|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| You didn't answer the question. |
I asked first. Do you have a bible verse to back up your claims? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| You didn't answer the question. |
I asked first. Do you have a bible verse to back up your claims? |
Last time I checked, the bible was a book of stories. Not a geology journal. So actually I can find no peer reviewed science in the bible that would indicate when modern humans evolved.
So you're getting your scientific facts from a religious work? Is that what you're trying to tell us? Because a few posts ago you were crowing about peer reviewed science. Now you retreat to myth when the facts don't agree.
So which god? Because as far as I can tell, lots and lots and lots of people who worship the god of the bible (Catholics, Jews, Anglicans, etc.) don't seem to believe there's anything in there that says the earth is only 6,000 years old and man has lived on earth since the beginning.
Since two people can worship the same god, read the same poetry, and believe two very different things about the time line, I'm going to have to say we need another way to decide this issue. Science works for me. And since you were using science to make your case about geology, I'm now wondering why you're not using science to defend this case of geology (age of the earth). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Last time I checked, the bible was a book of stories. |
Then U must've not actually read it bcos archeology and history has verified every place and important person it mentions.
| Quote: |
| Not a geology journal. |
Strange then how it accurately mentions (in the language of the time of course) seismic and volcanic activity or oceanic currents or even that the earth is round many centuries before science "discovered" such things.
| Quote: |
| So actually I can find no peer reviewed science in the bible that would indicate when modern humans evolved. |
Then I'm afraid we have to throw out such unsubstantiated fantasy.
| Quote: |
| So you're getting your scientific facts from a religious work? |
considering that the aforesaid religious work mentions many scientific facts long before they were verified by modern science 9and in some cases actually inspired scientific discovery) then its not exactly a bad idea is it.
| Quote: |
| Because a few posts ago you were crowing about peer reviewed science. |
it was handy to use your own sword to defeat you.
| Quote: |
| lots and lots and lots of people who worship the god of the bible (Catholics, Jews, Anglicans, etc.) don't seem to believe there's anything in there that says the earth is only 6,000 years old |
they are compromising sellouts
| Quote: |
| since you were using science to make your case about geology, I'm now wondering why you're not using science to defend this case of geology |
Because some science accords with the bible while a deluded pseudo-scientific branch calling itself paleontology or evolutionism, doesn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Last time I checked, the bible was a book of stories. |
Then U must've not actually read it bcos archeology and history has verified every place and important person it mentions. |
The Illiad mentions a lot of real things too. Do you believe in Zeus?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Not a geology journal. |
Strange then how it accurately mentions (in the language of the time of course) seismic and volcanic activity or oceanic currents or even that the earth is round many centuries before science "discovered" such things. |
The bible mentions colors but that doesn't mean the writers of the bible understood the properties of light. No real surprise the bible mentions things that exist in nature like earthquakes. Your point?
Strange people only find in the bible undiscovered things until after they are discovered by science. Odd how Nostrodamus's poetry always seem prophetic after the fact.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| So actually I can find no peer reviewed science in the bible that would indicate when modern humans evolved. |
Then I'm afraid we have to throw out such unsubstantiated fantasy. |
No. Substantiated by evidence and experimentation.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| So you're getting your scientific facts from a religious work? |
considering that the aforesaid religious work mentions many scientific facts long before they were verified by modern science 9and in some cases actually inspired scientific discovery) then its not exactly a bad idea is it. |
This point dealt with above. You're hammering poetry to fit.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| lots and lots and lots of people who worship the god of the bible (Catholics, Jews, Anglicans, etc.) don't seem to believe there's anything in there that says the earth is only 6,000 years old |
they are compromising sellouts |
They don't think so. So I'll ask again. Since they read the same bible you read and come to very different conclusions about the age of the earth and when man arose, how do we decide who is correct, if not the scientific evidence?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| since you were using science to make your case about geology, I'm now wondering why you're not using science to defend this case of geology |
Because some science accords with the bible while a deluded pseudo-scientific branch calling itself paleontology or evolutionism, doesn't. |
[/quote]
So what science accords with the bible?
Back to claim 9
http://www.gokorea.info/evo/evo.htm#_Toc183420385
| Quote: |
9)
Quote:
Once again, science should be based on evidence, not theory.
Do you believe theory in science is not based on evidence? Do you believe science calls things "theories" without significant lines of evidence?
I think you clarified this with:
Quote:
Any other theory is subjected to the utmost scrutiny..with evolution any new idea is rubber stamped and fed to the masses on a whim. "God .is .dead, God. is .dead' is the zombie mantra you've been subliminally fed since birth.
In other words, evolutionary theory is not subject to scrutiny by science while some other undefined science is. First, give me an example of a science you believe is sufficiently scrutinized. I would gather the vast majority of astronomy isn't, in your opinion, as it claims the universe is 14 billion years old, not 6,000. Nuclear physics is likewise out as it directly claims radiometric decay indicates rocks are millions of years old, again contrary to your belief the universe is 6,000 years old. Since evolution is at the core of modern biology and genetics I guess you also toss those out as unscrutinized science.
Also, many of the top journals like Nature and Science publish a range of the BEST papers from many fields of science. So are Nature and Science totally crap? Or do they apply a different level of scrutiny to evolution?
Also, you fault evolution for making claims, not subjecting them to rigor, and then simply fed to the masses. However, when creationists make claims and don't back them up with similar scrutiny (ie, Castenedolo and Calaveras remains), you're more than happy to feed this to us as evidence. You see no double standard here?
|
All your claims, Junior, are still waiting for you here:
http://www.gokorea.info/evo/evo.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So sorry m&m but we had a fatal schism with that debate because you didn't seem to get that I rate the bible higher than all your peer-reviewed nonsense as the final say of what is correct.
Even now, do you understand the stupidity of demanding I demonstrate my argument using material written by the opposition? Do evolutionists cite the bible as evidence in their published papers? Why would I use the garbage they write when they represent the antithesis of my worldview?
You think it ridiculous that I demand you back up your claims with bible verses. I think its ridiculous you ask me to back up my argument with papers by evolutionists.
It took you about 500 pages of a thread to realise that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| For Christs sake. |
Did you even listen to the commentary for the video I posted, or just read the misleading title? #_*
Sure doesn't seem so, judging by your response.
The video says these things are a natural phenomenon, but this is the first time someone has actually caught it on a video.
For further reading...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_lights
An earthquake light is an unusual luminous aerial phenomenon, similar in appearance to the aurora borealis, that allegedly appears in the sky at or near areas of tectonic stress, seismic activity or volcanic eruptions. Scientific evidence for the presence of lights is unreliable, given that there are few references documenting the phenomenon.
***
Records of earthquakes that were accompanied by lights can be found as far back as 373 BC in ancient Greek writings, that "immense columns of flame" foretold the earthquake that destroyed the cities of Helike and Boura[citation needed]. However, even in the early 20th century they were still considered a myth, despite an investigation of lights seen during the 1930 Idu earthquake by researchers from Tokyo University,[3] until photographs of actual lights were taken in Japan in the 1960s.
The night before the 1976 Tangshan earthquake, many people in Tangshan reported seeing strange lights.[citation needed]
In Peru's earthquake that occurred south of Lima on August 15, 2007, earthquake lights could be seen across the Lima sky before and during the earthquake. Several videos were taken. [4]
On May 12, 2008, 30 minutes prior to the Sichuan Earthquake, a cell phone captured footage of multi-colored clouds in the sky[1]. The footage was uploaded to Youtube[5]. There is also footage from Meixian, Shaanxi,[6] approximately 550km northeast of the epicenter, recorded 10 minutes before the earthquake. However, the footage appears to show a circumhorizontal arc, which is caused by refraction of the sun's light through ice particles in a cirrus cloud, similar to a rainbow.[citation needed] Earthquake lights were also spotted in Tianshui, Gansu[7][8], approximately 400 km north-northeast of the epicenter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| So sorry m&m but we had a fatal schism with that debate because you didn't seem to get that I rate the bible higher than all your peer-reviewed nonsense as the final say of what is correct. |
And yet in all of that you missed the point that science isn't about the final say on what is correct. And why did you change your ID from Junior to Julius? Why were you using them concurrently? Doesn't the bible say half a truth is a full lie?
| Quote: |
| Even now, do you understand the stupidity of demanding I demonstrate my argument using material written by the opposition? |
And yet you didn't answer the question. Catholics and Jews read your same bible and come to very different conclusions about what it says about the age of the earth. So how do we decide they're wrong and you're right?
| Quote: |
Do evolutionists cite the bible as evidence in their published papers? Why would I use the garbage they write when they represent the antithesis of my worldview? |
Because you use it when you think it supports your beliefs. Do you understand the fallacy of inconsistency? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="mindmetoo"]
| Quote: |
| why did you change your ID from Junior to Julius? Why were you using them concurrently? Doesn't the bible say half a truth is a full lie? |
When did I say i wasn't Junior?
When did I say i was?
| Quote: |
| Catholics and Jews read your same bible and come to very different conclusions |
They read a different bible.
Jews don't acknowledge the New testament.
Catholics have mutilated the original into their own faulty translation, and even then they are discouraged from personally reading it and told to simply accept what the Priest says in its place.
| Quote: |
| So how do we decide they're wrong and you're right? |
Its really quite simple if you get hold of the authentic text and calculate time based on the intricately and detailed rrecords of the generations and ages from Adam.
| Quote: |
| Because you use it when you think it supports your beliefs. Do you understand the fallacy of inconsistency? |
Do you understand that some thoery is consistent with the bible and some isn't?
or that its fun to point holes in your argument using your own sources as a way of showing how inconsistent and contradictory they are? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SeoulFinn
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Location: 1h from Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guys, it has been an interesting read. Thank you for the entertainment. Anyway, I must stop reading your discussion from now on.
Julius, you get an F. Sorry about that, fella. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SeoulFinn wrote: |
| Julius, you get an F. Sorry about that, fella. |
He always does, but he never believes it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sushi
Joined: 24 Apr 2008
Location: North Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are 3 types of eartquakes from what I remmber. There are the horzontal slips as occur for example at the San Andreas fault in California. No fault there or any tectonic plates pushing against each other. Just two faults sliding against each other. There is the normal earthquake in an earthquake zone where the left hand side of the of the fault pushes above the right side, and the thrusting type earthquake where the right side of the fault pushes above the left side of the fault.
They all occur independent of what is happening on the surface |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
When did I say i wasn't Junior?
When did I say i was? |
You had this ID and the Junior ID going at the same time in evolution thread, pretending to be two different people. Seems to me you were out to deceive. Not a very christian act.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Catholics and Jews read your same bible and come to very different conclusions |
They read a different bible.
Jews don't acknowledge the New testament.
Catholics have mutilated the original into their own faulty translation, and even then they are discouraged from personally reading it and told to simply accept what the Priest says in its place. |
You, Catholics, Jews, Presbyterians, etc. still read the same creation myth, in the Book of Genesis. They read that and still come to the conclusion the world is far older than adding up the begots a la Bishop Usher. How faulty can the translation of Genesis be?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| So how do we decide they're wrong and you're right? |
Its really quite simple if you get hold of the authentic text and calculate time based on the intricately and detailed rrecords of the generations and ages from Adam. |
But that text is pretty much the same in most translations of the bible, right? You know you can total up the ages of the hobbits in Lord of the Rings but that doesn't have anything to do with the real world.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Because you use it when you think it supports your beliefs. Do you understand the fallacy of inconsistency? |
Do you understand that some thoery is consistent with the bible and some isn't?
or that its fun to point holes in your argument using your own sources as a way of showing how inconsistent and contradictory they are? |
[/quote]
Again, you might try (and fail) to use science to argue your case regarding creationism, but you were using it purely in this thread to support your claim about dams causing earth quakes. If you follow that science back to core principles, it's then leads you to a very old earth.
You can't simply pick some science because it agrees with your religious beliefs and then wholly reject the very same science when it conflicts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
So sorry m&m but we had a fatal schism with that debate because you didn't seem to get that I rate the bible higher than all your peer-reviewed nonsense as the final say of what is correct.
|
So you are basically saying that there is no possible physical evidence that would convince you that you're wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That is a direct description of religious faith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Junior still wondering:
| Quote: |
| You, Catholics, Jews, Presbyterians, etc. still read the same creation myth, in the Book of Genesis. They read that and still come to the conclusion the world is far older than adding up the begots a la Bishop Usher. How faulty can the translation of Genesis be? |
To wit, how do we decide Catholics are wrong and you're right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
