remember her making was that many of the actions and decisions that we read about in history seem immature and impulsive by today's standards, (President Bush notwithstanding.) But that this was understandable if you take into consideration that many of histories major figures were only in their teens and early twenties. Alexander the Great was 20 when he ascended to the throne had conquered the known world by his mid-twenties and was dead at 33. She also told us that the average age of a soldier in Vietnam was about nineteen, while the average age of a soldier in an ancient army was more likely fifteen.
What I'm getting at, and what my instructor emphasized was that we shouldn't use today's societal norms for age specific behavior when thinking about life in ancient civilizations. And to quote my instructor, “Many if not most of these people were basically just kids.” Wow, it's amazing what comes back to you when you're lying in bed at two o'clock in the morning trying to compose a response.
About Isaac Asimov's distasteful personality. I'm not into hero worship and I learned a long time ago to separate a person's personality from their work. However I can understand your feelings toward Asimov because when I lived in LA I supplemented my income by working as an extra in films and movies, (mostly crowd scene stuff,) but I was able to observe the behavior of quite a few celebrities. And I couldn't help thinking that if the average fan could spend any time with some of those “beloved” bozos they would probably never watch another thing the actor or actress did.
Sorry it took so long to get back to you but I had to work a double shift today, we have one person on vacation and the other called in sick. Yeah right.
Edited to add
Sorry about the long post but sometimes it's hard for me to stop once I get started. And believe it or not I cut a lot of stuff out. Anyway, I'm always lurking but that's why I don't post a lot.
|
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him - Voltaire |
| Edited by - Stargirl on 12/24/2003 20:44:07 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2003 : 23:49:57 [Permalink]
|
Stargirl wrote:quote:
Dave W, from what I remember from my anthropology and ancient civilization classes, (we're talking 25 years here so I may not have all facts exact but I think I remember the gist of it), the extremely young ages of marriage and childbirth were the norm. IIRC girls were usually married with children by the age of twelve. It wasn't until the last few centuries that marriage started coming later. The legal age for marriage in many countries and some US states is still twelve. When I was in fourth grade there was a girl in my class who got pregnant at the age of nine. I realize that is unusual but not unheard of. I don't know how old a male has to be before his sperm becomes viable for fertilization but the age of ten probably isn't impossible.
Exactly, which is why I said an age of 10 was feasible, but was pushing my personal limits of belief for a Biblical story. I'm well aware of the differences between civilizations long ago - where a girl of 14 could actually be called a "spinster" and truly not have good marriage prospects for being too old - and nowadays. That's why I didn't have a problem with men fathering children at 13 or so.
On the other hand, I just remembered that Adam - who was the borderline case I wouldn't just grant for argument's sake (some of the others would wind up fathering children at the age of 3 if the years-to-months conversion was done) - was allegedly "born" as an adult, anyway. Waiting 10 years past that wouldn't make much of a difference. But this only subtracts another 120 years from the supposed age of the Earth. Another 4% reduction? Not too big a deal.quote:
And I couldn't help thinking that if the average fan could spend any time with some of those “beloved” bozos they would probably never watch another thing the actor or actress did.
I have little doubt of that.quote:
Sorry it took so long to get back to you...
What, one day? That's fast by many measures.quote:
Edited to add
Sorry about the long post...
You apparently haven't read some of my whoppers.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2003 : 13:55:29 [Permalink]
|
Hello
I believe that the whole "year=lunar month" thing is moot considering this:
"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh,: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."
You can see from the following geneologies that from that piont on, lifespans decreased until they reached their present length.
There is another doctrine which many, including me, find unfair: predestination. That Yahweh will send people to hell without giving them free will. The confusion here lies mainly upon two points:
1) the Bible does say that we are predestinated, and 2) some say that the Lord's will must come to pass.
On the first point, I don't believe that the word 'predestination' has the same value that Calvinists(the main supporters of predestination) give it. If your destination is Pizza Hut, and then your car breaks down and you can't go, then you did not fulfill your destiny.
On the next point, in short, Yahweh's will doesn't always come to pass.
"(the Lord) will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." 1 Timothy 2:4.
The Bible clearly says that some will be lost. Some people say that the Lord is really planning on saving everyone, and that the whole Hell thing is just a bogeyman story. This sounds great, but I don't see enough proof of it in Scripture.
Now, what Yahweh promises must come to pass, but I don't see where the Scripture says that everything Yahweh says is a promise.
There are of course many more verses on this subject, some of which I will supply when I return.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 12/26/2003 13:59:12 |
|
|
|
Stargirl
Skeptic Friend
USA
94 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2003 : 14:08:31 [Permalink]
|
Dave,
I hope you don't think that I believe the bible is the word of God, I don't. What I do believe is that the bible, the Old Testament anyway is a limited history of the Middle East centered on a single tribe of people. Liberally sprinkled with myths, fantasies, exaggerations and wishful thinking.
What of the New Testament? The biggest problem I have with it is that the only source of information on Jesus is the bible. Of all the books and articles I've read on Jesus' life the resources always traced back to the New Testament or to books written hundreds of years after he was supposed to have lived. And it seemed strange to me that I've read that archeologists/anthropologists had uncovered references to a number of Messiahs who were running around Judea during Roman rule but have never found any reference to Jesus.
You should know that I was raised in a religious family and growing up never questioned the veracity of the bible. But by the time I was ten I began to have my doubts. It still took years of reading, research and critical thinking in my teen years to come to my skeptical views. Like hippy4christ I had lots of questions, I can still remember the glaring stares that resulted from the questions I asked the priest who was conducting my confirmation classes. But back in the olden days the only resources I had were the local library and bookstores. Fortunately the city where I lived was large enough to have a good library with a large selection of books covering the sciences and philosophy. Sadly I long ago I found this isn't always the case.
I actually sort of envy hippy4christ because he is on a search for the truth. He has a lot more resources he can use than I did at his age. The Internet, hell computers in the home were only something you saw on the Jetsons. Even on Star Trek TOS tricorders, (part of its function appeared to work like a hand held computer), seemed to be used only by select officers. He's also lucky to have stumbled on SFN where there are people who can help guide him to the truth. And looking for the truth is what the search for knowledge is all about.
By the way hippy,
In the Lutheran church I attended as a child we used the Revised New Standard version of the bible. And I remember the Assistant pastor who conducted several of my confirmation classes saying that all other versions of the bible were tainted by the devil's influence. I have no idea how he came to this conclusion but it's been my experience that these types of religious ideas spread faster and are harder to counter than urban legends on the Internet.
As for the lunar months = years, although the lunar calendar was in use long before the solar calendar I merely presented it as an interesting speculation which I realize can never be proved. But when it comes to life expectancy decreasing to its present level I think you should do a little research because you will find that life expectancy has been on a steady and dramatic increase for the past several hundred years
|
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him - Voltaire |
|
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2003 : 18:39:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Hello board,
I am starting this thread in order to put an end to many of the fabled doctrines that are attributed to the Bible
I think the key word here is fabled.
If or because the bible is bunch of stories, stories, made up by people what the Hell do we care if there are misconceptions?
It's like Walt Disney taking the old fairy tale of Sleeping Beauty and retelling it, with a few artistic differences for entertainment. It's the same basic story but it's just that, a story. Or like playing the game Telephone, what's said at the end of the line might be a bit different than what started out but it's only a game. What does it matter? |
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2003 : 19:39:39 [Permalink]
|
Woody wrote:quote:
I think the key word here is fabled.
If or because the bible is bunch of stories, stories, made up by people what the Hell do we care if there are misconceptions?
Well, I care, for example, because when discussing or arguing doctrine with people who believe it to be true, I don't want to find myself accused of using strawmen or other faulty logic.
And it does matter, because avoiding the same sorts of bad arguments is one of the small things I ask of those same believers when they attempt to show that evolution is wrong. They often do not know the "doctrine" (by way of analogy only). This thread is a chance to make sure that I (at least) don't do the same sort of thing to them.
Fair is fair: that's why I care.
PS: I'm not ignoring you, Hippy, or anyone else. Busy times, but I'm slowly working on a reply to previous posts. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2003 : 22:54:13 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
Anyway, I'd be pleased in seeing any documentation of unbroken ancient histories, but as I said back on the 'magnetic field' thread, I'd have to know what documents they are speaking of. I've heard, for instance, that the Hindu have geneologies of kings dating back to thousands of years before the Biblical creation, but the actual documents themselves were written in 1500 AD, and that gives me cause to wonder.
I'm not talking about geneologies, I'm talking about "here's a document written in 2,300 BC. Here's one written in 2,290 BC. Here's one written in 2,279 BC. Etc." They're all different documents, written about different things, but they can all be accurately dated and form a history which doesn't have any large gaps in it.
I believe we have such documentation from China and from Egypt (and in the latter case, some of the "documents" are huge buldings or sculptures with heiroglyphics on them). I will look into this further.
quote:
Has anyone ever compared American Indian genes with other's genes? If so, show me. I'd also have to see that different races genes are dissimilar enough to be told apart.
Big article about this in the November Scientific American, actually. I'll re-read it and provide a summary.
quote:
And I'm also interested in seeing the studies that determined the paleomagnetic data of the Earth, and carbon dating, and all that stuff. I'd have to have it explained to me to the point where I could at least understand what they did and why it's supposed to work.
We can work on this, but it should probably be in other threads. Actually, perhaps all of this should be in other threads. We can work on that, too.quote:
And then I would want the data that they received when they made their first conclusion on a particular subject.
The first conclusion isn't particularly interesting. It's the repeated, over-and-over verification of that first conclusion which is important. Plate tectonics was sneered at for decades by leadings scientists until the accumulation of data became too much to ignore.
quote:
I have a question: which method of dating was first employed to discover the age of the Earth?
The Bible. I'm serious. Bishop Ussher's work only lagged behind a Des Cartes 6000-year age by a few years (but Des Cartes didn't include a literal six-day Creation). There's more to be found in the Talk.Origins FAQ, specifically Changing Views of the History of the Earth, which describes, without going into too much detail, many of the major and minor milestones of Earth dating over the last five centuries.
quote:
I've heard (but can't document yet) that when Mount Saint Helen erupted it created a canyon 1/7 the size of the Grand Canyon. And that since then erosion has worn away so much of it that it looks ancient. I plan to cruise National Geographic for this info, so don't hold me accountable yet.
Even with this photo, it is plain that the comparison between Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon is bad. The "canyon" cut at the base of the volcano is, by my estimation, perhaps 200 feet wide, and probably less than 100 feet deep, making it less than 1/50th the size of the Grand Canyon. But the relative size is actually beside the point. The real difference is that the volcano's "canyon" cut through freshly-laid ash and mud, and perhaps some low-density solidified lava. The Grand Canyon is cut through a mile of sedmentary rock. That the St. Helens' "canyon" looks ancient is actually superficial. We know that it is not.
quote:
I know that I sound like I'm biting of more than I can chew, but if I believe in something I really want to know it.
Then I need you to agree to do an experiment. For yourself. When spring rolls around again for you, and you can dig, you need to get the following items:- Garden hose (with continuous water supply, of course)
- An 8'x12"x1" plank
- A saw
- A shovel
- A claw hammer
- Some nails
- A sedimentary rock (a sandstone paver from a home-supply store should do well)
- A pad of paper
- A pen
- A plastic ruler
- A camera and film (or a digital camera)
When it's warm enough to dig, do the following:
- Saw the plank into quarters.
- Nail the resultant planks into a square shape. Do not drive the nails all the way flush, they are temporary.
- Place the square form on relatively flat ground, which your hose can reach with plenty of room to spare.
- Start digging nearby with the shovel. When you find relatively clean dirt (few rocks), start filling the form you built.
- Every couple of inches, tamp the dirt down into the form well. With your feet, the shovel, whatever. Make sure the dirt is very well-packed into the form.
- Continue until the form is full, to a uniform level about 2 inches below the top (about 10" of dirt).
- Using the claw on the hammer, carefully dismantle the form, leaving the packed dirt intact.
- Rebuld the square form.
- Place it, empty, on the ground downhill from the packed dirt block.
- Drive a nail into the middle of one edge of the form, just deep enough so that it is secure.
- Lay the nozzle of the garden hose against that nail, laying the hose across the opposite plank of the sqaure form.
- Drive another nail into the edge of the form where the nozzle is, on the other side of the nozzle, such that the nozzle won't move much (you may need to whack the nails towards each other to 'pinch' the nozzle in place).
- On the oppsite side of the form, drive a couple of nails into the edge of the plank to secure the section of hose laying across it (without damaging the hose, of course).
- After making sure the hose is turned away from the packed dirt block, turn the water to the hose on. Turn it on just enough so that the water hits the ground somewhere between two and three feet away from the nozzle. You want a steady stream of water, and not a spray.
- Once that's done, using the pen, note the time and date on the pad of paper.
- As quickly as possible, more the form, hose and all, water still running, so that the water splashes as close to the center of the dirt blo
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2003 : 23:04:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, I care, for example, because when discussing or arguing doctrine with people who believe it to be true, I don't want to find myself accused of using strawmen or other faulty logic.
And it does matter, because avoiding the same sorts of bad arguments is one of the small things I ask of those same believers when they attempt to show that evolution is wrong. They often do not know the "doctrine" (by way of analogy only). This thread is a chance to make sure that I (at least) don't do the same sort of thing to them.
Faulty logic? There's no logic!
It's not like one is debating philosophical thoughts and using 'if' 'then' arguments. They are stories, they make no sense. Other than that they are parables. Stories people decided to write down. Not observations like Dawin.
How can you argue with made up stories as opposed to what someone catalogs and is visible in nature?
I think talking about the bible is a waste of time and engery. If one believes, he's more likely not going to change his mind and I know I'm not going to change mine. What's the point. |
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2003 : 11:24:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Then why are you doing so?
(Are you, like in the 1st grade or something? Na, na. Na, Na!!! LOL)
That makes no sense!
I know nothing about the bible, therefore I can't argue about it. I'm telling you, if you are trying to talk to people who defend it, you are wasting your time.
Snake
Hap! E New Year! |
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2003 : 16:31:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I know nothing about the bible, therefore I can't argue about it. I'm telling you, if you are trying to talk to people who defend it, you are wasting your time.
Well this seems rather prejudiced. And anyway, the value of this thread is that there are some people who aren't Christians simply because they think that we teach horrible things. I'm trying to show that the Bible doesn't teach horrible things, and in the meantime I'm working on whether or not it's true.
Dave: Thank you for your suggestions, although spring comes rather late up here. Perhaps I should rephrase my ID comment: if I can prove that the world is only a few thousand years old, then others would be hard-pressed to come up with another non-Intelligent design theory that fits those specifications. Not that I really believe that I can prove that the world is a few thousand years old, but I might be able to prove that either we can't tell the real age of the Earth, or that the common man can't see for himself the age of the Earth. I think that when I'm done with this thread I'll post another one on that topic. Here's a link listing the changes that were made by Mt. St. Helens. I've only skimmed it.
http://creationism.org/sthelens/MSH1b_7wonders.htm
Later
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 12/31/2003 16:34:33 |
|
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2003 : 20:58:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
quote:
I know nothing about the bible, therefore I can't argue about it. I'm telling you, if you are trying to talk to people who defend it, you are wasting your time.
Well this seems rather prejudiced. And anyway, the value of this thread is that there are some people who aren't Christians simply because they think that we teach horrible things. I'm trying to show that the Bible doesn't teach horrible things, and in the meantime I'm working on whether or not it's true.
I'm not judging those people because of what I think might be, I'm saying that from my expierences. Perhaps it's not everyone in the world who's like that but it's a lot from what I see.
Hum! I never knew some people didn't want to be Christian because of negitive attitudes toward the bible, but OK.
My point was that the whole bible is just a story. Fine with me if someone wants to live his life because of what he thinks the bible tells him to do. So it doesn't matter to me if it's true or not.
I would think someone would decide if there's a god or not 1st before deciding to follow what that gods' book says, so how could they decide not to be Christian because of a book. Isn't it god that's the main character? One can be Christian without the book, no?
All those branches of Jewish, it's all too confussing to me. Why can't you guys get together and sort it out. One god, that's it! Stop adding so much. Then you wouldn't have to worry if someone doesn't like the bible or not. |
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
|
|
|
rickm
Skeptic Friend
Canada
109 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2003 : 21:05:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
if I can prove that the world is only a few thousand years old, then others would be hard-pressed to come up with another non-Intelligent design theory that fits those specifications.
Why does your faith hinge so much on the validity of a young earth?
Religion being a faith based endeavor does not require or should not depend on proof for sustenance, if it could be proven, then faith would not be necessary, and is faith not one of the main tenets of chrisitianity. If proof is your ultimate goal, it would seem you would have to put all faith aside until the goal of absolute proof is reached and since god does not reveal himself as he did in the old testament, one would have to have faith that he does exist. |
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?
-- Woody Allen, Without Feathers, 1975 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
