Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[cobra]

taking the above into account your reply cobra here kinda sucks

this is hardly a very convincing argument to say "therefore i am very sure there is no intelligent design"

To attack psyches method of arguing when you offer stuff like the above is extremely hypocritical, now i wouldnt normally have a problem with it except that you are now resorting to abusing psyche when he hasnt even said anything that bad or even argued that irrationally

i think people said most of my reply already but since you used my name i'll respond best i can

first off you can't be sure of anything, ever but my angle is for all intents and purposes the world came about through natural causes (thanks sofa ) we dont need ID, and the burden of proof is on psyche to prove that we do need it (same goes for god) for some reason, just tacking on to the end that god planned it all is unneeded

second, you don't waste good discussion on psyche - he couldn't understand things, just cut and paste ideas, and misquoted scientists and seemed to think that he spoke for the majority of scientist on the planet and started abusing people that were being very reasonable with him

[nick247]

in comparison to what i have seen in the past and what i have seen over the last few pages and based on what i was expecting, psyche was rather reasonable.

sure he was using other peoples arguments but so be it, there are far worse crimes and as for him claiming that he was right, he rarely did so in comparison to others

and there actually wouldnt be a problem with any of the posts against psyche aside from the fact that everything he was accused of others were also doing............a bit hypocritical

[Arnifix]

Nick, you do realise that his posts on several other accounts were expunged from the thread by Z-cat? He seems reasonable because the only posts left are the ones that aren't offensive.

[dirtyape]

Ape, hes been banned....but good work on the massive response.

It was him or Arnie.

maybe we should have had a vote.

A pity, I was enjoying that.

[nick247]

oh by the look of it ALL his old posts were deleted lol, i checked cos i wanted to see what crazy shit he had been posting (about a week or so ago when he kept posting all those other threads using different aliases)

i was all like "ohh so this turkish guy is really psyche, time to see me some crazy" and then nothing much really happened, i was sad

[brucewillis2]

Excellent I'll page him.

But seriously, all we have to confirm most of our history is books, most of them less credible than the bible

Well temples and archaeological digs have given some evidence to some of history. Maybe a statue of jesus dating back to the time he was around would of been good, he was pretty popular surely someone would of made a carving of him or something. Actually anything, anything at all from the bible would be a start.

you religious guys would know if any relics of him or about him around that time exist surely. And no, not the bible.

[ThaFleastyler]

oh by the look of it ALL his old posts were deleted lol, i checked cos i wanted to see what crazy shit he had been posting (about a week or so ago when he kept posting all those other threads using different aliases)

i was all like "ohh so this turkish guy is really psyche, time to see me some crazy" and then nothing much really happened, i was sad

As I've said before, the smoking gun here is that EVERYONE in this thread was sick to death of him - whether he was using psyche/turkish or whatever. If he was being rational and knew what he was talking about, surely someone might have come forward and backed him up.

And yeah, the deleted posts are the worst ones - they were abusive and irrational; my feeling is that posts by "Turkish" would have gone the same way eventually.

[ThaFleastyler]

Well temples and archaeological digs have given some evidence to some of history. Maybe a statue of jesus dating back to the time he was around would of been good, he was pretty popular surely someone would of made a carving of him or something. Actually anything, anything at all from the bible would be a start.

you religious guys would know if any relics of him or about him around that time exist surely. And no, not the bible.

You mean like the Shroud of Turin, or the supposed pieces of the cross? What about all the things listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relics_attributed_to_Jesus - that have supposedly shown up at various times throughout history?

Going back further, what about Noah's ark, which is theorized to still be around? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark#The_search_for_Noah.27s_Ark).

Its not like there haven't been relics presented; sadly they are dismissed all too quickly by mainstream, nonChristian scientists.

[brucewillis2]

checked out the link

The Holy Prepuce or foreskin of Jesus, removed during his circumcision

come on!! that's just mental :eek:

so the main one is the 'Shroud of Turin' of some guy who looks like he was in pain which carbon dating proved it was not from that era but others say carbon dating was thrown off due to contamination. its a stretch.

[ThaFleastyler]

Hey man, you asked :rasb:

[Arnifix]

If only Jesus was as big as a blue whale. I'd love to own an apron made from his foreskin.

That said, I suspect it would be in some serious demand.

[philo-sofa]

checked out the link



come on!! that's just mental :eek:

so the main one is the 'Shroud of Turin' of some guy who looks like he was in pain which carbon dating proved it was not from that era but others say carbon dating was thrown off due to contamination. its a stretch.

Lol, that is pretty mental! As far as the shroud of Turin goes, Carbon dating isn't too flash with things that are only a few thousand years old - it's probably not Jeesus anyway, but is rather hard to disprove.

However there is a fair amount of weight given to the 'flood myth' - which is present in several cultures.  I'm not by any means an expert on it, but AFAIK the idea is that a land bridge (which at the time would have been highlands separating Spain and Morocco broke, creating the Mediterranean.  This doesn't specifically support the bibile, but it's the kind of 'sunken temple' idea that at least gives weight to a non literal (i.e. not the whole world was flooded) interpretation of the Bible.

Then you have the dead sea scrolls, which form documentary and widely accepted evidence of the practice of worshiping the Ibrahamic God back to the second century BC, as well as a record of an early Bible. Some Biblical scholars hold (though it isn't as widely accepted) that many also document elements of Jesus' life.

Finally, while unsahamedly full of contradictions (less so when looking at the non re-re-re-re translated and edited ancient texts), the New Testament itself is generally held to have some historical validity, and correlates with a certain amount of local history.

At the end of the day, it's rather hard to 'prove' Jesus' existence but I'm not sure how much it's fair to expect beyond there being some historical record of him and some correlation of the Bible with past events.

[ThaFleastyler]

At the end of the day, it's rather hard to 'prove' Jesus' existence but I'm not sure how much it's fair to expect beyond there being some historical record of him and some correlation of the Bible with past events.

You're right - its so hard that his existence is pretty much unanimously agreed upon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[Ngati_Grim]

As far as the shroud of Turin goes, Carbon dating isn't too flash with things that are only a few thousand years old

Actually, radiocarbon dating is good for anything up to 50 000 years, and works well with things  "only a few thousand years old".

Interestingly, the base date used for radiocarbon dating is 1950, because after that there were atmospheric nuclear tests.

However, while radiocarbon is the correct dating procedure to apply to something such as this, which falls within the dating window , the quality of the sample presented seems to be in question. I haven't done enough research on this to be able to say either way, but it would be interesting to re-perform the test as well as use other methods of calibration (the type of cloth, the haft and heft etc).

Anyway: http://www.rafterradiocarbon.co.nz/c14links.htm

Generally, regarding the Shroud of Turin, there are two camps: Those who wish for it to be some tangible regarding Jesus, and those who don't.

Best comment I found:

Who cares? Even if it is proven that the shroud dates to c.33AD, what does that prove? Absolutely nothing! It simply proves that you have a 2000-year-old burial shroud. Historically interesting, yes, and relatively unique, but the connection between this cloth and Jesus Christ is stretching the imagination so far as to be ridiculous. Only the faithful will believe it anyway, and those people who need their faith to be bolstered by something as trivial as this need to question why they believe in the first place. The altars of Catholic Europe are full of the interred bones of saints who, if their existence is to be believed, must have had 7 legs and 97 ribs.
Frank Wognum, Duffort, France

source

also this


This too: Los Alamos National Laboratory


As for Noah's Ark, that is a direct appropriation from a Sumerian Flood Myth. I don't believe it existed/s at all.
There are a number of possibilities for the 'flood'...one being the breaching of a land barrier at the entrance to the Mediterranean, another being a similar occurrence causing sudden inundation of the Black Sea area.
People have seen fossil shells high up in Mountains and posited a flood for this. This is due to orogenics and tectonism, not a flood.
There is no evidence whatsoever for a global flood. The closest 'analogue' would be sea level rise post Ice Age, but this would not be a sudden and catastophic event.

[cobra]

Actually, radiocarbon dating is good for anything up to 50 000 years, and works well with things  "only a few thousand years old".

Interestingly, the base date used for radiocarbon dating is 1950, because after that there were atmospheric nuclear tests.

However, while radiocarbon is the correct dating procedure to apply to something such as this, which falls within the dating window , the quality of the sample presented seems to be in question. I haven't done enough research on this to be able to say either way, but it would be interesting to re-perform the test as well as use other methods of calibration (the type of cloth, the haft and heft etc).

Anyway: http://www.rafterradiocarbon.co.nz/c14links.htm

Generally, regarding the Shroud of Turin, there are two camps: Those who wish for it to be some tangible regarding Jesus, and those who don't.

Best comment I found:  source

also this


This too: Los Alamos National Laboratory


As for Noah's Ark, that is a direct appropriation from a Sumerian Flood Myth. I don't believe it existed/s at all.
There are a number of possibilities for the 'flood'...one being the breaching of a land barrier at the entrance to the Mediterranean, another being a similar occurrence causing sudden inundation of the Black Sea area.
People have seen fossil shells high up in Mountains and posited a flood for this. This is due to orogenics and tectonism, not a flood.
There is no evidence whatsoever for a global flood. The closest 'analogue' would be sea level rise post Ice Age, but this would not be a sudden and catastophic event.

you mainstream scientist dismissing it all too quickly with your evidence and reason - there is a hot place in hell for you

[brucewillis2]

old but interesting.

[video]2Y5ORpMTebI[/video]

[Ngati_Grim]

Yeah Bruce, I was going to mention that site....it's a geologic structure...

but again, there are two camps : the mainstream scientists who have done much work on it, and the 'believers'  (for want of a different word) who deny all the science and cobble together arguments....such as the inscriptions being 'proof'...when all they are proof of is ignorance of geologic processes.
Anyway, my seat is getting hot!

[philo-sofa]

Actually, radiocarbon dating is good for anything up to 50 000 years, and works well with things  "only a few thousand years old".

Interestingly, the base date used for radiocarbon dating is 1950, because after that there were atmospheric nuclear tests.

However, while radiocarbon is the correct dating procedure to apply to something such as this, which falls within the dating window , the quality of the sample presented seems to be in question. I haven't done enough research on this to be able to say either way, but it would be interesting to re-perform the test as well as use other methods of calibration (the type of cloth, the haft and heft etc).

I though it was all over the place with things "only a few thousand years old"  New Scientist suggested it was virtually impossible to carbon date the Shroud of Turin within a margin that reasonably ruled out it having come from circa 20 something AD?

As for Noah's Ark, that is a direct appropriation from a Sumerian Flood Myth. I don't believe it existed/s at all.
There are a number of possibilities for the 'flood'...one being the breaching of a land barrier at the entrance to the Mediterranean, another being a similar occurrence causing sudden inundation of the Black Sea area.
People have seen fossil shells high up in Mountains and posited a flood for this. This is due to orogenics and tectonism, not a flood.
There is no evidence whatsoever for a global flood. The closest 'analogue' would be sea level rise post Ice Age, but this would not be a sudden and catastophic event.

Here I have to bow to your Geologisty knowledge and assume it's unlikely to have happened, but have to question it being completely contraty to my statement? I appreciate it's analogous to the Sumerian flood legend and was simply saying it did appear in the Bible and wasn't entirely fanciful.


While it's possible it (Med/Black Sea epic flood) never happened, or reasonably taking your word as expert opinion as I do, it's very unlikely it happened (someone exaggerated a really rainy day or something); AFAIK there is at least circumstantial evidence supporting it.  I think there are some  pre-eminent (non Theisticly driven) geologists who disagree - however having said that, I'd guess such a dramatic event would leave a fair bit more physical evidence of it having happened?


As for orogenics and tectonism - whatevs, the world isn't old enuf - this was simply birds and fast moving stuff that escaped global flooding briefly, which is why we only find Dinosaur bones on.. mountains...... right?

[ThumbsUpGuy]

Yeah Bruce, I was going to mention that site....it's a geologic structure...

but again, there are two camps : the mainstream scientists who have done much work on it, and the 'believers' (for want of a different word) who deny all the science and cobble together arguments....such as the inscriptions being 'proof'...when all they are proof of is ignorance of geologic processes.
Anyway, my seat is getting hot!

I have to disagree on this point, you can't just lump them into two camps. For instance I'm a Christian and have done a fair bit of research into all this stuff and I can find no reason why evolution disproves God OR creationism. All it means is that from the time if initial creation there has been change in the species that were created, call it evolution, advanced adaptation or whatever you want but that doesn't mean God didn't create it all in the beginning.

The same goes for the "universe", God may have created it looking very different to the way it is now and allowed science to shape it. Hell he might have even used a "big bang" somewhere along the line.

[nick247]

interesting very interesting i feel more enlightened

[Ngati_Grim]

Yeah, when I said believers I didn't mean Christians per se, as I am aware of the pitfalls of that type of generalisation. What I did mean was the believers in the ark theory in that instance.

Damn, that'll learn me for being less pedantic!

Re: the Shroud of Turin. The last link I gave previously is quite a good, modern examination from the Las Alamos Laboratories...

I did read somewhere (searching for link) about the Black Sea inundation...in a Scientific American I believe...will try to find.

That video cracks me up.

[ThaFleastyler]

Well, for the record, I don't buy the shroud at all, and I'm dubious about the ark existing to this day (even if a flood occurred - and that seems improbable - it seems to me that in the post-flood society the wood from the boat would be valuable).

Re: the Shroud of Turin. The last link I gave previously is quite a good, modern examination from the Las Alamos Laboratories...

Theres a DVD at our local Christian bookstore that is called The Fabric of Time - its a documentary about scientists who find a human hair on the shroud and use it to extract DNA, with they then somehow turn into a fully 3-d, computerised model of [what they say is] the actual head of Jesus Christ. It is 100% serious.

I LOL'd

[ThumbsUpGuy]

Damn, that'll learn me for being less pedantic!

Yes it will :disappoin A religious discussion thread is just about the only place on the interwebs where pedanticism is almost a pre-requisite :bigglasse

[philo-sofa]

As far as the shroud of Turin goes, Carbon dating isn't too flash with things that are only a few thousand years old - it's probably not Jeesus anyway, but is rather hard to disprove.

Yeah, when I said believers I didn't mean Christians per se, as I am aware of the pitfalls of that type of generalisation. What I did mean was the believers in the ark theory in that instance.

Damn, that'll learn me for being less pedantic!

Re: the Shroud of Turin. The last link I gave previously is quite a good, modern examination from the Las Alamos Laboratories...

I did read somewhere (searching for link) about the Black Sea inundation...in a Scientific American I believe...will try to find.

That video cracks me up.

The links you gave gives an age of between 1300 and 3000 years.

Wikipedia implies that the 95% interval varies from between 100 and 800 years from the stated age given by carbon dating.  Looked through EBSCO and this is the range given by the quoted paper (Niklaus TR et.all) and would seem to support my suggesting C-14 dating isn't too accurate at dating things only a millenia or two old.  

Rogers and Arnoldi do however debunk to a certain extent any suggestions that the age of any material from the cloth may have been underestimated due to microbes. I'm still confused as to why anyone would believe it to be an image of Jesus, but by the same token I don't see how what it diverges with what was said earlier?

[Ngati_Grim]

Yes it will :disappoin A religious discussion thread is just about the only place on the interwebs where pedanticism is almost a pre-requisite :bigglasse

Do you mean  pedantry?  :chuckle:


It's o.k Philo, I wasn't disagreeing, just adding to the arsenal (go spurs!)