Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:
Normal
Advanced
Help

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
Message:
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.
Attachment:
    

Topic Review
LSemmens

[*] posted on 2-6-2014 at 02:00
So, you are saying, scholar, that evolution is real?
Badgergirl

[*] posted on 1-6-2014 at 18:19
Here's me thinking a Camel was a thick cable.

Which would make more sense.

"Kamilos"
scholar

[*] posted on 31-5-2014 at 19:39
Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
I'm listening to a series of lectures on philosophy and religion at the moment and some of the illustrations are quite interesting.
Quote:
e.g. I am walking along a beach and I see a beautiful rock, and I conclude, isn't nature wonderful. I then find a beautiful clock washed up on the shore and conclude, whoever made this was a magnificent craftsman. His point being, why did we conclude that the rock "just 'evolved'" with no intelligent design or that the clock was "manufactured" could it not have just as easily been the other way around, or both manufactured, or both evolved? After all, we have no evidence to prove one idea over the other.

Could it just as easily be that the clock evolved? No, absolutely not. The shape of the gears--each tooth, shaped according to a mathematical design, spaced around a circle in such a way as to come out evenly (so as to repeat with each revolution of the gear)--speaks of purposeful, intelligent planning. As does the arrangement of the gears so as to mesh with each other, and to move the hands of the clock. The design of the spring--its shape, its metallurgy, its positioning so as to move the gears after being wound to proper tension, does so as well.

It is simply not the case that a clock does not indicate design and purpose in its origins, instead of random chance.
John_Little

[*] posted on 30-5-2014 at 13:53
That's spooky. the first time I heard this was last night on "The Big Bang Theory" comedy show.
LSemmens

[*] posted on 30-5-2014 at 02:08
Therein lies the problem with all history. Unless we have a certified provenance, all we do is draw conclusions based on the evidence that we have. I'm listening to a series of lectures on philosophy and religion at the moment and some of the illustrations are quite interesting.
Quote:
e.g. I am walking along a beach and I see a beautiful rock, and I conclude, isn't nature wonderful. I then find a beautiful clock washed up on the shore and conclude, whoever made this was a magnificent craftsman. His point being, why did we conclude that the rock "just 'evolved'" with no intelligent design or that the clock was "manufactured" could it not have just as easily been the other way around, or both manufactured, or both evolved? After all, we have no evidence to prove one idea over the other.
The lectures are not promoting one tenet above the other but merely giving food for thought as to why we believe what we believe yet discount other thinking on the subject.
scholar

[*] posted on 30-5-2014 at 01:13
You can look at the archeological article to which MM's link refers here.

The chain of assumptions necessary for one to reach the conclusion of the archeologist authors is stated plainly enough. If any of them are wrong, the argument fails.

The logical problem in their argument is simple: they find evidence of domesticated dromedaries in the area at a certain period, and then write as if that were evidence that such camels were not in the area at an earlier time. Not having proof that the animals were there is NOT the same as having proof that the animals were not there.

Note also that they admit that dromedaries were in the area previously, but then they dismiss them as wild dromedaries. Their reason for doing so? They presume that domesticated camels would leave skeleton with lesions (which they attribute to their use as pack animals). But, they admit, if camels were kept for other reasons (e.g. for their milk), such lesions would not be expected.

I do like this about the article: they are at least working from evidence (i.e. skeletal remains of dromedaries), not from imaginary documents (such as JEDP fanciers do).
John Barnes

[*] posted on 29-5-2014 at 23:15
No doubt our friend Scholar will have something to say about this.
my advice is to stay calm scholar, jmb
Nimuae

[*] posted on 29-5-2014 at 22:01
Food for thought !
Katzy

[*] posted on 29-5-2014 at 20:42
Love the squirrels... :D
marymary100

[*] posted on 29-5-2014 at 20:11
Proof Bible written well after events?



Quote:
Newly published research by two archaeologists at Tel Aviv University in Israel shows that camels weren't domesticated in the eastern Mediterranean until the 10th century B.C.—several centuries after the time they appear in the Bible.

While there are conflicting theories about when the Bible was composed, the recent research suggests it was written much later than the events it describes. This supports earlier studies that have challenged the Bible's veracity as a historic document.

The biblical angle wasn't the focus of the recent research, though, just an after-the-fact observation.