Creation for people who find it hard

[Stu]

Quote (TimothyVI @ Feb. 13 2013,21:39)

Hi T8, I actually kind of enjoyed the video. But it lost all credibility when it mentioned Ken Ham and called him a scientist. Calling Ken Ham a scientist is like calling L. Ron Hubbard a prophet. Tim

Your restraint, given the wide range of adjectives you could have applied to these two charlatans, is to your great credit!

Stuart

[david]

Quote

Tim, do you know of an Atheist 20 times as intelligent as yourself.

–t8

I'm not an atheist, but I am 20 times smarter than most people, and I like a challenge, so I accept. 🙂
(I'm not saying I'm smarter than you Tim)

Ok. Here goes. Thinking. Hmmm. Ok. One sec. Just a sec. Ok, check this out:

Atheist is a weird word. It's a word that basically means: a person that doesn't believe in God.

But, almost everyone is an atheist. There have been 10,000 gods throughout history. Since everyone doesn't believe in 99.99% of these, everyone is an atheist to a large extent.

Ok, that was just for fun. Stalling. Thinking.

Back to the word atheist.

There isn't a word for someone who doesn't believe in Buddha. Or a word for someone who doesn't believe in Bigfoot. Or a word for someone who doesn't believe in elves. Or leprechauns. Or fairy's. ok, that doesn't make sense and it doesn't help what I'm trying to prove.

This is hard.

Try this: where is God? If he can't be experienced by the 5 senses, how can we say he exists, and since this physical existence is all we know, how can we even talk about existing outside of our physical universe? Also, what's up with dinosaurs?

Ok, that's all I've got. This is hard.

I quite.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 13 2013,22:18)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2013,23:06) But even though “we don't know what it is talking about” nevertheless you are willing to speculate wildly.  Perhaps we are talking about a supernatural creature that only existed as a spirit and never left any skeletal or fossil remains. Well to be fair, animals go extinct all the time and the Book of Job is between 2500 and 3000 years old I think.

Are you suggesting that an animal, known to the ancients, has since gone extinct and is now completely unknown to modern archeology?

Quote

So the Unicorn was known then

If we mean the white horse or goat with the single horn, then in what way are you suggesting it was “known”? Was it seen and ridden on, or was it discussed as a creature of mythology?

Quote

and even when the AKJV was written hence why it is the only translation that uses that word. While modern translations were done at a time when Unicorns were a white mythical horse, hence why they had difficulty in translating that particular animal into English.

Unicorns were well known as a white mythical horse when the KJV was written!

Quote

Further, God speaks about a number of animals in one part of the Book of Job and all of these animals exist or are known to have existed, except for the Unicorn. So it is reasonable to assume that this Unicorn was a real animal too, otherwise it doesn't follow the pattern of mentioning a group of real animals and then including a mythical one.

I know. I think I just finished saying the same thing.

Quote

So some investigative work shows that it is a Rhinoceros as that video demonstrates and let's face it, last week you probably believed that Unicorns weren't real, but now know that the Unicorn is a species of Rhinoceros along with the Bicornis and they exist today.

The video claims that Ken Ham thinks the biblical unicorn could be Elasmotherium sibiricum. Well he might think that because he is a moron but that species was unknown throughout the whole time of the writing of the bible, whether it be the ancient Jewish writing of the Torah or the more recent scripting of the KJV. This is the same history-denying Ken Ham who believes dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans.

Quote

So if you don't believe in Unicorns, then you are the one in denial. Lol. And you said that I was speculating wildly, what a joke. Rhinoceros's are real and they are called Unicorns and they have a horn, and there is a 2 horned one as well called Bicornis. Speculating wildly, honestly Stu. Google Rhinocerous in Google Images. You will see that they are likely to be real given the amount of photos from different sources. Then look up the Latin for Rhinoceros in Wikipedia and YouTube will even show you a young Rhinoceros skipping along as described in scripture. I know this is upsetting for you Stu, I can hear it in your voice, (typing), but get over it. You cannot mock Unicorns in the Bible anymore. Oh no, you poor man. Speculating wildly. Ha, thanks for the laugh.

Perhaps you would care to go back and read what I wrote. That might be a treat for you t8.

Quote

Going back to something I said a while ago. Please find an Atheist who is 10 times more intelligent than yourself. You are too easy an opponent. I want some real competition.

So why does the KJV mention unicorns, when at the time it was written unicorns were commonly known as a white horse or goat with a single horn? I think before you claim victory you might be able to come up with an actual explanation. Also, what about the scriptural grammatical mistake described in the video? You appear to be painting the KJV as a very poor version of the word of your god.

Stuart

[david]

Quote

Unicorns were well known as a white mythical horse when the KJV was written!

The kj has a lot of translation issues. It would make more sense to look at the bible and see if the unicorn was a mythical horse when the text was originally written.

[Stu]

Quote (david @ Feb. 14 2013,14:16)

Also, what's up with dinosaurs?

Excellent! Finally a question really worth answering!

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (david @ Feb. 14 2013,14:39)

Quote Unicorns were well known as a white mythical horse when the KJV was written!   The kj has a lot of translation issues.  It would make more sense to look at the bible and see if the unicorn was a mythical horse when the text was originally written.

The ancient Hebrew word replaced in the KJV by “unicorn” is “re'em” which is thought to be something like an auroch or wild ox. But because the ancient Jews weren't known for their care in describing animals it's not reliably known what species they meant.

But the question of why the compilers of the KJV chose unicorn, with its contemporary common meaning and its complete lack of semblance to anything like an auroch, is bizarre. And rhinoceroses don't look much like aurochs either. Aurochs might look a bit like mythical unicorns in profile, if they stand in profile with their two horns lined up and you see them through a heavy mist…

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 14 2013,06:27)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2013,14:13) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 13 2013,09:30) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 08 2013,15:35) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 08 2013,17:29) Not at all. Just imagining what the world would be like if everyone had the same attitude. Nothing new under the sun. Holiness and faith has always irritated those who don't like God. That is why they spend much of their life attacking what they say is fairies and unicorns. Somethings up aye! While I spend very little time arguing about unicorns because it matters not. It's your book of talking snakes and donkeys that mentions the unicorns. Stuart Stu and all, The experts don't really know what plant or animal bears what name in some cases and thus put down then one they believe best fits the evidence. The experts on what? Stuart Stu, The Ancient Languages.

Maybe the specialists on ancient languages aren't specialists on animal morphology…or on the differences between creatures of myth and real animal species.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 14 2013,09:18)

Ke?

I think you mean “Que?”.

Stuart, t8's not-quite-intelligent-enough-atheist

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 14 2013,09:13)

Stu's biggest proof that God doesn't exist to date is that people cannot agree on who God is.

I don't claim there is any disprove of gods. Why would anyone waste his time trying to achieve that?

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 14 2013,09:18)

BTW, I also think the 6000 year old Earth is ludicrous. But even people who hold that view can still come up with facts about stuff. Like I said, I judge the facts themselves not the person.

Ken Ham comes up with lots of “facts”.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2013,17:33)

Are you suggesting that an animal, known to the ancients, has since gone extinct and is now completely unknown to modern archeology?

No.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2013,17:07)

Quote (TimothyVI @ Feb. 13 2013,21:39) Hi T8, I actually kind of enjoyed the video. But it lost all credibility when it mentioned Ken Ham and called him a scientist. Calling Ken Ham a scientist is like calling L. Ron Hubbard a prophet. Tim Your restraint, given the wide range of adjectives you could have applied to these two charlatans, is to your great credit! Stuart

Okay, so it is plain to see that logic doesn't work on you guys.

So I guess you are beyond my help at least.

I like logic.

Again, know any Atheists that think they are logical. I would like to dialog with them.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2013,17:53)

But the question of why the compilers of the KJV chose unicorn, with its contemporary common meaning and its complete lack of semblance to anything like an auroch, is bizarre.  And rhinoceroses don't look much like aurochs either.  Aurochs might look a bit like mythical unicorns in profile, if they stand in profile with their two horns lined up and you see them through a heavy mist…

If you look at the video it demonstrates that the word Unicorn is the English word for 5 different Hebrew words. i.e., Unicorn, Rhinocertous, and others. (Okay I didn't give you the Hebrew).

That is a translation issue. And I dislike the KJV. It is not that reliable a translation for a number of reasons.

[Proclaimer]

Stu do you believe that Unicorns exist?

Tim is too scared to answer now.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (david @ Feb. 14 2013,17:16)

Quote Tim, do you know of an Atheist 20 times as intelligent as yourself. –t8 I'm not an atheist, but I am 20 times smarter than most people, and I like a challenge, so I accept.  🙂 (I'm not saying I'm smarter than you Tim) Ok.  Here goes.   Thinking.  Hmmm.   Ok. One sec.  Just a sec.  Ok, check this out: Atheist is a weird word.  It's a word that basically means: a person that doesn't believe in God.   But, almost everyone is an atheist.  There have been 10,000 gods throughout history.  Since everyone doesn't believe in 99.99% of these, everyone is an atheist to a large extent.   Ok, that was just for fun.  Stalling.  Thinking. Back to the word atheist.   There isn't a word for someone who doesn't believe in Buddha.  Or a word for someone who doesn't believe in Bigfoot.  Or a word for someone who doesn't believe in elves. Or leprechauns.  Or fairy's.  ok, that doesn't make sense and it doesn't help what I'm trying to prove.   This is hard.   Try this: where is God?  If he can't be experienced by the 5 senses, how can we say he exists, and since this physical existence is all we know, how can we even talk about existing outside of our physical universe?  Also, what's up with dinosaurs? Ok, that's all I've got.  This is hard.   I quite.

Thanks for the offer david.

I have been asking them to send some more intelligent Atheists but they haven't done so. It might be because they are the smartest Atheists can get, or perhaps they don't know any smart Atheists. Whatever the reason, you will have to do. I am sure you can come up with better arguments than them, and I am more confident that you will at least treat good evidence as such instead of just wearing the mocking hat for everything.

So I will answer your points in the following posts. Might not be able to answer them all tonight. Will see how we go.

[Proclaimer]

Quote

Atheist is a weird word.  It's a word that basically means: a person that doesn't believe in God.   But, almost everyone is an atheist.  There have been 10,000 gods throughout history.  Since everyone doesn't believe in 99.99% of these, everyone is an atheist to a large extent.

Irrelevant Mr Pretend Atheist Man.

Believing in God does not absolutely mean that you have to get the name right, because the word God is neutral as far as identity of that God goes. God isn't a name, but a title that explains an office. You only have to believe in one God as the creator to not be an Atheist. If on the other hand and Atheist was a person who didn't believe in the existence of YHWH, or a list of other names, then you would have a point.

And the debate over who is actually God is not the domain of Atheists. Atheists can't walk and you are talking about running so to speak. In order to find out who God is, you have to have faith to believe that he exists.

Of course there are many explanations as to why there are many different names and IDs for this so-called God. One is that they are the same God, but seen in different languages and cultural perspectives. Just as different cultures have different names for White Men when they first laid eyes on them, (Pakeha, Pale Face, Palangi etc) so it could be that God is given different names and who would actually believe that every tribe and nation would actually choose the same name. I certainly wouldn't believe that.

The Bible has a unique view about this which doesn't negate the explanation above. The Bible's central message is of course that men are cut off from God and the job of the Messiah is to bring men back into relationship with God. So this too explains why most men acknowledge God but have a different name for him or argue about his nature. It is answered in the fact that by nature, we do not know God because we are sinners and cut off from his presence. Of course scriptures show God's plan for man's redemption, but in a sinful state, men who know that God exists will have all kinds of wild ideas about the God that they do not know.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 14 2013,23:12)

There isn't a word for someone who doesn't believe in Buddha. Or a word for someone who doesn't believe in Bigfoot. Or a word for someone who doesn't believe in elves. Or leprechauns. Or fairy's. ok, that doesn't make sense and it doesn't help what I'm trying to prove.

Nearly all men believe in God and logic dictates that first cause and no Atheist has an answer for it. As far as Bigfoot and fairies go, there is little to no evidence that they exist and very few believe in them. Hence why they are non-starters.

Take the Holocaust of WWII. There are some who deny that ever happened and there is a word for that, “Holocaust Deniers”. That is because there is very good evidence that this happened and most believe it happened too.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (david @ Feb. 14 2013,17:16)

Try this: where is God? If he can't be experienced by the 5 senses, how can we say he exists, and since this physical existence is all we know, how can we even talk about existing outside of our physical universe? Also, what's up with dinosaurs?

What is it that gives me awareness of my five senses?
I doubt that it is my five senses. It is my mind because my mind is me. I think therefore I am.

And physical existence is not all we know. When you dream, you enter experiences that are not part of this Universe. They are a product of your mind a sort of virtual reality. When you dream of a river, is that real molecules you see.

The mind is an awesome thing. It is us and we are in the Universe, but it is capable of things that are not physical or made up of atoms.

This could be understood as our minds being inter dimensional or not of this universe, but that the Universe is the reality that is displayed to us at the moment, a series of waves that are interpreted by our brain to be understood by the mind. Certainly some Quantum Physics experiments and ideas even hint at this.

All that you perceive with the 5 senses is actually perceived in the brain. It is not your eyes that see it is your mind. The pictures are all processed in your brain.

So is the Universe you gaze upon really like that? Or is it your consciousness that gives you that picture?

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 02 2013,07:23)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 01 2013,13:33) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 01 2013,18:25) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 01 2013,12:50) Genesis is at least 70% wrong then, isn't it. What is more, you have only given us one of the four ways that the bible says or implies that humans can be made. Stuart Stu How many of the ingredient are found on earth that composes the human body I've never seen god breath. Stuart stu that is not the right answer to my question

T,

If you know something then please share.

God's breath is not found on earth except in those that have life.

The human body is composed of the stuff of the earth.

[kerwin]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2013,09:57)

Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 14 2013,06:27) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2013,14:13) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 13 2013,09:30) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 08 2013,15:35) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 08 2013,17:29) Not at all. Just imagining what the world would be like if everyone had the same attitude. Nothing new under the sun. Holiness and faith has always irritated those who don't like God. That is why they spend much of their life attacking what they say is fairies and unicorns. Somethings up aye! While I spend very little time arguing about unicorns because it matters not. It's your book of talking snakes and donkeys that mentions the unicorns. Stuart Stu and all, The experts don't really know what plant or animal bears what name in some cases and thus put down then one they believe best fits the evidence. The experts on what? Stuart Stu, The Ancient Languages. Maybe the specialists on ancient languages aren't specialists on animal morphology…or on the differences between creatures of myth and real animal species. Stuart

Stu,

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 14 2013,09:53)

Quote (david @ Feb. 14 2013,14:39) Quote Unicorns were well known as a white mythical horse when the KJV was written! The kj has a lot of translation issues. It would make more sense to look at the bible and see if the unicorn was a mythical horse when the text was originally written. The ancient Hebrew word replaced in the KJV by “unicorn” is “re'em” which is thought to be something like an auroch or wild ox. But because the ancient Jews weren't known for their care in describing animals it's not reliably known what species they meant. But the question of why the compilers of the KJV chose unicorn, with its contemporary common meaning and its complete lack of semblance to anything like an auroch, is bizarre. And rhinoceroses don't look much like aurochs either. Aurochs might look a bit like mythical unicorns in profile, if they stand in profile with their two horns lined up and you see them through a heavy mist… Stuart

That is what I speak of.

[Author]

Posts