Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Blobsculptor tools and objects download here
by NeoDumont. 03/28/24 03:01
Issue with Multi-Core WFO Training
by aliswee. 03/24/24 20:20
Why Zorro supports up to 72 cores?
by Edgar_Herrera. 03/23/24 21:41
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 03/06/24 09:27
VSCode instead of SED
by 3run. 03/01/24 19:06
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
The Bible Game
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Who's Online Now
2 registered members (Quad, aliswee), 835 guests, and 5 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
sakolin, rajesh7827, juergen_wue, NITRO_FOREVER, jack0roses
19043 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 8 of 13 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 12 13
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: JibbSmart] #232573
10/22/08 14:33
10/22/08 14:33
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Quote:
it can't be "wrong" if it's too vague to figure out exactly what it means.


Nope, it's wrong because it's vague. It's simply far too easy to just accept vagueness over specifics when people interpret texts in whatever way they like. Besides.. how can it be true or truth if it doesn't really clarify anything?

Quote:
this vagueness you associate with the entire bible shows exactly how little you've read of it.


Not at all, it shows how easy religious people disregard that fact as if it's not important. I know what metaphors are and yes the Bible also has far more obvious ones, but in fact the Bible is só full of them that it's actually impossible to really take anything literally. Taking one thing literally because it happens to fit your world view and taking another thing as 'just a metaphor' is just being selective.

You still don't seem to understand the point of all this though. Because from a linguistic point of view the whole 'four corners of the earth' example shows what happens when we treat the Bible like you do and just interpret away. Again, I never said that this must be the one and only interpretation, but I did say that 'at best' it's an indication of what people thought of earth. Expressions or not, those words were chosen for a reason, a lot of the expressions common to us now were based on older texts... that doesn't mean the original text must carry the same metaphorical image at all. Basically in reality you are being closed-minded here, it has nothing to do with English not being my native language. In fact, we have similar expressions in Dutch, but that's not the point.

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: PHeMoX] #232609
10/22/08 17:40
10/22/08 17:40
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Further insight into the four corners. If you look at the greek word for corner in the following verse(Johns vison of revelation):

Quote:
Rev 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.


The greek word is gonia, and it means corner or quarter.
Quarter makes much more sense than corner in this verse because when talking about the four winds of the earth, the Bible is probably referring to the major winds, northeast and southeast trades as well as the westerlies and polar easterlies.

As I was trying to illuminate before, the original Bible authors couldnt possibly have been referring to the four corners of a cuboid shape. Why didnt anyone reply to me earlier I dont know. Maybe I just didnt give enough reasons for a flame war. grin



Phemox, I am ashamed of you that being an upcoming archeologist, and therefore supposedly acquainted with human history and anthropology, that you would so doggedly persist in assuming that the original Bible authors did not know that the earth was a sphere without providing alternatives. If you are so sure that they did NOT view the earth as a sphere, how do know exactly WHAT these verses refer to? Do you assume that they believed it was a cuboid? (see attached image) And if you do, what proof do you have of it? So why dont you provide alternatives? If you were as scientifically minded as you would present yourself here, and us Christians should all believe that we are delusional fanatics, maybe you would care to tell us what the world view of all the Biblical authors was?

My contention is that if you are not able to provide a theory of your own, then you really have no business nor credentials in attempting to critic these passages of the Bible.

I conclude that most of these "Bible skepticism" threads are really masks for people who hate God and Christianity, and cannot come to terms with the larger philosophical issues of death and misfortune.

Psychologically speaking most people need something to tear down when their lives dont go right, so they choose God and Christianity because they cant understand how God would have let them down...

Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: NITRO777] #232617
10/22/08 18:32
10/22/08 18:32
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,140
Baunatal, Germany
Tobias Offline

Moderator
Tobias  Offline

Moderator

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,140
Baunatal, Germany
Well I think instead of trying a psychological analysis why other people dont have the same opinion as you, there is probably an easier explanation why most assume that the Bible talked about a flat earth.

First, the idea of a spherical earth came up in Greece about 300 BC. Until then, the earth was described as flat in all written records that are known so far.

Second, Genesis 1: "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament."

There are many similar passages in the Bible. "Under" and "above" in space only makes sense when you assume a flat earth, and a fixed gravity direction. A spherical earth obviously doesn't have an "under" direction - it's the same from all sides.

Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: Tobias] #232624
10/22/08 18:48
10/22/08 18:48
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:
Second, Genesis 1: "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament."

"Under" and "above" the firmament only makes sense when you assume a gravity direction. However, a spherical earth does have an "under" - it's the same from all sides. Only a flat earth has a defined "under" and "above".
Interesting theory, but I think it is definitely wrong. The reason why I can use such a strong word as 'definitely' is because of the following verse. I have thought about it extensively before and I even showed jcl how he was wrong in thinking that the firmamnet was a solid. He has probably chosen to forget that time though laugh

In case anyone needs the reference, the verse you gave was genesis 1:6-7, if you look at the next_verse, genesis 1:8 you see:

Quote:
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.


So God called the firmament heaven. So therefore the firmament is not solid land at all. It is the troposphere. Have you ever wondered why clouds filled with very heavy h20 do not fall? It is because they are kept up by rising air currents in the troposphere.

So therefore the waters 'above the firmament' are waters in the clouds, the waters 'below the firmament' are the waters of the seas.

As far as the words 'above' and 'below' of course those words are used, we also use those words today as we look at clouds above us. Of course those clouds are not really above us, because we are only located relative to other planets, the word above is really meaningless in an infinite universe.So God was just using vernacular which would be understood by people, he wasnt interested in teaching the principles of relativity and we would not understand His science if He told us anyway. Discovering it is our job.

Good thinkinng Tobias, but sometimes we should look at further possibilities in order to understand.

Think rationally, how could God allow birds to fly in solid firmamnet? Look at the next verse... grin
Quote:
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Quote:
Well I think instead of trying a psychological analysis why other people dont have the same opinion as you, there is probably an easier explanation why most assume that the Bible talked about a flat earth.
Why not Tobias? Is [psychology not science? I mean no insult against Phemox but I come to no other conclusion when people are refusing to look at alternatives. There are many people who have OBVIOUS animosity and hatred and mocking towards God and Christians. You tell me why if it is not for psychological reasons..

Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: NITRO777] #232625
10/22/08 18:57
10/22/08 18:57
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Also as a side note, before the flood the troposphere would have much thicker because it prevented the rainbow from being seen, it also was thicker to keep free radicals from aging people and accounts for the longer lives of the early humans. There are many possibilities that can be explored by people who have open minds. Biologists often wonder why things got so big (like dinos and trees and insects) this thicker atmosphere would have cuased different conditions for life, it would have been warmer....just many things

Last edited by TriNitroToluene; 10/22/08 18:58.
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: Tobias] #232626
10/22/08 19:04
10/22/08 19:04
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:
First, the idea of a spherical earth came up in Greece about 300 BC. Until then, the earth was described as flat in all written records that are known so far.
What about the sunmerian texts and the tablets I showed in this thread? The ancients thought these giants came from outer space..nibiru

Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: NITRO777] #232649
10/22/08 21:49
10/22/08 21:49
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Originally Posted By: TriNitroToluene
I conclude that most of these "Bible skepticism" threads are really masks for people who hate God and Christianity, and cannot come to terms with the larger philosophical issues of death and misfortune.


Sometimes it looks like religious people hate science, but there's a lot of ignorance on both sides. Scientists that know little about religion and vice versa. Often debates lead to nothing because of bias, big egos and close mindedness.

The larger philosophical issues of death and misfortune certainly make me think about my own life even though to some extent the agnostic side of me is indifferent about it all. There's no frustration about it.

Don't forget that to me it makes as much sense that after I die the lights go out and nothing happens, as to you it makes sense that you'll arrive in heaven.

Quote:

Psychologically speaking most people need something to tear down when their lives dont go right, so they choose God and Christianity because they cant understand how God would have let them down...


Perhaps it's not meant personally, but I am as open minded as I can be on the subject. I definitely do not hate religion, but to some extent people have all reason to.

Life, and my life is no exception, is something with ups and downs, I don't blame anyone but myself for my own mistakes, hating upon something just to feel better is definitely not me. smile

Quote:
I mean no insult against Phemox but I come to no other conclusion when people are refusing to look at alternatives. There are many people who have OBVIOUS animosity and hatred and mocking towards God and Christians. You tell me why if it is not for psychological reasons..


It's all good, but I don't think I am refusing to look at alternatives. In fact I'm probably more interested in religion than most people are. I've had many discussions with people that believed in something because their parents had raised them as Catholic, Christian and so on. Very interesting, but at the same time it can be quite unbelievable when people say 'I believe simply because my parents do so too'.

Obviously there's a psychological thing going on, children trust their parents. Their teachings are almost holy to them.

The first time this gets a little dent is when the parents explain Santa isn't real, but along the way many children raised with religion will find out about 'the alternatives' as well. There's far more to it than just a Bible with compelling and interesting stories.

Furthermore, as this might seem like mocking, I am convinced there has been a development of religions over time, usually following the same successful process of borrowing from popular religions and adding/changing things unless they prove to be making the religion unpopular. To me it seems obvious it was designed to influence and control people through human psychology. I don't consider that idea 'hating on religion', but perhaps you feel different about it.

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: PHeMoX] #232657
10/22/08 22:47
10/22/08 22:47
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Im just stating that soon you will be an archeologist, at that point you are no longer a guy on a game forum, archeologists are a sort of scientist, and you should be willing to look a facts completely if you are going to be a scientist. Im not interested in that type of science for the reason that it is too full of opinion, but you have to sort through texts,legends, stories, ruins, coins, languages, etc. to arrive at a theory. So therefore I am surprised that you would so easily come to some of the conclusions you seem to arrive at too quickly.

Now here I have every_place_in_the_Bible where 'four corners' is used to describe a locality,as an archeologist I would assume you would be interested in Biblical things because the texts describe writings from centuries ago. Please read carefully:

Quote:
Isa 11:12 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.


Quote:
Eze 7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.


Quote:
Rev 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.


OK. So these texts were written by 3 different authors, Isaiah and Ezekial lived around the same time but were not contemporaries, but John(rev) lived in about 60 AD. Each one describes the four corners of a land mass. However, look closely at the Ezekial reference:

Quote:
Eze 7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.


Here he is talking about the land of Israel as having 4 corners, did the land of israel have four corners? No. So the reference to four corners in this context simply means the 4 cardinal directions, or is just a loose colloqial term to reference the area of a locality.

Thats all. I hope you understand this point.

So anyway I didnt want to insult you, but if your are going to paint a picture of you being on the 'rational side' while Christians are on the 'space cowboy' side, I can understand you desiring to use the scientific method, and use your mind and research for finding things out. I wish more people would have your kind of patient curiosity. I also understnad how sometimes it can be difficult to try to be scientific when you are surrounded by people who believe in an invisible God. grin



Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: NITRO777] #232660
10/23/08 00:42
10/23/08 00:42
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
J
JibbSmart Offline
Expert
JibbSmart  Offline
Expert
J

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
there's absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of it being an expression, and like i said, if it is taken literally then the verse is talking about gathering God's people from four different places (each of which is a corner), though clearly the intended meaning is 'from all over the earth'. it's a huge stretch to take that expression literally, no matter what the context. please open your mind to this.

this argument is stupid. it all started with Tiles saying the Catholics had to admit the bible was wrong about something which it turns out the bible doesn't say. you can't argue in favour of the bible's vagueness: if the bible appears vague about the shape of the earth it's because it doesn't matter. the bible is clear on things that do matter.

i'm not a Christian just because of my parents. i'm a Christian because God answers my prayers. i'm a Christian because being a Christian if there's no God is far better than being an atheist if the Christian God is real. i'm a Christian because i see lots of wisdom in God's Word, and my life is good as a direct result of its application to my life.

i'm a Christian because no one has anything to gain by fooling me into believing it, except that i'm a better and happier person. forget the Catholic church -- a distortion of Christianity that makes the 'godly' rich at the expense of lay-people -- and consider biblical Christianity, and no one gets any material gain from making others Christians.

your view of religion as a method of control has to stop when it gets to true Christianity, otherwise you're being closed-minded.

julz


Formerly known as JulzMighty.
I made KarBOOM!
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: Tiles] #232692
10/23/08 09:22
10/23/08 09:22
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
D
delerna Offline
Junior Member
delerna  Offline
Junior Member
D

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
I will check into the links that you provide and come back. But I will say a couple of things in response for now.
It was Millers experiments that I was alluding to when I said that it has been proven that it is possible for amino acids to form randomly. However, there are a couple of extra points that go along with those experiments that are generally ignored. I don't remember precicely but this is the basic idea.

1) Miller had to carefully setup that experiment so that once the amino acids formed they could be removed and protected. Why? Because because left in the water these amino acids rapidly breakdown into simpler compounds. Exposed to the atmosphere produces the same result. So, the real world aggressively works against amino acids existing long enough to form proteins let alone cells. Interresting experiment but not proof of the method by which cells came into existence.

2) If indeed this is a model of the real event that enabled cells to form, then, I have to ask, what part of the real event does Miller, himself, portray?

3) Not sure about this (I definitely could be wrong) but isnn't methane produced by living organisms? Hmmmm, I think I might do some research on that one

With the donkey horse producing a mule example. I draw the opposite conclusion.
As closely related as they are, I see two species that are so far apart genetically that it is impossible for them to "evolve" any further.
The same thing happens with a chicken and a turkey.
So the conclusion that I draw from those examples is that genetics itself works against "evolution". Genetics itself ensures that a species cannot "evolve" into something entirely different.

Now to the fossil sequences and the "remnant" parts you mentioned. Yep I have seen those too. They were one of the things that caused me to believe evolution orriginally.
However as you say, there are missing links. There are so many "missing links" in fact, that there are probably as many differnt versions of the sequence as there are missing links. This shows that is by no means certain. Definitely not certain enough to treat them as absolute facts. Again all very facinating of course but I find it about as convincing as my earlier example. Snails evolved from pine cones.

Well, I'm off to check your links, you never know, you might have something I haven't seen...Always willing to dig into facts....lol

Last edited by delerna; 10/23/08 10:15.
Page 8 of 13 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 12 13

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1