Monday, November 26, 2007
“there are alternative views in relation to the age of the Giant’s Causeway..”
Mark Devenport also spotted a mischievous question from the Alliance Party MLA Trevor Lunn to the Environment Minister, the DUP’s Arlene Foster [scroll down] - “Mr T Lunn asked the Minister of the Environment what is her assessment of the age of the Giant’s Causeway.” The problem is that her answer, an official written answer as the Minister for the Environment, a) doesn’t answer the question, and b) in doing so appears to give equal weight to those alternative views.
Mrs A Foster: Geologists generally agree that the Giant’s Causeway is some 60 million years old. As you will be aware, however, there are alternative views in relation to the age of the Giant’s Causeway.
And a reminder of where the future of the Causeway Centre fits into that.
Pete Baker @ 08:00 PM
Sam.
A false theory?Which part of it is false, and demonstrably so?
I can point you to a study, carried out over decades which demonstrated the theory perfectly (Peter and Rosemary Grant’s study of the Galapagos Finches). Can you show me where the theory has fallen under the accepted scientific criteria for testing?
I have set out the conditions by which a theory is generally accepted, instead of telling me that it’s wrong, show it’s wrong, if you can.
Creationists and other assorted believers in the Magic Man tend to rely on certain arguments.
The old Atheists and Evolutionists are just as dependant of faith as religious people argument (false)
The scientific community is deeply divided (false)
There’s no proof for evolution (false)
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 12:40 AMReluctantly, I feel the need to intervene in this discussion.
Sam
“We know from the Bible..”
Indeed. Your reliance on biblical authority is clear.
But you provide neither evidence nor testable hypothesis.
And your attempts to co-opt scientific names into your argument simply reveal your lack of understanding of both science and personal faith.
Hint - Don’t start me on Newton.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 12:42 AMWe know from the Bible that the Sun revolves around the earth.
This must be true, because Magic Man told someone in a dream, and they wrote it down…Ho hum…
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 12:48 AMSam Hanna @ 07:05 PM:
Thanks for the mention, but no thanks: no way am I getting involved in another pointless debate between irreconcilable positions.
All I will say is that it astounds me that, with the honourable exception of a few fringe sects, the “conservative Christian” accepts all the benefits of modern science (medicine in particular) but rejects the findings of one particular branch of science (geology).
If geology is so fallible, are the other sciences which are contrary to Genesis (astronomy, for one obvious example) as easy to discount?
And why is the “conservative Christian” so much more dogmatic about creationism today than those dour Puritans and divines of the 17th century? What Biblical revelation do we now have that wasn’t available to (say) Milton?
One small point: the Great Flood (for which Archbishop Ussher’s date is 2348BC). There must be some catastrophic event preserved here in a folk memory. The Noah story (which has parallels in other non-Jewish cultures) is clearly derived from the Akkadian epic of Atrahasis, via the epic of Gilgamesh. That puts it in the Mesopotamian region. Although Wooley claimed the credit for the discovery at Ur of a flood deposit, he probably was prompted to “find” that evidence by Langton’s work at Kish. Max Mallowan (Mr Agatha Christie, of course) reckoned that the basis of the Flood story came from an earlier inundation at Shuruppak (later: Fara), about 2750BC—which coincides neatly with the first phase of Silbury Hill, and is 200-500 years later than Newgrange.
So, here’s another problem: we have clear records of continuous occupation of Britain and Ireland from before Silbury and Newgrange (and therefore from before the “Great Flood"). Did the “Great Flood” miss out on these islands, or what?
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 12:50 AM“Incidental question:
Whatâs the theological basis for the existence of a soul in humans?”
And whom may I say is asking?
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 03:53 AM“The scientific community is not deeply divided over this issue, unless you count the 1/100th of 1/10th of 1% of scientist willing to sell their souls to your little fantasy.Wait I gues .00001 is a fairly signifigant number. NOT”
Your arrogance only is exceeded by your ignorance Shawn. I would suggest you look up who Prof. Norman Nevins is and then put your credentials on the table.
When you are at it - google Stephen Mayer, John Polkinghorne, William Behe, Gerard Schroeder, Geoffrey Simmons. Alister McGrath, William Dembski etc etc and purchase their books.
The thing that amazes me is how so many people could be fooled by so long by the evolution fairy story
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 03:59 AMMalcolm
A little piece of research may assist you quandry to save elongating this thread on frankly a non-issue. Let me suggest a well written paper of which I will attach a pertinent quote,
The second hypothesisâthat the Genesis account is dependent on the Epicâhas significant difficulties. According to this hypothesis, the author of the Genesis account would have needed to revise the Epic as follows: change the concept of god from polytheism to absolute monotheism and add the strong, consistent moral motivation for the Flood by establishing God as righteous and gracious; write clear descriptions that show the Flood as universal in order to make the whole account consistent; change the character of the survivors to portray them as righteous and worthy to be saved; specify the survivors as four couples who are capable of replenishing the human race; add their descendantsâ genealogy which agrees with the secular historical records; add the details about animals being included in pairs of every kind for the preservation of the created kinds; improve the source of the Flood from only rain to rain and underground water sufficient to cover the whole world; specify the duration of the Flood from only six days and nights and unspecified days to more than one year which is adequate for a universal Flood; redesign the structure of the Ark from the unstable cube to the ideal safe design for floating; change the order and the kind of the birds of the test flights in order to make them more logical; specify seven days interval between each test flight; and add the account of the freshly plucked olive leaf which is botanically realistic and more informative than the Epic.
Therefore, despite the many similarities between the two accounts, it would have been inconceivable to rewrite the Epic to the Genesis account, the more reliable one, unless the author was not only ethical, creative and logical, but also had enough knowledge about zoology, biology, physics, naval architectural skill, botany and ancient ethnic histories. If one does not accept the Genesis account as an historical record, there is no escaping the fact that an heroic effort has been undertaken to make that account appear to be historical.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/flood/conclusion.asp
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 04:06 AM“Indeed. Your reliance on biblical authority is clear.But you provide neither evidence nor testable hypothesis.”
If we go down that road Pete then we night as well burn all ancient history texts. However, if we accept that we can rely on historical research tools to independently test facts then we are in business concerning the Great Flood narrative. Choice is yours.....
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 04:11 AM“âIncidental question:
Whatâs the theological basis for the existence of a soul in humans?â
And whom may I say is asking?”
Me. Who did you think?
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 04:16 AM“We know from the Bible that the Sun revolves around the earth.”
Err.. have you just discovered a new Bible TAFKABO?
Here is just a few Biblical statements on science that are amazingly accurate:
âIt is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell inâ (Isaiah 40:22)
âthe host of heaven cannot be numberedâ (Jeremiah 33:22,Genesis 22:17)
âHis going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.â (Psalm 19:4;6)
For many years, Bible critics mocked the Bible that this verse taught the old myth that the sun revolves around the earth! However, it was recently discovered that the sun is in fact, moving through space. It is not stationary, as was once thought. In fact, it is estimated to be moving in a gigantic orbit in the Milky Way galaxy through space at about 486,000 miles per hour, in an orbit so large it would take an estimated 226 million years just to complete one orbit! The Milky Way galaxy itself is moving among the other galaxies. So the circuit of the sun is, indeed, from one end of the heavens to the other.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 04:16 AM“And whom may I say is asking?â
“Me. Who did you think?”
Who is me?Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 04:18 AMDo you want my name and address?
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 04:18 AMso you named 8 scientists! I contend that is even less significant than .000001 of all scientists more like .00000000000000000000000001 especially when you consider most of them arent biology scientists!
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 04:49 AMWhy am I arguing with someone who thinks you can accurately date the earth by counting the number of people alive at the moment?
No Sam, I just have the Bible, no new version.
Joshua 10:13
As for your amazingly accurate quotes?
Jesus wept…
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 07:03 AMSam Hanna @ 04:06 AM:
Do you realise that your second paragraph ("The second hypothesisâthat the Genesis account is dependent on the Epicâhas significant difficulties...") is the most comprehensive refutation of all assumptions about the evolution of narrative technique? I guess that, in its detailed exegesis, it explodes any ideas that Milton could have evolved Paradise Lost from the Genesis story, or Tennyson his Idylls of the King and THWhite his Once and Future King tetralogy from Mallory and that all-but-one of Shakespeare’s plays exist at all!
The whole corpus of Western thought and tradition discounted in a single paragraph!
Wow! I have spent a whole lifetime in literature, and it was all wasted, all totally wasted! At least I can now purge my home of many thousand texts, knowing they are totally specious and without value.
So tell me again, since I have to recommence from first principles, this Homer guy is giving us the straight facts, yeah?
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 10:52 AMPete
Sam obviously doesnât want to present us with his evidence as to the Earth being 6000 years old. I’m sorry that this has been a rehash of countless other threads but I do enjoy Sams posts and I admire the depths of his beliefs. It certainly provides a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a Christian Fundamentalist and reminds us that these are some of the views of those whom we have voted into positions of power.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 01:39 PMThe other thing sams view shows us is just how the allah crowd can believe they will get into heaven and be endowed with 72 virgins.
as quoted from a previous poster “jebus wept”
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 03:02 PMI hope readers understand that I am not avoiding all these questions, but can only answer a few or else I will be hogging the bandwidth like the DUP/SF axis.
I am not going to waste time answering fools, like Shawn, who have no basic understanding as to systems of thought and logic.
PaulJames
There are huge amounts of evidence that the earth could well be just 6,000 years old - just google it. I have set a couple of examples out above e.g. linguistics, archaelogy etc. However, as I also outlined Christians have posited two major theories as to why the earth is more than 6,000 years or why it appears to be so.
TAFKABO
First of all, I have given you a definitive scientific statement from Psalm 19 concerning the sun which has just recenlty been proven as accurate but you rejected it because it did not fit in with your pre-suppositional straw man.
Joshua 10:14 is not a problem if you had cared to read it in its context. Anyone with half a wit can see that Joshua is quoting from an ancient poem in a non-inspired Book, Book of Jasher so it is possible he was just referring to this. Secondly, it is quite possible that God could have done all of this as it literally is written. Thirdly, Joshua could simply have being using the common parlance to describe the situation - we do this all the time.
Malcolm
You really need to go back to school if you think narrative technique is as simple as that. Any decent historian will tell you that you simply cannot rely on the age of the manuscript to overturn another subsequent one on that basis alone. The Bible sets itself apart from the Gilgamarsh account in many different ways and has proved itself to be the most accurate ancient text in science, prophecy and history. A good example of this is the Gospel of Luke that has proven itself so repeatedly superior and reliable in respect of Roman/Greek/Jewish history and culture to archaelogists that they use it as a reference point when comparing other extant texts of that era. That is a fact.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 03:36 PMSam Hanna @ 03:36 PM
The Bible sets itself apart from the Gilgamarsh (sic) account in many different ways and has proved itself to be the most accurate ancient text in science, prophecy and history
(a) Do we not agree that the Gilgamesh story is a legend, which was not intended to be canonical?
(b) Do we not also agree that Gilgamesh derives from earlier sources, notably the epic of Atrahasis? It is the hyberbole of the Gigamesh story that changes a local flood into a global catastrophe.Now, the oldest (so far) known Hebrew (from the Tel Zayit site) is from the 10th century BC (that is the time of David and Solomon), which is at least three centuries later than the text of Gigamesh. As for the text of Atrahasis, it can be conclusively dated to the period of 1646-1626BC. On the other hand, Biblical Hebrew only emerges at the time of the Captivity, which is the 6th century BC.
Are you therefore saying that there is evidence of the Noah’s Flood story predating Gilgamesh and Atrahasis? In which case it presumably exists in Canaanite, Phoenician or some other (lost?) Semitic tongue..
In place of your usual dismissive insults, can you explain what, if any, of that lot is in error?
As for the Lucan accounts, they are indeed valuable and admirable. They are not, however, canonically or historically without reproach. For example, which genealogy do we take as definitive: Luke 3 or Genesis 5/1 Chronicles 1?
As for history, perhaps you can clear up the confusion between Like and the other Gospels, at least in one small matter: the Roman Census. Luke 2, 1-3 is explicit (forgive me for using King James: old habits die hard):
“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.”
The census ordered (not by Augustus) by Quirinus took place in AD6-7, and was simply a registration for taxation purposes: there was no requirement to return to birth-places. By that date, Herod the Great was ten years dead, which contradicts Luke 1, 5:
“in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea”.That, surely, is one, serious, inaccuracy in Luke. There are others: when Gamaliel speaks (Acts 5, 24-9) he is referring to the revolt of AD 46-47 in the past tense. Yet, Gamaliel’s speech must have occurred before AD40. Curious that. Gamaliel also says that “Judas the Galilean” revolted after the AD 46-47 rising: yet Josephus and every other account I can find dates Judas’s revolt in AD 6-7. Even more curious.
I realise that you do not like your faith to be confused by detailed enquiry. Can you, at least this once, defer your wrath and assist a poor, struggling seeker of wisdom?
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 06:24 PM“On the other hand, Biblical Hebrew only emerges at the time of the Captivity, which is the 6th century BC.”
Malcolm,
Do some research - Aramaic came out of the Babylonian Captivity. The Aramaic at the time of Christ was a combination derived from the Babylonian and Syrian Aramaic with smatterings of Hebrew. Biblical or Ancient Hebrew has been found in non-Biblical sources back until the 10th century BC. Using Usher’s Chronology, Moses wrote the Pentateuch in the 12 century BC so I really don’t know what your problem is.
I don’t agree that the Gilgamesh is necessarily derived from another written one. Over 500 ancient extant manuscripts from very diverse civilizations record the fact of a Universal Flood - I am not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. Clearly, only one of them can be right - question is which one? I am putting forward the Bible as the only reliable one.
Lucan Genealogy
I have already dealt with this on Slugger before so will try to be brief. The Bible harmonises beautifully if you put it all together. Each of the Gosepl accounts present different perspectives on Christ.Jeremiah 22:28-30 is the critical key to understanding the differences in the accounts of Matt 1 and Luke 3. Coniah is Jehoiachin and he was cursed on the throne and anyone succeeding him is in cursed line. Christ is of the Royal line, yet is the offspring of a cursed line through Joseph as the legal father. But in Luke 3:23 this is a whole different genealogy until we get to v31 but then enters the same line. However, it splits off at David. Matt 1 will go the route of Solomon, but Luke 3 will go through the line of Nathan and continues down to Mary. The split is because of the problem of Coniah. Joseph inherits the Royal line and Jesus receives the inheritance of Jospeh because He is the Firstborn. However, because He is not born of Joseph He bypasses the curse so Christ gained the Royal Inheritance without the curse.
LUCAN CENSUS
This is a passage that takes a little more care. Some conservative scholars would render the words, âThis registration was previous to Cyrenius being governor of Syriaâ - as the word âfirstâ (protos - meaning foremost (in time, place, order or importance in Greek) is rendered in Joh 1:15; Joh 15:18. In this case, of course, the difficulty vanishes. However, an other interpretation, which I prefer, was that the registration may have been ordered with a view to the taxation, about the time of our Lordâs birth, though the taxing itself - an obnoxious measure in Palestine - was not carried out till the time of Quirinus.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 07:16 PMCristophers Hitchen’s latest book God Is Not Great does a masterful job of debunking and demonstrating the bible false, or at least full of falsehoods, both old and new testaments.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 08:06 PM“Cristophers Hitchenâs latest book God Is Not Great does a masterful job of debunking and demonstrating the bible false, or at least full of falsehoods, both old and new testaments.”
Of course it did - all scholaras have just signed up to Atheist International because of his startling revelations. It is amazing that so many poorly read and pub-educated paddies come on here and regurgitate the infantile arguments against the Bible which has outsold (and continues to do so) every book (including Hitchens) in every major advanced Western country since the advent of the Printing Press.
Hitchens book is just a poor man’s rehash of Hume, Russell, Voltaire et al. It says a lot for you that you would be so easily impressed and duped by such tales. I will make a simple prediction, based on around 400 years of experience, Mr Hitchens books will be selling off in charity shops for 50p in a couple of years from now, while the Bible will keep outselling any rival in every generation.
Hitchens arguments have been taken apart over countless centuries by apologetics experts. If you want a scholarly list I am happy to furnish the details though I suspect your reading list is typically one-sided.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:01 AMSam when did snakes lose the power of speech?
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:22 AMRS, I’d guess they were speechless when they heard Sam’s theory that sales volume equates to truth. Incidently, the bible is followed in 10th place by Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. So I guess Harry Potter isn’t fiction after all.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:32 AMSam Hanna @ 07:16 PM:
Well, hello, again!
Aramaic came out of the Babylonian Captivity.
No. Definitely no.
“Aramaic” is a term that covers a whole group and development of Semitic languages. It seems to have originated in (modern) Iraq, Syria and eastern Turkey, where its varieties were established by 1100BC. Its success was to adapt the Phoenician script to become the main lingua franca of record, trade and government across the Near East and North Africa. The four deportations which were the Captivity are datable precisely to 605-581BC. The return was authorised by Cyrus in 537BC. Referring to “Aramaic” as a single language is as deceptive as lumping together everything from the original Anglisc and tomorrow’s newspapers alike as “English”.
En suite!
Then we have this:
Using Usherâs (sic)Chronology, Moses wrote the Pentateuch in the 12 century BC.Oh dear.
No way am I going to traduce (again) a fellow Trinity man, even though we were 360 years apart. Let’s leave that for another time (these creationist threads on Slugger recur with distressing frequency).
However, you and I have already had words about the Pentateuch. What we can both be (reasonably) assured of is that the four strands can be dated: J about 950BC; E about the 8th century BC; D about 650BC or late; and P sometime after 587BC. The earliest “composite” seems to be about 400BC. As you are well aware, that is why Ezra has been proposed as the “compositor”—first, I believe, by Baruch Spinoza. There is no, repeat no evidence (other than the internal claims for authorship by “Moses”, notably Exodus 34.27) for a version as early as the Mosaic period.
In passing, is it not arrogance that Christians “know” so much more about the Pentateuch than Jewish scholars? And why is Jewish faith not greatly disturbed by admitting that Mosaic authorship is arguable?
Encore!
As for Over 500 ancient extant manuscripts from very diverse civilizations record the fact of a Universal Flood, the difference between us is that word “fact”.
It’s a great story; but that doesn’t make it a “fact”, anymore than the numerous parallel versions of other folk-stories do. If the “500 ancient extant manuscripts” are up for evaluation, why should I have to prefer Noah over Deucalion? Or either over Gong Gong’s Chinese flood? It isn’t the case that only one of them can be right ; they could all be variants of a Jungian “collective unconscious” or, more viscerally, a general human fear and experience (ask the people of Sheffield, Hull, Worcester, Yarmouth ... )
And, last, John 1, 15. I came across that in the original when I was doing (rather well, if you ask) the Irish Diocesan Examination in Greek Testament, back about 1960. You completely bewilder me how that verse’s use of ÏÏÏÏÎżÏ changes the meaning of ‘η αÏογÏαÏη ÏÏÏÏη in Luke 2.2. Please elucidate.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:45 AM
