The creator did it.

[TagliatelliMonster]

When I said...
There are at least 7 different authors included in the 27 books of the new testament. So if I am to quote Paul in order to support something Peter or Jude have written, that is not classified as circular reasoning, because I am quoting from different individuals writings.
It is like quoting different men in a science book to show that evolution is true (even though it is not). I would say that if you quote Dawkins to support Darwin it would not be circular, even though both men are men of science. So if I quote James to support Luke, it is not circular reasoning.

The difference is, off course, that science is supported by pointing at evidence, not by quoting people.

I've never even seen someone say "evolution is true, because darwin said this and that, and dawkins agreed".

No.... What I see people do is "evolution is true, because look at this data and that data and this experiment and the prediction of X and Y which is confirmed by this and that".

It doesn't matter what people say or believe.
What matters is what the actual data supports.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You could not be more wrong and more gravely mistaken. Would I be using circular reasoning if I were to quote Einstein and Hawking to support the laws of thermodynamics just because they are found in the same textbook?

Quoting Einstein and Hawking, would not support anything.

Quotes (anecdotes) only reflect what those people believed - not what is actually true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Every new born human (that includes you) has some 50-ish mutations in his/her DNA.

You want examples of mutations in humans that didn't cause that human harm?
There are 7 billion people on this planet.
Let's be extremely pessimistic and say that 2 billion of them are in perfect health.

That right there, are 100-billion-ish examples. Since each of those 2 billion people has some 50-ish mutations that clearly didn't harm them in any mentionable way.

That fiftieth number is rather low. There are several ways to measure and estimate the number of mutations per generation and most are a bit over one hundred. Here is a rather detailed blog by a biologist on the topic:

Sandwalk: Human mutation rates - what's the right number?

 

[ecco]

From AIG
Taking a biblical stand does not undermine science; it illuminates science,

Religion undermined heliocentricity.
Religion undermined stem cell research.
Pushing Creationism undermines science.

 

[ecco]

Many people claim to "love science". However, they only "love science" up to the point where it conflicts with their deeply ingrained religious beliefs.

That's understandable, no man can believe two diametrically opposed concepts.

Some people honestly state - God said it - I believe it - end of story.

Others, take a little bit of understanding of science, usually gleaned from places like AIG and ICR, and pretend they have the scientific knowledge to question 150 years of research by thousands of scientists in multiple fields of specialization.

 

[ecco]

But prior to the the Tower of Babel, everyone on the earth spoke one language.This is also an undisputed fact.

That is not correct. It is not a fact and it is certainly not undisputed. However, if you feel you have evidence, outside of your Bible, please present it.

It seems your problem with science goes far beyond just evolution.

 

[sooda]

Look, I agree that within languages they change with dialects and words change. Gay used to mean happy in the 60's. So I get that part of it. But prior to the the Tower of Babel, everyone on the earth spoke one language.This is also an undisputed fact. So the event that happened in history with the Tower of Babel is why different languages were created and those people disbursed to various areas of the earth where they could understand each other. This makes perfect sense of what we see today and the history of each of these languages. Our calendar is based off of the birth of Jesus Christ. So that was just over 2,000 years ago (2019) . Tower of Babel was post flood around 2,242BC. So that places Tower of Babel around say 4,250 years ago. This why we do not see written languages past this point. If modern man had been here 20,000 years ago, where is the evidence of his language dating that far back? And if you want to go back even further than that? It really becomes a problem!

Tower of Babel

The myth may have been inspired by the Babylonian tower temple north of the Marduk temple, which in Babylonian was called Bab-ilu (“Gate of God”), Hebrew form Babel, or Bavel. The similarity in pronunciation of Babel and balal (“to confuse”) led to the play on words in Genesis 11:9: “Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth.”

 

[ecco]

And yet, Latin turned into french, portugese, italian and spanish.
How did that happen?

NATURAL EVOLUTION!

Yay. Do I get a prize?

 

[sooda]

NATURAL EVOLUTION!

Yay. Do I get a prize?

language groups are related like Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic and Amharic... like Latin, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese.

There was a real tower of Babel.. The Hebrews created their story after the Babylonian exile.

The Great Ziggurat of Babylon was 91 metres (300 ft) in height.

Alexander the Great ordered it to be demolished circa 331 BCE in preparation for a reconstruction that his death forestalled.

A Sumerian story with some similar elements is told in Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta.

 

[Polymath257]

Look, I agree that within languages they change with dialects and words change. Gay used to mean happy in the 60's. So I get that part of it. But prior to the the Tower of Babel, everyone on the earth spoke one language.This is also an undisputed fact.

Um, sorry, this is very much disputed. In fact, the evidence is very much against this being a 'fact'.

So the event that happened in history with the Tower of Babel is why different languages were created and those people disbursed to various areas of the earth where they could understand each other. This makes perfect sense of what we see today and the history of each of these languages.

Sorry, but it simply doesn't agree with the facts we know about the distribution of languages. They certainly did NOT have their origins all in the middle East about 4000 years ago. For example, all the languages for those who lived in the Americas certainly did NOT come from any event in Babylon.

Our calendar is based off of the birth of Jesus Christ. So that was just over 2,000 years ago (2019) . Tower of Babel was post flood around 2,242BC. So that places Tower of Babel around say 4,250 years ago. This why we do not see written languages past this point. If modern man had been here 20,000 years ago, where is the evidence of his language dating that far back? And if you want to go back even further than that? It really becomes a problem!

We have basic written language going back 5000 years, with differences between Egypt and Mesopotamia. Those in other areas of the world also had languages which were quite different than those in either of those two regions.

 

[sooda]

Um, sorry, this is very much disputed. In fact, the evidence is very much against this being a 'fact'.


Sorry, but it simply doesn't agree with the facts we know about the distribution of languages. They certainly did NOT have their origins all in the middle East about 4000 years ago. For example, all the languages for those who lived in the Americas certainly did NOT come from any event in Babylon.


We have basic written language going back 5000 years, with differences between Egypt and Mesopotamia. Those in other areas of the world also had languages which were quite different than those in either of those two regions.

The Tower of Babel story is a myth based on the great ziggurat built to honor Markduk.

Ziggurats were massive structures built in the ancient Mesopotamian valley and western Iranian plateau, having the form of a terraced step pyramid of successively receding stories or levels.

Etemenanki (Sumerian É.TEMEN.AN.KI ) "temple of the foundation of heaven and earth") is the name of a ziggurat dedicated to Marduk in the city of Babylon of the 6th century BCE Neo-Babylonian dynasty. Originally 91 meters in height, it now exists only in ruins.

Etemenanki is considered a possible inspiration for the biblical story (or even literal candidate for the tower itself) of the Tower of Babel.
Etemenanki - Wikipedia

 

[Polymath257]

HhR, I don't know why you bother! They don't care about anything you say, and they don't read the links you send. And all this dude does is make ludicrous statements with no depth of dialog at all. All he can do is, copy and past and make ridiculous statements, PERIOD! We have at our discretion, an "ignore" function. Just sayin

the question isn't whether we *read* those books. it is whether we think those books are *reliable* in what they say.

I give a LOT more credence to those who have made the history of the Middle East their specialty, or the archeology of Egypt an Palestine(Canaan, Ancient Israel) their specialty, than those who take a book put together for propaganda purposes to support a priestly casts (i.e, the Bible) as authoritative.

The Tower of Babel is a *myth* that is based on the ziggurats. Those were tall buildings for the time, but quite small for us today. other myths, like that of the universal flood, the whole Genesis story, and much of what happened before about 700BC was made up to support the power of the government/theocracy.

Maybe *you* should read some more reliable sources concerning the early history of the Middle East and Egypt?

 

[Polymath257]

Look, I agree that within languages they change with dialects and words change.

And new languages develop from this process.

Once again, 2000 years ago, NOBODY spoke Spanish, French, or English. Those languages simply didn't exist. The first two developed from Latin (mostly) and interactions with languages from some of the Germanic tribes that overthrew Roman rule. English developed from a mixture of French, Angle, Saxon, Frisian, and some other languages after 1000AD.

Even 1000 years ago, nobody spoke anything like the English we have today. I would challenge you to attempt to read Chaucer in the original. it is a different language, even though it is called *Middle* English.


So, it isn't only that the words change. New languages develop. Languages split off from each other. They evolve over time.

 

[sooda]

That is not correct. It is not a fact and it is certainly not undisputed. However, if you feel you have evidence, outside of your Bible, please present it.

It seems your problem with science goes far beyond just evolution.

Babylon was destroyed around 690 BC and it took more than 80 years to rebuilt it. The Tower of Babel story is about the collapse of LITERACY during that period.


n Nebuchadnezzar's own words:

The tower, the eternal house, which I founded and built. I have completed its magnificence with silver, gold, other metals, stone, enameled bricks, fir and pine. The first which is the house of the earth’s base, the most ancient monument of Babylon; I built and finished it. I have highly exalted its head with bricks covered with copper. We say for the other, that is, this edifice, the house of the seven lights of the earth the most ancient monument of Borsippa. A former king built it, (they reckon 42 ages) but he did not complete its head. Since a remote time, people had abandoned it, without order expressing their words. Since that time the earthquake and the thunder had dispersed the sun-dried clay. The bricks of the casing had been split, and the earth of the interior had been scattered in heaps. Merodach, the great god, excited my mind to repair this building. I did not change the site nor did I take away the foundation. In a fortunate month, in an auspicious day, I undertook to build porticoes around the crude brick masses, and the casing of burnt bricks. I adapted the circuits, I put the inscription of my name in the Kitir of the portico. I set my hand to finish it. And to exalt its head. As it had been done in ancient days, so I exalted its summit.[2]

 

[sooda]

the question isn't whether we *read* those books. it is whether we think those books are *reliable* in what they say.

I give a LOT more credence to those who have made the history of the Middle East their specialty, or the archeology of Egypt an Palestine(Canaan, Ancient Israel) their specialty, than those who take a book put together for propaganda purposes to support a priestly casts (i.e, the Bible) as authoritative.

The Tower of Babel is a *myth* that is based on the ziggurats. Those were tall buildings for the time, but quite small for us today. other myths, like that of the universal flood, the whole Genesis story, and much of what happened before about 700BC was made up to support the power of the government/theocracy.

Maybe *you* should read some more reliable sources concerning the early history of the Middle East and Egypt?

Towers were very important because the could be used as watch towers to see the enemy coming from 20 miles away.. At night they could be used as signal towers.

There are ruined towers all over Arabia..

 

[Polymath257]

Towers were very important because the could be used as watch towers to see the enemy coming from 20 miles away.. At night they could be used as signal towers.

There are ruined towers all over Arabia..

Not just. They literally exist all over the world. People build them precisely for the reason you gave, as well as for purposes of displaying power and overwhelming those ruled.

 

[sooda]

Not just. They literally exist all over the world. People build them precisely for the reason you gave, as well as for purposes of displaying power and overwhelming those ruled.

Towers would be ideal in flat terrains..

 

[Truly Enlightened]

RAPTURE ERA, I don't think any of the 5 pedagogical learning approaches will have any effect on a completely closed mind. A mind that seems incapable of understanding the importance of lateral thinking, and inductive and deductive reasoning. A mind that seems incapable of self-scrutiny, logical consistency, and the ability to critically interpret and comprehend facts and data. A mind that can only understand science if it is preference first with, "God did it all". A mind that believes that the physical and metaphysical are both equally valid and real. Science has always been the cure for ignorance, but there is no cure for the willful chronic ignorance.

I will try to answer some of the issues raised in both your posts(#993 & #994). Clearly you have made 3 things abundantly clear to me. One, by labeling an entity as the creator of life and the Universe, you are being intellectually lazy and logically inconsistent. Unless YOU are a God yourself, how can you possibly KNOW anything about the true nature of a God? You don't and you can't. Please demonstrate that God is good or bad, is the true God, or is endowed with all the Omni's given to Him by man? Please demonstrate how a foreign 2000 year old book, written by man, edited by man, contracted by man, interpreted by man, and compiled by man, can objectively demonstrate the existence of God(s)? Surely, you don't expect any book written millennia ago, to be historically, scientifically, and geographically accurate? Let alone spiritually valid. Please demonstrate the special divine/spiritual knowledge that is afforded to you, but not me? Name just one supernatural, metaphysical or paranormal event that has happened at anytime throughout human history, that would justify even a belief that these events are possible? Let alone as a justification for anyone to commit to a life of pious and sincere servitude. I see no rational bases for any religious beliefs, other than to fill some abstract void inherent in the human condition.

Secondly, it is also clear is that any facts, data, inconsistencies, and other evidence that challenge your established beliefs, are circumvented, maligned, discredited, obfuscated, or trivialized. Since you can't deposit any creation-specific evidence to objectively support your own narrative, you are reduced to "site bombing", and "quote bombing" us into submission. It is ironic that the very science that you ridicule and discredit, is the same science you use to give credibility to a very weak religious narrative. Why do you rally behind those that have letters in science, and not in Divinity? Maybe to give your weak narrative the perception of credibility? Even when the question asked of scientist was roughly, "should we continue more research into evolution", it was quickly interpreted as most scientists are questioning evolution.

Thirdly, your demonstrated understanding of anatomy and physiology, the Theory of Evolution, Cell Biology, Genetics, Chemistry, Physics and Biochemistry, is inversely proportional to your level of closed-mindedness. If we use only our common sense, we would easily realize that if cells have components, and those components have components, we will eventually see that the smallest components of life are composed of non-living matter(molecules, atoms, precursor enzymes,, acids and bases, proteins and lipids, etc.). Do you really think that all life was poofed into reality by magic, because a 2000 year old book says so? We did NOT get one stem cell each from our parents. Let me rephrase my earlier idiom, "We SHOULD learn from our mistakes, but we DO learn from our successes(academia, long marriage, sports, competition, etc.). Obviously, some will continue making the same mistakes, because they refuse to learn from them. The embryo is guided through its stages of development not by any intelligence, but as the result of millions of years of evolutionary trial and error. That is successes vs. failures. Remember, we represent only 0.001% of all successful life that has ever been on this planet Therefore, we must go through the same embryonic stages that was successful for our ancestors. Also don't conflate the design for building a house, to the embryonic development of any living organism. It is apples and roaches.

If you simply want to place "God did it" as your Gap-filling argument from ignorance, no one cares. You could replace "God did it" with 10's of thousands of other names, and nothing would change. In fact the inclusion of God, would have zero effect on the equation at all.​

 

[Polymath257]

When I said...
There are at least 7 different authors included in the 27 books of the new testament. So if I am to quote Paul in order to support something Peter or Jude have written, that is not classified as circular reasoning, because I am quoting from different individuals writings.
It is like quoting different men in a science book to show that evolution is true (even though it is not). I would say that if you quote Dawkins to support Darwin it would not be circular, even though both men are men of science. So if I quote James to support Luke, it is not circular reasoning.

Those books were assembled into the Bible by people with political and theological goals in mind. There were even other 'Christians' that advocated other books as authoritative. They lost the political battle and are now called heretics by those who won.

So, yes, using the Bible to support the Bible is circular: all the books were chosen to support a particular viewpoint, which was far from being the only one at the time of that choice.

And, a *huge* difference is that science doesn't use faith in even the best scientists as the rule by which they judge a statement. Even the best scientists can be (and often are) wrong. Instead, science uses actual observations and *tests* all of its ideas before being accepted by the community. Any new evidence can overthrow previous views *if* they prove them to be wrong. And this happens, showing that science isn't a monolith of tradition, but an actively growing field attempting to understand the universe.

 

[sooda]

RAPTURE ERA, I don't think any of the 5 pedagogical learning approaches will have any effect on a completely closed mind. A mind that seems incapable of understanding the importance of lateral thinking, and inductive and deductive reasoning. A mind that seems incapable of self-scrutiny, logical consistency, and the ability to critically interpret and comprehend facts and data. A mind that can only understand science if it is preference first with, "God did it all". A mind that believes that the physical and metaphysical are both equally valid and real. Science has always been the cure for ignorance, but there is no cure for the willful chronic ignorance.

I will try to answer some of the issues raised in both your posts(#993 & #994). Clearly you have made 3 things abundantly clear to me. One, by labeling an entity as the creator of life and the Universe, you are being intellectually lazy and logically inconsistent. Unless YOU are a God yourself, how can you possibly KNOW anything about the true nature of a God? You don't and you can't. Please demonstrate that God is good or bad, is the true God, or is endowed with all the Omni's given to Him by man? Please demonstrate how a foreign 2000 year old book, written by man, edited by man, contracted by man, interpreted by man, and compiled by man, can objectively demonstrate the existence of God(s)? Surely, you don't expect any book written millennia ago, to be historically, scientifically, and geographically accurate? Let alone spiritually valid. Please demonstrate the special divine/spiritual knowledge that is afforded to you, but not me? Name just one supernatural, metaphysical or paranormal event that has happened at anytime throughout human history, that would justify even a belief that these events are possible? Let alone as a justification for anyone to commit to a life of pious and sincere servitude. I see no rational bases for any religious beliefs, other than to fill some abstract void inherent in the human condition.

Secondly, it is also clear is that any facts, data, inconsistencies, and other evidence that challenge your established beliefs, are circumvented, maligned, discredited, obfuscated, or trivialized. Since you can't deposit any creation-specific evidence to objectively support your own narrative, you are reduced to "site bombing", and "quote bombing" us into submission. It is ironic that the very science that you ridicule and discredit, is the same science you use to give credibility to a very weak religious narrative. Why do you rally behind those that have letters in science, and not in Divinity? Maybe to give your weak narrative the perception of credibility? Even when the question asked of scientist was roughly, "should we continue more research into evolution", it was quickly interpreted as most scientists are questioning evolution.

Thirdly, your demonstrated understanding of anatomy and physiology, the Theory of Evolution, Cell Biology, Genetics, Chemistry, Physics and Biochemistry, is inversely proportional to your level of closed-mindedness. If we use only our common sense, we would easily realize that if cells have components, and those components have components, we will eventually see that the smallest components of life are composed of non-living matter(molecules, atoms, precursor enzymes,, acids and bases, proteins and lipids, etc.). Do you really think that all life was poofed into reality by magic, because a 2000 year old book says so? We did NOT get one stem cell each from our parents. Let me rephrase my earlier idiom, "We SHOULD learn from our mistakes, but we DO learn from our successes(academia, long marriage, sports, competition, etc.). Obviously, some will continue making the same mistakes, because they refuse to learn from them. The embryo is guided through its stages of development not by any intelligence, but as the result of millions of years of evolutionary trial and error. That is successes vs. failures. Remember, we represent only 0.001% of all successful life that has ever been on this planet Therefore, we must go through the same embryonic stages that was successful for our ancestors. Also don't conflate the design for building a house, to the embryonic development of any living organism. It is apples and roaches.

If you simply want to place "God did it" as your Gap-filling argument from ignorance, no one cares. You could replace "God did it" with 10's of thousands of other names, and nothing would change. In fact the inclusion of God, would have zero effect on the equation at all.​

Some people are incurious, you know.. That goes with being lazy.