Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _ludwigm »

"turtles all the way down"

Image

Super-turtle! To avoid an infinite regress (the bottomless tower of turtles) one might consider a levitating superturtle, which is self-explaining and self-supporting. Theologians call this “a necessary being,” and some have tried to prove that such a being exists.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _Themis »

subgenius wrote:
Themis wrote:...I always love the turtles all the way down thinking.

Themis, once again your provide a great example of how you are yet another spoon fed "thinker" . As is the case with the "turtles", people such as yourself rely on a misrepresentation or distortion of actual facts (or worse, their own 'interpretation' of what something must surely mean).

But "think" about it this way...not turtles "all the way down" but rather the common 'clarification' of the first cause argument.... that a buzzard, with little strength, holds a snake in its beak for hours with nothing to rest upon...so it is not unreasonable for God to hold the earth in the sky for billions of years.

Now go sip your milk, meat disagrees with your digestion.


Get back to us when you have some substance. Any at all. Your analogy is one of the poorest I have seen. I love how we have to change the rules for first cause.

ludwigm,

I love how you say so much with pictures. Really shows a thoughtful mind. Refreshing here in the celestial these days.
42
_just me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _just me »

Wait. What is the difference between "think" and think?

Is one a fake thinking or a so-called thinking?
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
_LittleNipper
_Emeritus
Posts: 4518
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:49 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _LittleNipper »

Themis wrote:
LittleNipper wrote:Uniformitarians/evolutionists see what is observable today, expound on their theories and then project these backwards through time. They ignore any possibliity of a Creation or original perfection.


Many of them are Christians, and I doubt you understand the science.

They expect only natural processes at work and they compute these to be consistant and continuous.


It more complex and again I doubt you know much about it and why. Dating of things like the mid Atlantic ridge can be done with three different and independent dating methods. I doubt you understand how significant that is.

God wrote the Bible through the God selected and inspired prophets. When the Lord Jesus Christ came, He taught from the entire canonized Hebrew Old Testament. The selected Old Testament is the very same one Jews read from today. If there was some terrible scientific error, Christ would have said as much.


So in answer to my questions are you saying no you have not had God tell you this personally. I have to ask how you know God said these things?


Some Mormons call themselves "christian," does that mean that they are biblically sound in their teaching? Just because one calls himself a "christian," doesn't mean the one understands Christianity... Likewise, just because a group of technical people are called scientists, doesn't mean they have cornered the market on scientific understanding.
I am a christian and understand Jesus to be The Christ. Jesus created everything in his pre-incarnate form. He certainly knew if what the Old Testament said was true or not. I feel Jesus fully supports the Old Testament.
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _SteelHead »

So Jesus the god of love and forgiveness fully supports the wanton murder of children?
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _Themis »

LittleNipper wrote:
Some Mormons call themselves "christian," does that mean that they are biblically sound in their teaching?


Everyone likes to think their interpretation is the right one.

Just because one calls himself a "christian," doesn't mean the one understands Christianity... Likewise, just because a group of technical people are called scientists, doesn't mean they have cornered the market on scientific understanding.


Are you trying to say something here? Anyone can learn the science and can present what they think is right, but you will be asked for your evidence to back up your assertions. So far all you do is assert and avoid questions.

I am a christian and understand Jesus to be The Christ. Jesus created everything in his pre-incarnate form. He certainly knew if what the Old Testament said was true or not. I feel Jesus fully supports the Old Testament.


And I predict you will continue to avoid my question about how you know this. Did God tell you personally?
42
_jo1952
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _jo1952 »

ludwigm wrote:"turtles all the way down"

Image

Super-turtle! To avoid an infinite regress (the bottomless tower of turtles) one might consider a levitating superturtle, which is self-explaining and self-supporting. Theologians call this “a necessary being,” and some have tried to prove that such a being exists.


Philosophically speaking, if this became a leaning tower of turtles, would the earth roll off the back of the elephant, then crash, and shatter?

jo
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _Themis »

jo1952 wrote:
ludwigm wrote:"turtles all the way down"

Image

Super-turtle! To avoid an infinite regress (the bottomless tower of turtles) one might consider a levitating superturtle, which is self-explaining and self-supporting. Theologians call this “a necessary being,” and some have tried to prove that such a being exists.


Philosophically speaking, if this became a leaning tower of turtles, would the earth roll off the back of the elephant, then crash, and shatter?

jo


It happened once about 4-5k years ago. It fell into the pool. :razz:
Last edited by Guest on Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
42
_jo1952
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _jo1952 »

Themis wrote:It happened once about 4-5 years ago. It fell into the pool. :razz:


Whew - a water landing!! :cool:
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _subgenius »

SteelHead wrote:So Jesus the god of love and forgiveness fully supports the wanton murder of children?

there is no evidence that a murder took place...but perhaps you have some inside information you can share?
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Post Reply