Did Biblical events really exist?

[DonRicardo]

If you were correct then the mass of a hydrogen atom would be the same as
the mass of a uranium atom. This is clearly nonsense.

Yes, I forgot that an atoms can have a different number of electrons. But when I was constructing the definition I was trying to seek the smallest kind of particle that has an equal amount of mass.

You keep inventing terms that have no meaning and using them in sentences
that also have no meaning. What is a "light-molecule"? Do you mean a photon? That isn't an atom!

As I've recently read a photon is formed when a reaction takes place within an atom. Thus you're right.

Do you agree now that your claim that the number of atoms changes when
you metabolise fat was nonsense?

No, because the atoms can "exit" the body, thus they are no part of it anymore. When the body produces heat, fat cells are burned. The energy set free leaves the body.

Sweat vaporises, thus that amount of water within is lost. My mass decreases.

 

[steen]

Anyway, am I wrong here, or did Skilly say he can puch many holes in the evolution theory? I for one, would be very interested in hearing his side.

Many creationists claim they can do so. Generally, they do so based on the lies they have been told from creationist lie-sites, and when their arguments sink on the rockd of facts and evidence, they leave in a huff. That is one major reason that creationism fails, that not one proponent has been able to provide honest proof.

 

[Thinker]

Yes, I forgot that an atoms can have a different number
of electrons. But when I was constructing the definition I was trying to seek
the smallest kind of particle that has an equal amount of mass.
...
No, because the atoms can "exit" the body, thus they are no part of it
anymore. When the body produces heat, fat cells are burned. The energy set
free leaves the body.

Sweat vaporises, thus that amount of water within is lost. My mass
decreases.

I am going to call a halt here. I think it has become clear that you have little
scientific background and equally little understanding of the basic concepts
involved. You compose statements that contain scientific terms but make no
sense. In your most recent post you randomly throw in electrons while
talking about mass, demonstrating that you do not understand that the mass
of the electron is negligible compared to that of a proton or a neutron (by a
factor of more than 1,800). You also demonstrate an ignorance of the
significance of closed systems when you try to show that reactions such as
fat metabolism change the number of atoms in the reactants. You have done
similar things in previous posts, one of the more obvious being a display of
complete ignorance of parallel processing.

Your technique seems to be be to state your own inventions as proven fact
and then, when challenged with arguments you do not understand, you add
more layers of invention. It would be much more productive simply to ask for
explanation and develop understanding.

I do not mean all this in a nasty way; it is simply a fact that must be obvious
to anyone reading this thread. My concern has always been that biblical
nonsense should not be attacked with scientific nonsense. As supporters of
supernatural biblical events have no evidence whatsoever, they have only
one line of defence: to attack what they see as holes or weaknesses in the
scientific evidence. By posting your own, seriously-flawed interpretations of
scientific thought, you are giving the religious fanatics more weapons to use
to confuse the uninformed.

 

[dthmstr254]

what does any of this have to do with the original topic, biblical events. why are we talking about it

 

[DonRicardo]

I am going to call a halt here. I think it has become clear that you have little
scientific background and equally little understanding of the basic concepts
involved. You compose statements that contain scientific terms but make no
sense. In your most recent post you randomly throw in electrons while
talking about mass, demonstrating that you do not understand that the mass
of the electron is negligible compared to that of a proton or a neutron (by a
factor of more than 1,800). You also demonstrate an ignorance of the
significance of closed systems when you try to show that reactions such as
fat metabolism change the number of atoms in the reactants. You have done
similar things in previous posts, one of the more obvious being a display of
complete ignorance of parallel processing.

Your technique seems to be be to state your own inventions as proven fact
and then, when challenged with arguments you do not understand, you add
more layers of invention. It would be much more productive simply to ask for
explanation and develop understanding.

I do not mean all this in a nasty way; it is simply a fact that must be obvious
to anyone reading this thread. My concern has always been that biblical
nonsense should not be attacked with scientific nonsense.

The scientific nonsense started by explaining the big bang theory further. When planets move at near light speed ...

Obviously this entire topic is about religion and philosophy. Note that I used philosophy to explain most of my arguments, except minor things such as the detailed explanation of moving objects within the universe. Thus all things mentioned before, loose from motion of objects are not false.

As supporters of
supernatural biblical events have no evidence whatsoever, they have only
one line of defence: to attack what they see as holes or weaknesses in the
scientific evidence. By posting your own, seriously-flawed interpretations of
scientific thought, you are giving the religious fanatics more weapons to use
to confuse the uninformed.

No, little evidence is required to destruct suggestions for the existence of a deity and Biblical events. I'd say only a logic mind is needed.

My bad that I didn't know much of the relativity theory, but it doesn't have to do anything with the possibility of occurance of Biiblical events. There isn't much money to earn in science these days. Maybe later, I'll pick up all that knowledge. The relativity theory and the like aren't my domain. Though I can easily break down religion by common logic.

 

[Thinker]

what does any of this have to do with the original topic, biblical events. why are we talking about it

It followed on from a flawed attempt by DonRicardo to counter a biblical
argument. I was concerned that this particular example could be used as
evidence that science is generally wrong; it's the sort of thing religious
proponents have to fall back on in the absence of any positive evidence for
their beliefs.

That particular diversion has now ended.

 

[DonRicardo]

It followed on from a flawed attempt by DonRicardo to counter a biblical
argument.

It started by explaining the fact that materials closer to the center of the universe are older. That again was an argument within my opinion if there was any life superior to ours. It had nothing to do with countering a Biblical argument.

 

[dthmstr254]

It followed on from a flawed attempt by DonRicardo to counter a biblical
argument. I was concerned that this particular example could be used as
evidence that science is generally wrong; it's the sort of thing religious
proponents have to fall back on in the absence of any positive evidence for
their beliefs.

That particular diversion has now ended.

well then shall we get on with the actual topic. to disprove the big bang theory little evidence is needed, in fact since they have no proof or scientific backup for it, than it should be considered a useless gesture, as it directly breaks one of the laws of thermodynamics, "their is no natural process that can create energy" and "the energy of a closed system must remain the same at the end as at the beginning" they claim that there was no matter, and then boom all these planets and stars came flying out of nowhere. well no matter=no energy=no chemical or nonchemical reaction=no explosion=no big bang. period.
hows about we go on to the topic of the life and times of Jesus Christ. i am curious as to what the great secular thinkers have to say on that more than the big Evolutionist vs Creationist debate. what do you think people?

 

[Thinker]

well then shall we get on with the actual topic. to disprove the big bang theory little evidence is needed, in fact since they have no proof or scientific backup for it, than it should be considered a useless gesture, as it directly breaks one of the laws of thermodynamics, "their is no natural process that can create energy" and "the energy of a closed system must remain the same at the end as at the beginning" they claim that there was no matter, and then boom all these planets and stars came flying out of nowhere. well no matter=no energy=no chemical or nonchemical reaction=no explosion=no big bang. period.

I think Science might draw a conclusion from your argument. If the
laws of thermodynamics are always obeyed, then the universe can have had
no beginning: it must have always existed. If the universe (and hence
energy) did have a beginning, then the laws are not always obeyed (and
hence are not laws or are incomplete).

That's one thing that separates science from superstition: science embraces
the possibility that it might not be totally correct; superstition starts from
the premise that it cannot be wrong.

hows about we go on to the topic of the life and times of Jesus
Christ. i am curious as to what the great secular thinkers have to say on
that more than the big Evolutionist vs Creationist debate. what do you think
people?

It would be useful to start by presenting some convincing evidence that the
JC described in the bible actually existed (let alone did any of the things
claimed). Saying that "the bible says so" is not convincing evidence.

 

[leejosepho]

As supporters of supernatural biblical events have no evidence whatsoever ...

Whoa! Not so!

The Hebrews are still quite "alive and well" and remembering Sinai and being blessed by some and cursed by others ... all just as written.

 

[Thinker]

Whoa! Not so!

The Hebrews are still quite "alive and well" and remembering Sinai and being blessed by some and cursed by others ... all just as written.

"Just as written" indicates that you are referring to prophesy as evidence
for a supernatural biblical event, even though I would not consider a
prophesy an event.

It is not difficult to make prophesies that come true, and the biblical ones are
perfect examples of the technique: you either prophesy something so obvious
that it is certain to happen or is already happening (Israel and Palestine will
fight each other), or you make the wording so vague that it can be
interpreted (or mistranslated) to fit whatever comes along (The
world will suffer great upheavals before the end of the century).

Also, the more predictions you make, the more likely you are to get a hit.

There is no evidence for supernatural biblical events.

 

[leejosepho]

"Just as written" indicates that you are referring to prophesy as evidence for a supernatural biblical event ...

No, I was not referring to any "supernatural biblical event". There, I was simply talking about "observable earthly events" such as you have acknowledged taken and/or taking place.

There is no evidence for [recorded] supernatural biblical events.

Yes, there most certainly is: The still-here Hebrews and their now-timeless Sinai experience.

 

[Thinker]

No, I was not referring to any "supernatural biblical event"...

I see you are sticking to your technique of ignoring what was actually
said.

I said:

As supporters of supernatural biblical events have no evidence
whatsoever ...

You replied:

Whoa! Not so! The Hebrews are still quite "alive and well"
and remembering Sinai and being blessed by some and cursed by others ...
all just as written.

Unless we are speaking completely different languages, your "Not so" must
be taken to refer to my statement about "supernatural biblical events".
As you gave no indication that you were changing subject in the comment
about the Hebrews, it lead naturally to my next statement:

"Just as written" indicates that you are referring to prophesy as evidence
for a supernatural biblical event, even though I would not consider a
prophesy an event.

Finally, you responded:

No, I was not referring to any "supernatural
biblical event".

As is plain to see, you have demonstrated that you cannot follow the thread
of an argument.

For once, stick to the subject.

I claim that there is no evidence for supernatural biblical events. When
you replied "Not so", were you:

A: refuting my claim; or
B: changing the subject and talking about something else entirely.

If A, please provide your evidence.
If B, please return to the point and either accept my claim or refute it
by presenting actual evidence we can discuss.

Before you simply bring in the Hebrews again, I remind you that we are
talking about supernatural biblical events, not the occasional reference to
historical people and places.

 

[steen]

as it directly breaks one of the laws of thermodynamics, "their is no natural process that can create energy" and "the energy of a closed system must remain the same at the end as at the beginning"

:doh But then. is a quantum singularity inversion really a closed system?

 

[steen]

Whoa! Not so!

The Hebrews are still quite "alive and well" and remembering Sinai and being blessed by some and cursed by others ... all just as written.

Do they remember Exodus? After all, the rather detailed Egyptian historical documents don't. They don't even remember any significant jewish presense, slaves or not.

 

[steen]

No, I was not referring to any "supernatural biblical event". There, I was simply talking about "observable earthly events" such as you have acknowledged taken and/or taking place.

Oh? You are not referring to silly claims of the Bible such as a "world-wide flood" that cannnot possibly be true, were you? You are not trying to present allegories as facts, are you?

The Bible is not a science textbook.

 

[leejosepho]

I claim that there is no evidence for supernatural biblical events. When you replied "Not so", were you:

A: refuting my claim ...

Yes.

If A, please provide your evidence.

The existance, identity and overall experience of a people unlike any other.

In my mind, those are sufficient to prove a "supernatural biblical event" at Sinai.

And of course, my own "exodus" and following experience corroborates that at the personal level.

 

[leejosepho]

Do [today's Hebrews] remember Exodus?

You would have to ask them to get a direct answer, but yes, I am quite sure they do.

 

[leejosepho]

You are not referring to ... such as a "world-wide flood" ... were you?

No, I was referring to events related to Hebrews.

 

[steen]

You would have to ask them to get a direct answer, but yes, I am quite sure they do.

Did you specifically and deliberately ignore the point I made? (Nah, that would be dishonest, so of course you didn't.)

I am not interested in what you are "sure" about. I am asking about what actual EVIDENCE (You know, data that can be independently verified by everybody) as compared to personal belief (ie. youe "because I say so" claims) you have for your claims.

 

[leejosepho]

Did you specifically and deliberately ignore the point I made?

Yes, and for the sake of honesty, I did ignore your silliness.

I am not interested in what you are "sure" about. I am asking about what actual EVIDENCE (You know, data that can be independently verified by everybody) as compared to personal belief (ie. youe "because I say so" claims) you have for your claims.

It can be easily verified that the Hebrew people still exist as the oldest nation yet remaining on earth, a society or culture and so on unlike any other ever. And the fact that all those folks all still make the same report of centuries past concerning Sinai makes it impossible for me to believe YHWH was not there.

But again: Do not take that from me -- ask them!

 

[steen]

Yes, and for the sake of honesty, I did ignore your silliness.

So it was "silliness" that I pointed out that the Egyptian records do not mention the Jews as slaves or otherwise?

Instead of being such a silly coward, owe up to your refusal to deal with facts. (There, are we done with the personal insults or are you going to spew even more?)

It can be easily verified that the Hebrew people still exist as the oldest nation yet remaining on earth, a society or culture and so on unlike any other ever.

I am sure that will come as a surprise to some of the indian cultures, f.ex.

And the fact that all those folks all still make the same report of centuries past concerning Sinai makes it impossible for me to believe YHWH was not there.

So you are admitting personal belief rather than facts, yes. Why now admit what you previously denied?

 

[dthmstr254]

:doh But then. is a quantum singularity inversion really a closed system?

eeehhh, i am learning to be a lawyer major and ministry minor, what in the world is quantum singularity inversion.
all i know about most evolutionists is that they are naturalists, meaning that they believe in what they see, which means matter. we have already established that matter has a beginning and an end. so that means that if you go far enough back then nothing of matter exists, meaning no energy, no energy means no explosion, and no explosion means no big bang. i have very good skills when it comes to abductive reasoning, i should warn you.

 

[Thinker]

The existance, identity and overall experience of a people unlike any
other. In my mind, those are sufficient to prove a "supernatural biblical event"
at Sinai.

I see. How do you connect the continuing existence of people mentioned in
the bible to evidence of supernatural biblical events? What particular
supernatural event are you talking about?

The observation that the bible contains references to real peoples and places
is only evidence for their age. It is certainly not evidence of any of the
supernatural events mentioned in the same texts. Neither are the myths,
practices, and beliefs of those people.

And of course, my own "exodus" and following experience corroborates that at the personal level.

... and, of course, as that is a purely subjective belief, it is of no relevance
to the discussion.

 

[Thinker]

we have already established that matter has a beginning and an end

No we haven't. No such thing has been established. If it has, it should be easy
for you to provide a reference to the relevant paper in the scientific literature.