interesting

[Butters]

So then you ARE calling All the church leaders liars?!

[Socratism]

Today @ 01:56 PM post located here
Butters:

So then you ARE calling All the church leaders liars?!

Like so many other cases they were overly influenced by the ideas of the scientists of their day.

100 years ago (perhaps less) it was widely accepted that Moses could not have written the Torah because writing hadn't been invented yet. Thus, the concept of stories passed down "around the campfire" was invoked. It may be true that myths are passed down orally in many societies, but it is not universally true that writing was unknown in very early times, for archaeologists have -proven otherwise.

I do not consider it "lying" to repeat the errors that theologians pick up from incorrect science. But I think it best when the truth is known to admit past mistakes and accept more reasonable explanations Science never deals with absolute truth but hopefully continually makes corrections in order to move in the right direction.

After all, we all agree with the statement, "that's how science works".

Of course that is not how God works, because only He knows the absolute truth from the very beginning.

[Butters]

Woa! Slow down there bud! Are you saying that the church did not say that Moses wrote Genisis before 100 years ago?

[Socrates]

Butterball:

• Socrates, Your statement about "Christianity" of a wimpy liberal sort, e.g. the type held by "Christian" women who unequally yoke with unbelievers." Shows your ignorance, sexism, and prejudice.

What piffle. I would say the same about a "Christian" man who unequally yoked with an unbelieving woman. Of course I mentioned the women because there are two unbelievers on theology Web who have claimed to have Christian wives who married them while professing Christianity.

And of course, evolution can provide no objective moral basis for objecting to sexism or other forms of prejudice. Darwin and his evolutionary colleagues were very sexist and racist, more so than even their culture.

[Woman]

"God must have..." Seems like a fall back position when something can't be explained. We all know the tradition that Moses wrote Genesis. Now the thinking is that Adam wrote the beginning and passed it down to Noah and so on.

Socratism:

God must have foreseen this possibility which is probably why He related the Creation Week narrative to Adam and arranged for its preservation down through the ages

Then where is it? Why would such care be taken for thousands of years and then poof!

Socratism:

The Torah is traditionally called the "Books of Moses" and 4 out of 5 of them are about events centering around Moses and the Exodus. He probably didn't actually write them personally but had scribes assisting in the effort. Certainly He did not personally write about his own death and burial, for instance.

So the scribes wrote that part? Then what? Did they give it to someone else? Were they also "inspired?

Socratism:

100 years ago (perhaps less) it was widely accepted that Moses could not have written the Torah because writing hadn't been invented yet.

Well, obviously if God taught Adam how to read and write, there was NEVER a time in history (indeed no prehistory at all) when man didn't read and write. Why didn't those darned cave men leave us the information regarding how the Neanderthals died out? Sure would save archeologists and anthropologists a lot of time!!!

[Socrates]

Mona Lisa aka La gioconda wrote:

• "God must have..." Seems like a fall back position when something can't be explained. We all know the tradition that Moses wrote Genesis. Now the thinking is that Adam wrote the beginning and passed it down to Noah and so on.

This is hardly unreasonable, given known near-eastern literary practices. Please check out The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship?

Socratism:

God must have foreseen this possibility which is probably why He related the Creation Week narrative to Adam and arranged for its preservation down through the ages

• Woman:
  
  Then where is it? Why would such care be taken for thousands of years and then poof!

The whole point is that it has NOT vanished, but been incorporated into Genesis. And the evidence is the colophon in Genesis 5:1 "This is the account (toledoth) of Adam," which Wiseman took as a signature. This makes far more sense than splitting up chapters and even verses into imaginary authors like Ms. J, Mr E, Mr P and Mr D!

Socratism:

The Torah is traditionally called the "Books of Moses" and 4 out of 5 of them are about events centering around Moses and the Exodus. He probably didn't actually write them personally but had scribes assisting in the effort. Certainly He did not personally write about his own death and burial, for instance.

• Woman:
  So the scribes wrote that part? Then what?

What have you in mind? Do you have any problem because your edition of Shakespeare has the date of his death? In Moses' case, it was probably written by Joshua, himself the author of an inspired book. And there was nothing in ancient times to say that something written by scribes had less authority, provided they were under the authority of the named author.

Socratism:

100 years ago (perhaps less) it was widely accepted that Moses could not have written the Torah because writing hadn't been invented yet.

• Well, obviously if God taught Adam how to read and write, there was NEVER a time in history (indeed no prehistory at all) when man didn't read and write.

Exactly! But this doesn't mean that some people groups that became isolated after Babel would RETAIN these skills.

• Why didn't those darned cave men leave us the information regarding how the Neanderthals died out? Sure would save archeologists and anthropologists a lot of time!!!

They probably had better things to do than gratify Woman's curiostiy, e.g. SURVIVE!

[AtheistArchon]

They probably had better things to do than gratify Woman's curiostiy, e.g. SURVIVE!

- Of course. What with all those dinosaurs stomping around.

[Tycho]

Today @ 01:25 AM post located here
AtheistArchon:
- Of course. What with all those dinosaurs stomping around.

Not to mention the tectonic plates speeding around the globe, raising magnitude 13.4 earthquakes. Hey! Let's visit that shining symbol of creationism, Mr. Kent Hovind! What kind of difficulties could early Mankind have to contend with? Here's a few:

- Super-fast photons crashing into the Earth
(http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=8 )

- A canopy of water to block out the Sun!
- Cushing venusian pressures from said canopy.
- A planet so crowded that what scientists today think is hundreds of millions of years' worth of life actually existed within a few thousand (hundred?) years.
(http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=10 )

[Socrates]

I wrote:

They probably had better things to do than gratify Woman's curiostiy, e.g. SURVIVE!

AtheistArchon:

• Of course. What with all those dinosaurs stomping around.

Probably not in the regions worst affected in the post-Flood Ice Age. Tycho:

• Not to mention the tectonic plates speeding around the globe, raising magnitude 13.4 earthquakes.

Nope, catastrophic plate tectonics was an efficient cause of the Flood, while Neandertals were post-Flood. See the articles at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../tectonics.asp

• Tycho:Hey! Let's visit that shining symbol of creationism, Mr. Kent Hovind!

Why? I've already pointed out that he doesn't speak for me, and Woman highly commended AiG's article on him, Maintaining Creationist Integrity.

[AtheistArchon]

- This is OT, but I'll keep it short...

- I really like the vapor canopy hypothesis. At first glance, it looks pretty interesting. After all, the atmosphere holds lots of water vapor.

- One of my favorite problems with it, though, is the issue of condensation vs. evaporation. When water evaporates, it tends to cool the surface of whatever it was sitting on... which is why it's beneficial for us to sweat when we get too hot. Conversely, when water condenses, it releases heat. The amount of water condensing and falling as rain that is described in Genesis would have raised the temp of the surface of the planet to about 6,400 degrees Farenheit. Now that's a warm afternoon!

- Creation "science".

[AtheistArchon]

catastrophic plate tectonics was an efficient cause of the Flood, while Neandertals were post-Flood. See the articles at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../tectonics.asp

- Ah yes, and the credentials of these articles are as follows:

Batten, D. (Ed.), Ham, K., Sarfati, J. and Wieland, C., Chapter 11, What about continental drift? The Answers Book, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane, Australia, p. 147, 1999. Return to text.

Although significant papers on catastrophic plate tectonics were presented in 1994, the idea was first presented by John Baumgardner at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He added details to the concept at the 1990 ICC. Return to text.

Austin, S.A., Baumgardner, J.R., Humphreys, D.R., Snelling, A.A., Vardiman, L. and Wise, K.P., Catastrophic plate tectonics: a global Flood model of Earth history; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 609–621, 1994. Return to text.

Baumgardner, J.R., Computer modelling of the large-scale tectonics associated with the Genesis Flood; in: Walsh, RE (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 49–62, 1994. Return to text.

Baumgardner, J.R., Runaway subduction as the driving mechanism for the Genesis Flood; in: Walsh, RE (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 63–75, 1994. Return to text.

For example, Reed, J.K. (Ed.), Plate Tectonics: A Different View, Creation Research Society Monograph 10, St Joseph, pp. 11–23, 2000. Many other such references are cited in the forum. Return to text.

- It seems that publishing only in creationist journals also has the effect of having creationist arguments pulled from only those same journals!

- Why is there not a genuine scientific study validating catastrophic continental drift? Why must it be limited to creationist gatherings and publications? Perhaps there's a cabal of evil scientists out there trying to fool us and snub Christians?

[tgamble]

Today @ 06:52 AM post located here
Socrates:
And of course, evolution can provide no objective moral basis for objecting to sexism or other forms of prejudice.

Neither does any other scientific theory.

Darwin and his evolutionary colleagues were very sexist and racist, more so than even their culture.

Not true at all. But truth obviously doesn't concern you.

[Butters]

Socrates,Before I lose all interest in talking to someone who is willing to discount every piece of physical evidence in front of them for a blind and baseless acceptance of a collection of books that no one knows anything about I will ask you one more time. Are you saying that the Christian church did not claim that Genesis was written by Moses?

[QED]

while Neandertals were post-Flood.

I assume this is a statement of faith. If not, what flood artifacts are you using to date the flood, how do you date them, and what methods are you using to date neanderthals?

[tgamble]

Today @ 01:10 AM post located here
QED:

I assume this is a statement of faith. If not, what flood artifacts are you using to date the flood, how do you date them, and what methods are you using to date neanderthals?

The Bible, The Bible, The Bible.

Does that help?