Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

If Evolution is True, why do Humans need a Savior but the Great Apes do Not?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
    That the earliest Adamic tradition was Hebrew from start is evidenced by the tradition that Hebrews did not participate in Tower Building of Babel and were therefore spared the dispersion of tongues. They just needed to keep successfully shirking from Nimrod's slave hunters, that is all.
    oooookay...

    What language did Nimrod use?
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
    MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

    seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Roy View Post
      oooookay...

      What language did Nimrod use?
      Hebrew up to the confusion of tongues.

      Not sure what language immediately after.

      Suspect he might have created Sumerian as a Con-Lang of Aux-Lang type after Confusion of Tongues, unless Sumerian was one of the original new languages.

      Not sure if the suspicion counts as being anti-Sumerian or as being biassed to find nice silver linings to what is otherwise a stormcloud.
      http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

      Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
        That the earliest Adamic tradition was Hebrew from start is evidenced by the tradition that Hebrews did not participate in Tower Building of Babel and were therefore spared the dispersion of tongues. They just needed to keep successfully shirking from Nimrod's slave hunters, that is all.
        oooookay...

        What language did Nimrod use?
        Hebrew up to the confusion of tongues.
        So Nimrod spoke Hebrew - as, presumably, did his slave hunters, their captive slaves, and everyone else in the world at the time.

        Right?
        Last edited by Roy; 11-25-2016, 11:32 AM.
        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
          It is possible that the Hebrew language was not written very early, and rather certain we don't have papyri or tablets dated to before Babylonian tablets (unless there is some Smithsonian conspiracy to hide them, as with giants). This is to the point exactly how?

          I am talking about Hebrew tradition, not about Hebrew manuscripts.

          That the earliest Adamic tradition was Hebrew from start is evidenced by the tradition that Hebrews did not participate in Tower Building of Babel and were therefore spared the dispersion of tongues. They just needed to keep successfully shirking from Nimrod's slave hunters, that is all.
          The so-called “Adamic tradition” erroneously assumes the Adam story is literally true, whereas ALL the evidence indicates that anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic humans in the Middle Paleolithic era, about 200,000 years ago...long before the time-scale envisaged in Genesis.

          I suppose you don't consider Alps or Himalaya as evidence for the Flood, or the Lagerstätten of Cretaceous or Permian or whatever else fossils? I do.
          There is no credible evidence for a worldwide flood.

          Existence of natural explanations does not preclude them from expressing God's providence.

          If you find a parking place when you pray for it, there is usually a natural explanation to why the parking place was free, but this does not preclude the prayer being heard from being an answer by God's providence.
          ANY natural explanation is more probable than a miraculous one.

          But so far, I have my best and most complete version of the Dürnstein example from precisely Nether Austrian oral tradition, as collected by an anthropologist or a team of such around a hundred years ago. If you speak German, check out Sagen aus Österreich. My point is, oral tradition is usually rather reliable.
          Oral tradition alone is not reliable as history, especially when it comes to alleged miracles. What’s required for historical reliability is:

          a) multiple pieces of evidence
          b) multiple types of evidence
          c) multiple sources of evidence
          d) independence of sources
          e) contemporary evidence
          f) internal consistency of the available evidence

          The fewer of these elements are present, the weaker the claim becomes concerning the historical event.

          I don't know what you mean by embellished, but if you mean "by events that did not really occur, recognisable by feeling larger than life", I think you are totally wrong about what is typical.
          Religious stories are embellished to make them more wondrous than they actually are in an effort to impress, convince and convert others.

          You don't regard oral tradition as a reliable source. I don't regard contemporary scholars as a typically reliable source. Especially not those who take this type of stand.
          Oral tradition in and of itself not sufficient; it’s just one element of many in piecing together an historical narrative. But it's all we've got for the miraculous claims of the gospel narratives.

          By the way, his stated "most contemporary scholars" only refers to scholars with his type of Academic credentials (which are the wrong ones), or even, "most" can have been one of the errors of transmission of an oral tradition within Academia.
          It refers to scholars applying accepted historical methodology as opposed to apologist scholars attempting to reinforce their own religious presuppositions.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Roy View Post
            So Nimrod spoke Hebrew - as, presumably, did his slave hunters, their captive slaves, and everyone else in the world at the time.

            Right?
            Yes.

            If you wonder why I don't call them Hebrews, it is because Hebrews are defined by ancestry of a descendant of Shem who was also ancestor of Abraham, and the language was not called Hebrew until they were the only ones left speeaking it, after the confusion of tongues. That man was called Heber. His sons were Ioctan and Peleg or Peleg and Ioctan, and Peleg meaning "division" must have been born after the confusion of tongues, since the naming normally would refer to this event. Though some think it has more to do with rapid creation and widening of Atlantic.
            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              The so-called “Adamic tradition” erroneously assumes the Adam story is literally true, whereas ALL the evidence indicates that anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic humans in the Middle Paleolithic era, about 200,000 years ago...long before the time-scale envisaged in Genesis.
              Misdated.

              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              There is no credible evidence for a worldwide flood.
              Fish and shrimps on top of Himalaya.

              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              ANY natural explanation is more probable than a miraculous one.
              Atheistic prejudice.

              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Oral tradition alone is not reliable as history, especially when it comes to alleged miracles. What’s required for historical reliability is:

              a) multiple pieces of evidence
              b) multiple types of evidence
              c) multiple sources of evidence
              d) independence of sources
              e) contemporary evidence
              f) internal consistency of the available evidence
              The tradition which I rely on has very great internal consistency and once presumably had the other elements.

              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              The fewer of these elements are present, the weaker the claim becomes concerning the historical event.
              Yet I was right to trust oral tradition of Austria for Richard I being captive in Dürnstein. Without having myself access to any other elements, beyond knowing of his existence from other sources.

              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Religious stories are embellished to make them more wondrous than they actually are in an effort to impress, convince and convert others.
              Atheistic prejudice, again.

              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Oral tradition in and of itself not sufficient; it’s just one element of many in piecing together an historical narrative. But it's all we've got for the miraculous claims of the gospel narratives.
              No, for Gospel narratives we have two of those witnessing being actual Gospel writers, and two others having very few intermediates.

              Between Adam and Moses the intermediates with “least overlap” (adding on extra overlap!) are about 8 to 12 persons.
              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              It refers to scholars applying accepted historical methodology as opposed to apologist scholars attempting to reinforce their own religious presuppositions.
              On the contrary, “accepted historical methodology” is an attempt to reinforce Hume’s atheistic and antimiraculous prejudice.
              http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

              Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                Fish and shrimps on top of Himalaya.
                Wowsers!!! You just flunked high school geology!
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Wowsers!!! You just flunked high school geology!
                  You had a high school geology course? My school didn't have one...

                  *looks up Himalayas*

                  Mostly uplifted sedimentary and metamorphic rock. Lots of sea fossils, then. The Indian plate is still driving into Asia, huh? Not a place to live if you don't like earthquakes. Being that tall while being one of the youngest mountain ranges on the planet, that's a lot of uplifting over the past several tens of millions of years.
                  Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Wowsers!!! You just flunked high school geology!
                    Let me guess, the shrimps were wrong?
                    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
                      You had a high school geology course? My school didn't have one...

                      *looks up Himalayas*

                      Mostly uplifted sedimentary and metamorphic rock. Lots of sea fossils, then. The Indian plate is still driving into Asia, huh? Not a place to live if you don't like earthquakes. Being that tall while being one of the youngest mountain ranges on the planet, that's a lot of uplifting over the past several tens of millions of years.
                      Actually, yes, but not necessary, basic high school courses do usually cover this subject. I attended a private school for two years that separated the sciences instead of general science courses beyond physics and chemistry.

                      The collision of the continents and the up lift of the Himalayas is continuing today, and measurable.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                        Let me guess, the shrimps were wrong?
                        No, no, shrimps on the Himalayas are fine. Shuny is referring to plate tectonics as the cause, rather than a global flood.
                        Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                          Let me guess, the shrimps were wrong?
                          Well . . . they got lost and caught in limestone, and uplifted in the collision of the Indian and Asian continents.

                          By the way the massive world wide limestones, dolomites, and marbles form in shallow warm seas, some hundreds of feet thick, like the Bermuda limestone and coral cap over igneous volcanics CANNOT possibly form in flood sediments. These limestones in the Himalayas and all over the world contain extensive coral reefs like the Great Reef off Australia.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                            Misdated.
                            Biology shows definitively that humans are descended from a non-human ancestor; hence the story of Adam and Eve is wrong. The evidence for common descent is overwhelming.

                            Fish and shrimps on top of Himalaya.
                            Tectonic plates etc, as already explained.

                            The tradition which I rely on has very great internal consistency and once presumably had the other elements.
                            Your tradition is contradictory and has none of the elements required for historical reliability.

                            Yet I was right to trust oral tradition of Austria for Richard I being captive in Dürnstein. Without having myself access to any other elements, beyond knowing of his existence from other sources.
                            "One swallow does not a summer make”.

                            No, for Gospel narratives we have two of those witnessing being actual Gospel writers, and two others having very few intermediates.
                            There is no eyewitness reportage of the gospel events. The best we have is 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay recorded by Papias, who himself was an unreliable historian. The earliest recording of the Jesus oral tradition is c.70 CE...plenty of time for it to be redacted and embellished.

                            Between Adam and Moses the intermediates with “least overlap” (adding on extra overlap!) are about 8 to 12 persons.
                            Adam certainly never existed and most archaeologists agree, Moses never existed.

                            On the contrary, “accepted historical methodology” is an attempt to reinforce Hume’s atheistic and antimiraculous prejudice.
                            There is no possible way to verify the claims of miracles, there’s invariably a more probable natural explanation. Any historian who relied on supernatural explanations would be strongly dismissed by mainstream professional historians.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              The collision of the continents and the up lift of the Himalayas is continuing today, and measurable.
                              But Himalaya was under water. Before that lift.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Well . . . they got lost and caught in limestone, and uplifted in the collision of the Indian and Asian continents.

                              By the way the massive world wide limestones, dolomites, and marbles form in shallow warm seas, some hundreds of feet thick, like the Bermuda limestone and coral cap over igneous volcanics CANNOT possibly form in flood sediments. These limestones in the Himalayas and all over the world contain extensive coral reefs like the Great Reef off Australia.
                              Depends on whether shrimps and such are involved in Flood sediments. For global Flood, yes, for floods you compare it too, no.
                              http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                              Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                Biology shows definitively that humans are descended from a non-human ancestor; hence the story of Adam and Eve is wrong. The evidence for common descent is overwhelming.
                                No, biology does not show that.

                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                Tectonic plates etc, as already explained.
                                Not disputing tectonic plates, but noting the top sediments on that top had been under water first.

                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                Your tradition is contradictory and has none of the elements required for historical reliability.
                                Name a contradiction.

                                Oral tradition is a great argument for historical reliability, in general. Especially if when a clearer picture emerges we can see it had good backups to pure orality or good conditions of transmission, or both.

                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                "One swallow does not a summer make”.
                                I take it as typical; you provide "typical" folk legends you suppose I couldn't accept.

                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                There is no eyewitness reportage of the gospel events. The best we have is 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay recorded by Papias, who himself was an unreliable historian. The earliest recording of the Jesus oral tradition is c.70 CE...plenty of time for it to be redacted and embellished.
                                I have dedicated a whole blog to refuting among other things that kind of claims.

                                http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/

                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                Adam certainly never existed and most archaeologists agree, Moses never existed.
                                You are wrong on the first and wrong to trust archaeology over tradition.

                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                There is no possible way to verify the claims of miracles, there’s invariably a more probable natural explanation. Any historian who relied on supernatural explanations would be strongly dismissed by mainstream professional historians.
                                That type of thing is also dealt with on the forementioned blog:

                                http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/
                                http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                                Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                19 responses
                                76 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                415 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X