Evolution, Big Bang, and the Bible.

[Grey]

Here comes the subtle whittling away at the very roots of Christianity.

Ask questions, fault the answers, add one or two half truths and spread doubt in the hearts of believers.

I will always question an answer that doesn't make sense to me. Or even ask questions just because its good to think -- like mental exercise, for example (for theists) could Yahweh create an object so heavy that even he couldn't lift it? I didn't come here to spread doubt but skepticism, I'm not angry with any of you because I thought precisely the same way at one point. I'm here to point out that practically every other religion encourages unquestioning faith, that builds itself on circular reasoning and objectified logic.

 

[Widdekind]

According to humans, only some people are "Chosen", by "the Gods in heaven", to receive "Religious" communications.

In individual tribes, only some people are Shamans & Witch-doctors. Amongst all mankind, only Abrahamites claim to be the "Chosen" people.

Uncritically accepted, "God in heaven" only bothers talking to some people, in some places, at some times. The Abrahamites are like the "Shamans of all humanity". For some reason, "God in heaven" chose to communicate primarily to Abraham, and his successors.

But, parsimoniously, there is only one "God in heaven", who is communicates to different people, in different ways, so that the one perceives Divinity as "Zeus", the other "Jupiter", the next "YHWH", the next "Allah" ("all things to all people" 1 Cor 9).

 

[Agricola]

If you had read the full description of Behemoth you would know that it also describes its tail like a Cedar tree which have been recorded to grow up to 130 ft tall. You're free to do the math on that one.

If you are telling me that Behmoth has a 130 foot long tail and you claim these descriptions are of smaller animals living today, then how many hippos, crocodiles, elephants, Rhinos, or whatever have 130 foot long tails?

Ok I will do the maths, lets assume it does have a 130 foot long tail, how thick is the tail? A 130foot long tail 10 foot in diameter is only going to stand 10 foot in height, if its in a reed bed it proberbly be submerged in water anyway, so thats less than half the height of mature papyrus reeds. Maybe you are the one who should go back to the drawing board and think again.

 

[Agricola]

You know, thank you for asking, I think I need to reexamine the possibility that Behemoth was not in fact a crocodile, rather more a product of a stimuli depraved mind, similar to that of a unicorn or griffon. Largely due to the fact that its description contradicts itself.

Where is the contridiction? You are just making up "facts" and plucking them out the air without thought, even if they do move the goal posts and contridict your previous responses, then act as if somehow your "enlightened" knowledge is enough to trump any Christian response and is on the whole superior.

 

[Agricola]

So it's probably a brontosaurus/apatasaur hey? The largest of dinosaurs, to have such a tail.

The description does not fit, its describing a creature like Apatosaurus etc, but its not what it is.

Even the largest of these dinosuars could easily conceal themselves in large reedbeds, we are told how back in time plants were growing bigger than they do today, so if we have reed beds up to 20 feet in hieght, then back in past they could easily be taller.

 

[Grey]

Where is the contridiction? You are just making up "facts" and plucking them out the air without thought, even if they do move the goal posts and contridict your previous responses, then act as if somehow your "enlightened" knowledge is enough to trump any Christian response and is on the whole superior.

Does this look like it could hide in reeds,

I do not see how that animal described can hide in the reeds or more importantly why it would find the need to hide with such an immense size.

If so yes I've changed my mind because the written evidence that we have does not add up, I'm not contradicting myself when I say I was wrong! The point is we are falsely trying to scientifically examine a claim from an ancient culture, and as I said before if ancient cultures demonstrate anything it is a lack of scientific knowledge, the Israelite's neighbors thought the heart was the center of thought. I change my mind because the evidence points towards the averse direction. If men didn't amend their minds to what the current information presents we'd be living in the dark ages. Mankind is an ignorant race, I didn't come here to wave my intelligence in front of anyone, I wanted to have a rational discussion based on solid evidence.

 

[Agricola]

Does this look like it could hide in reeds, View attachment 45502

I do not see how that animal described can hide in the reeds or more importantly why it would find the need to hide with such an immense size.

If so yes I've changed my mind because the written evidence that we have does not add up, I'm not contradicting myself when I say I was wrong! The point is we are falsely trying to scientifically examine a claim from an ancient culture, and as I said before if ancient cultures demonstrate anything it is a lack of scientific knowledge, the Israelite's neighbors thought the heart was the center of thought. I change my mind because the evidence points towards the averse direction. If men didn't amend their minds to what the current information presents we'd be living in the dark ages. Mankind is an ignorant race, I didn't come here to wave my intelligence in front of anyone, I wanted to have a rational discussion based on solid evidence.

Armchair science.

Just because you think that because an animal of such a size dosnt have the urge to hide itself away, dosnt make it true. An Apatosaurus etc like the one you posted, can easily hide itself in a tall reed bed, yet again you totally ignore what I have written, another typical trait of athiests who have no wish to discuss anything.

The image you posted shows the animal with its neck held upright and yes maybe its head might stick out of some reed beds if it was on firm ground and not sunk into 10foot of mud and water, so good try, but no cigar, you have to do a lot better than this.

 

[Agricola]

Elephants in Papyrus Reeds.

 

[Grey]

Armchair science.

Just because you think that because an animal of such a size dosnt have the urge to hide itself away, dosnt make it true. An Apatosaurus etc like the one you posted, can easily hide itself in a tall reed bed, yet again you totally ignore what I have written, another typical trait of athiests who have no wish to discuss anything.

The image you posted shows the animal with its neck held upright and yes maybe its head might stick out of some reed beds if it was on firm ground and not sunk into 10foot of mud and water, so good try, but no cigar, you have to do a lot better than this.

Not to be condescending but it is a Brachiosaurus, though I truly could see how one could misconstrue them in a 2-D image (the only extremely viable difference is that the Apatosarus has a more whip like tail). Absolutely, just because something is large, doesn't mean that it will not be attacked or feel the need to hide, that being said perhaps the closet thing we can see to a living example is an elephant, when elephants are attacked they usually run, or rear up on their hind-legs and fight. In those pictures you posted, they don't appear to be hiding though as a fallible human I certainly could be wrong. Its almost unheard of them to hide, so I would basing my assumption on the closet living example. At this point the conversation.. well no not this point, probably at the point when we engaged in debating whether or not dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible the conversation became trivial. I'll gladly continue if you wish to, but I think its clear to you and everyone here, that I do in fact want to discuss.. anything you'd like to discuss! The conversational path is yours mon ami.

 

[Agricola]

Not to be condescending but it is a Brachiosaurus,

More point scoring away from the topic? All too familiar, Do you understand what "Etc" Means? I take it you do not, otherwise you would not have made that comment, but hey ho.

Here is the full definition "et cetera, meaning 'and other things'."

 

[Grey]

More point scoring away from the topic? All too familiar, Do you understand what "Etc" Means? I take it you do not, otherwise you would not have made that comment, but hey ho.

Here is the full definition "et cetera, meaning 'and other things'."

Like I said, we are getting really really trivial here.

 

[PS]

Like I said, we are getting really really trivial here.

Seeing as atheism is no belief in any deity then atheists win the prize for their preoccupation in *nothing* which has to be the ultimate in triviality.

 

[DannyC]

Seeing as atheism is no belief in any deity then atheists win the prize for their preoccupation in *nothing* which has to be the ultimate in triviality.

So deity means nothing? By your straw man we lack belief in a diety therefore we believe in 'nothing' and occupy ourselves in that, according to what you attempted to write? So shall we look at the fact atheists don't assert they believe in nothing?

We can take it atheists believe in alot of things, a diety ia not one of them.

 

[PS]

So deity means nothing? By your straw man we lack belief in a diety therefore we believe in 'nothing' and occupy ourselves in that, according to what you attempted to write? So shall we look at the fact atheists don't assert they believe in nothing?

We can take it atheists believe in alot of things, a diety ia not one of them.

Wouldn't you be better turning your attention to things you do believe in?

 

[DannyC]

Wouldn't you be better turning your attention to things you do believe in?

Better in what? I doubt you care enough for my list of past times/hobbies and studies, but I will put it shortly I spend equal time to do productive things that I enjoy and I do quite a numerous things. Your question hardly warrented an answer.

 

[PS]

Better in what? I doubt you care enough for my list of past times/hobbies and studies, but I will put it shortly I spend equal time to do productive things that I enjoy and I do quite a numerous things. Your question hardly warrented an answer.

I think I had better pray that you find the Lord. Would you like me to do that?

I'm going to bed now but leave your answer here and I will reply tomorrow.

 

[Grey]

Wouldn't you be better turning your attention to things you do believe in?

I believe in thinking rationally, and that's why I'm here, and when people assert we are wrong we enjoy in engaging in dialect.

Best wishes,
Grey

 

[PS]

I believe in thinking rationally, and that's why I'm here, and when people assert we are wrong we enjoy in engaging in dialect.

Best wishes,
Grey

Engaging in the sort of dialect atheist do makes them look foolish with their use of the paradox which is nothing but a lie and cannot exist. When you talk about a paradox you are talking about opposites.

You cannot have a hot cold front, you cannot have wooden iron, you cannot have hot ice, you cannot have something that is so heavy a child can lift it, you cannot say "I always lie' because if it is true it must be false" and on it goes.

An example of the lies atheists tell, and remember satan is the father of lies, can be seen in the example of the true Scotsman who when reading about a "Brighton Sex Maniac" declares "No true Scotsman would do such a thing". If you knew Scottish history and you knew about William Wallace, Robert the Bruce, the Scottish incursions, the clearances, and the clan wars you would know the terrible things the true Scots have done and because the atheist paradoxes are based on lies this is why I want nothing to do with you except to show you the foolishness and the wickedness of atheism of which you need to repent.

What you need to do now is to stop following the father of lies who you have begun to believe and turn back to the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Phillipy]

"No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy isn't just committed by atheists, we have to admit that Christians do that HEAPS too. When a Christian does something terrible, like Hitler or Andrea Yates, the entire Christian community says they were never really Christians. I think they're right, but we should qualify that they were never a *clear headed*, true Christian, but a victim of a poor Christian education. But it's clearly the no true Scotsman fallacy to state it in hindsight on no more evidence than their insane behaviour.

The Scotsman in your very literal no true Scotsman example wasn't exactly telling a lie, he was giving his honest opinion that anyone who behaves that way isn't representing what he feels is the *true* spirit of the Scottish people.

 

[PS]

The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy isn't just committed by atheists, we have to admit that Christians do that HEAPS too. When a Christian does something terrible, like Hitler or Andrea Yates, the entire Christian community says they were never really Christians. I think they're right, but we should qualify that they were never a *clear headed*, true Christian, but a victim of a poor Christian education. But it's clearly the no true Scotsman fallacy to state it in hindsight on no more evidence than their insane behaviour.

You see, you need to be clear headed about these things which you are not.

A true Christian is someone who follows Jesus who said to love our neighbour.

If they are not following the teaching of Christ, they are not 'CHRIST'ians.