₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU:
There are two types of evolution that are commonly referred to: microevolution and macroevolution.

Actually, they are both differentiations of the same process.

Macroevolution is the concept that over time one species can evolve into a new species (invertebrate into vertebrate, fish into amphibian, amphibian into reptile, reptile into bird,…) This has never been observed nor is there any evidence it ever happened, therefore it is not a fact or a theory. In order to have macroevolution take place there must be a mechanism that can add beneficial information to an organisms DNA. The mechanism commonly stated to perform this task is mutations. However, there are no known mutations that have been both beneficial and added new information to the DNA. This means macroevolution is an unverified hypothesis.

Wrong on all counts. First, there is genetic evidence that indicates that speciation has occured. Two persuasive lines of evidence that pertain particularly to humans are: shared endogenous retroviral insertions and the presence of chromosome no.2 in humans. The former indicates a common ancestry for humans and other apes, as endogenous retroviruses act, essentialy, as genetic markers in the various species. The latter, on the other hand, shows the fusion of chromosomes present in chimps, also indicating common ancestry.

Second, the discovery of fossils of transitional animals constitutes another line of evidence for speciation. Several dinosaur-bird transitionals are perhaps the more famous, although they aren't the only ones available.

Third, there have been observed instances of speciation. I have given at least two in this thread.

Finally, actually beneficial mutations have been well documented, from the Apo-AIM in humans, to the calculations done by Pete Harcoff which show how, even with highly conservative figures, beneficial mutations aren't a problem.

Microevolution is not evolution. It is used in two different contexts. First, it is often used to mean random errors in the DNA. Random errors do not cause beneficial information to be added to an organisms DNA. Second, it is often confused with natural selection and genetic variability. Both of these work with existing information and do not add any new morphological structures necessary for evolution.

Not quite. Microevolution is evolution. Copying errors do cause mutations individuals., and these can transmute the genetic makeup of a species through selection or drift.

If evolution is not a fact or a theory, then what is it? Based on the scientific method it qualifies as a model or a hypothesis. - Mike Riddle

Wrong.

[snip]

It wouldn't kill you to read this thread and understand what it is you're arguing against, you know.

simmy:
@kag
funny enough i agreed with most of your answers to original poster. sometimes xtians go to ridiculus lenghts in tryng to prove Gods existence, most of what he said was superfuous crap (sorry)
but dear kag
what does 'singularity expanded to become the universe mean?
what is singularity if its nothing??
what u said in esssence is nothing expanded to become the universe, which is what the poster was saying anyways,

Not quite. A singularity is something. Its qualities may be difficult to decipher at this point, but it isn't nothing.

imhotep:
If there were no God, there would be no atheists.

No, if there were no people that claimed gods exist, there would be no [need for] atheists.

simmy:

i ve been observing silently for some time now
the only point i want to make is that i am of the opinion that consciousness is a totally subjective phenomena,

I agree; however, it is demonstrable and can be raised in an argument, which was one of my points.

Pastor AIO:
Of course it is! That guy is the first person in the world that I've met that disagrees

Wait, could you show me where I disagree with consciousness being a "subjective phenomenon"?

and worse considers what he presented as an argument to be appropriate proof.

Again, if you bother to read my posts, you'll notice that I have not claimed a proof (in fact, I've had to set you straight on the matter of proof). Further, if you're certain that my argument(s) was/were not appropriate, you can always do what I have done so far in this thread: rebutt and refute.

In a way that merely confirms for me that, though we are potentially spiritual, in fact many of us have that part of us so fast asleep that it is practically nonexistent. Subsequently I am sure that he is not being wicked or teasing but is in fact assured of his arguments.

The refutations say it all

I'm so glad that someone else is interested in the thread. Just for the record I would like to take a quote from the Bhagavad Gita. This book is a conversation between a warrior called Arjuna and the diety Lord Shri Krishna in Hindu religion.

From the Chapter called Bhakti Yoga:

Arjuna asked, "My Lord! Which are the better devotees who worship thee, those who try to know Thee as a personal God, or those who worship Thee as impersonal and indestructible?"

Lord Shri Krishna replied, "Those who keep their minds fixed on Me, who worship Me always with unwavering faith and concentration; these are the very best.
"Those who worship Me as the indestructible, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the primeval, the immutable and the eternal; . . . "

I think that the evidence abounds that the Ancient traditional peoples were happy to consider their dieties both as Personalities as well as 'Forces' that influence the world. And they did not see any incongruity. If people today are unable to get their heads around the dichotomy that is due to their lack of sophistication and they should not try to project their intellectual limitations on other people.

That's nice, but no where have I said that it is impossible for a deity to be perceived as possessing dual characteristics. I have, however, had to correct your misconceptions of Heraclitus' Logos and your constant equivocations to support a flimsy argument.

Like you said, so far I've been willing "to make a distinction between Logic and Conjecture. Because Conjecture too easily passes for logic." Perhaps you'll do what you set out to do too.

Can I get a "whoop, whoop!" from the Calvinists in the house.

Pastor AIO:
O boy, let's just leave it. I don tire.

That's no problem. Thanks for your time.

Ujujoan:
Wow, Nice pix. Can I spot you in the red Mickey Mouse Outfit??

Oh yes. there ain't no party like the furries party

Superman?

Pastor AIO:
ps: When you hear a hard saying, instead of just jumping into reactionary mode it is more beneficial to ask what the hell the person means by such a statement. This is not a Catechism or a Dogma class. I expect to be challenged for what I say and I don't expect you to either accept or reject on 'blind faith' but rather to question it all.

Was this post addressed to me or yourself? I'm leaning towards the latter - if several of your posts in this thread are anything to go by.

Pastor AIO:
Ah! Perhaps you failure to get anything I'm saying is rather a negative reaction to the opening post than a reaction to anything I've said since. Trust me, I'm no threat to you so you don't havee to attack anything I say irrationally.

Um, no. First, by "the op did you no favours", I didn't mean it effected a negative reaction in me, I meant that it wasn't thought through and the its premise was faulty. Essentially, it was a terrible place to start any discussion as it fell apart within the first couple of serious responses

Second, looking through the thread, it's certain that I have been getting what you've been saying, so alluding to not getting your point is bizzare.

Finally, I haven't been attacking anything you said irrationally.

From what You've said above you seem to think that awareness is a result of the sophistication of an entity. So the more sophisticated the more likely to be aware. I refute this.

What? No. For crying out loud, I even gave an indication of its level in my brief explanation of what I mean by awareness. Here: "It is cognizance at a most basic level."

Are we talking about consciouness or awareness? What aspect of conscious is your referent point? I'll come back to this if necessary.

I'm beginning to suspect that you're just doing this to tease me. I thought you just defined consciousness as self awareness. so consciousness is awareness but in specialised form. what difference does it make whether I was there talking about broad awareness or just consciousness?

I said consciousness implies self-awareness, but I guess that's semantics at this point of the discussion. In any case, consciousness and awareness should not be conflated. Awareness, like I indicated is a basic form of cognizance and may be simply conceived as a realisation of a happening. Consciousness is different. Further, one can be demonstrated over the internet, the other can't.

An entity realising and that realising implicating a response would be a sign of awareness.

Please can you tell me what you said above again in plain english.

Sure. To claim that an entity is aware, the entity has to realise that something is happening, .i.e. know in itself about an occurence, then that realisation is what causes a reaction.

Have you heard of 'The Ghost in the Machine'. check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Machine

The ghost in the machine is British philosopher Gilbert Ryle's derogatory description for René Descartes' mind-body dualism. The phrase was introduced in Ryle's book The Concept of Mind, written in 1949, to highlight the perceived absurdity of dualist systems like Descartes' where mental activity carries on in parallel to physical action, but where their means of interaction are unknown or, at best, speculative.


Bodily processes and states can be inspected by external observations. Thus a person’s bodily life is as much a public affair as are the lives of animals. But minds do not exist in space, nor are their operation subject to mechanical laws. The workings of the mind are not witnessable by other observers; its career is private. A person therefore lives through two collateral histories: one consisting of what happens to and with the body (public); the other consisting of what happens to and in the mind (private).

Yes I've heard of the ghost in the machine concept. What now? I'm not sure I see what your argument through the quote.

This: "I disagree, consciousness can be demonstrated and raised in argument. For the most part it would be human-centric, but it can be shown. In any case, that's another topic as consciousness wasn't my point."

is a long shot from this: "
It wasn't an argument to prove my awareness, it was an argument for my awareness. What clever Japanese robots have not only demonstrated the skills mentioned earlier, and, further, awareness of an "I"?

The experience isn's subjective as a demonstration of the factors that implicate awareness are presentable and have been presented in this thread."

Not really, no.

It's either an argument to prove (demonstrate) your awareness and you are capable of presenting such an argument, or it's not.

Proof is for maths and alcohol. I see where the confusion lays on this particular point. I wasn't trying to prove as science doesn't do proof, so mypointing out that it wasn't an attempt to prove, caused confusion.

Anyway, I have made the arguments for awareness and it demonstrates itself.

The experience isn's subjective as a demonstration of the factors that implicate awareness are presentable

Then please present them, for God's sake. Demonstrate to me that you are an aware being. Demonstrate to me how you will prove that a clever AI is an aware being.

I did. Read my posts.

Let's start from the beginning of this sub-section

A part of my definition of being is awareness towards; and awareness was defined as an ability to realise happenings

I later pointed out that: 'So, no, awareness is not a "totally subjective experience [that] cannot be communicated to another." You know I'm aware because I'm acknowledging your ideas, parsing them, and responding accordingly.'

A claim that's easily understandable, as I need to be aware to display those skills. I pointed that out when I wrote: "To acknowledge something as complex and abstract as the factors in your arguments, then to parse those ideas and appropriate them and then respond accordingly, is certainly indication of awareness."

Alas, "Just to be clear, no AI can do the same at this point in time."

Pastor AIO:
Okay I'll make a deal with you. I promise I'll honestly and with integrity consider the beam in my eye. Would you promise to look also to your own prejudices though they may only be a mote (compared to my beam).

Sure.

Pastor AIO:
Okay Mr. Mechanical Engineer. I can presume that you have a high knowledge of mechanics.

No.

Is it or is it not possible to invent a machine that is sensitive to it's environment to such a high degree that it seems to be aware and reacts to the slightest changes in the environment.

Sensitivity to environment isn't awareness.

There is a website called AskJeeves.com whom you can ask questions and it will respond accordingly. Is AskJeeves aware?

No.

An entity or a body responding to it's environment is not a sign of awareness. Tree leaves swaying in response to the passing breeze is not a sign of awareness.

An entity realising and that realising implicating a response would be a sign of awareness. The leaf isn't aware.

So though you are 'acknowledging my questions, parsing them, and responding accordingly' that tells me nothing about whether you are aware or not. AI can do the same.

Any AI that can do the same has awareness. To acknowledge something as complex and abstract as the factorsin your arguments, then to parse those ideas and appropriate them and then respond accordingly, is certainly indication of awareness. Creatig an artificial intelligence that possesses those skills will be the pinnacle of technology as science will have succeeded in creating a being-it-itself.

Just to be clear, no AI can do the same at this point in time.

So this: The easiest argument is to point out that I am fully cognizant of being an I. That I can postulate that indicates awareness.
[/b]
is not an argument to prove your awareness. I don't know that you're cognizant of anything. Not anymore than any of those clever japanese robots. You are just a more sophisticated version of AI. I can never know that you have the experience of awareness. The experience itself is much too subjective.

It wasn't an argument to prove my awareness, it was an argument for my awareness. What clever Japanese robots have not only demonstrated the skills mentioned earlier, and, further, awareness of an "I"?

The experience isn's subjective as a demonstration of the factors that implicate awareness are presentable and have been presented in this thread.

I quote Keith Augustine (a naturalist):

One of the most persistent difficulties for reductive physicalism has been the apparent inability of physicalistic explanations to capture qualitative features of conscious experience. It has been persuasively argued that qualia--the experiential feels of 'what it is like' to be in a conscious mental state--cannot be captured by any physicalistic explanations in principle because physicalistic explanations inherently refer to objective or public features of phenomena, whereas the experiential features of consciousness are inherently subjective or private (Teller 1992, pp. 190-191). While such arguments for the irreducibility of consciousness are not the last word on the subject, they have not been decisively refuted either--at least not in the view of several prominent philosophers. Although such difficulties may be resolved in the future, their current resistance to a clear resolution that gains widespread acceptance gives us good reason to resist simply identifying the natural with the physical.


This was taken from here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html

I was furnished with this source by either you or Huxley. It could be Huxley actually and I remain grateful.

Okay? It would have been Huxley.

As far as I know consciousness does not exhibit any qualities that someone else can now come and measure. The only effect that consciousness/awareness exhibits is the subjective effect that it has on the conscious person. Every other effect exhibited by the human being and observable by others can be explained by neurology. You don't need to be conscious to respond to questions if your brain has been programmed with the appropriate answers.

Are we talking about consciouness or awareness? What aspect of conscious is your referent point? I'll come back to this if necessary.

I'm on the cusp of giving up this thread completely but I'll persevere if we can make headway with just this point.

I'd understand if you gave up on this thread. If nothing else, the op did you no favours.

Ujujoan:
Sounds like a tale, told by fools, full of sound and furry, signifying nothing!!

All I saw was furry

https://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/ScooterRooter/Motivators/furries.jpg

https://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1156/karaandfurrynekobybbmbbgy8.th.jpg

Ujujoan:
KAG, I was right, the word logic's new you.

Unfortunately, you on the other hand, don't know the meaning of the word.

Thats why you can't help sounding like a parrot about it!!! Neway, I've had it in my dictionary for sometime now, so I'l take a rain check on the offer.

Rain check on what offer? Anyway, this would be a good time to open that dictionary and understand what logic means. Good luck.

But just remember, all these doctrines you are trying to figure out is way beyond your comprehension. Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread!!!

Hmm, considering we both (metaphorically speaking) have entered and stayed in this thread, doesn't that make you a fool too? Afterall, this isthe only probable "in" to which the person you referred "rushed". See why logic helps?

P.S. Try to read your Bible sometime. It helps in discussions of this kind, too.

Pastor AIO:
In other words you are saying that something that hops like a frog, croaks like is frog, and is wet and slimy like a frog must be an orangutang. Just how many 'superficial' properties must be shared in common before it is no longer equivocation.

No, I'm saying that saying that something that has a bill and webbed-foot isn't necessarily a duck. Or better still, thatit has limbs, a head and a breathing mechanism, doesn't mean it's a humyn being. I don't know how many superficial properties to which you'd need to appeal; however, appealing to the fact that two different peoples have the conception of "chosen" in their beliefs, is equivocation.

That they both refer to the chosen is not the entire basis of my argument but it is a point to be considered.

IT may not be the entire basis of your argument, but for that aspect that was all that was presented. It is a point to be considered if fallacies are the order of the day.

Please don't embarrass yourself with that talk about Zeus. If you know nothing about Greek Cosmogony it will not be held against you so you don't need to embarrass yourself by spouting crap.
Go and read Hesiod. The World is created by Eros (love) who emerged out of Primal Chaos. Then other beings are created through Ouranos and Gaia. These two give birth to the Titans and Cronus is one of them. Cronus kills ouranos and gives birth to the Gods including Zeus. Zeus eventually Killed Cronus and thus became the king of the Gods. That is how Zeus came to be. He is not the creator of the world by any means.

Wow, thanks for that unnecessary nonsense. If, however, you have the time, feel free to read what you wrote an to what I was responding. Here, I'll help:

AIO: They are creators and give form to the world.

KAG: So is Zeus

You'll notice that the subject matter wasn't creators of the world, but "creators" and giving "form to the world." Just in case you don't know, Zeus is that. No where did I state or indicate that Zeus created the world. So, feel free to get off your high horse, and address the point itself.

By the way, if it's any consolation, I have a good working knowledge of Greek mythology.

It seems that your knowledge is half baked.

Or that's a psychological projection on your part. *shrugs*

Perhaps you are just a dilettante which is cool but you ought to be aware that when you take a cursory glance at something and then quickly form an opinion or have[b] 'an idea of the concept'[/b] you should consider the fact that you could also be getting the wrong end of the stick completely.

Beam. Thine eye. Mote. Other's eye. I forget what scallywag is credited with a saying that uses those terms.

Pastor AIO:
Mr. KAG I have been so totally flummoxed by your standpoint that it has taken me this long to respond. Where does one start?

i'm sure that's what it was. In any case, the beginning is often a good place to start.

I am yet to understand the distinction between awareness and consciousness. But for your sake I will restate my position thus, that Awareness is a totally subjective experience and it cannot be communicated to another. I can never know if you are an aware being or not. It is more likely that you are a cleverly programmed machine. Greater minds than yours in the Atheist camp have conceded this fact.

I can appreciate not understanding the distinction between the two terms, as they can often seem syonymous, so perhaps, it would have helped if I had provided a definition of the term. Awareness would be the abiity to realise a happening. It is cognizance at a most basic level. Consciousness, on the other hand isn't so basic a factor of cogizance, and implies self-awareness.

So, no, awareness is not a "totally subjective experience [that] cannot be communicated to another." You know I'm aware because I'm acknowledging your ideas, parsing them, and responding accordingly.

What greater minds have conceded that awareness can't be determined?

Well I invite you to present your argument that will convince me that you are aware of your existence.

The easiest argument is to point out that I am fully cognizant of being an I. That I can postulate that indicates awareness.

And far from consciousness not being the point ( it might not be central to your point, but that is because you are not familiar with the territory covered by this issue) it is at the very core of the point.

How so?

To better contrast the difference between us, you have 'an idea of concepts' while I have Experiential knowledge.

Somehow I doubt that. From arguing that only Christians possess logic to the spurious arguments that acknowledgment of either logos (disregarding its varying forms) or conceptions that can fit into the framework of a logos is indicative of Christianity, even pre-Christ, strongly suggests that you haven't grasped what you are arguing for or against.

Almost everything you are saying just demonstrates your ignorance and you inability to think with Reason rather than regurgitate the textbooks and notes that you studied in university, concepts written and taught by people who are (importantly) not practitioners of the disciplines that they teach. It's the classic example of the blind leading the blind and now they are all writhing in the gutter.

That's nice. First, that I have been able to point to the necessary differences in the things you equivocated, and that I have presented premises that stand unrefuted, shows that I do in fact ave the ability to reason and present reason (to say otherwise is to be dishonest, as far as this thread goes).

Second, I didnt study any of these things at university (Mechanical engineering has been the most I've learnt), so the rest of your argument is moot.

It is not extolling the unknown to say that God cannot be conceptualised or fit into the categories of human thought. However we are endowed with other faculties through which we can experience him.

No, it's extolling the sense of the unknown, and you'd have to equivocate terribly (and, indeed, beg the question) to say that those who do that can be broadly represented by the term "Christian".

HEATHEN! HEATHEN! Burn him at the stake! I'll get the matches.

A_K_O:
Source

All that have lived have died and all that will live will die.

Oh, Jesus? I'm pretty sure he's dead. even if he didn't die in that time of crucifixions and madness, entropy would have worked its magic. It was interesting to note that all the people that he told wouldn't die before his return, died while waiting. Sorta sad when you think about it.

simmy:
@kag
alright already, if you don't get my point drop it and go n do other stuff ok?

Is this the new brand of cop-out? 'Cos, I didn't get the memo. Look, I addressed what you wrote specifically, even going as far as to cite your words in context. I'm pretty sure I got your points. If not, point out the ones I didn't.

simmy:
by the way ive delibrately ignored your question. its another topic for another thread and im not in the mood 4 that now

Like i said, you think you know?
you have no idea,

Your cake: trying to eat it and having it afterwards doesn't work. It really isn't another topic, but whatever.

simmy:
@ kag
u just don't get it do u?
for sm1 who s so smart i thot it was obvious

Or maybe I do get it. *shrugs*

Ujujoan:
You obviously did, so let me spell it out to you. He wasnt trying to be 'logical' because a true christian believs in working by faith and not by sight.

Lol. Let's see if I can sum up your argument on his behalf: the Bible is entirely illogical; simmy, being a true Christian (TM), is also illogical; and the argument he raised where he asserts that the Bible is illogical is also illogical. That about right? I'm guessing you aren't trying to be logical either, being a true Christian (TM) and all that.

In short, summed up aptly in my earlier post: inanely illogical.

Are we refeering to the same book??

Yes, have you read it? Have you heard of the likes of Aquinas and Augustine? What about Creationists (capital "C"?

Do you not know the meaning of the word 'mystery' or are you just being unnecessarily argumentative??.

Yes, I know the meaning of the word "mystery". It's not the meaning of the word that presents a seemng paradox in your arguments/positions.

Ujujoan:
Did you miss the point he was trying to make?

No, I didn't. That's why I said his argument was inanely illogical.

There’s nothing ‘logical’ about the bible. We Christians have never claimed that. Why is that so difficult for you to understand Mr. Logic?? Or you logical sense doesn’t take you THAT far.

Absolute nonsense. There are several attempts to grapple and reach for logic in the Bible - to say otherwise is to be ignorant of the Bible. Also, of course Christians have claimed logic for the Bible. Creationists, the Church fathers in the shape of giants of philolosophy like Aquinas and Augustine, etc. All aspire(d) to finding logic within the Bible.

We believe in the mystery of the bible, we are not forcing you to join us in our beleif; you guys should just get a life and stop being obessed with christianity.

Belief in the mystery of the Bible? Coupled with the Bible is illogical, etc. I like the paradox that is emerging from your arguments.

simmy:
OMG!!!
here come the rationalists in all their 'look at me im rational'glory. sure the noah story doesnt sound rational! but its just stupid to criticse a book that tells such a story when just a few pages later, the same book tells us of unspeakable 'miracles'!!!
splitting of the red sea
variuos egyptian plagues
fire falling from heaven and destroying two cities
a lady turnied to salt!!!!

It's got nothing on the Eddas, which is how I know Thor is real. Hail Thor.

Now when a book unblinkingly tells you stories such as these, don't you think your trying to rationalise the flood story is the height of stupidity??

No, actually, believing the stories wholesale is the height of stupidity. In any case, if the adherents of the book keep alluding to the factual nature of such stories, then it is only prudent that one, if possible, make inroads to check if the stories are factual.

the bible is not a rational book!! all atheists and agnostics and doubters and rationalists should learn once and for all. its a religious book. thats why some things are called miracles or supernatural.

Man! a book tells me someone came from heaven died for me and woke up in three days so that i would not go to a place where i would be totured forever and you re rationalising a story the same book tells about a flood
the bible talks about out of the world things, u either believe it or you don't! if the bible was rational i wouldnt have to believe what it says! u don't need to believe logic, but u have to believe something that defies logic!

Inane illogic. Anyway, maybe you should send your M.O to the likes of AiG, no?

simmy:
\
dear kag
The Bible was not written as a scientific journal!!! Y must it take into account ALL the races that ever existed?where does the bible claim scientific knowledge? was the grouping of races a scientific excercise? in what context was the bible grouping the races?
Dont make assumptions.
you think you know? you have no idea!

The hell? YOU said "that was the bible s way of making a grouping of the races that existed in those times." Not me, you. I didn't say the Bible was written as a science journal; I was clealy responding to the claim you made. Feel free to actually read what I wrote and retract at your own convenience.

Now, "back to the the question of how you read the Noah story [which you've somehow managed to avoid on each turn]. Do you feel it is allegorical? If so, why argue the angle of Noah's descendant? If not, then how?"

simmy:
@kag
im sure the guys that wrote the bible werent even aware that the chinese folks existed, so i don't get your point.

You said "that was the bible s way of making a grouping of the races that existed in those times." So, that wasn't what you meant, then? Either the Chinese suddenly appeared out of no where or that wasn't the Bible's way of grouping the races that existed in those times.

Further, we are back to the the question of how you read the Noah story. Do you feel it is allegorical? If so, why argue the angle of Noah's descendant? If not, then how?

simmy:
a lot of things cannot be verified. We still can't verify thta Jesus existed talk less Noah. neither can you verify (atleast directly) that any historical figure (a thousand years old) really existed. did Aristotle exist? how about Julius Ceaser? The Alexandrian stories of conquest and glory, di it really happen? or are they just Homer like stories its a matter of opinion.

There are accepted ways of verifying things that have historical prominence. That Julius Caesar and Aristotle existed can be verified by many independent means, not least, the books and things they authored, the independent sources within their times - both secular and otherwise, physical representations made of them dated to their time - i.e. busts, coins, icons. Same with Alexander's conquests.

Now, the Homeric and Noahchide legends can, to a great extent, be either verified or falsified by examining what they claim and pitting it against evidence. So, the great flood can be said to be falsified because evidence for it is not only seriously lacking, but there is a great amount of positive evidence to show that it couldn't have occured.

The point? It's not a matter of opinion.

simmy:
@morpheus
i have no idea what Asimolowo wrote or did not write in his book so i shal not comment on that.
However, i have said repeatedly that saying the biblical account is wrong or innacurate is taking things out of context. You are judging it by the wrong standards! did the black man evolve from Ham No! but was he grouped as Hamitic in the bible? definitely! that was the bible s way of making a grouping of the races that existed in those times.

Wait, so Chinese people just appeared out of no where, about 4, 000 years ago?

By the way, it's not taking things out of context to point out the Bible is wrong on issues. Sure you can point out that contents in the Bible were written from a perspective of the times, but it still wouldn't make a wrong assertion any less wrong.

So saying the information in the bible is innacurate is like saying because my primary school science textbook said the sun is a ball of fire , then its innacurate and false!

Not quite the same. It's like saying the claims that there is life on the moon is wrong or inaccurate.

Or, gods are like men.

That's all mostly nonsense. God stopped the Earth from moving for six hours? That doesn't make any sense. Considering the effects of the Earth suddenly stopping, you're probably better off just claiming that the Earth is stationary and everything revolves around it. Just so you know, science isn't trying to "prove" the existence of either the omniscient nor a god.

simmy:
@kag
u don't know what i am or believe, so y assume?

What did I assume?

basically i don't agree with people who think the bible should be taken in a strict literal sense. a little bit of common sense and ability to put things in perspective is needed to understand the bible. Also a lot of skeptisicm in the scientific community

So, how do you interpret the Noah story? And if your interpretation is not in a [strict] literal sense, why argue the Ham, Japheth and Shem line? What of the Creation and Eden accounts?

I agree that there should be scepticism in the science community.

simmy:
@ kag

1. no one claims the whole world descended from the big 3. so i don't see y ure disputing somehting no one is claiming. However, everyone agrees civilisation spread from the fertile crescent which vaguely agrees with the biblical account.

No one claims that the whole world descended from Ham, Japheth and Shem? Since when? Biblical literalists, which I got the impression you were, do indeed believe that there was a worldwide flood that destroyed all of humanity, livng the Earth to be populated from the descendants of the aforemetioned three. If you dont believe that, then indicating a physical ark and actions of a Noah et al., becomes moot. Further, the sons of Noah become just as useless in this discussion.

2. the term hamitic is pseudo0scientific?
YES it is! the dude who wrote Genesis was not writing a scientific journal!

Then you realise that this: "Note that present day negroes fall into the very broad group scientists refer to as hamitic." was inaccurate, yes?

3. Enough is known about man s origins to know that whatever was stated in Genesis is reasonably accurate! and i wasn t speculating. if anything, i was calling against speculation.

Nonsense. Enough is known about origins to know the Genesis account is allegorical at best; not, reasonably accurate. By the way, you did speculate.

i wonder y people treat the bible as a scientific journal which has to be scientifically accurate in all its detail. what do you expect? a detaile scientific classification of races based on language, features and genetics

I don't expect anything other than a hope that people realise that, as you say, it isn't a science journal, and that it is no where close to being inerrant.

Also, by the way, the bible NEVER directly claimed the whole world descended from noah and his kids. you concluded that was the bible s message and then turn around and criticise the bible 4 its in accuracy! classic strawman if u ask me

Silly me for applying a literal reading of Noah's flood to a discussion that had the implication that not only did all Black people descend from Ham but that the names of Noah's sons formed the basis for race classifiation.

By the ay, I didn't conclude that as the Bible's message - I've always advocated a non-literal reading of the text.

Pastor AIO:
My entire argument is not based on the fact that both terms refer to being chosen. On numerous points the two are seen to be identical.

It's equivocating. It doesn't necessary require just one similar [superficial] property. On numerous occasions my sugar and Jude's girlfriend are seen to be similar. Equivocation.

By the way, your argument was based, at least to some extent, on the fact that both terms refer to the conception of the "chosen":


"I believe a Christian is a follower of Christ. In the gospel of John Yehoshu'a ben Yosef is identified as the Christ. What is Christ? Greek Christos is the translation of hebrew Messiah which means the anointed one, the Chosen One.

Yoruba also call Ori Ayanmo meaning that which is Chosen. They follow the Chosen One. "

They are creators and give form to the world. But I've already stated a lot of these points.

So is Zeus. It doesn't mean that Zeus and Al'lah are the same conception.

Christ predates everything.

I doubt that.