Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geolog

Page 4 of 4 [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age:32
Posts: 9,745

16 Nov 2010, 3:33 pm

@waltur

They didn't have printing presses back in ancient time it took a lot of work to record things. If they had papyrus it would have been expensive.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age:24
Posts: 4,926

16 Nov 2010, 3:49 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
waltur wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Just because a story sounds impossible doesn't mean it may not have actually happened.


this is a true statement.

however, as carl sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."


And I will point out that it is kinda hard for evidence to survive 4000-7000 years at the very least after the event.

I will also point out that it may be entirely possible that it is entirely accurate because they obviously had a written language at the time. (Or they wouldn't have been able to read the Ten Commandments)


You do know that there's hundreds of myths written in the "languages" of their times and that does not really increase their probability of being correct, right?


I am aware of that, however usually they are to explain something that actually occurred at that time. It is a lot harder for events to get blown out of proportion as time goes on when they are written down.


The same principle applies to early Judeo-Christian mythology.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age:32
Posts: 9,745

16 Nov 2010, 3:55 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
waltur wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Just because a story sounds impossible doesn't mean it may not have actually happened.


this is a true statement.

however, as carl sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."


And I will point out that it is kinda hard for evidence to survive 4000-7000 years at the very least after the event.

I will also point out that it may be entirely possible that it is entirely accurate because they obviously had a written language at the time. (Or they wouldn't have been able to read the Ten Commandments)


You do know that there's hundreds of myths written in the "languages" of their times and that does not really increase their probability of being correct, right?


I am aware of that, however usually they are to explain something that actually occurred at that time. It is a lot harder for events to get blown out of proportion as time goes on when they are written down.


The same principle applies to early Judeo-Christian mythology.


Well I would say look at Egyptian records except they had a bad habit of destroying records if it made them look bad or would be considered extremely embarassing. Losing an army fleeing after a bunch of escaped slaves would certainly be embarassing.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age:24
Posts: 4,926

16 Nov 2010, 4:02 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Well I would say look at Egyptian records except they had a bad habit of destroying records if it made them look bad or would be considered extremely embarassing. Losing an army fleeing after a bunch of escaped slaves would certainly be embarassing.


The main problem is that Archeological evidence doesn't corroborate a Biblical Exodus at all.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age:32
Posts: 9,745

16 Nov 2010, 4:14 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Well I would say look at Egyptian records except they had a bad habit of destroying records if it made them look bad or would be considered extremely embarassing. Losing an army fleeing after a bunch of escaped slaves would certainly be embarassing.


The main problem is that Archeological evidence doesn't corroborate a Biblical Exodus at all.


http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=19382

What are the remains of Chariots doing in the Red Sea.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age:78
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

16 Nov 2010, 4:17 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Well I would say look at Egyptian records except they had a bad habit of destroying records if it made them look bad or would be considered extremely embarassing. Losing an army fleeing after a bunch of escaped slaves would certainly be embarassing.


The main problem is that Archeological evidence doesn't corroborate a Biblical Exodus at all.


http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=19382

What are the remains of Chariots doing in the Red Sea.


I don't know. The Israelites did not cross the Red Sea. The crossed the Sea of Reeds (Yam Suf), basically a swamp which no longer exists.

ruveuyn



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age:24
Posts: 4,926

16 Nov 2010, 4:21 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Well I would say look at Egyptian records except they had a bad habit of destroying records if it made them look bad or would be considered extremely embarassing. Losing an army fleeing after a bunch of escaped slaves would certainly be embarassing.


The main problem is that Archeological evidence doesn't corroborate a Biblical Exodus at all.


http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=19382

What are the remains of Chariots doing in the Red Sea.


That "discovery" is full of holes - and that does not make it "Holy".

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... cy-dr.html


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age:29
Posts: 924
Location: california

16 Nov 2010, 5:51 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Well I would say look at Egyptian records except they had a bad habit of destroying records if it made them look bad or would be considered extremely embarassing. Losing an army fleeing after a bunch of escaped slaves would certainly be embarassing.


The main problem is that Archeological evidence doesn't corroborate a Biblical Exodus at all.


http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=19382

What are the remains of Chariots doing in the Red Sea.


you've got me stumped.

well, except for the fact that your question is basically "why are egyptian artifacts found in egypt?"

and then there's the part where the story you linked to support this claim calls the claim "unsubstantiated."


_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age:30
Posts: 5,573

16 Nov 2010, 6:17 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Problem with natural selection is how are we alive then.

We have are a lot weaker physically than other animals our size, our vision is set up to be a predator yet we don't have claws or sharp teeth. We are extremely slow compared to most animals. Need I go on.
Problem with natural selection is people missing its point as spectacularly as this.


_________________
.


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age:33
Posts: 17,286
Location: Beirut ,Lebanon

17 Nov 2010, 1:10 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Problem with natural selection is how are we alive then.

We have are a lot weaker physically than other animals our size, our vision is set up to be a predator yet we don't have claws or sharp teeth. We are extremely slow compared to most animals. Need I go on.


hint terms: brain , intelligence, adaptation.


Besides, there are other species weaker than humans who could survive the wild....



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age:35
Posts: 4,934
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

17 Nov 2010, 1:50 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
How did we survive long enough to learn how to make tools that would serve as weapons though?


Teamwork. Humans have language and can co-ordinate their activities, such as defense and hunting. One on one humans are not strong, but as a co-ordinated force we can lick just about any mammal or reptile on the planet.

ruveyn


Uh other animals have teamwork, I don't feel teamwork alone would have been that useful verses the predators our ancestors would have had to face.

Try beating up a Grizzly with your bare hands sometime.


Humans mainly evolved in Africa and there are no, and never have been, grizzly bears in Africa. I find it funny that only some Americans seem to make statements like that.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age:78
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

17 Nov 2010, 2:23 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Problem with natural selection is how are we alive then.

We have are a lot weaker physically than other animals our size, our vision is set up to be a predator yet we don't have claws or sharp teeth. We are extremely slow compared to most animals. Need I go on.


hint terms: brain , intelligence, adaptation.


Besides, there are other species weaker than humans who could survive the wild....


Bugs and one celled biota do just fine and they have not a scintilla of intelligence.

ruveyn