by JH 39 Replies latest jw friends
Francois,
If you are talking about my post, here is my response:
The only "argument" that the Bible makes about how long those ancients lived is an assertion about how long they lived. The only evidence the Bible gives that what the Bible says about those long-lived ancients is that the Bible claims it tells the truth.
This is not a logical argument, and in fact, is a circular argument.
Therefore, it is subject to ridicule, and lots of it.
Farkel
Pre diluvian humans living extended life spans is an interesting concept. The theory is that Adam and his offspring were much less imperfect (less DNA mutation) than the post diluvian world. Also, there was a "Vapor" canopy over the earth which filtered out much of the radiation. The atmospheric pressure was double the 14.7psi that it is now. Oxygen content was also about double the ratio of the current nitrogen/oxygen mix. That's why plants and trees grew much larger. It may also explain why the Dinosaurs died after the flood since the water canopy was removed and consequently, the atmospheric pressure as well as the oxygen content fell to current levels. Thus, these dinos could not take in sufficient oxygen to stay alive for very long. Theoretically. with double the atmospheric pressure and double the oxygen you could run for hundreds of miles without running out of breath...Theoretically...
Farkel, as much as I detest quoting myself, I'm gonna do it anyway, "The Bible? Pitch the entire Hebrew scriptures." I believe that about covers your objection.
Where does the bible claim to tell the truth? Please cite scripture, any version.
Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
In fact, Farkle, it can neither be proven nor disproven whether any of those old codgers lived that long or not. There is no proof for nor against it anywhere, as much as it obviously offends your intelligence.
francois
Francois,
: In fact, Farkle, it can neither be proven nor disproven whether any of those old codgers lived that long or not. There is no proof for nor against it anywhere, as much as it obviously offends your intelligence.
Right. But the Bible MAKES that assertion, and offers not a shred of proof for it. One does not have to answer any assertion that is merely an assertion if that assertion is presented as FACT. If I said to you, all dogs who lived 2 million years ago had feathers which were made out of peanut shells ," and if you replied, "prove it," and I then replied with total silence, would you feel obligated to take the effort to disprove my claim?
With regards to the Bible's claims about it's accuracy, I believe it says that "ALL scripture is inspired by GOD and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for making things up, for setting up money-making religious rackets, for scaring the shit out of vulnerable people, etc....." Something like that.
Farkel
Farkel old man, that scripture you quote does not claim that the scriptures contains all truth. IN fact, what was scripture to the writer and the writee of your quote? The Hebrew Scriptures were the scriptures; the Greek Aramaic (from whence your quote comes) didn't even exist at the time, so your quote is nonsensical. Howsomeever, the scripture you quote does not make the subject claim. I don't believe that statement is made in scriptures anywhere.
Your sentiments are certainly honorable and understandable; your argumentation and logic, by contrast, is not so impressive.
francois
Francois,
Thank you very much for your insightful reply; dare I say it was almost comforting to see such honesty and humility from a theist. Science, specifically evolutionary biology and geology, was the foremost reason why I left the JWs and the Christian faith. Oh, perhaps the cruelties of Yahweh and the apocalyptic scare tactics of the Revelator were a more forceful reason for my disenchantment and rejection of the Bible. I do agree, though, that many of the sayings of Jesus are endearing (although not all; the whole thought of leaving everything behind for the kingdom seems fanatical, etc...).
I have come to the point where there is an either/or decision to be made, as Kierkegard put it. Either there is a God or there is not. I personally see no absolute proof for God's existence, yet I would love to think so. I've read a lot of Martin Gardner, someone who was a mathematician, writer debunking pseudoscience, and philisophical theist. He rejects Christianity and all forms of the paranormal, yet claims to be a philisophical theist; a deist of sorts. It's a quixotic leap of faith. I would hope to make it, but I cannot -- cannot -- give up my reasoning skills or scientific realism (I'm about to major in biology).
Ah, well. It's nice to be able to hear stories like yours. I hope to get further insight from you and your philisophical / scientific path.
All best,
Bradley
hrmmm...I always thought that a bigger gene pool meant more diversity and the possibility of one species and like Farkel and onacruse, subspecies, survive longer, not the other way around...but then again I got my degree in Evolutionary Theory & Genetics from the Sally Struther's TV Institute so what do I know?....All I had to do is draw the parrot w/the pirate hat on and send it in...viola!
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
Lot gets mentioned in Hebrews 11 for being a Good guy.
Lot also got drunk and had sex with both his daughters. Yes the OT is a scary book.
Francois, I'm completely confused by your response to Farkel. You seem to be saying that there is no burden of proof on anyone who says that people actually lived in excess of 900 years because it can't be proven either way and because the Bible doesn't claim to be true(?!). So, am I missing something, or are you?
The theory is that Adam and his offspring were much less imperfect (less DNA mutation) than the post diluvian world. Also, there was a "Vapor" canopy over the earth which filtered out much of the radiation. The atmospheric pressure was double the 14.7psi that it is now. Oxygen content was also about double the ratio of the current nitrogen/oxygen mix. That's why plants and trees grew much larger. It may also explain why the Dinosaurs died after the flood since the water canopy was removed and consequently, the atmospheric pressure as well as the oxygen content fell to current levels. Thus, these dinos could not take in sufficient oxygen to stay alive for very long. Theoretically. with double the atmospheric pressure and double the oxygen you could run for hundreds of miles without running out of breath...Theoretically...
A brilliant theory except for the following: There was no vapour canopy. No evidence exists of such, and there is no known way such a canopy could exist. There is no evidence for higher atmospheric pressure, and it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the life forms that currently exist to have existed under such conditions. There is no evidence that the oxygen content of our atmosphere was ever that high, trees would not grow larger as a result (nor is there any evidence that they ever did) humans would not be comfortable breathing the air and fires would rage uncontrollably. Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, not 4000. There is no evidence that they required significantly higher amounts of oxygen than do current life forms. With double the atmospheric pressure and double the oxygen, you could no run for hundreds of miles. In fact, you'd find it difficult to run at all.
Apart from that though, it's perfectly plausible.
