- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/3/20 at 7:15 pm to Azkiger
quote:
If it's so easy go ahead and demonstrate it
my very next comment did just that quote:no. your critique was stupid
So you think my critique of God was that he simply told the Midianites to stop?
quote:i do
Before you jump into someone else's conversation with an attitude at least know the context of said conversation
Posted on 4/3/20 at 7:22 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Even so, there is no reason to believe that the Genesis we have is poetry or a parable, as you seem to be clinging to in order to justify your view of origins.
How old do you believe the earth is?
Posted on 4/3/20 at 7:23 pm to bfniii
quote:
that does not work in the african model's favor. it just means at this time, there is more evidence for it. it's not a zero sum game.
This is a meaningless statement, ignorant of the context of the development of the model. There were other models that lost out due to the combination of evidence, from mtDNA studies to Y-chromosome studies to microsatelite DNA studies to the fossil record itself, which all favored the out-of-Africa model. Unless all these studies are wrong, the model won't be usurped. It will be improved upon, as again, debate has mostly moved from debating the idea of the model itself to the method of human dispersal. There is not a hint of evidence suggesting another possible model for anatomically modern human origin.
quote:
i have no "resistance" to it. just calling it what it is - tenative
You only call it tentative because maybe you aren't familiar with the specific evidence that supports it. The genetic evidence in its favor is extremely strong.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 9:07 pm to bfniii
quote:
pretty much all biblical scholars, both christian and secular, agree on this. the situation is not nearly as imprecise as you are making it out to be.
Bull fricking shite.
Critiques from secular scholars note 30,000 inconsistencies in the New Testament alone.
But continue to hang your hat on a “telephone game” 4 millennia in the making, keeping a straight face that the message you received at the end of the line is the exact same as the original.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 11:57 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:no, what i said is fact.
This is a meaningless statement, ignorant of the context of the development of the model
quote:this is all based on currently available data which was addressed in the article i cited. so my point still stands
There were other models that lost out due to the combination of evidence, from mtDNA studies to Y-chromosome studies to microsatelite DNA studies to the fossil record itself, which all favored the out-of-Africa model
quote:that does not change it's status from tbd
Unless all these studies are wrong, the model won't be usurped
quote:absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. again, your statement does not lend itself to the truth of the model. just that it's more favorable at this time. it's not a zero sum game.
There is not a hint of evidence suggesting another possible model for anatomically modern human origin
quote:the amount of evidence is irrelevant and any scientist knows that. quantum physics has been rewriting what we think about the universe.
You only call it tentative because maybe you aren't familiar with the specific evidence that supports it
honestly, i don't really care much about it. but i do care about philosophy of science and what you're saying about the model is a bit misleading
Posted on 4/4/20 at 12:05 am to CrimsonTideMD
quote:news flash, christian biblical scholars don't disagree. but if you knew anything about variants, you would know it's a non issue. only simpletons with an agenda actually think that hurts the reliability of scripture.
Critiques from secular scholars note 30,000 inconsistencies in the New Testament alone
quote:this is an example of the tripe that people believe about religion now. there is no christian biblical scholar who believes that the bible was handed down via a single stream of transmission. you are describing the skeptical side, i.e. bart ehrman. he's the halfwit who keeps peddling that garbage and he's been called out on it repeatedly. and btw, he only writes that crap in his popular level books for the unwashed masses of white guilt politically correct liberals. at academic conferences, where i have personally seen him speak multiple times, he is in almost 100% agreement with christian scholars on the reliability of the NT
But continue to hang your hat on a “telephone game” 4 millennia in the making
another news flash, GUESS WHO TAUGHT HIM ABOUT VARIANTS - CHRISTIANS. clod
quote:again, even critics of christianity acknowledge that the bible is essentially what the autographs say. but you already know how that's true, don't you?
keeping a straight face that the message you received at the end of the line is the exact same as the original
quintessential example of someone who knows just enough to be dangerous
This post was edited on 4/4/20 at 12:06 am
Posted on 4/4/20 at 4:54 pm to bfniii
got mighty quiet in here real fast. where did the etough guys go? 
Posted on 4/4/20 at 4:58 pm to bfniii
Another thing about the "telephone game" that skeptics fail to take into account is geography. These men who passed down the oral tradition of the New Testament into written form did so separated by hundreds and (in some cases) thousands of miles. Copies of copies of copies were translated and written down in Rome, in Antioch, in Corinth, in Jerusalem, in Edessa, in Alexandria, in Carthage, and so on. Other then variants (ex: a misplaced word or comma here) there are no major discrepancies. Certainly none big enough to impact theology.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 5:22 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You can believe in God and evolution but the Bible that teaches who that God is contradicts the teachings of evolutionary origins, so you would need to reject the book (or at least part of it) that helps you know who God is in order to hold to an evolutionary view of origins.
Just another day of Foomanchoo being a fricking idiot.
This post was edited on 4/4/20 at 5:32 pm
Posted on 4/4/20 at 5:29 pm to bfniii
quote:
this is all based on currently available data which was addressed in the article i cited. so my point still stands
The article you cited do nothing to upset notions of the recent African origin hypothesis. It is a small window into the way the debate has accepted the African model, and has moved on to dispersal theories. Just so you know, the article you cited refers to an entirely different era, the Upper Pleistocene, from the recent African hypothesis, which took place in the late Chibanian era prior to the events your article discussed. There is more and more evidence that the dispersals went in many different directions out of Africa, like a cascading bottleneck, which each group that moved forward having a small subset of the diversity of groups it left. Your article actually feels nearly into this framework, as we know that the presence of some human genes in L1 and L0 haplogroups indicates reverse migrations.
quote:
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
This would seem to imply that other models weren’t developed and were not tested. They were, and they lost out due to the preponderance of evidence at hand.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 6:02 pm to ThinePreparedAni
This is a question about faith, do you have faith that species can evolve into different species (ape to man) with no evidence, or do you believe (as billions of humans have throughout history) that there is a creator. That there are too many coincidences that had to happen just perfectly for life on Earth to exist, the odds are astronomical for us to even exist.
Microevolution for sure happens we know this, but there is absolutely zero evidence for the theory that human beings are evolved apes. If we did, then why are there still apes, and why have they not evolved into humans, and why did the neanderthals go extinct.
Adaptation is not evolution, or at least the evolution that faitheists believe in, however, there is no observation evidence, and I for one and am huge believer of observational science. If you can't test it in a lab, then you cannot prove it, and therefore it is still a theory, and not fact.
As for the age of the earth, there is no way of knowing this for sure either like some claim, literally how the date things is by seeing how far in the ground it is. There is nothing about a rock that can tell anyone how old it is, that is nonsense. Whether you believe in a creator or in ape to man evolution, both are theories that are not backed up by observational science, and can't be proven in a lab.
Microevolution for sure happens we know this, but there is absolutely zero evidence for the theory that human beings are evolved apes. If we did, then why are there still apes, and why have they not evolved into humans, and why did the neanderthals go extinct.
Adaptation is not evolution, or at least the evolution that faitheists believe in, however, there is no observation evidence, and I for one and am huge believer of observational science. If you can't test it in a lab, then you cannot prove it, and therefore it is still a theory, and not fact.
As for the age of the earth, there is no way of knowing this for sure either like some claim, literally how the date things is by seeing how far in the ground it is. There is nothing about a rock that can tell anyone how old it is, that is nonsense. Whether you believe in a creator or in ape to man evolution, both are theories that are not backed up by observational science, and can't be proven in a lab.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 6:05 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It’s amazing the lengths people go to in order to reject their creator.
No one knows their creator until they meet them.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 6:06 pm to bfniii
Not necessarily an on-topic question but something I’ve always wondered.
Since Einstein hypothesized in his theory of relativity that time dilation would occur copresent with the existence of an accelerated reference frame - that is, time would pass more slowly the closer you are to a gravity well than it would in a position much farther from it - have any Christian scholars ever tried to apply Schwarzchild’s equation to the estimated mass of the universe in relation to the creation story in Genesis?
It would make sense to me, given how slowly time would pass with all the universe’s mass in a pinhead, that someone from God’s perspective would see those billions of years passing in a matter of days.
Since Einstein hypothesized in his theory of relativity that time dilation would occur copresent with the existence of an accelerated reference frame - that is, time would pass more slowly the closer you are to a gravity well than it would in a position much farther from it - have any Christian scholars ever tried to apply Schwarzchild’s equation to the estimated mass of the universe in relation to the creation story in Genesis?
It would make sense to me, given how slowly time would pass with all the universe’s mass in a pinhead, that someone from God’s perspective would see those billions of years passing in a matter of days.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 8:29 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:actually it kind of does. as i said already, it demonstrates that new information is constantly rewriting what we know. that's why any theory is constantly in a pending status.
The article you cited do nothing to upset notions of the recent African origin hypothesis
quote:again, this does not obviate the point that it's not a zero sum game. loss of evidence for one theory does not count as gain for another theory. more information is becoming available all the time which is reshaping current theories.
This would seem to imply that other models weren’t developed and were not tested. They were, and they lost out due to the preponderance of evidence at hand.
at this point, you're just repeating already refuted notions
Posted on 4/4/20 at 8:41 pm to bfniii
People trying their best to disprove God exists are no different than the Al Gore's of the world shoving dishonest "facts" down our throat about global warming 
Posted on 4/4/20 at 9:11 pm to bfniii
quote:
actually it kind of does.
I don't see how except in an absolute general sense. The specifics of the findings matter, and that article itself isn't as definitive as you are pretending, as the language is conditional from the researchers themselves. They don't know for 100% surety where the Aurignacians came from, though they do know they have a higher prevalence of the M mtDNA haplogroup. Not only that, there are at least two other major reverse migrations to occur before the time period suggested in the article that we know about, which suggests that the cascading bottleneck version of dispersal occurred along robust lines of migration, and that reverse migration wasn't uncommon. The debate on Aurignacian culture and origin is still open to interpretation, as the weakness of the Europe-to-Israel hypothesis is, if I remember rightly, the paucity of fossils.
That we don't know everything about the era is honestly a silly point to make. Of course we don't. There is quite a bit we don't know, but the evidence we have found continually reinforces the model we've developed here.
We can only look at the evidence. What does the preponderance of evidence suggest? If for some (very unlikely) reason we have evidence suggesting another origin of anatomically modern humans, then obviously we would move to that new model, but we don't have that evidence, and if you understood the resistance to the recent African origin model, it wasn't from the lack of trying.
quote:
as i said already, it demonstrates that new information is constantly rewriting what we know. that's why any theory is constantly in a pending status.
But the African model is more robust than you are admitting. Acting as though it hasn't been "tested" is to be ignorant of its development. It is by far the best model we have, supported by evidence from multiple disciplines. There is very little evidence to suggest something like an out-of-Europe model (which 19th century scientists insisted upon).
I honestly don't think you know enough about this era to speak on it with the confidence that you seem to possess.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 10:19 am to Azkiger
quote:I'm not talking about the law of identity. I'm talking about why the universe couldn't have formed differently than it did. How do you account for immaterial things in a supposedly purely material world?
I have. Because A cannot equal anything but A.
quote:Do you mean we create those immaterial things in our brains and they don't exist outside of them? If so, then those things aren't universal, invariable, and necessary.
In our case, the human brain
quote:Occam's Razor isn't a reason. It's an excuse for providing a reason and it isn't even a good one.
Occam's Razor. Based on what we know of the human brain, so far, nothing supernatural is needed. Christians have had to invent the antenna theory were our brains really are a giant collection of antennas taped together because neurology has shown how are brains are compartmentalized to such a high degree a highly specific brain injuries have created some pretty crazy cases - people can no longer recognize faces, can name all the parts of a car (tire, window, etc.) but don't know what the entire object is, etc.
For Christians, the human brain can't be all there is, so each part of the brain is just an antenna that, when damaged, can no longer receive the signal needed to do that highly specific task. It's just more unfalsifiable beliefs to cling to their long held religious beliefs.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that these immaterial things like classes and laws of logic don't actually exist. We just think they do based on how our brains think about things. Is that what you're saying?
quote:You do realize that unfalsifiability is only an issue in scientific pursuit, right? We're talking about philosophy and theology.
Speaking of unfalsifiable beliefs...
quote:Did you continue reading after the few words you just quoted? I made the claim and then went on to explain why that is true.
Which you have not demonstrated.
quote:Apparently it's necessary to provide a basic sunday school curriculum with these discussions.
Hadn't occurred for Noah's flood, the Midianite massacure, the 10th plague of Egypt, when God decided to kill tens of thousands of Hebrews because David performed a peacetime census, the aftermath of the battle of Jericho, etc.
So mercy hadn't entered the picture yet. So back to my critique. Being perfectly just is always giving the proper amount of punishment for a misdeed, not selectively applying it.
The trinity planned all things out before creation. Christ was always meant to be sent to die for the sins of humanity. The sacrifices, from the killing of the animal and the shedding of its blood to provide clothing for Adam and Eve to cover their shame to the temple sacrifices and all the ones in between were pictures of what God required: blood to atone for sins. All of them were a preview and a sign of what God was going to do by providing a once-for-all sacrifice. This sacrifice which was as good as done in the eyes of God (because He does all his will) was the basis for even the mercy He showed prior to Christ's incarnation as a human.
quote:The children of Egypt are guilty in the same way that all of humanity is guilty before God: federal headship in Adam. Everyone has a representative before God: we are all either guilty by our representative Adam in our natural state or we are righteous by our representative Jesus in our regenerated state.
With respect to Pharaoh denying the Hebrews their leave, why weren't the children in Egypt innocent?
Since all people are guilty and are born with a sinful nature (we sin because we're sinners; we aren't sinners because we sin), God is just to punish all people with physical death as well as spiritual death (hell). The children of Egypt were no different. In fact, the children of Israel were not different in that respect. They weren't saved because they were somehow better than the Egyptians (God makes that point clear to them over and over again), but they are saved because God had planned to save them to fulfill the rest of His plan throughout time.
While God had justification for taking the lives of even the Egyptian children for their guilt, He used the sins of Pharaoh as the immediate justification for it. God had let the people live in their sin, enjoying life, food, company, etc. as well as not punishing them for the culture of slavery of His people for a long, long time, and the time was up. There was guilt in the entire nation of Egypt.
quote:The plan was already in place and certain to happen due to God not being able to be foiled. Justice wasn't selectively applied. Any and all mercy that God shows to any sinner is justified by the sacrifice of Christ for humanity, both in a general sense (temporal mercy) and in the sense of election (eternal mercy).
Again, Jesus didn't die, there's no mercy, there's no selectively applying justice when we're dealing with a perfectly just being.
quote:If you're removing malice from the equation, you're substituting it with indifference. God isn't indifferent when it comes to sin and guilt.
I mean, while I'm sure the delivery was important, he did have an option not to run people over (route B).
quote:All analogies break down somewhere. I'm simply giving a more biblical one than the what you provided.
And he just so happened to kill the children treasonous rebels, right?
That's a horrible analogy to the 10th plague. There was only one person actively rebelling, and it was Pharaoh.
If you want one where children are killed for the sins of their representative, perhaps think of a ruler who drops a nuclear bomb on a country that is waging war against the ruler's country. A lot of "innocent" people die for the sake of their representative, but that's how representation works: the representative "represents" their people and speaks/acts on their behalf. When the representative does wrong, it's attributed to those he/she represents.
Regardless, all people are guilty of sin before God, either by their representative Adam, or by their own sin. The only way to be pardoned for these sins is to have Jesus as your representative. That's the gospel message.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 11:05 am to Azkiger
quote:As bnfii said, philosophically speaking, God is necessary and not contingent and therefore He is the uncaused cause. If you didn't have an uncaused cause, you'd fall into an impossible infinite regress of causality.
So as I said, everything that exists (even immaterial things like morality) needs a creator but not *your* creator, he's the only thing that's eternal. Seems I was spot on.
It seems that you have no issue with my justification, just that you don't like other issues concerning God.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 11:16 am to FooManChoo
When are you going to tell us long you think its been since God created the Earth?
Page 10 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News