A short explaination of the human-nature

[Derf]

Giving me lessons.

Where DO you get this crap?

You need lessons on where crap comes from?

Unlike you, I've a degree in geology,
I've done lab and field work, and actually
have knowledge of the topic you try
to address.

Unlike you, I prefer to discuss things with people and not just claim superiority.

Would you like to present any data to discuss?

There is a yec paleontologist,
a Dr K. Wise who addresses the matter
of data v faith.

"... even if all the evidence in the universe
turned against yec I'd still be yec as that
is what the Bible seems to indicate".

He if anything knows far better than I
that yec has zero data. And you know
less than nothing about geology, fossils etc.

You could avoid the gross scientific /
intellectual dishonesty of Dr. Wise,
or posting falsehoods, by just sticking to
faith and not attempting to introduce
"science facts" that you dont begin to
understand.

I'm not Kevin Wise.

And you seem to have nothing useful to say.

 

[Estrid]

You need lessons on where crap comes from?

Unlike you, I prefer to discuss things with people and not just claim superiority.

Would you like to present any data to discuss?

I'm not Kevin Wise.

And you seem to have nothing useful to say.

Your nonsense ( Aka crap) is from
very dubious sources. Being why you won't say where
you get it.
You post nonsense but won't give a source. No data, no facts about human origins.


Your" lessons' were you trying to show you
know more than I. I offered to save you the trouble.
But keep it up if you like. Maybe saying "perhaps you forgot" makes you feel superior.

Obviously you are not Dr.K Wise. He is far better educated. Very upfront about having no facts
for yec, and not intending to pay any attention to facts.


There is abundant information re human beings
existing thousands of miles away and hundreds of thousands of years before biblical days in the middle east.




There's ten thousand ways to show there was no flood as
described in your bible. Polar ice is an easy one to understand.

Such facts are not useful to someone who wishes
to bitterly cling to the religious beliefs of long dead societies in the middle east.

 

[Derf]

Your nonsense ( Aka crap) is from
very dubious sources. Being why you won't say where
you get it.
You post nonsense but won't give a source. No data, no facts about human origins.


Your" lessons' were you trying to show you
know more than I. I offered to save you the trouble.
But keep it up if you like. Maybe saying "perhaps you forgot" makes you feel superior.

Obviously you are not Dr.K Wise. He is far better educated. Very upfront about having no facts
for yec, and not intending to pay any attention to facts.


There is abundant information re human beings
existing thousands of miles away and hundreds of thousands of years before biblical days in the middle east.




There's ten thousand ways to show there was no flood as
described in your bible. Polar ice is an easy one to understand.

Such facts are not useful to someone who wishes
to bitterly cling to the religious beliefs of long dead societies in the middle east.

Ok, then we'll just happily go our separate ways. I'll continue to believe my creation myth, and you'll continue to believe yours.

 

[Estrid]

Ok, then we'll just happily go our separate ways. I'll continue to believe my creation myth, and you'll continue to believe yours.

I don't "believe myths". That's your deal.

 

[Derf]

I don't "believe myths". That's your deal.

Sure you do. Creation of life spontaneously out of non-life, and humans from sea-life, whatever tortuous path it took, is a myth.

Google Image Result for https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Human-Evolution_VF.png

The geologic column, as explained in textbooks, is a myth.

Here's the primary definition for "myth":
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

 

[Estrid]

Sure you do. Creation of life spontaneously out of non-life, and humans from sea-life, whatever tortuous path it took, is a myth.

Google Image Result for https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Human-Evolution_VF.png

The geologic column, as explained in textbooks, is a myth.

Here's the primary definition for "myth":
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

More geology lessons from he who knoweth naught.

 

[Derf]

More geology lessons from he who knoweth naught.

And more posts from she who hath nothing to say. Thanks for implicitly admitting you didn't know what "myth" means. Don't feel bad. I also thought myth only referred to something that wasn't true, until I read differently. I believe it was from something C S Lewis wrote. Maybe you'll someday put your pride aside on other matters, too. Jesus Christ loved the proud sinners and died for them, hoping they would repent.

 

[Estrid]

And more posts from she who hath nothing to say. Thanks for implicitly admitting you didn't know what "myth" means. Don't feel bad. I also thought myth only referred to something that wasn't true, until I read differently. I believe it was from something C S Lewis wrote. Maybe you'll someday put your pride aside on other matters, too. Jesus Christ loved the proud sinners and died for them, hoping they would repent.

Lessons on geology and English.
Tell me more. Is your bible a book of myths?

Bonus question: what is a frog?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure you do. Creation of life spontaneously out of non-life, and humans from sea-life, whatever tortuous path it took, is a myth.

Google Image Result for https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Human-Evolution_VF.png

The geologic column, as explained in textbooks, is a myth.

Here's the primary definition for "myth":
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Derf, the Geologic Column is not a "myth." It is a model, a scientific one at that, but it's not a "myth."

 

[Derf]

Derf, the Geologic Column is not a "myth." It is a model, a scientific one at that, but it's not a "myth."

Go read the definition again. Something can be a model and a myth.

 

[Derf]

Lessons on geology and English.

Hopefully you'll learn something.

Tell me more. Is your bible a book of myths?

Yes...true ones.

Bonus question: what is a frog?

Now you want a biology lesson?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Go read the definition again. Something can be a model and a myth.

Well then, you've shown that you didn't read your own definition selection. Because the Geologic Column doesn't qualify as a "myth."

Now, with that said, if you want to disagree with the inferences of the geological model(s) and simply adhere to a more literal interpretation of the Bible, then be my guest. Your adherence won't remove the shirt from my back if you so wish to do so.

 

[Estrid]

Hopefully you'll learn something.

Yes...true ones.

Now you want a biology lesson?

Biology? A frog is part of a violin bow.

What of "myth" do you see in a geolohical
column?

Equivocation games are kind of silly, don't you think?

What kind of myth do you think bible- myths are?

100 percent literal?
Some literal, some is parables, cautionary tales etc,
but not actual events? ( but with true message)

 

[Derf]

Because the Geologic Column doesn't qualify as a "myth.

What of "myth" do you see in a geolohical
column?

Remember that a myth is
"a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically (but not necessarily) involving supernatural beings or events."
The geologic column fits all of the underlined parts, so it qualities as a myth.

 

[Estrid]

Remember that a myth is
"a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically (but not necessarily) involving supernatural beings or events."
The geologic column fits all of the underlined parts, so it qualities as a myth.

Except it's not traditional / early history, and for
clarity here, there's no supernatural.

Your bible of course does fit every category.

If I recall right you said earlier that humankind
originated in the middle east, some few thousand years ago.

Are you aware that human remains are artifacts deeply
predate that time, and come from thousands of miles away?

If so why say " middle east"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Remember that a myth is
"a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically (but not necessarily) involving supernatural beings or events."
The geologic column fits all of the underlined parts, so it qualities as a myth.

Exactly. The geologic column isn't a "traditional story." It's a scientifict model, one that is built of many evidences; it's also one that is a part of the overall Theory of Evolution.

Let me guess, you'll next try to say that a scientific theory is just a "theory."

 

[Derf]

Except it's not traditional / early history,

The geologic column isn't part of the story of ancient times? Are you really going to maintain that position?

and for
clarity here, there's no supernatural.

Not required, as per the definition.

Your bible of course does fit every category.

Yes, it does.

If I recall right you said earlier that humankind
originated in the middle east, some few thousand years ago.

The evidences we have from the start of civilization, as well as the biblical story of the flood are in synch with it.

Are you aware that human remains are artifacts deeply
predate that time, and come from thousands of miles away?

Did first humans emerge from Middle East, not Africa?

Scientists could be compelled to rewrite the history of the evolution of modern man after the discovery of 400,000-year-old human remains.

www.deccanherald.com

Here's a more recent one:

Archaeologists discover 400,000-year-old paleo snack pack in Israeli cave

Researchers find prehistoric man had technique for storing bone marrow for up to nine weeks, which they replicate in gruesome experiment

www.timesofisrael.com

If so why say " middle east"?

Because that's what it is usually called.

Exactly. The geologic column isn't a "traditional story." It's a scientifict model, one that is built of many evidences; it's also one that is a part of the overall Theory of Evolution.

Richard Dawkins, one of the most prolific evangelists for Evolution, wrote these books:

“Climbing Mount Improbable” “River Out of Eden”“The Ancestor’s Tale” “The Blind Watchmaker” “The Evolution of Life”

Are you seriously saying that the story of evolution is not a story? Before you answer, take one more look at the book titles.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Richard Dawkins, one of the most prolific evangelists for Evolution, wrote these books:

“Climbing Mount Improbable” “River Out of Eden”“The Ancestor’s Tale” “The Blind Watchmaker” “The Evolution of Life”

Are you seriously saying that the story of evolution is not a story? Before you answer, take one more look at the book titles.

I'm quite familiar with Richard Dawkins, but what does this have to do with anything? Of course the Theory of Evolution isn't a "story." We're not dealing with a story; we're dealing with Natural History, which includes evidences provided by paleontologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, biologists, geneticists and physicists.

As for the historical nature of the Geologic Column, I'm going to go with the evaluation of it that fellow Christians, Davis A. Young & Ralph F. Stearley, give of it in their book, The Bible, Rocks and Time.

I'm sure that if you read their book, you'd find you have much less to be afraid of in regard to the Geologic Column. It's not a God-denying myth.

 

[Derf]

I'm quite familiar with Richard Dawkins, but what does this have to do with anything? Of course the Theory of Evolution isn't a "story."

You're a funny guy!

We're not dealing with a story; we're dealing with Natural History, which includes evidences provided by paleontologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, biologists, geneticists and physicists.

And a narrative (="story") to try to put the pieces together. Evidence doesn't speak...it needs someone to examine and piece the evidences together in a way that best explains how the bits of evidence came to be.

As for the historical nature of the Geologic Column, I'm going to go with the evaluation of it that fellow Christians, Davis A. Young & Ralph F. Stearley, give of it in their book, The Bible, Rocks and Time.

I'm sure that if you read their book, you'd find you have much less to be afraid of in regard to the Geologic Column. It's not a God-denying myth.

I'm not afraid of the column, but I disagree with the story God-deniers want to associate with it. And Christians who blindly accept the story as truth are doing much more damage than the atheists who concocted it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're a funny guy!


And a narrative (="story") to try to put the pieces together. Evidence doesn't speak...it needs someone to examine and piece the evidences together in a way that best explains how the bits of evidence came to be.

I already know that. Going into the future, and being that I do study Hermeneutics with all else I've studied, just assume I have a handle on the place of interpetation in both science and in religion, even with the Christian Faith. OUR Christian Faith.

I'm not afraid of the column, but I disagree with the story God-deniers want to associate with it. And Christians who blindly accept the story as truth are doing much more damage than the atheists who concocted it.

Being that I'm an advocate of education, I'm all for promoting their furthered education so they don't blindly accept whatever story they're told, from whatever institution.

And no, educated Christians ARE NOT doing more damage than atheists. If you continue on that path of accusation, I'll rip it apart !!!

This kind of accusation insinuates that you're unwilling to engage the book that I cited, which seems to indicate that you yourself prefer to stick your head in the sand.

You can do better than this, can't you?