fayfreethinkers.com

Posted: **Sat Jun 30, 2007 11:42 pm**

Savonarola wrote:
FSC wrote:All the evidence (fossil record) science has been able to pull up is that one day we humans, as we are physically today, showed up on the scene.
Oh really? Please, then, classify the following skulls as fully modern human or fully modern "ape."

[*crickets*]

I guess FSC doesn't want to play anymore.

Posted: **Tue Jul 03, 2007 5:11 pm**

1Co 7:31 And for those who make use of the world, not to be using it fully; for this world's way of life will quickly come to an end.

Gen 8:21 And Jehovah smelled the sweet odour. And Jehovah said in his heart, I will no more henceforth curse the ground on account of Man, for the thought of Man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will no more smite every living thing, as I have done.
Gen 8:22 Henceforth, all the days of the earth, seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease.

Darrel wrote:DAR
And "the end" is "coming soon."

End of the Age, not the world as some might interpret it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We know that Christ knew the body and soul were dependent on each other.

Darrel wrote:DAR
Really? How do you know that? Evidence please.

I don't have actual souls in jars but the scripture has plenty of Evidence.

The original language terms for soul are ne'phesh נפשׁ
in Hebrew and psykhe ψυχης in Greek. The scriptures show soul to be a person, an animal , or a life that a person enjoys.

The connotations that the English "soul" commonly carries in the minds of most persons are not in agreement with the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words. Man has truly distorted knowledge of the scriptures to his own destruction, in this way and many others.

Back in 1897 in the Journal of Biblical literature (Vol XVI, p. 30) Professor C.A. Briggs did a study of the word ne'phesh for a similar reason, as we are today. The result of his detailed study, in short, was "soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from ne'phesh in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret it". More recently when The Jewish Publication Society of America issued a new translation of the Torah (first 5 books of OT) the editor and chief , H.M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College, stated that the word "soul had been virtually eliminated from the translation because, "the Hebrew word in questin here is 'Nefesh'". He added "Other translators have interpreted it to mean 'soul,' which is completely inaccurate. the Bible does not say we have a soul. 'Nefesh' is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his vains, his being."----New York Yimes, October 12, 1962.

The origin of the teaching that the human soul is invisible and immortal stem primarily , not from Hebrew or Christian Greek scriptures, but from ancient greek philosophy and myth, aka pagan religious thought. Plato for example quotes socrates as saying "the soul....if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body,....goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, the divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear......and all other human ills, and....lives in truth through all after time with the gods (plural)."----Phaedo, 80, D,E;81,A.

In direct contrast with the Greek philosophic teaching of the psykhe' (soul as being immaterial, intangible, invisible, and immortal the scriptures show that both psykhe and ne'phesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, mortal. I'm far from Catholic in my biblical interpretations but even the Catholic Encyclopedia says: "Nepes (ne'phesh) is a term of far greater extension than our 'soul,' signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn35.18; Job 41.13[21]) blood [Gen 9.4, Dt 12.23] etc..., desire (2Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2) . A Soul in the OT means not a part of man but the whole man---as a living being. Similarly in NT it signifies human life: the life of an individual conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37)"---1967 Vol XIII, p. 467.

The Roman Catholic translation , The New American Bible, in its "Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms" (pp. 27, 28) , says : "In the NT, to save ones soul (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some 'spiritual' part of man, as opposed to his 'body' (in the platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing etc..., in addition to being concrete and physical."---Edition published by P.J. Kennedy and sons, New York, 1970.

Going back to OT ne'phesh evidently comes from the root meaning "breathe" From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental): - any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead (-ly), desire, X [dis-] contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart (-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortality, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them (your) -selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it. It could be rendered IMHO as breather.

Koehler and Baumgartners Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros
(Leiden, 1958, p. 627) defines it as: "The breathing substance, making man and animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the Greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X).......soul = living being, individual, person."

Greek-English lexicons give such definitions as life but also include non-Biblical Greek works and terms including all meanings that the Greek philosophers gave to the word, including that of "departed spirit," the "Immaterial and immortal soul," "the spirit of the universe," and
"the immaterial principle of movement and life".
This evidently stems from the fact these pagan philosophers taught that the soul emerged from the body at death and thus the term psykhe was eventually applied to "butterfly or moth" which creatures go through a metamorphosis, changing from catapillar to winged creature..----Little and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon revised by H. Jones, 1968 , pp. 2026, 2027; Donnegens new Greek and English Lexicon, 1836, p. 1404.

With such great inconsistancy in non-Biblical writing it is essential to let the scriptures speak for themselves on this matter, showing what the inspired writers meant by their use of the term psykhe'. as well as ne'phesh. Ne'phesh occurs 754 times in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scriptures, while psykhe appears by itself 102 time in the Westcott and Hort text of the Christian Greek, giving us a total of 856 occurences. This frequency of occurences makes possible a clear concept of the sense these terms conveyed to the minds of the inspired Bible writers and the the sense their writing should convey to our mind. An examination shows that, while the sense of these terms is broad, with different shades of meaning, among the Bible writers there was no inconsistancy, confusion or disharmonya s to mans nature, as existed among the Grecian philosophers of the so called Classical Period.

Would you like me to thouroughly go through this with you? I feel confident you will understand where i'm coming from when i say that Matthew 10:28 states that God "can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna," and that this shows psykhe does not refer to something immortal or indestructable. There is in fact not 1 case in the entire NT or OT scriptures, Hebrew or Greek in which the words ne'phesh and psykhe' are modified by terms such as immortal , indestructable, imperishable, deathless or the like.

FSC

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

We know Christ knew there was no ascension for man to heaven or hell after he died.

Joh 3:12 If I have said the earthly things to you, and ye believe not, how, if I say the heavenly things to you, will ye believe?
Joh 3:13 And no one has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, thus must the Son of man be lifted up,

Posted: **Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:26 pm**

FSC wrote:Quote:

We know Christ knew there was no ascension for man to heaven or hell after he died.

Joh 3:12 If I have said the earthly things to you, and ye believe not, how, if I say the heavenly things to you, will ye believe?
Joh 3:13 And no one has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, thus must the Son of man be lifted up,

DOUG
Explain Matthew 8:

11 "I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

And St. Paul saying there is a heaven waiting for the believers, and that we have a soul:
2 Corinthians 5:

1 Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.
2Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, 3because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

Ephesians 2 has "heavenly realms":

6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

But arguing whether there is a heaven or a hell is like arguing whether a leprechaun has a pot of gold. Show that there is a leprechaun, and only then does it make sense to discuss what it owns. Show that there is a god and we can then proceed to discuss his plans.

Posted: **Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:49 pm**

DOUG
Explain Matthew 8:

11 "I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Well answer me this, if Paul knew Abraham died almost 2000 years before he said this, how can people literally take places at a feast with him and his dead son Isaac, and his Jacob? If your interpreting this verse literally its impossible to make any sense out of it. If your familiar with the OT and NT then it makes complete sense assuming you understand the Creators arrangement for the coming of his Kingdom.

Thy Kingdom Come Thy Will be Done!

Posted: **Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:42 pm**

I have never, and I mean never seen an anti-evolutionist tackle this, let alone tackle it with any semblance of reason.

>>>>>Never learned any Ancient Chinese history, did you? If those 9000 year old cities weren't created by man, it must have been the aliens...[quote]

I get the feeling you aren't familiar with the intricacies of Radio Carbon dating, and its shortcomings. Man isn't as advanced as your led to believe.

>>>>>Explain how Homo sapiens idaltu ended up in rock over 100,000 years old. See also picture above.

This was one of the first questions i asked myself too and it was answered for me by a retired biologist. In my honest opinion he's one of the smartest men i've ever met but thats just my opinion. What significantly seperates us from 100,000 yr old men like animals? The answer is their brain in not like ours. They look somewhat similar to us, and to me thats even difficult to say, but their minds are not nearly the same....if they were we would be alot more advanced then we are today.

This is what The Bible says God did when he made Adam.

Gen 1:27 And God created Man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Do you think the image of God is of that thing that was running around 100,000 years ago? It has the same instincts as an animal. Animals are completely different from what we are today as humans. If anything I agree more with your extraterrestial theory.... but to say in any way we are similar to that thing mentally is hard for me to swallow. Our minds are far more advanced. If we believe things evolve and become significantly more intelligent over time then cochroaches and horse shoe crabs should be ruling the earth. Our race as humans all come from a common ancestor and surely it was not that thing running around 100,000 years ago or anything related to him. Science is on the verge of proving that.

>>>>Please propose a replacement theory, falsifiable and supported by more evidence than is evolution, and I'll hear you out.

I have gained great respect for you because you have an open mind and are willing to reason, thats truly what seperates us from the other animals such as DOUG ( : , J/K Doug i'm only trying to have fun. The theory of evolution is its own worst enemy, and surely still only a theory, which they are making great attempts to prove. Whoever proves that one will win the Nobel prize for sure, along with all the other ones, and Darwin will be the new Jesus Christ.

>>>>>>>Simply incorrect, not to mention intentionally misleading. What is the determining factor between "major" or "minor" mutation? This is like saying that we can count small differences (one or two), but we'll never get a big change (a thousand).

I can go deep into this if you would allow. Thats actually a whole seperate Darwinian following. Man has proved our evolution couldn't be a slow and gradual process but now they suspect that it occured in a great leap. Within a real short period of time we evolved from the apes almost instantaneosly, within a few short generations and became what we are today. Thats todays evolutionary science at its best. I'll discuss later the findings that lead up to this.

>>>>>>Do you really want to talk probabilities? Think hard. If so, present your case.

Amen! I will, but give me some time.

FSC

Posted: **Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:44 pm**

FSC wrote:
Darrel wrote:DAR
And "the end" is "coming soon."

FSC
End of the Age, not the world as some might interpret it.
DAR
Well of course other mainstream interpretations that differ from yours would be wrong. But however you want to imagine it, as I thought, you think "the end" is "coming soon."

FSC
We know that Christ knew the body and soul were dependent on each other.

Darrel wrote:DAR
Really? How do you know that? Evidence please.

FSC
The original language terms for soul are ne'phesh נפשׁ
in Hebrew and psykhe ψυχης in Greek. The scriptures show soul to be a person, an animal , or a life that a person enjoys.
DAR
Yes, sometimes the word soul is used that way. It is the many times in the NT when it isn't used that way that is the problem for your position. I have given you several standard examples. Doug has given more (some I had forgotten about). Do try to address them.

The connotations that the English "soul" commonly carries in the minds of most persons are not in agreement with the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words. Man has truly distorted knowledge of the scriptures to his own destruction, in this way and many others.
DAR
Yes, we know that is your opinion but this is nothing more than mere assertion. You will have to do better than that.

FSC
Back in 1897 in the Journal of...
DAR
Oh my, now we are treated to Bible scholarship from 1897. Doug you may be right. This person might be some variant of JW. They also often have to refer to outdated and extremely antique scholarship to support their extreme and eccentric minority doctrines.

Biblical literature (Vol XVI, p. 30) Professor C.A. Briggs did a study of the word ne'phesh for a similar reason, as we are today. The result of his detailed study, in short, was "soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from ne'phesh in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret it".
DAR
Actually, I would agree with that. But that says nothing whatsoever in response to my claim regarding the greek NT. The OT, almost without exception does not have an afterlife or a soul. The NT clearly does. That' your problem.

More recently when The Jewish Publication Society of America issued a new translation of the Torah...
DAR
Agreed. That's the Hebrew scriptures ("OT"). Focus.

Snip more OT references.... jeesh, is that all you have?

I'm far from Catholic in my biblical interpretations but...
DAR
You'll refer to them when it's convenient. I know. JW's do this a lot too. Pretty hypocritical really.

Would you like me to thouroughly go through this with you?
DAR
Well that would be better than completely ignoring the material I have posted as you are doing now. Your problem is not in the OT, it's in the NT.

I feel confident you will understand where i'm coming from when i say that Matthew 10:28 states that God "can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna,"
DAR
If body and soul are the same, then why even mention both? It is redundant. Please address the verses I have already provided and the new ones Doug has given.
I know a case can be made for you position, even in the NT, because I have examined it thoroughly. I just don't think it is a very good case. And neither do 99% of Christians, and even a greater percentage of Bible scholars. Why? Because of the clear text of the verses already provided above.
Clue: When asked a question, please answer it. You have skipped several direct questions I have given above. Again:

How does a person go about "wailing and gnashing their teeth" if they do not exist? How does one get tormented for ever and ever, if they don't exist?

There is in fact not 1 case in the entire NT or OT scriptures, Hebrew or Greek in which the words ne'phesh and psykhe' are modified by terms such as immortal , indestructable, imperishable, deathless or the like.
DAR
That's nice. I don't see how that matters in the least. All that is needed to show some kind the existence of some kind of soul after death is examples of such an entity being referred to as experiencing some kind of existence. And as any Christian or Bible scholar knows, the NT is filled with examples. You need to start dealing with these.

D.

FSC
Joh 3:13 And no one has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.

DAR
Actually, that's just another boo boo from Jesus and clearly contrary to scripture. Men have ascended up to heaven:

And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for
God took him. Gen. 5:24

By faith Enoch was translated that be should not
see death; and was not found, because God had
translated him:... Heb. 11:5

...there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire,
and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by
a whirlwind into heaven. 2 Kings 2:11

Posted: **Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:51 pm**

I meant to say Matthew wrote not Paul said. I was studying Pauls letters earlier and i had him on my mind at the time.

Well answer me this, if Matthew knew Abraham died almost 2000 years before he wrote this, how can people literally take places at a feast with him and his dead son Isaac, and his Jacob? If your interpreting this verse literally its impossible to make any sense out of it. If your familiar with the OT and NT then it makes complete sense assuming you understand the Creators arrangement for the coming of his Kingdom.

Thy Kingdom Come Thy Will be Done!

Posted: **Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:01 am**

Obliged [aka FSC] wrote:I have never, and I mean never seen an anti-evolutionist tackle this, let alone tackle it with any semblance of reason.

And yet, not word one about the skulls...

FSC wrote:I get the feeling you aren't familiar with the intricacies of Radio Carbon dating, and its shortcomings. Man isn't as advanced as your [sic] led to believe.

More familiar than are you. Would you like me to link you to comparisons of carbon-14 dating and annual tree rings, or of carbon-14 and annual varves?

FSC wrote:This was one of the first questions i asked myself too and it was answered for me by a retired biologist.

But my question wasn't answered. You contrast cranial characteristics (and come to an erroneously conclusion) rather than discuss the existence of (admittedly) morphologically different hominids in ancient strata.

FSC wrote:Animals are completely different from what we are today as humans.

Humans are animals.

FSC wrote:If anything I agree more with your extraterrestial [sic] theory....

My extraterrestrial theory? When have I subscribed to an extraterrestrial theory of life on earth?

FSC wrote:If we believe things evolve and become significantly more intelligent over time then cochroaches [sic] and horse shoe crabs should be ruling the earth.

There is no basis for this conclusion. Your statement shows a complete ignorance of biology and ecology. Not only are there countless niches to be filled by a variety of life forms, there is competition for resources. To conclude that any one (or two, or few) organisms ought to outcompete virtually all other organisms in all niches and environments is ludicrous.

FSC wrote:The theory of evolution is its own worst enemy, and surely still only a theory, which they are making great attempts to prove.

Gravitational theory is "only a theory," so please jump off a cliff. (Of course, evolutionary theory has a lot more supporting evidence than current gravitational theory, but that shouldn't be a problem, right?)
Seriously, though, you need to make yourself aware of the distinction between "theory" as is bastardized by modern-day English speakers and the true definition of a scientific theory.

FSC wrote:Whoever proves that one will win the Nobel prize for sure, along with all the other ones, and Darwin will be the new Jesus Christ.

You don't do much reading of scientific journals, do you? If all of this evidence was bunk, all it would take is one whistle-blowing paper to throw evolutionary thought out the window. Fame and fortune would await the groundbreaking author. Instead, there are literally countless studies that result in precisely what the modern synthesis predicts. There is no "proving" in science, but the modern synthesis is accepted by over 99% of biologists working in relevant fields. It is old news; there will be no Nobel Prize for amazing support of evolutionary theory unless it also contributes to, say, medicine. While it is true that we are still learning some of the more detailed intricacies of evolutionary processes, the basic framework is well-understood and doubted essentially only by evangelicals and non-professionals.

FSC wrote:Man has proved our evolution couldn't be a slow and gradual process but now they suspect that it occured [sic] in a great leap. Within a real short period of time we evolved from the apes almost instantaneosly [sic], within a few short generations and became what we are today. Thats [sic] todays [sic] evolutionary science at its best.

Sounds like you've heard a bit about punctuated equilibria... but only a bit. This is not what has been "proven" at all. Since you have offered, I'll let you present your case.

Let's narrow this down to just two or three of what you think your strongest points are. You've already promised to provide more about what you think modern evolutionary theory says about the evolution of humans as well as probability. Please pick two specific topics -- they may but do not have to be these two -- to discuss. I would like you to continue with your assault on radiometric dating, giving us a total of three. We'll focus on these points rather than delve into a pathetic Gish Gallop.

Posted: **Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:42 am**

FSC
FSC wrote:
The theory of evolution is its own worst enemy, and surely still only a theory, which they are making great attempts to prove.[/url]

SAV
Seriously, though, you [FSC] need to make yourself aware of the distinction between "theory" as is bastardized by modern-day English speakers and the true definition of a scientific theory.

DAR
This would be a good baby step for you FSC. That you would make this basic mistake is a really big red flag that you really know next to nothing about the subject. We see this all the time. Could you please show us that you can learn something new by sincerely making the effort to at least educate yourself just a little on this most elementary and completely uncontroversial matter. In science, there is not a necessary conflict between fact/and theory. Sorry about that but is just the way it is.

Start with this:

"A common problem is that people confuse theory with hypothesis, which is an untested conclusion. A scientific theory, on the other hand, is an explanation derived from and supported by established evidence. After passing test after test, it is the best available explanation of the facts.

Many theories have become established as fact. Doctors are certain of germ theory--that various germs cause a number of ailments. Astronomers are certain of the heliocentric theory of the solar system--the sun, not the earth, is the center of the solar system. Geologists are certain of the plate tectonic theory--that continents and sea floor are moving on large chunks of the earth’s crust. And biologists are certain that all living things share a common ancestor."

And then proceed to this, third answer down:

"Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution is Only a theory."

D.

Posted: **Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:28 am**

FSC wrote:DOUG
Explain Matthew 8:
11 "I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Well answer me this, if Paul knew Abraham died almost 2000 years before he said this, how can people literally take places at a feast with him and his dead son Isaac, and his Jacob? If your interpreting this verse literally its impossible to make any sense out of it. If your familiar with the OT and NT then it makes complete sense assuming you understand the Creators arrangement for the coming of his Kingdom.

Thy Kingdom Come Thy Will be Done!

DOUG
How can you have dinner with spooks? That's easy: by magic.

Jesus met the ghosts of Moses and Elijah, according to the Jesus legend:

Jesus Meeting With Spooks
No Dinner This Time

Matthew 17:

1After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
4Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."

5While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"

6When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7But Jesus came and touched them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid." 8When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.

If you can talk with them, I suppose you can have dinner with them too. So why are you puzzled? YOU are the one who believes that this stuff actually happened.

Posted: **Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:36 am**

FSC wrote:Well answer me this...

DOUG
Why do you keep ducking the questions I ask?

I asked you:

a. Do you really think snakes eat dust, as the myth says? If you had a pet snake, would you just feed it dust?
b. Do you think there is a tree now that if you eat its fruit, you become immortal, as stated in Genesis 3?
c. Do you really think there are cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life, as stated in the myth?
d. Do you believe snakes can talk? If so, what species was it? And why can't they talk now? Is it because of the dust?

I also gave you three simple contradictions of the Bible:
#1 The Josiah Problem
#2 God Can't Count Sons
#3 The Conversion of Simon Peter and Andrew

You didn't address any of those things. Since the Bible is KNOWN to have errors, not just factual but also theoretical (i.e. contradictions), why should anyone believe that its "just-so" stories are historical?

Posted: **Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:50 pm**

I thought it would help you guys if you knew more about The First Evidence of anatomically “modern man“ that Wells proposes originated 60,000 years ago. He considers anything before that time shouldn't even be considered the same as what we are today.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Journey-Man-Gen ... 0141008326

Before Wells others believed we originated over 100,000 years ago, then it was 100,000 Now Wells says 60,000...is anyone noticing a pattern here? As technolgy advances our time of origin gets shorter and shorter. What do you think science will say it is in ten years? I already know and so do you.

1Co 4:5 So then, stop judging anything before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden [things] of the darkness and will reveal the counsels [or, intentions] of the hearts [fig., inner selves], and then the praise will come to each from God.

Posted: **Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:10 pm**

FSC wrote:Before Wells others believed we originated over 100,000 years ago, then it was 100,000 Now Wells says 60,000...is anyone noticing a pattern here? As technolgy advances our time of origin gets shorter and shorter. What do you think science will say it is in ten years? I already know and so do you.

DOUG
Why don't you go here and check out what it has to say instead of making yourself look like a fool.

195,000 years ago for homo sapiens is pretty standard. Rather than just go on what one person says, why don't you make yourself informed about the evidence, what others say, and so on?

Citing one source and being ignorant of the facts may be good enough for church, but this isn't church.

And are you going to ignore my Bible contradictions and just change the subject, or are you interested in talking about your allegedly inerrant source?

Posted: **Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:28 pm**

FSC wrote:I thought it would help you guys if you knew more about The First Evidence of anatomically “modern man“ that Wells proposes originated 60,000 years ago. He considers anything before that time shouldn't even be considered the same as what we are today.

Yeesh...

Class is in session, FSC. Pay attention for a change.

Wells postulates that "Y-chromosomal Adam" lived around 60,000 (to 90,000) years ago, not that "anatomically 'modern man'" is only 60,000 years old.

This means only that the most recent common ancestor of all males -- that is, the last male to have an unbroken line of descendants -- lived at least 60,000 years ago. This says nothing about "anatomically 'modern man.'" (By contrast, Mitochondrial Eve -- that is, the last female to have an unbroken line of descendants -- is believed to have lived 140,000 years ago.) Both the mt-MRCA and Y-MRCA lived among populations of humans and were not -- by any stretch of the imagination -- unique compared to their peers.

FSC wrote:Before Wells others believed we originated over 100,000 years ago, then it was 100,000 Now Wells says 60,000...is anyone noticing a pattern here?

Sure enough, I am noticing a pattern here. The pattern is that you can't back up what you spew, and every time you post new material, it's just as bad.
I asked you to pick your strongest points, and you respond not by elaborating on any of the topics you brought up previously but instead by pointing to evidence that not only you don't understand but also still refutes your belief system. It must be pretty bad to believe the world is less than 10,000 years old and be so hard up for evidence that you're citing someone because he talks about mankind's being over 60,000 years old.

FSC wrote:As technolgy advances our time of origin gets shorter and shorter. What do you think science will say it is in ten years?

I think science, through repeated testing here on this forum, can say right now that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Short quiz tomorrow. Class dismissed.

Posted: **Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:36 pm**

SAV
It must be pretty bad to believe the world is less than 10,000 years old and be so hard up for evidence that you're citing someone because he talks about mankind's being over 60,000 years old.

DAR
Hang on now, while not giving many clues to his/her true beliefs, I don't think FSC has specified that he/she is a young earth creationist. FSC has many similarities to the JW's and may believe in an old earth but also a young human creation (as the JW's do, with the "creative days" being of unknown length).

Unfortunately FSC is not very good at addressing questions or responding directly to points. I wish this was not the case but it is no doubt how such a person ends up buying into such a confused beliefs in the first place.

FSC, please try answering Doug and SAV's questions directly.

Also, as SAV points out, it is really obvious that you don't understand the sense that Spencer Well's is speaking of "modern man." We have a very long line of descendants going all the way back to first life. At what point you decide to refer to our descendants as human like enough anatomically or genetically so as to label them "modern man," is a rather subjective process and a question of taxonomy (labeling). It has nothing whatsoever to do with your idea of humans appearing, created, some ten, or tens of thousands of years ago. That's just absurd and not at all what Wells is talking about.

Darrel.

PS Incidentally, Spence Wells did an extensive PBS documentary of the information contained in his book, which I have a recording of. It is excellent.

Posted: **Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:23 pm**

Darrel wrote:
SAV
It must be pretty bad to believe the world is less than 10,000 years old and be so hard up for evidence that you're citing someone because he talks about mankind's being over 60,000 years old.
DAR
Hang on now, while not giving many clues to his/her true beliefs, I don't think FSC has specified that he/she is a young earth creationist.

Upon review, Darrel is correct. FSC has specified only that he/she believes that mankind emerged 6000 years ago. Fortunately for me, my point still stands: his citation refers to an expert who argues that H. sapiens' Y-MRCA is at least ten times older than FSC claims the entire species is.

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:30 am**

In all honesty i think that if we ever found writing that dated pre 4026 BC it would be a great blow to the the accuracy of the scriptures. But to this day the fact still remains that there is no record of ancient man, his writing, agriculture, and other pursuits extending into the past before 4026 BC. It just isn't there.

Every year 1 million people claim they find evidence of man before that time but every case i have ever seen has been proven incorrect over time as our limited technology advances. Any form of radio carbon dating despite its advances can't be considered higly accurate. Our greatest tried and true method of actually gauging time and confirming radio carbon dating is based on the studies of tree rings...its ridiculous. We as a race are a joke. Anyone who actually thinks they're intelligent is surely a greater fool than the rest. And those that think they can sway the crowds to believe them by using complex vocabulary is only trying to cover the fact that he or she doesn't know as well.

Certaintly i don't know, and for all who claim their certainty... I wish they would just use that intelligence to cease their anger and strife and put down their arms to make peace with their neighbor....for i have little love and respect for the ways of man....and with all our wordly intelligence we can't even do this.

1Co 3:18 Stop letting anyone deceive himself. If anyone seems to be wise among you* in this age, let him become foolish, so that he shall become wise.
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it has been written, "[He is] the One trapping the wise [ones] in their craftiness." [Job 5:13]
1Co 3:20 And again, "[The] LORD knows the thought processes of the wise [ones], that they are futile [or, useless]." [Psalm 94:11]

Pro 26:12 Hast thou seen a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope of a fool than of him.

Jas 3:13 Who is wise and understanding among you; let him shew out of a good conversation his works in meekness of wisdom;
Jas 3:14 but if ye have bitter emulation and strife in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth.
Jas 3:15 This is not the wisdom which comes down from above, but earthly, natural, devilish.
Jas 3:16 For where emulation and strife are , there is disorder and every evil thing.

The only thing i surely know is that none of us truly know.

FSC

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:18 am**

FSC wrote:In all honesty i think that if we ever found writing that dated pre 4026 BC it would be a great blow to the the accuracy of the scriptures.

Which is why -- with a mere wave of the hand -- you blindly deny the accuracy of any technology capable of producing such dates. Why 4026? Is there some profound scientific reason for this number to be the boundary? Of course not; in an amazing, incredible coincidence, however, 4026 B.C. is the JW's (revised) date for Adam's creation. Funny that.

FSC wrote:Any form of radio carbon [sic] dating despite its advances can't be considered higly accurate.

There are dozens of other isotopes used in radiometric dating. 'Tis a shame you're not familiar with a single one.

FSC wrote:Anyone who actually thinks they're intelligent is surely a greater fool than the rest.

Says the person coming here and telling us how it is. Good show, bucko.

FSC wrote:And those that think they can sway the crowds to believe them by using complex vocabulary is only trying to cover the fact that he or she doesn't know as well.

I don't think I can sway you; I just enjoy roasting your tripe. Perhaps you think that makes me a bad person, but I prefer to speak to the facts and to be able to back them up. You see, intellectual honesty and integrity mean something to me. The fact that I'm educated enough about the topic to be able to use words you don't understand is neither somehow damning to my position nor -- frankly -- the least bit surprising.

FSC wrote:The only thing i surely know is that none of us truly know.

I asked you to pick your best points, and you couldn't elaborate on a single one. This aimless rambling and blanket belittling of mankind is all you can come up with. When it comes to saying that people don't know, speak only for yourself.

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:46 am**

Savonarola wrote:...in an amazing, incredible coincidence, however, 4026 B.C. is the JW's (revised) date for Adam's creation. Funny that.

DAR
Ha. Good catch. Hey, do I know my people or what? (I have been talking to Doug about how FSC is some kind of JW variant.)

Now, to try to make something of the little bit that FSC gave us to work with:

***

FSC
to this day the fact still remains that there is no record of ancient man, his writing, agriculture, and other pursuits extending into the past before 4026 BC. It just isn't there.

DAR
I am sorry you are so mistaken. You're not even close. Here's how it goes:

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_communication

***
Cave paintings

The oldest known symbols created with the purpose of communication through time are the cave paintings, a form of rock art, dating to the Upper Paleolithic. Just as the small child first learns to draw before it masters more complex forms of communication, so homo sapiens' first attempts at passing information through time took the form of paintings. The oldest known cave painting is that of the Chauvet Cave, dating to around 30,000 BC.[1] Though not well standardized, those paintings contained increasing amounts of information: Cro-Magnon people may have created the first calendar as far back as 15,000 years ago.[2] The connection between drawing and writing is further shown by linguistics: in the Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece the concepts and words of drawing and writing were one and the same (Egyptian: 's-sh', Greek: 'graphein').[3]

Petroglyphs

The next step in the history of communications is petroglyphs, carvings into a rock surface. It took about 20,000 years for homo sapiens to move from the first cave paintings to the first petroglyphs, which are dated to around 10,000 BC.[4]

It is possible that the humans of that time used some other forms of communication, often for mnemonic purposes - specially arranged stones, symbols carved in wood or earth, quipu-like ropes, tattoos, but little other than the most durable carved stones has survived to modern times and we can only speculate about their existence based on our observation of still existing 'hunter-gatherer' cultures such as those of Africa or Oceania.[4]

Pictograms

A pictogram (pictograph) is a symbol representing a concept, object, activity, place or event by illustration. Pictography is a form of proto-writing whereby ideas are transmitted through drawing. Pictographs were the next step in the evolution of communication: the most important difference between petroglyphs and pictograms is that petroglyphs are simply showing an event, but pictograms are telling a story about the event, thus they can for example be ordered in chronological order.

Pictograms were used by various ancient cultures all over the world since around 9000 BC, when tokens marked with simple pictures began to be used to label basic farm produce, and become increasingly popular around 6000-5000 BC.

They were the basis of cuneiform[2] and hieroglyphs, and began to develop into logographic writing systems around 5000 BC.

DAR
Go to the LINK to read further about this and view the references.

Now, the above just refers to our known record of human communication. Our:

"record of ancient man, his... agriculture, and other pursuits extending into the past..." which you say only go back to 4026BC actually go back much much farther. Hundreds of thousands of years if not a few million. And that's just for, specifically, humans.

FSC
Any form of radio carbon dating despite its advances can't be considered higly accurate.

DAR
That's false. We have dozens of ways to calibrate such measurements. You might begin with our beginner tract on this issue:

How We Know the Earth is Old
Twenty old-Earth indicators

Our greatest tried and true method of actually gauging time and confirming radio carbon dating is based on the studies of tree rings...its ridiculous.

DAR
I think you are making this up as you go, but while you are at it, why is it "ridiculous." You should try to give reasons for your claims.

The only thing i surely know is that none of us truly know.

DAR
Know what? Be specific.

D.

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:58 am**

Darrel wrote:
Our greatest tried and true method of actually gauging time and confirming radio carbon dating is based on the studies of tree rings...its ridiculous.
DAR
I think you are making this up as you go, but while you are at it, why is it "ridiculous." You should try to give reasons for your claims.

It's true that we've used annual tree rings to check the accuracy of carbon dating, but we've also used annual varves and -- if I recall correctly -- annual ice layers. Why any of these well-understood annual processes (or any of the numerous radioisotopic dating methods that agree with each other -- see Brent Dalrymple's Age of the Earth) are "ridiculous" indicators is something FSC won't be able to explain.

fayfreethinkers.com

Making Fool's For Satan

Re: Science Baffled

Thorough Examination

Re: Thorough Examination

Re: Thorough Examination

Re: Science Baffled

Correction to previous post to Doug

Re: Science Baffled

Re: Thorough Examination

No Answer?

Anatomically Modern Man

Re: Anatomically Modern Man

Re: Anatomically Modern Man

Wisdom from above

Re: Wisdom from above

Re: Wisdom from above

Re: Wisdom from above