|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John Wilkins
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
 |
|
Walter Bushell <proto@xxx.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <1ij922g.200lgg1i6l4q1N%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au>,
j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
Devil's Advocaat <mankygoat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 28 Jun, 01:16, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <4864d0d8$0$90262$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
spintronic wrote:
give me a "dog-kangaroo".
*
I've never seen a dog turn into a kangaroo, but I once saw a man turn
into a drugstore.
And I have seen plenty of cars turn into parking lots! :P
I saw a church turn into a restaurant once. I got married in it.
You got married in it before or after it turned in to a restaurant?
|
After. It was called "Churcher's", so I could say that I got married in
Churcher's/
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ye Old One
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyramidial@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 27, 5:08 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:926d720f-2bfd-4c82-bffd-bd8c1e3cde52@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 27, 12:51 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
[snip]
Will you adress these issues, or just run away some more.
DJT
First of all the dimensions of the Ark are quite massive.
But not nearly large enough to carry representatives of all species. Even
creationist authors have acknowledged this. Woodmorappe's book tries to
solve the problem by severely limiting the number of "kinds", but he still
comes up with over 130,000 individual animals. You don't have that
ability, as you've claimed that species are immutable, and such
"kind"=species.
Woodmorappe is no Bible scholar, he is a Young Earth Creationist-
microevolutionist (= moron). Where does the Bible say "all species on
Earth"?
It was over
two football fields long. The cubit mentioned = 25 British inches.
Even at 200 yards long, it would still be much too small for the job.
See:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.htmlhttp://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13377.htmhttp://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/insurmountable_problems_of_ark.htm
Dana: I am not interested in some web site created by your uncle.
Let's get realistic here: the Ark was 208 yards long.
|
There was no ark, there was no Noah and there was no flood.
| Quote: |
The Bible says
it had three decks or levels. This comes out to 624 yards of captivity
space. This is well over six football fields as you can see. The Ark
was also 21 yards in width.
|
So that would give room for what? 1% of the insects?
| Quote: |
And IIRC the Text does not say "every species on Earth."
Even if you ignore the marine species, (which would have been killed by such
a global flood), all plant species, and the millions of species of insects,
the Ark is still too small. You are the one who is trying to claim that
species are immutable, so that there can't be any evolution within 'kinds'
to reduce the number of individuals on board the Ark. Do you have any idea
how many species of land animals there are, and were? There are at least
20,000 species of ammonites (ie land dwelling vertibrates, excluding
amphibians). Double that number (and multiply by 7 for "clean" animals) and
maybe you'd get some idea of the sheer biomass involved.
Total point evasion. We know what that means.
|
Who is this "we"?
| Quote: |
Then, what about extinct land vertibrates ? There are over 300 known
genera of dinosaurs, some of which were the largest land animals ever known.
How many species of Apatosaurus, Stegasaurs, Brachiosaurus,
Pachycephalosaurs, Hadrosaurs, Ceratopsians, etc did Noah have to make room
for? What about the large Carnivorious dinos? Are Tyrannosaurs clean,
or unclean? Can you imagine trying to care for seven pairs of T. rex?
There were no dinosaurs on the Ark - you are insane.
|
There are one hell of a lot of creationist morons out there that claim
there were.
| Quote: |
Then, you have the large extinct mammals. Not only do you have the two
species of Elephants living today, but the dozens of species of Mammoths,
Mastodons, etc. There are many more species of extinct Rhinos than are
alive today, and the Titanotheres (10 foot tall), Entelodonts (think of
pigs, 7 feet tall) and other megafauna. Why were they left off the
Ark?
Total nonsense.
|
That is all I expect from you.
| Quote: |
All that was required or needed was a pair that could eventually mate.
There were no Mammoths or Mastodons required.
|
Why not?
| Quote: |
So what are you talking about?
I'm talking about the insurmountable practical problems with the Noah's Ark
story, not the least of all is the impossibility of getting representatives
of both living and extinct species onto the boat, and keeping them alive for
over a year. Have you ever considered that problem? Even if you only
are dealing with land animals (which would have died out without plant
species) the space available within an "Ark" is just too small.
Then you have the problem of caring for the animals with only a crew of 8.
The fact that many animals require specialized food, fresh water, exercise
space, light, waste removal, etc, etc, etc... has to be addressed as well.
DJT- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You are engaging in discussion ending rhetoric or being the angry
evolutionist that we know you to be.
|
And you are, as usual, being dishonest.
Bob. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mark Isaak
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:51 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:31:48 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
| Quote: |
False assumption/comparison: facts about zoos falsifies claims
concerning the Ark.
|
Oh, the claims concerning the Ark are pleny falsified already. The
comparison with zoos is just to show how absurd the ark is.
| Quote: |
Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
every animal species that exists on Earth today.
|
Either that, or the animal species evolved. Since Ray rejects evolution,
Ray Martinez is saying the Bible is false.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mark Isaak
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:55 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:56:10 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
| Quote: |
Scientific evidence interpreted aright (face value or "literal
signal") says special creation is a scientific fact.
|
Literal signal of what? You just said, earlier in this thread, that
Genesis is dead wrong on the matter of the flood.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Vernon Balbert
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:06 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
On 6/29/2008 2:31 PM, Ray Martinez went clickity clack on the keyboard
and produced this interesting bit of text:
| Quote: |
On Jun 29, 8:43 am, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
On 6/28/2008 3:44 PM, Ray Martinez went clickity clack on the keyboard
and produced this interesting bit of text:
Dana: I am not interested in some web site created by your uncle.
Let's get realistic here: the Ark was 208 yards long. The Bible says
it had three decks or levels. This comes out to 624 yards of captivity
space. This is well over six football fields as you can see. The Ark
was also 21 yards in width.
I would like to address this point you make. Let us assume your
dimensions are correct. Assuming that each deck is of equal size (in
most boats and ships various decks are of different size due to the
shape of the vessel) each deck is 208 yards by 21 yards or 624 feet by
63 feet. (I'm just more comfortable doing the math in feet rather than
yards. It really makes no difference.) This gives us a surface area of
each deck equal to 39,312 square feet. Total surface area: 117,936
square feet. One acre is equal to 43,560 square feet. This gives us
very close to 2.7 acres of space. That seems like quite a bit, but
unfortunately, it really isn't. Larger zoos have 100 or more acres to
them and this includes what's needed for people to roam around. The San
Diego Zoo has about 4,000 animals representing 800 species and
subspecies. (http://www.sandiegozoo.org/disclaimers/aboutus.html)
False assumption/comparison: facts about zoos falsifies claims
concerning the Ark.
|
Why is it a false comparison? It gives a pretty good idea how much
space just a few hundred species requires. Noah's ark carried thousands.
| Quote: |
In Genesis 6:19 it says, "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of
every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee;
they shall be male and female."
According to the Los Angeles Zoo's web page
(http://www.lazoo.org/animals/) there are approximately 9,000 bird
species, 4,000 species of mammals and 6,500 reptile species. That's
19,500 species. (We haven't even touched on invertebrates or
amphibians.) That means approximately 39,000 animals had to be brought
upon the ark. Now, admittedly, some animals represented by these
classes are aquatic, but these are in the minority by far. But wait, we
have some additional numbers, besides the classes we haven't discussed.
False assumption/comparison: facts about zoos falsifies claims
concerning the Ark.
|
This wasn't a fact about a zoo, this was a fact about the number of
animal species in the world. Please read more carefully.
| Quote: |
In Genesis 7:2-3 it says, "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee
by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by
two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the
male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth."
Now it's not too clear what it means by a "clean beast", but if we
retroactively apply Mosaic law to this, there are going to be a whole
lot more than 39,000 animals on board the ark. But let's just use that
number for the sake of argument. (Again, we've totally ignored
invertebrates and amphibians.)
In order to house 39,000 animals in 117,396 square feet, each animal has
an average amount of deck space equal to ~3 square feet. Now I don't
know about you, but 3 square feet is fairly close to the amount of floor
space I take up when I'm standing. I probably take up more when I'm
sitting and definitely more when I'm laying down. Most animals are
smaller than me, but there are a whole heck of a lot which require a LOT
more than 3 square feet.
Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
every animal species that exists on Earth today.
|
Then how do you account for the animals we see today come around if they
weren't on the ark?
| Quote: |
Oh, and don't forget food! In Genesis 6:21 it says, "And take thou unto
thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it
shall be for afood for thee, and for them." Where do you store the food
for 39,000 animals? Especially all those carnivores which require other
animals. Noah and his family and all these animals were on this vessel
for about six months. Six months of provisions for eight people take a
lot of space. (Noah, his three sons and their the wives.) Can you
imagine what it would be for 39,000 animals?
Then there's waste disposal. 39,000 animals are going to produce an
awful lot of urine and feces. 8 people aren't going to be able to
shovel all that waste off the ship. The air would become toxic and
nearly everything would die if they had to spend six months on a sealed
ship. Even at maximum ventilation the air would not be able to be kept
fresh. You've smelled what it's like at a zoo and they clean those
enclosures at least once a day.
Do you honestly think that any craft built of any kind of material,
including steel and composites, of the dimensions you give, hold and
feed that many animals?
--
Chuck Norris doesn't churn butter. He round house kicks the cows and the
butter comes straight out.
The entire account exists in the context of the supernatural. Other
literature tells us that Noah possessed the garment of Adam which God
made for him after the Fall; and that this skin had special powers to
control animals in all aspects. Today evolutionists reject every
notion of the supernatural in reality but insist that animals evolve
into other animals. We know you guys have no supernatural power. We
choose to believe the Textual evidence because it corresponds to
reality. We know Jesus rose from the dead (a miracle occurred). This
is a proveable historic fact. Based on this fact Ark miracles are easy
to believe; and your animals changing into other animal miracles are
easy to disbelieve.
|
Now you're introducing suppositions that are not in evidence. I see
nothing in Genesis to support your hypothesis. There's nothing there
that says, "And what beasts and fowl Noah could not fit on the ark, God
preserved," or anything similar. It seems rather straightforward to me.
You're making stuff up here. Do you take the Bible to be the literal
truth or not? If you do, then you can't insert your own ideas which
differ from what is written. If you don't, then you can make up
anything you want to support your position, which it seems you're doing.
(If not, please offer citations so I may read them.)
You also ignore the aspect of waste removal. Even if, as you say, the
ark didn't hold all the species in extant at the time of the flood, it
still held way too many for eight people to deal with the waste removal.
Another area you've chosen not to address is that of food storage. Even
if we accept your hypothesis that only some were saved from the flood
there would hardly be enough room for all the food necessary.
Perhaps we should put things into perspective. The Queen Mary 2 is one
of the largest ocean liners in the world. It displaces 76,000 tonnes of
water. It's over 1,100 feet long and at its widest point it's nearly
150 feet. It has 13 passenger decks and carries 2,620 passengers and
1,253 officers and crew for a total complement of nearly 3,900 people.
That doesn't even count the decks required for propulsion, water
supplies, waste disposal, etc. The ark had none of these amenities. So
how did Noah deal with the logistics of just living on the ark with all
those animals?
Oh, and please, do prove that Jesus rose from the dead. If you could
show me this evidence then I would convert. All we have are the
writings of some people who weren't even there. In fact, the scriptures
specifically say that nobody witnessed his resurrection. It's all hearsay.
--
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Wuh, I think so, Brain, but wouldn't anything lose it's flavor on the
bedpost overnight?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Augray
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:05 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in
<5eb66c65-60fd-4ea4-b02e-adc73adc4318@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
| Quote: |
On Jun 29, 2:52 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message
c6c70364-d633-435e-948d-1163c757d...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
every animal species that exists on Earth today.
If the Ark did not carry every animal species that exists on Earth today
how do you account for their presence on the Earth today?
--
alias Ernest Major
The main claim of Creationism says all species, past and present, owe
their existence to direct Divine causation, also known as special
creation.
|
You couldn't be any more vague if you tried.
| Quote: |
Scientific evidence interpreted aright (face value or "literal
signal") says special creation is a scientific fact.
|
What supposed evidence did you have in mind? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ye Old One
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyramidial@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 29, 2:52 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message
c6c70364-d633-435e-948d-1163c757d...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
every animal species that exists on Earth today.
If the Ark did not carry every animal species that exists on Earth today
how do you account for their presence on the Earth today?
--
alias Ernest Major
The main claim of Creationism says all species, past and present, owe
their existence to direct Divine causation, also known as special
creation.
|
No, Dishonest Ray, that is just your very daft version of creationism.
| Quote: |
Scientific evidence interpreted aright (face value or "literal
signal") says special creation is a scientific fact.
|
That, as you well know, is a bare faced lie.
There is not one single shred of evidence for creationism - it is just
religious ignorance.
Bob. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Martin Andersen
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
| Quote: |
Martin Andersen <dur@ikke.nu> wrote:
[snip]
Ernest Major may say that he's a species-realist, but you and him make
it sound like the concept is completely illusory. I'm a little shocked
that appearantly there isn't any "magic number", or even several for all
the major groups, that you use in your line of work. As if species
classification is as vague as determining the genre of music and equally
unneccesary.
Is "species", as a term used by biologists, going the way of the "race"?
That "race" would vanish as a meaningful biological term I could
understand, since you guys figured out that the meaningful resolution to
look at these things is at the allele level, but what about "species"?
The assumption here is that things named as species aren't real if
there's nothing universally and uniquely true of all of them. I like to
compare "species" with "mountain". Now try to tell somone that this
mountain over here is not a real thing...
|
I'm not sure how to interpret this. Are you saying that is my underlying
assumption or explaining me, that is how you define species?
If you're saying I harbor an underlying assumption, then yes. That is,
if the universal quality in this case is their ability to interbreed,
and not some incidental morphological characteristic or set of them.
We have handy definitions for what constitutes mountains and not mere
hills. The number may be arbitrary but it's still there. How do *you*
decide what is or isn't of the same species?
[snip] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ernest Major
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
In message <pan.2008.06.29.23.51.19.987743@earthlink.net>, Mark Isaak
<eciton@earthlink.net> writes
| Quote: |
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:31:48 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
False assumption/comparison: facts about zoos falsifies claims
concerning the Ark.
Oh, the claims concerning the Ark are pleny falsified already. The
comparison with zoos is just to show how absurd the ark is.
Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
every animal species that exists on Earth today.
Either that, or the animal species evolved. Since Ray rejects evolution,
Ray Martinez is saying the Bible is false.
Or, though it is also contrary to a plain reading of the Bible, God has |
continued to create species since the putative Noachian flood. Trouble
with this position, if it is to account for experimental speciation in
the laboratory, it makes Ray into either an Islamocalvinist
epistemological nihilist, or a theistic evolutionist (but it wouldn't be
the first time he's given the appearance of being the latter).
--
alias Ernest Major |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ray Martinez
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
On Jun 30, 1:04 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:39:58 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
On Jun 29, 4:51 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:31:48 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
False assumption/comparison: facts about zoos falsifies claims
concerning the Ark.
Oh, the claims concerning the Ark are pleny falsified already. The
comparison with zoos is just to show how absurd the ark is.
Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
every animal species that exists on Earth today.
Either that, or the animal species evolved. Since Ray rejects
evolution, Ray Martinez is saying the Bible is false.
Mark: where does the Bible say that every animal species on Earth was
on the Ark?
Every *land* animal species. Genesis 7:23.
|
Are you saying that this verse is talking about the whole Earth?
If so, could you show it to me - I don't see any words or phrases
referring to the whole Earth. But if it is referring to the Earth does
that mean the whole Earth or the then known Earth?
| Quote: |
You will probably quibble that it does not say "species."
|
No I won't. I haven't said anything. I have merely asked how you to
interpret these verses and I have put forth further questioning only
to be ignored. You are a chief proponent that the Bible says every
species on Earth was represented on the Ark. But you have not been
able to show me where or how you obtain this idea?
"every" or "all" does or does not mean whole Earth and if so are you
admitting that the Bible is implying a round Earth?
Or do the quoted words mean hemisphere or forrest or something else?
Of course you are straight out saying that these words mean the whole
Earth. Why won't you answer this question? And if the whole Earth you
are saying the same means round Earth?
Come on, Mark - fork up some answers.
| Quote: |
But since it
refers to every individual animal, that would be moot. "Every existing
thing that was on the surface of the ground" necessarily includes every
land species.
|
On the Earth?
Or in the then known world?
| Quote: |
If you accept the validity of this question and put forth an answer
then you are admitting that the Bible, in the early chapters of
Genesis, is saying the Earth is round.
Non sequitur. The Bible says nothing about the earth's shape in the
early chapters of Genesis, unless you include as part of its shape the
solid firmament it says holds back the waters above the sky.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:52 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
In article <ede407fa-1f39-43af-b13d-fb16f24b9cf1@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
| Quote: |
Of course you are straight out saying that these words mean the whole
Earth. Why won't you answer this question? And if the whole Earth you
are saying the same means round Earth?
[snip] |
Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the
outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the
FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.
So, Ray, how does a sphere have corners?
You have a choice, Ray:
(1) The Earth is flat.
(b) The Earth is a tetrahedron.
(3) The Earth is a sphere and you are a heretic for not believing the
clear word of the Bible.
Which is it?
-- DW |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dana Tweedy
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:22 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ede407fa-1f39-43af-b13d-fb16f24b9cf1@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jun 30, 1:04 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
snip |
| Quote: |
Mark: where does the Bible say that every animal species on Earth was
on the Ark?
Every *land* animal species. Genesis 7:23.
Are you saying that this verse is talking about the whole Earth?
|
The writers of the Bible apparently thought so, but they didn't know how big
the "whole Earth" was.
| Quote: |
If so, could you show it to me - I don't see any words or phrases
referring to the whole Earth.
|
so, 'every' doesn't mean 'every'?
| Quote: |
But if it is referring to the Earth does
that mean the whole Earth or the then known Earth?
|
Wouldn't God know about the "whole Earth"?
| Quote: |
You will probably quibble that it does not say "species."
No I won't. I haven't said anything. I have merely asked how you to
interpret these verses and I have put forth further questioning only
to be ignored.
|
Your questions have been answered, several times, by several people.
| Quote: |
You are a chief proponent that the Bible says every
species on Earth was represented on the Ark.
|
Well, no, Mark isn't the 'proponent' of that, you are.
| Quote: |
But you have not been
able to show me where or how you obtain this idea?
|
Perhaps by reading the "plain prose" of the Bible?
| Quote: |
"every" or "all" does or does not mean whole Earth and if so are you
admitting that the Bible is implying a round Earth?
|
Ray, why wouldn't it mean the "whole Earth", if the writer said 'every'?
You have claimed that the Bible reflects God's knowledge, so why wouldn't it
be the "whole Earth"?
| Quote: |
Or do the quoted words mean hemisphere or forrest or something else?
|
There's no reason to suspect the writers meant 'hemisphere' or 'forest'.
The writer apparently meant all the world.
| Quote: |
Of course you are straight out saying that these words mean the whole
Earth.
|
That's if, as you suppose, that the writer of the Bible had scientific
knowledge.
| Quote: |
Why won't you answer this question? And if the whole Earth you
are saying the same means round Earth?
|
Ray, the question has been answered, and you are ignoring the answsers.
The "whole Earth" is what the writer apparently meant. That doesn't mean
that the writer knew the Earth was round. What it means, however, is that
if you insist the Bible is scientifically accurate, the "whole Earth" means
the entire round Earth.
| Quote: |
Come on, Mark - fork up some answers.
|
come on, Ray, stop squirming.
| Quote: |
But since it
refers to every individual animal, that would be moot. "Every existing
thing that was on the surface of the ground" necessarily includes every
land species.
On the Earth?
|
Do you know of any other planet that has land species?
| Quote: |
Or in the then known world?
|
Again, Ray, if you assume that the writer of the Bible was speaking
scientificially accurately, then he means the whole Earth. Mark, and
others are trying to tell you that those who wrote the Bible didn't know the
Earth was so big.
| Quote: |
If you accept the validity of this question and put forth an answer
then you are admitting that the Bible, in the early chapters of
Genesis, is saying the Earth is round.
Non sequitur. The Bible says nothing about the earth's shape in the
early chapters of Genesis, unless you include as part of its shape the
solid firmament it says holds back the waters above the sky.
|
So, when an answer is given, you ignore it... So much for 'scholarship' on
Ray's part.
DJT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Augray
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:46 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1ff8d002-b6fb-4b6f-9116-f73156cbb901@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com> :
| Quote: |
On Jun 29, 8:05 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in
5eb66c65-60fd-4ea4-b02e-adc73adc4...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
On Jun 29, 2:52 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message
c6c70364-d633-435e-948d-1163c757d...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
every animal species that exists on Earth today.
If the Ark did not carry every animal species that exists on Earth today
how do you account for their presence on the Earth today?
The main claim of Creationism says all species, past and present, owe
their existence to direct Divine causation, also known as special
creation.
You couldn't be any more vague if you tried.
Another deliberate misrepresentation by Jon Barber.
|
Not really.
| Quote: |
The exact opposite
is true. Barber misrepresents because he does not like the stark
implication: the main claim of evolution says Divine causation does
not exist in reality;
|
That's false. Because for all we know, the mechanisms of evolution
were set up by God. After all, Ray claims that
...Science, as represented by British Natural Theology, knows
that each snowflake was produced by a mechanism or process that
was personally created by His Mind and Power.
Why should the biological world be any different? Ray can never
explain why it should be.
| Quote: |
species owe their existence to natural or
material causation, also known as Naturalism or Materialism (= Atheism
worldview ideology). But this creates another question: why are
Atheists misrepresenting evolution?
|
I know that you automatically label anyone who disagrees with you as
an atheist, but just for the record (again), I'm an agnostic.
As for supposedly misrepresenting evolution, that is, quite simply,
false. As I ask above, why couldn't evolution be the outcome of "a
mechanism or process that was personally created by His Mind and
Power"?
| Quote: |
Answer: They want to deceive
stupid Christians into believing that evolution is friendly to their
worldview so they will accept the theory and be forced to say Genesis
is wrong (which then logically means that *this* God does not exist).
|
It's more along the lines of admitting that God will do things the way
he wants to, no matter how much creationists whine and stamp their
feet. God's (if there is a God) universe points to biological
evolution. Deep down inside, Ray knows this, and that's why he runs
from the evidence. Instead, we get regular rants that Darwin was an
atheist. Such a claim is irrelevant to the reality of evolution.
Some people actually follow to where the evidence leads.
| Quote: |
This is how we explain the misrepresentation of Jon Barber - Atheist-
evolutionist.
|
There was no misrepresentation. Your claim is incredibly vague. Does
"special creation" mean that God formed Adam "from the dust of the
ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life"? Or did God
forge each of Adam's atoms in the heart of the Sun? Or did God use
Richard Owen's "providential evolutionism", which Ray agrees is
nothing more than "modified Creationism"? God might even have set
evolution in motion using "a mechanism or process that was personally
created by His Mind and Power". "Special creation" encompasses all of
these possibilities. It pretty much encompasses almost every
imaginable possibility. Hence, the term is incredibly vague.
| Quote: |
Scientific evidence interpreted aright (face value or "literal
signal") says special creation is a scientific fact.
What supposed evidence did you have in mind?
Rhetorical question or point that says no evidence of God exists in
physical reality (= Atheism worldview ideology).
|
No, I was interested in evidence. But since I didn't really expect an
answer anyway, I suppose it might be considered a rhetorical question.
| Quote: |
Since all of nature and each organism plainly exhibits design
|
Yet Ray can never explain how he came to this conclusion. He clings to
the postulate that "appearance of design = design" with no
justification whatsoever.
| Quote: |
and
organized complexity and since science and the general public has
always recognized this phenomena to correspond directly to the work of
invisible Designer-Divine causation,
|
"Science and the general public" recognize the reality of
microevolution. Why doesn't Ray go along with this conclusion?
| Quote: |
we can see Barber's Atheism-
evolutionary worldview at work when devising such rhetorical points or
questions.
|
Actually, I cling to the foolish hope that you might someday wake up
from your self-imposed intellectual coma. I am resolute in that hope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Augray
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:57 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:57:27 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in
<ede407fa-1f39-43af-b13d-fb16f24b9cf1@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
| Quote: |
On Jun 30, 1:04 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:39:58 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
On Jun 29, 4:51 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:31:48 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
False assumption/comparison: facts about zoos falsifies claims
concerning the Ark.
Oh, the claims concerning the Ark are pleny falsified already. The
comparison with zoos is just to show how absurd the ark is.
Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
every animal species that exists on Earth today.
Either that, or the animal species evolved. Since Ray rejects
evolution, Ray Martinez is saying the Bible is false.
Mark: where does the Bible say that every animal species on Earth was
on the Ark?
Every *land* animal species. Genesis 7:23.
Are you saying that this verse is talking about the whole Earth?
If so, could you show it to me - I don't see any words or phrases
referring to the whole Earth. But if it is referring to the Earth does
that mean the whole Earth or the then known Earth?
|
For crying out loud. I thought you claimed to be familiar with the
Bible.
Genesis 6:13
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for
the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will
destroy them with the earth.
Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon
the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from
under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Genesis 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the
earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I
have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and
all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Genesis 9:15
And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every
living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a
flood to destroy all flesh.
Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved
with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he
condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by
faith.
[snip] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Wilkins
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:36 am Post subject: Re: A Few Simple Questions |
|
|
Vernon Balbert <vbalbert@gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 6/30/2008 10:39 AM, Ray Martinez went clickity clack on the keyboard
and produced this interesting bit of text:
On Jun 29, 4:51 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:31:48 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
False assumption/comparison: facts about zoos falsifies claims
concerning the Ark.
Oh, the claims concerning the Ark are pleny falsified already. The
comparison with zoos is just to show how absurd the ark is.
Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
every animal species that exists on Earth today.
Either that, or the animal species evolved. Since Ray rejects evolution,
Ray Martinez is saying the Bible is false.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Mark: where does the Bible say that every animal species on Earth was
on the Ark?
Genesis 6:19-20: And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every
sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they
shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle
after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind,
two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
Genesis 7:2-3: Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens,
the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the
male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and
the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
I have looked and I see no animals that Noah wasn't supposed to take.
There are no exceptions mentioned at all. It does say, "every living
thing of all flesh," is to be brought on board. Tell me, what is your
definition of "every"? To me it means "all" and not "some" or "a few".
From http://tfd.com/every
eve·ry
adj.
1.
a. Constituting each and all members of a group without exception.
b. Being all possible: had every chance of winning, but lost.
2. Being each of a specified succession of objects or intervals: every
third seat; every two hours.
3. Being the highest degree or expression of: showed us every attention;
had every hope of succeeding.
I'd say that definition 1 is right on here. There are no modifiers to
indicate definition 2 and 3 is right out.
If you accept the validity of this question and put forth an answer
then you are admitting that the Bible, in the early chapters of
Genesis, is saying the Earth is round.
I think you then should check claims made about the Bible in the Talk
Origins Archive.
Ray
|
I don't want to rain on anyone's demythologising parade here, but the
term used in Genesis - "eretz" - for "earth" is ambiguous. It can mean
"soil", it can mean "country", it can mean "region" or it can mean
"solid world". So one way to read Gen 7:3 is "to keep seed (generation)
alive upon the surface of all the land", which would make it a local
flood just as the Gilgamesh epic said.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
