The Bible is a reliable science text

[Dr.Who]

Re: PLC1, lions and kangas

Since we are talking about the logistics of Noah and company, maybe you can help me out with this problem concerning evolution.

According to the Darwinistas, humans evolved from some ape-like beings that split from the apes a few million years or so ago. All this is supposed to have happened in Africa. So how did these ancient ape-like beings also wind up in Australia? It is a couple of thousand miles from Aussieville to the nearest island and several thousand more to the Asian mainland.

Were these ape-like beings just real good swimmers? Or did they trade in a whole bunch of their bone clubs for a sailing yacht? Did they learn to whale surf or something? It's a long way to the Aussie Island from Asia.

The descendants of these Aussie ape-like creatures are genetically compatible with humans from Africa and China and Europe. So these ape-like beings would have to evolve into humans that, by pure chance, are genetically identical to humans from Africa. This kind of makes the possiblity of independent but parallel evolution seem ridiculous.

I have yet to hear an explanation from a Darwinista that makes the least bit of sense out of this. Of course, if there really were an almighty God and he decided to populate the entire earth with something more than dumb animals, putting humans on Australia and Africa at the same time would be a piece of cake. No problemo for God but BIG, HUGE, GIGONDA, HUMONGOUS problemo for Darwin and crew.

Kind of makes you wonder if these Darwinistas really do have all the answers that they claim to have.

Taxonomy is the classification of species based historically and mostly on shape. New advances in genetics has made taxonomy based on shape obsolete.

Unfortunately, new research in genomes has re-shaped the family tree into more of a family bush. No sense in arguing what the old tree said when there is a new bush.

 

[invest07]

Early people and boats

Sammy, sammy, sammy. You are confusing homo sapiens (modern humans), with Australopithecus, the ape-like creature.

The earliest Australians were not homo sapiens. Homo sapiens did not appear until around 100K years ago or maybe even more recently. Before homo sapiens in Aussieland there were these ape-like creatures (Australopithecus) who Darwinstas say were the forerunners of homo sapiens. These guys are supposed to have lived somewhere around 1M years ago or even earlier. These ape-like beings walked semi upright and the only known tools were believed to be animal bones used as clubs. They left no artifacts that would suggest woodworking. No language, no artwork, no metals, no arrowheads, no carved flints. The bones they used showed no signs of shaping and there is no evidence they controlled fire. Australopitecus was a monkey that walked semi erect. And if those monkeys couldn't shape a stone into a point or start a fire or carve wood, they aint buildin no boats.

Darwinistas say the ape-like creatures started out in Africa. But there is evidence of Australopithecus in Africa and Australia and China at about the same time, around 1,000,000 years BC.

How did Australopithecus, which was about 1 baby step past a monkey, get to Australia and Africa, at the same time?

 

[invest07]

Greek mythology and the water cycle

Sammy,
I was not able to find an ancient Greek reference to the full cycle of water. Apparently the enlightened ancient Greeks didn't have the same grasp of science as did the author of Job and Solomon.

Here is what I did find:
"Because the Hyades appear during rainy seasons, the Greeks believed them to be messengers of spring rain showers and autumn storms. Their name means in Greek "to rain." The rain was believed to represent their tears of grief for their brother Hyas. But this does not explain how rain came to be, and other explanations appear in times that would have been earlier than the Hyades.

Back all the way to the creation: according to Hesiod's Theogeny ... even before Zeus or Cronus existed, Gaia [mother earth] gave birth to Uranus, [father sky]. and now that there was an earth and sky, and "Rain fell from the sky onto the Earth, making plants grow; animals appeared from the rivers and ocean."

After, Zeus was generally in charge of rain, [Rain God, Cloud Gatherer]... and it rained solely at his discretion."

Compare this babbling about mother earth and father sky to the straight forward and accurate references in the Bible. The Bible is accurate and the ancients Greek beliefs were superstitions. While the Bible is solidly grounded in reality the Greek story is wild flights of fantasy.

I repeat my original assertion again: the Bible revealed to Man facts of science hundreds and thousands of years before science is able to explain the same facts. And the Bible is the ONLY ancient religious text that can make that claim.

So how did the authors of the Bible know these facts? Could it be that they actually received some form of divine inspiration? Or did these ancient writer just get lucky?

Just something to mull over.

There's a bunch more of this to come.

 

[samsara15]

The Bible is accurate only if you set low standards for accuracy. The authors of the Bible used the best guesses available to them at the time. If you pick and choose from Hindu religious texts you can also get some amazing scientific insights. You also get a lot of nonsense from the Bible and the Rig Vedas.

I'll take evolution instead of mythology. The sea level was lower at some times in the past due to the various Ice Ages, so land bridges existed. The whole story may not be known or ever knowable, but I prefer it to any of the religious tales we are told. Genetic evidence may someday tell us how far continental people are seperated from Australiaan aborigines. Until then, I can wait.

 

[invest07]

3. Star clusters and sheep herders

The verse below is one of my scientific favorites. It is also one of the most amazing statements in the Bible. It reveals scientific facts about two star clusters that would not be verified by science until almost 4,000 years after these words were penned.

Job was written somewhere around 2,000 BC. The social order described in Job is one of nomadic herdsman. Formal schooling was virtually non-existent in this society. There were no universities and the discipline of Astronomy was thousands of years away. There were no telescopes and none of these sheep and goat herders had any clue about spectral analysis. These nomadic herders lived in tents and did not understand concepts such as gravity or chemical composition.

Job 38:31 – Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?

The Pleiades and Orion’s belt are examples of star clusters. We have performed sophisticated spectral analyses of these stars and know that each star has a similar chemical composition as each other star and all were created about the same point in time. The other fascinating thing about Orion’s Belt is that the stars that compose the belt are in such close physical proximity to each other that they are bound by each other’s gravity to each other. Movement of Orion’s belt and the Pleiades provide further verification that these clusters are gravitationally bound to each other star in the cluster.

Notice the wording of the second half of this verse. “Can you ….. loose the belt of Orion?" A belt is clothing used to hold something. It may hold up pants or contain a knife. The wording states that these stars are bound in some way to each other, by the allusion to a belt. The wording also asks, “Can YOU loose the belt?” Can you break the bind that holds these stars together? This verse asks it’s question in a rhetorical manner, knowing that no human has sufficient power to “loose the belt”. The rhetorical manner in which this verse is phrased suggests that there is a higher power that is fully capable of loosing the belt but that power is definitely not human.

Other ancient societies were not quite so scientific in their beliefs about the Pleiades and Orion. The supposedly enlightened Greeks believed the 7 stars of the Pleiades were 7 minor gods who were immortalized by Zeus and made into stars. Orion was called the hunter because he “chased” the Pleiades in movement over the night sky in the Mediterranean area.

The Egyptians thought Orion was the god Unas, “who became great by eating the flesh of his mortal enemies and then slaying and devouring the gods themselves. Those gods that were old and worn out were used as fuel for Unas's fire. After devouring the gods and absorbing their spirits and powers, Unas journeys through the day and night sky to become the star Sabu, or Orion.” (source: Wikipedia)

So the big question this verse raises is how did a sheep herder with no college degree, from 4000 years ago describe astronomical facts which were not fully verified by modern science until 3900 years later? And how did a person whose skill was in animal husbandry manage to get it scientifically right on the money when the 2 supposedly greatest and most learned societies of ancient times got it so terribly wrong? Did the sheepherder/author just make a lucky guess? (Maybe the tender of goats had telescopic vision and a spectral analysis meter given to him from a UFO). Or did the sheepherder/author have just a wee bit of divine inspiration from the same higher power that could actually “loose the belt”?

More to follow. Bunches more cuz the Bible is full of statements like this..

 

[PLC1]

Re: Early people and boats

Sammy, sammy, sammy. You are confusing homo sapiens (modern humans), with Australopithecus, the ape-like creature.

The earliest Australians were not homo sapiens. Homo sapiens did not appear until around 100K years ago or maybe even more recently. Before homo sapiens in Aussieland there were these ape-like creatures (Australopithecus) who Darwinstas say were the forerunners of homo sapiens. These guys are supposed to have lived somewhere around 1M years ago or even earlier. These ape-like beings walked semi upright and the only known tools were believed to be animal bones used as clubs. They left no artifacts that would suggest woodworking. No language, no artwork, no metals, no arrowheads, no carved flints. The bones they used showed no signs of shaping and there is no evidence they controlled fire. Australopitecus was a monkey that walked semi erect. And if those monkeys couldn't shape a stone into a point or start a fire or carve wood, they aint buildin no boats.

Darwinistas say the ape-like creatures started out in Africa. But there is evidence of Australopithecus in Africa and Australia and China at about the same time, around 1,000,000 years BC.

How did Australopithecus, which was about 1 baby step past a monkey, get to Australia and Africa, at the same time?

This is what the fossil record actually says about Australopithecus:

The position of A. afarensis in the phylogeny of early humans is under debate. Many feel that it is ancestral to the east African "robust" early humans, and possibly to all robust forms. Additionally, A. afarensis is proposed as the ancestor to later Homo. Yet, research now suggests that A. africanus might be ancestral to later Homo.

It may have been an ancestor to early species of the genus homo, and may, therefore, be a part of the family tree of homo sapiens.

It also may not be.

Nowhere is the claim made that the genus homo evolved independently in China, Australia, and Africa, from Australopithecus or any other creature.

What the fossil record indicates is that the genus homo evolved in Africa, that the species homo sapien was a restless creature that eventually managed to inhabit six of the seven continents, through sea voyages, land bridges, and migrations. It is not at all surprising that homo sapien made the trip to Australia and America, or the islands of the Pacific.

You can refute "Darwinistas" if and only if you continue to make up nonsense and attribute it to evolutionary theory.

 

[Dr.Who]

The Bible is accurate only if you set low standards for accuracy. The authors of the Bible used the best guesses available to them at the time. If you pick and choose from Hindu religious texts you can also get some amazing scientific insights. You also get a lot of nonsense from the Bible and the Rig Vedas.

I'll take evolution instead of mythology. The sea level was lower at some times in the past due to the various Ice Ages, so land bridges existed. The whole story may not be known or ever knowable, but I prefer it to any of the religious tales we are told. Genetic evidence may someday tell us how far continental people are seperated from Australiaan aborigines. Until then, I can wait.

You are welcome to post some nonsenses from the bible but you are likely to find that it is your understanding of the bible that is in error.

 

[PLC1]

You are welcome to post some nonsenses from the bible but you are likely to find that it is your understanding of the bible that is in error.

Leviticus 19: 27:

Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

I guess I don't understand why we are expected to go around with square heads and corners on our beards. No wonder we're in such a mess. I hardly ever see square headed people, even at the county fair.

 

[samsara15]

And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. (Ezek. 1:4)

I wish I had some of whatever he was smoking. Some people claim it was a helicopter!

 

[invest07]

Samsara15 and Ezekiel

If you read the verses preceding 4 and following it you would understand that Ezekiel was not trying describing anything scientific. He was recounting a dream he had.

Sammy, ever had a wierd dream that makes no sense?

A few years back my parents were dying and I had a bunch of off the wall dreams that were vivid and scary as hell at the time. In one of those my kids were kidnapped and were working as slave labor in Brazil. I had to pull a Rambo and got shot during the rescue attempt.

In another one, I was being chased, on land, by hammerhead sharks.

Dreams don't have to make any sense. The scientific statements in the Bible make perfest sense.

 

[samsara15]

Believe whatever suits you, but to me its just another outdated religious text, initially written primarily as a propaganda document in support of the later Kings of Judah.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Samsara15 and Ezekiel

Dreams don't have to make any sense. The scientific statements in the Bible make perfest sense.

They might have made perfect sense thousands of years ago, when people had only a rudimentary understanding of how things work.

 

[Dr.Who]

Leviticus 19: 27:

I guess I don't understand why we are expected to go around with square heads and corners on our beards. No wonder we're in such a mess. I hardly ever see square headed people, even at the county fair.

You're joking right? Cause I don't expect you are that dumb.

 

[numinus]

You're joking right? Cause I don't expect you are that dumb.

Where plc1 is concerned, that is very kind.

 

[Dr.Who]

Believe whatever suits you, but to me its just another outdated religious text, initially written primarily as a propaganda document in support of the later Kings of Judah.

That's one theory. if you take the next step and actually treat he theory as fact then you would be exercising your faith rather than drawing from reason.

A common logical fallacy, that as long as you are just entertaining an interesting thought you are not doing, is to assume that just because something is possible that it is true.

Then again if I were a king having a propaganda piece written I think I would include less of the negative stuff that is portrayed about myself. Cause just about all the characters in the stories are demonstrated to be pretty foolish.

I remember having a discussion with someone about the existence of the Hebrew people in Egypt. He presented as evidence a statement written by an Egyptian king prior to the time we were discussing saying that he had killed all of them. He liked that the king said they were all dead. But failed to admit that it meant that they were around at all in Egypt prior to that time and since they are still here that they must have existed during the interim period. The testimony of that king saying they were all dead at the time in question proved that they were around and that the king liked to rewrite history to make himself look better. Which is the point, kings tend to rewrite history to make themselves look better not worse.