Oh Lord, where Ark thou?

Cypress said:
I have read Genesis in English translation, but your position is that unless someone has read the entire Affordable Care Act and the entire Roe v Wade supreme court decision word for word, page by page, they are not allowed to write or talk about Obamacare or abortion rights.

Pretty silly, huh?
Click to expand...

Off topic
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I'm pretty sure that I admitted to reading some of it.
The old testament in particular is a manifesto of lunacy.
The new testament has some good ideas stated in allegorical fashion, but so-called Christians don't follow any of it.
Intellectual atheists are more inclined to have Christian values in my experience.
Click to expand...

Some ain't shit
 
Cypress said:
There is a lot of crap in the Tanakh I just can't wade through. The Pentateuch has a lot of stuff about Jewish dietary law that bores me to tears, the writings have a lot of mediocre poetry that bore me (maybe in the original Hebrew the poetry is more beautiful), and some of the prophets part, the ethics wisdom, is pretty good, but I can't say I have read all the prophets word for word
Click to expand...

No problem! But don't pretend you have an opinion!
 
Taichiliberal said:
Your first sentence is just regurgitated drivel that STILL avoids my fact based point. I'll post it here for the objective readers to see, because clearly you suffer from intellectual honesty. Let me put this side bar to rest: to say that over 230 years of increasing global deforestation, industrialization and its air/ground/sea pollution, urbanization on grand scales has no (or negligible) effect on the planet's eco-system is just illogical (or to put plainly, stupid). Too many bonafide scientists from various fields with more extensive credentials than Nye's concur. Industrial lobbies work long and hard on their propaganda to deny reality...and they are losing.

Following your first sentence with your second sentence is a joke...akin to christian fundamentalism about the Bible. To them everything the Bible says is true because the source (the Bible) is irrefutable and above reproach. And I see your insipid stubbornness regarding Nye. As the chronology of the posts shows, you were proven wrong regarding his credentials, but you STILL try to denounce him as a "fraud & charlatan". Pity for you that there is more than documented evidence from folk with higher scientific pedigrees who support what he states. Capice'?

Your last sentence is a lame attempt to put words in my posts that I did not allude to. When you have the intellectual honesty/courage to deal with my original post, then we can have a discussion worth merit. Remember, YOU went down this road despite agreeing with the basic premise of the OP.
Click to expand...

You seem to be not reading my posts, but only responding to arguments that you have previously heard.

Too bad.
 
ZenMode said:
Do you believe the scientists are wrong about the identifying and dating of fossils believed to be those of polar bears?
Click to expand...

I believe it is pure speculation......there is no evidence upon which to base a determination of whether their speculation is right or wrong.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I believe it is pure speculation......there is no evidence upon which to base a determination of whether their speculation is right or wrong.......
Click to expand...

A distrust/disbelief of science is the norm for the most religious. I suspect you've never actually looked into the methods used for determining the age of fossils. I also suspect you probably haven't really looked closely at the evidence for evolution.

Also the norm for the most religious.
 
ZenMode said:
A distrust/disbelief of science is the norm for the most religious.
Click to expand...

I don't distrust science.......I just distrust those who misrepresent it.......I believe I asked earlier for a link to the fossil evidence for polar bear evolution......I may have missed it......could you link to it again?.....oh wait, you never did, did you......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I don't distrust science.......I just distrust those who misrepresent it.......I believe I asked earlier for a link to the fossil evidence for polar bear evolution......I may have missed it......could you link to it again?.....oh wait, you never did, did you......
Click to expand...

What evidence, specifically, are you looking for? The discovery I've referenced was written about extensively. Do you think it's all based on a lie?

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0914266107

https://www.science20.com/news_articles/dna_evidence_indicates_polar_bears_are_evolutionarily_young

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25664925

https://www.buffalo.edu/ubreporter/archive/2010_03_03/polar_bears.html
 
Cypress said:
A simple summation of two integers isn't that revealing to me.

What I am alluding to is that mathematics, properly viewed, seemingly reveals some kind deep, underlying truth to nature and reality as a whole. The Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio seem to be embedded in the very fabric of nature itself --> and we really don't know what that means, but it must mean something.
Click to expand...

Thanks. You inspired me to search for more info on the Golden Ratio.
 
ZenMode said:
What evidence, specifically, are you looking for? The discovery I've referenced was written about extensively. Do you think it's all based on a lie?

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0914266107
Click to expand...
"proposed" "estimated" "inconsistent estimates" "fossil remains very rare" "none of which are older than possibly ∼70 ky (and most younger than 10 ky)" "new possibilities".....not a lie......just guesses.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
"proposed" "estimated" "inconsistent estimates" "fossil remains very rare" "none of which are older than possibly ∼70 ky (and most younger than 10 ky)" "new possibilities".....not a lie......just guesses.....
Click to expand...

Of course. We have no reliable way of dating really old things. If a woman gets pregnant, her doctor is only estimating the day she conceived. But, if you're going to put your belief in something, why not put it in science where there are established methods, versus a book of fables written by men who couldn't explain where the sun went at night?

This is the MO of the most religious. You have this very discerning and critical eye when it comes to science, but that discerning and critical eye completely vanishes when it comes to looking at your religious doctrine.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
Of course. We have no reliable way of dating really old things. If a woman gets pregnant, her doctor is only estimating the day she conceived. But, if you're going to put your belief in something, why not put it in science where there are established methods, versus a book of fables written by men who couldn't explain where the sun went at night?

This is the MO of the most religious. You have this very discerning and critical eye when it comes to science, but that discerning and critical eye completely vanishes when it comes to looking at your religious doctrine.
Click to expand...

actually, this may come as a surprise, but you don't really need to know what day the child was conceived if you already realize the woman is pregnant........if she's pregnant, her child is alive.....and that has nothing to do with my religion........biology provides that information to everyone......doctors, pregnant woman, five year olds.....even lib'ruls......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
actually, this may come as a surprise, but you don't really need to know what day the child was conceived if you already realize the woman is pregnant........if she's pregnant, her child is alive.....and that has nothing to do with my religion........biology provides that information to everyone......doctors, pregnant woman, five year olds.....even lib'ruls......
Click to expand...

The point isn't where or not a date needs to be known. The point is that there are reliable methods of estimating the date of conception. The same is true in other sciences.
 
ZenMode said:
The point isn't where or not a date needs to be known. The point is that there are reliable methods of estimating the date of conception. The same is true in other sciences.
Click to expand...

so you believe that the dating of polar bear remains is as accurate as predicting the age of a fetus?........has a doctor ever been 150,000 years off?......did the mother mind?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so you believe that the dating of polar bear remains is as accurate as predicting the age of a fetus?........has a doctor ever been 150,000 years off?......did the mother mind?.....
Click to expand...

Of course not, but it doesn't need to be to raise serious questions about the Biblical claim of the Ark.
 
ZenMode said:
Of course not, but it doesn't need to be to raise serious questions about the Biblical claim of the Ark.
Click to expand...

its not just a biblical claim.....almost every culture in the world shares the story of a small group, family, or person that was the only survivor of a widespread flood.....

when it happened is irrelevant.........ask first, did it happen......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top