Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Parsimony]

Potential energy due to its height, “sitting on a cliff”, and as it drops it gains speed and kinetic energy while the potential energy is decreasing or losing. Energy used energy lost. Entropy! 2nd LoT. As the rock drops, gaining kinetic energy, but losing potential energy entropy is increasing and therefore creates disorder and chaos or death to this energy.

One rock falling off of a cliff won't create disorder, chaos or death (unless it triggers a rock slide or falls on someone's head). Yes, we all know that entropy is increasing the Universe. What is your point?

The rock sitting in the valley below can never gain any gravitational potential energy anymore or at all since it’s not going anywhere. Where do we see this as an example? Water Dams

Volcanos most certainly can add gravitational potential energy to rocks by throwing them into the air during an eruption.

Let me ask you. Let’s supposed we have two rocks sitting on a cliff, but one is higher by 5 meters, and they drop one second apart and hit the earth at the same time, What is your conclusion?

What am I supposed to conclude from that?

Here is the proof that they were plant eaters.
GE 1:30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.

That's only proof to people who believe that all of Genesis is literally true (i.e. not proof at all).

 

[JM2C]

In Job 40:17

Both referred to the tail cedar, as either how much its tail bend or how stiff tail is. It doesn't say anything about the cedar height, so Job 40:17 is not talking about the tail's length. You are making wrong comparison between the behemoth and the cedar. What I am saying that your personal interpretation to 40:17 has deliberately changed the context of that verse, so that you can say that this behemoth is a dinosaur.

”Tail like a cedar” is not my interpretation.

Behemoth eats grass like an Ox. The behemoth is compared to Ox because they both eat grass. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?


EZE 31:2 “Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his hordes, ‘Whom are you like in your greatness?
EZE 31:3 ‘Behold, Assyria was a cedar in Lebanon With beautiful branches and forest shade, And very high, And its top was among the clouds.

The comparison here is among the trees and cedar is the tallest. So, there is no question now that the cedar is a TALL TREE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? SINCE YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND BUT YOU OWN BIAS INTERPRETATION HERE IS ANOTHER COMPARISON.

2Ki 14:9 But King Jehoash of Israel replied to King Amaziah of Judah with this story: “Out in the Lebanon mountains a thistle sent a message to a mighty cedar tree: ‘Give your daughter in marriage to my son.’ But just then a wild animal came by and stepped on the thistle, crushing it!

READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS: A THISTLE IS COMPARED TO A MIGHTY CEDAR TREE IN SIZE.

“He bends his tail like a cedar” The comparison here is cedar and the tail. Does it mean the tail is like a THISTLE or a CEDAR?

 

[JM2C]

I could write that "Samson is strong as a bear", and I mean to talk of Samson's "strength" being greater than any normal man. So using this saying or simile, it doesn't mean that I am saying Samson is a bear.

Do you understand what I am saying now?

As a bear in not actually a bear. Like the wind is not actually the wind. You can use analogies after analogies but you cannot escape the fact that your analogies only suit your own bias interpretations.

 

[JM2C]

You are missing the whole point of simile as literary's figure of speech, JM2C.


Wind can be of any speed, that's true, but using the "wind" in connection with Bolt in a race, as a simile, often referred to Bolt running faster than other Olympians in a 100m sprint.

The use of similes are most common in verse literature, like poetry, for instance, epic poems of The Iliad, The Odyssey, or in Old Norse sagas.


Similes can often be commonly found in allegories, in religious scriptures.

My point with the example of Bolt "run like wind", means that he run faster than everyone else in foot races, but HE IS NOT THE "WIND".

You are not getting the point then. You used the wind as running fast in connection with Bolt because you saw him in a race. Have you ever thought that there are people who never saw him runs at all? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? Wind can be very still.

 

[JM2C]

Yes. More often than not, they are invented, to make someone more important than they are.

You're right, Mestemia, genealogies are hardly reliable, especially when people seeking to elevate ancestry to great men or families.

Our family name is Chau, which are variations to Chou or Zhou, so if I wanted to waste my times, I could meaninglessly seek out my link to "royalty", to the Zhou dynasty in feudal China of the 1st millennium BCE. Sorry, but I don't have that sort of vainty of myself.

You know what? You just did.

 

[JM2C]

What am I supposed to conclude from that?

Do you know what gravitational potential energy is? The answer is up there.

 

[JM2C]

One rock falling off of a cliff won't create disorder, chaos or death (unless it triggers a rock slide or falls on someone's head). Yes, we all know that entropy is increasing the Universe. What is your point?

We are not talking about the literal people getting hit in the head by falling rocks. We are talking about energy, gravitational potential energy on how it can create actual energy.

 

[David M]

Not according to this guy

500 years ago is not antiquity, stop misrepresenting people's posts.

 

[Parsimony]

Do you know what gravitational potential energy is? The answer is up there.

I know what it is, but do not see what point you were trying to make about it.

We are not talking about the literal people getting hit in the head by falling rocks. We are talking about energy, gravitational potential energy on how it can create actual energy.

I know that potential energy can become kinetic energy.

 

[gnostic]

Who’s on first? You are confusing yourself. Chronological timeline is very important here.

According to the bible, the Behemoth, [by mistake I wrote mammoth] were the first creation of God along with man, “Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you” and it says “he eats grass like an ox” meaning they were not meat eaters in the beginning but actually plant eaters. How they became meat eaters? No one knows, do you?
Here is the proof that they were plant eaters.
GE 1:30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.

You have misunderstood my post, jm2c.

Job stated behemoth eat grass, therefore a herbivore.

I was talking of tyrannosaurus being meat-eaters, not Job's stupid behemoth; there is no confusion there. Perhaps you are the one who is confused.

Tyrannosaurus rex (T-rex) are just one species out of many different tyrannosaurus. The tyrannosaurus is a genus (which belonged to family of Tyrannosauridae), T-rex (Tyrannosaurus rex) on the other hand is a "species". There are other species of tyrannosaurus, but T-rex is the best known species, and the largest species in its genus. All tyrannosaurs (especially t-rex) are meat-eaters.

The tyrannosaurus are just one genus, and they belonged to group of dinosaurs, belonging to suborder of dinosaurs called Theropoda. Theropods are all dinosaurs that walked on two legs (bipedal), not four, and varied in size.

Another genus of the Theropoda (suborder) and Dromaeosuridae (family) were the Velociraptor, which has 2 different species - V. mongoliensis and V. osmolskae - both of them found in the same region Mongolia. Both species are carnivorous dinosaurs.

There are few genus and species of the Theropoda that are not meat eaters, but most are.

Then there are many dinosaurs that walked on four legs (quadrupedal), and more often than not either herbivores or insectivores. There are many types (family, genus, species) that are quadrupedal dinosaurs, but the largest groups belonging to the sauropod dinosaurs of Sauropodomorpha suborder. The sauropod dinosaurs are noted for their long necks and tails, like Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus.

Both Theropoda and Sauropodomorpha belonged to the order Saurischia.

A second order of dinosaurs are the Ornithischia, and all of these ornithischian dinosaurs are quadrupedal and being herbivorous in diet. The well known Stegosaurus and the three-horned Triceratops belonged to this order.

My point is that Sauropod and ornithischian dinosaurs are herbivore dinosaurs, but the theropod dinosaurs (like the t-rex or much smaller Velociraptors) are largely carnivore dinosaurs (though, there are few other Theropoda families that are herbivores or insectivores).

You have assumption that the T-Rex are herbivore dinosaurs, but it is actually quite the opposite with this species of dinosaurs.

No, jm2c, you are the one who is confused. And like I said before, all dinosaurs have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period, about 65 million years ago. Only in movies they are alive today, like Jurassic Park or King Kong. There weren't any dinosaurs around the times of mythological Adam or Noah, or at any time humans have been around, especially the Homo sapiens (200,000 years).

 

[Shad]

”Tail like a cedar” is not my interpretation.

Behemoth eats grass like an Ox. The behemoth is compared to Ox because they both eat grass. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?


EZE 31:2 “Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his hordes, ‘Whom are you like in your greatness?
EZE 31:3 ‘Behold, Assyria was a cedar in Lebanon With beautiful branches and forest shade, And very high, And its top was among the clouds.

The comparison here is among the trees and cedar is the tallest. So, there is no question now that the cedar is a TALL TREE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? SINCE YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND BUT YOU OWN BIAS INTERPRETATION HERE IS ANOTHER COMPARISON.

2Ki 14:9 But King Jehoash of Israel replied to King Amaziah of Judah with this story: “Out in the Lebanon mountains a thistle sent a message to a mighty cedar tree: ‘Give your daughter in marriage to my son.’ But just then a wild animal came by and stepped on the thistle, crushing it!

READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS: A THISTLE IS COMPARED TO A MIGHTY CEDAR TREE IN SIZE.

“He bends his tail like a cedar” The comparison here is cedar and the tail. Does it mean the tail is like a THISTLE or a CEDAR?

Nonsense since those verse provide parameter dictating the comparison while your reference has no parameters regarding length. I put in bold the parameter which you are missing in your claimed tail verse. Try your post hoc rationalization again. Bends does not mean length, it mean it bends like it.

 

[gnostic]

”Tail like a cedar” is not my interpretation.

Behemoth eats grass like an Ox. The behemoth is compared to Ox because they both eat grass. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?


EZE 31:2 “Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his hordes, ‘Whom are you like in your greatness?
EZE 31:3 ‘Behold, Assyria was a cedar in Lebanon With beautiful branches and forest shade, And very high, And its top was among the clouds.

The comparison here is among the trees and cedar is the tallest. So, there is no question now that the cedar is a TALL TREE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? SINCE YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND BUT YOU OWN BIAS INTERPRETATION HERE IS ANOTHER COMPARISON.

2Ki 14:9 But King Jehoash of Israel replied to King Amaziah of Judah with this story: “Out in the Lebanon mountains a thistle sent a message to a mighty cedar tree: ‘Give your daughter in marriage to my son.’ But just then a wild animal came by and stepped on the thistle, crushing it!

READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS: A THISTLE IS COMPARED TO A MIGHTY CEDAR TREE IN SIZE.

“He bends his tail like a cedar” The comparison here is cedar and the tail. Does it mean the tail is like a THISTLE or a CEDAR?

You really don't know how to read just one verse without misinterpreting it, can you?

40:17 never talked about the length of behemoth's tail. It only talk of tail being stiff or as bendable as a cedar. Your original post about the tail was its length or size. You made that claim, not me. You are the one who misread the verse. Emergence who replied to you about verse 40:17 was the first to reply to you before I did, stated that you were wrong in your claim.

No matter how I read 40:17, no where does it mention the bloody tail; it comparison to the cedar, was the tail movement, being either stiff or bendability.

Seriously, you are either totally ignorant or totally dishonest when it come to reading simile in a verse.

Here are 3 translations to 40:17 about its tail:

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar

17 Its tail sways like a cedar;

17 It makes its tail stiff like a cedar;

Do you read any where that mention size or length of its tail? Do you read anything that say the height or size of cedar?

It doesn't say anything about length or size. If it did, I would agree with you, but none of translations say "length", "height" or "size". You are blindly making assumption about what you read. You need to go back to basic and read what it actually say, instead of making up things it doesn't say.

Even the translation (don't know where you got it from) you had provided use the word "bend" for comparison between behemoth and cedar, not "size".

He bends his tail like a cedar

It say "bends...like". You do realise "bend" and "size" are two different words with different meanings?

Are you so ignorant that you don't know what "bend" mean?

 

[Shad]

***** From Josephus again.

LK 2:2 This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

It is Luke that is considered incorrect by historians and biblical scholars not the other way around. . There is also the issue that it is unrealistic to have people travel to their places of birth for a census. Roman census were done based on where one lived not where one was born and certainly didn't involve travel by citizens. It was the officials of the state that traveled.

 

[gnostic]

It is Luke that is considered incorrect by historians and biblical scholars not the other way around. . There is also the issue that it is unrealistic to have people travel to their places of birth for a census. Roman census were done based on where one lived not where one was born and certainly didn't involve travel by citizens. It was the officials of the state that traveled.

The Romans also wouldn't know anything about the different tribes of Israel, so they don't care about Joseph's ancestors or genealogy.

And Romans don't tax individual person, until Judaea became a Roman province. What they do take is tributes from any client king. Census are only taken when Judaea became a roman province, and Judaea didn't become a province till 6 ce. Something's that jm2c clearly don't understand.

And lastly Quirinius didn't become governor of Syria while Herod was alive, until 6 ce. Quirinius was fighting war at the time when Herod was still alive, in the provinces of Galatea and Cilicia, and was governor of Galatea at that time. The governors of Syria was Saturnius and Varus, which I already posted, but jm2c have completely ignored.

Quirinius was never governor of Syria, twice, and the census wasn't held twice by Quirinius.

Jm2c is just a dishonest and ignorant person.

 

[gnostic]

As a bear in not actually a bear. Like the wind is not actually the wind. You can use analogies after analogies but you cannot escape the fact that your analogies only suit your own bias interpretations.

Bloody fricking hell.

Man, you really don't unsderstand similes, do you?

When wrote some like "Samson is strong like a bear", I am comparing Samson to a bear, because of strength, but Samson himself is not a bear. I was hoping that you would understand better what a simile is, when I making a comparison between bear and Samson, but they are not one and the same.

Bolt is not the wind, but he run fast like the wind.

I gave you two examples and all you do, is argue with me over trivas or over-complicate whatever you read, and failing to understand what I am talking about, which make you look like a fool.

I shouldn't waste any more time on fools who don't want to learn from their mistakes.

 

[gnostic]

You know what? You just did.

Again, you are fool, failing to understand what I am saying. You are deliberately misreading what I wrote.

I just saying that just because our family name are similar to Zhou, doesn't make me or my ancestors come from royal line.

There are many women whose name are Elizabeth, doesn't mean they are all the queen of England. There are many women named Mary, but just because they have the same name, doesn't mean they are all the Virgin Mary.

Are you getting my points, now? Are you done with making wrong assumptions on what you read or hear?

Seriously, you have a tendency to jump to conclusions, making me to explain or clarify what I have written every single bloody times. You level of comprehension is seriously deficient.

 

[Shad]

The Romans also wouldn't know anything about the different tribes of Israel, so they don't care about Joseph's ancestors or genealogy.

Which is irrelevant as Rome used the consensus to assess property for taxes, which you can not do if you leave said property, and manpower, which is pointless if a large percentage of the population are polled for a place they do not actually live. Consider a hypothetical city which is in decline with a current population of 5k while a past population of 20k. If the census is set for a date before the decline then the current population is not represented but ballooned out of proportion. This causes an issue for taxes as treasury would expect a level of taxes for a population of 20k but only receive one of 5k. This cause issues with manpower for the military and civic tasks. This is basic accounting.

And Romans don't tax individual person, until Judaea became a Roman province. What they do take is tributes from any client king. Census are only taken when Judaea became a roman province, and Judaea didn't become a province till 6 ce. Something's that jm2c clearly don't understand.

Which contradicts the Bible as you can not properly tithe a community that does not actually represent the community. It is also nonsensical to have this model in place for the purpose of resolving issues with the rapid conquests of Rome and taxes then ignore the very same system. The story is a construct so that it aligned with the OT. While clever for those that know nothing about Rome, it fails for those that have studied Roman history and government structures. There is a reason for this story based on religious but no basis in the Roman government.

 

[JM2C]

500 years ago is not antiquity, stop misrepresenting people's posts.

You don’t consider Middle Ages [5th to the 15th century] antiquity? Read your post again

Strange, my family can be traced back over 500 years and in a patchy way up to 1000 years ago when the family name first arrived in the UK. Maybe the difference is that some people (i.e. my father and his cousins) are willing to make a serious effort while others just like to meander along celebrating ignorance.

Then you misrepresent yourself by saying “in a patchy way up to 1000 years ago” or maybe the other 500 years were just like those people who like to meander along celebrating ignorance. You really can’t hide where you came from, can you? When you think you have this royal blood when in fact you are just the same like the Bohemians wandering around celebrating ignorance.

 

[JM2C]

I know what it is, but do not see what point you were trying to make about it.


I know that potential energy can become kinetic energy.

Does this not imply potential energy into kinetic energy?

That's not necessarily true. Entropy can also be view as a reduction of available potential energy to do work. A rock sitting on a cliff has more gravitational potential energy than the same rock would have if it was sitting in the valley below. However, both situations are equally complex (since they have the same number and kinds of parts).

Or you don’t know what you’re saying here

 

[JM2C]

It is Luke that is considered incorrect by historians and biblical scholars not the other way around. .

Of course you would say that and I’m not really surprise at all.

There is also the issue that it is unrealistic to have people travel to their places of birth for a census.

Did you that in the four gospels the Lord Jesus traveled from Capernaun to Gennesaret to Tyre and Sidon back to Gennesaret then to Bethsaida to Caesarea Philippi and went to Jerusalem then back to Galilee so many times by foot and so did Paul who traveled farther up to Macedonia. You think traveling long distance in that era is impossible, but realistically, that’s the only way most people traveled is that time frame unless of course they have wagons and donkeys.

Roman census were done based on where one lived not where one was born and certainly didn't involve travel by citizens. It was the officials of the state that traveled.

No proof otherwise you would have posted it already.