Originally posted by The Omega
Shelbert Lemon> The Bibles account of how many things happened is in glaring contradiction to established science.Here are a few examples http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html
ENjoy 🙂
Damn. Nice.
they don't fit into the bible quite simply because the bible was written by common man in an age where little was known about our natural world. Those common men with little knowledge asked questions but did not yet have the resources or knowledge to find the answers. They simply pulled answers out of their ass that made sense to them..........ofcourse it only made sense to them because they had little of the information about our natural world that we do today.
Some guys sits down and wonders how the world came to be. He has no knowledge of how it came to be so he just makes up a story that appeases him. We can't fault him for that. He had no evidence to the contrary.....or any evidence at all for that matter. We can however fault the dolts who still believe his story today...............because we do have knowledge, we do have evidence.....and all of it contradicts his made up story to which he had none of either.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
they don't fit into the bible quite simply because the bible was written by common man in an age where little was known about our natural world. Those common men with little knowledge asked questions but did not yet have the resources or knowledge to find the answers. They simply pulled answers out of their ass that made sense to them..........ofcourse it only made sense to them because they had little of the information about our natural world that we do today.Some guys sits down and wonders how the world came to be. He has no knowledge of how it came to be so he just makes up a story that appeases him. We can't fault him for that. He had no evidence to the contrary.....or any evidence at all for that matter. We can however fault the dolts who still believe his story today...............because we do have knowledge, we do have evidence.....and all of it contradicts his made up story to which he had none of either.
I don't think that the intent of the original writers was to deceive or was done through pure ignorance. I think they were doing the exactly what we do, taking what information they had and making sense of it; kind of like old theories of how the world started. I do agree that the true fools are those how still hold on this outdated theory.
how was it not done through pure ignorance? We're talking old testament here........3,000 years ago, what information did any person on this earth have about the creation of our universe, star, planet or any of the natural cycles that occur on it? They had none.........none at all. Therefore any story they dreamed up was born of ignorance.....
Originally posted by Evil Dead
how was it not done through pure ignorance? We're talking old testament here........3,000 years ago, what information did any person on this earth have about the creation of our universe, star, planet or any of the natural cycles that occur on it? They had none.........none at all. Therefore any story they dreamed up was born of ignorance.....
My understanding of "pure ignorance" is to ignore information that is available.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
Shaky........argue with with Webster, not me....there is a big difference from having no information to not having all information that is possible to be gained about any certain subject........
IMO you have an incorrect attitude about the people of the past. They were just as smart as we are, but when I read your posts I get the impression that you are calling them stupid. Maybe I'm misreading...
fin
they were just as smart as our civilization today eh?
c'mon now............they lacked the intelligence to build the most basic components of the complex machines and systems we use today to gain our knowledge with.
There's a reason why they didn't understand something they couldn't see with the naked eye............they had yet to develop the intelligence to build the components to assemble an electron microscope........
this all leads back to the topic at hand.....
why didn't they have any information on how the earth, sun, stars, etc. were formed? They had not even begun to become intelligent enough to build the complex machinery we use today for geology, astronomy, biology, etc...........
If you went back in time and showed the most brilliant scientist 3,000 years ago a picture of some far off nebula taken by the Hubble telescope..........he would have no idea what you were showing him. He would be confused how this "apparition" appeared on your sheet of papyrus at all........
Originally posted by Bardock42
...Seems Shakya's personal definitions get him into arguments a lot lately.....
You have a difficult time distinguishing between arguments and disagreements. I believe that the people who wrote the bible were just as smart (brain power) as we are today; ED believes differently. We just disagree, and that is all. He will not come back and attack me in other threads because the fact that we disagree is not a big deal. I agree with ED 95% of the time, but not 100%.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have a difficult time distinguishing between arguments and disagreements. I believe that the people who wrote the bible were just as smart (brain power) as we are today; ED believes differently. We just disagree, and that is all. He will not come back and attack me in other threads because the fact that we disagree is not a big deal. I agree with ED 95% of the time, but not 100%.
I am not referring to this disagreement, I was talking about your definition of "ignorance"....on the issue I agree with you...I think they were just as smart or at least almost as smart....
How can they be considered even near as smart or intelligent when they had no where even remotely close to the same amount of information or knowledge as we do? They didn't even know why the grass was green.......or why the sky appeared blue.......or what oxygen was.....the very basics of our fundamental natural world. They had no idea what a cell was......an atom......a sub-atomic particle......they had no idea what a virus was....a bacteria.......... much less their affects or the countless methods of treating them.
all they basicly knew was behaviour they observed around them....and anatomy..........which is a far cry from our knowledge of today. They saw stars moving across the sky....observing the behaviour to know they exist but they didn't even know what a star was..........I don't even see a comparison.
If our knowledge today was the high point on a scale, 100..........their knowledge was a 3.
Originally posted by Evil DeadCause Intelligence has nothign to do with knowledge. The question is, if a cavemen was born today, raised as we are today, would he be less intelligent or would he be equal...and I think ti would be very close....
How can they be considered even near as smart or intelligent when they had no where even remotely close to the same amount of information or knowledge as we do? They didn't even know why the grass was green.......or why the sky appeared blue.......or what oxygen was.....the very basics of our fundamental natural world. They had no idea what a cell was......an atom......a sub-atomic particle......they had no idea what a virus was....a bacteria.......... much less their affects or the countless methods of treating them.all they basicly knew was behaviour they observed around them....and anatomy..........which is a far cry from our knowledge of today. They saw stars moving across the sky....observing the behaviour to know they exist but they didn't even know what a star was..........I don't even see a comparison.
If our knowledge today was the high point on a scale, 100..........their knowledge was a 3.
point taken.....I wouldn't say caveman but certainly someone from 3,000 years ago would have the same capacity.
this however was not the point of discussion. Shaky stated that a man 3,000 years ago had comparible knowledge to us........therefore he didn't think their stories were born out of pure ignorance. I later changed the point of contention to intelligence......which I see now was misleading. Originally he said they were smart.......which is directly based on the amount of knowledge one has, not the capacity to attain it. Equal intelligence.......quite possibly.......as smart, not even close.
IMO you have an incorrect attitude about the people of the past. They were just as smart as we are, but when I read your posts I get the impression that you are calling them stupid. Maybe I'm misreading...
Originally posted by Bardock42
Cause Intelligence has nothign to do with knowledge. The question is, if a cavemen was born today, raised as we are today, would he be less intelligent or would he be equal...and I think ti would be very close....
Well I wouldn't go back to caveman, but people of 10,000 years ago were modern humans, and if you could transport one as an infant to today and raise it and educate it, he/she would be the same as anyone else.
So if they had the same potential, what did they do with it?
IMO we have lost much of the knowledge they had. It was different and more connected with their lives then the knowledge we have today.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
point taken.....I wouldn't say caveman but certainly someone from 3,000 years ago would have the same capacity.this however was not the point of discussion. Shaky stated that a man 3,000 years ago had comparible knowledge to us........therefore he didn't think their stories were born out of pure ignorance. I later changed the point of contention to intelligence......which I see now was misleading. Originally he said they were smart.......which is directly based on the amount of knowledge one has, not the capacity to attain it. Equal intelligence.......quite possibly.......as smart, not even close.
That was not the point I was making. We had a misunderstanding.