Discussion from "Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS"

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#81  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 04, 2010 11:24 pm

rickstones wrote:I do want to thank you for taking time to provide feedback and information. I don’t know if you were doing it because you really cared that I receive it, or because you feel a compelling need to nip supernaturalists in the bud as quickly as possible. Either way, I feel like I did in fact benefit from the effort. The most valuable post was from DanDare, when he said,

“It is because you are thinking that space was there, but empty, and that the big bang happened at a point and expanded outward into the pre existing empty space.
What happened was that space was dense. Its metric expanded making more "room" for everything in it. The starting point and all of time-space today are the same thing. the starting point is all around us, not "over there" somewhere.”


I actually was not thinking of the universe expanding into empty space available to receive it. I do “get” the idea that there is nothing (except God) beyond the boundaries of the universe, at all its various stages and sizes. But I guess I had never considered the implication that everything, including this cubic centimeter of space before my nose, is part of the “starting point” itself. I think Calilasseia was also saying this to me as he described the metrical expansion of space-time, but it didn’t sink in until DanDare said “the starting point is all around us”. So thanks for that.

As cool as this idea is, I still don’t understand how it limits the possibility of a unique frame of reference existing at the point of origin of the expansion, when compared to our current location of expansion (and I see Calilassea performing a perfectly executed “face-palm” right now). Our circumstances now, are unique to us. The angular momentum caused by the unique gravitational forces under which we are influenced causes us to spin in circles, within circles, within circles, etc. I marvel at how we don’t spend our lives on our hands and knees retching our guts up.


That's because gravity ensures that what we experience is close to an inertial reference frame. Indeed, it's one of the hallmarks of general relativity, that gravity and accelerative motion are indistinguishable from the standpoint of inertia.

rickstones wrote:So when we observe the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and we notice it has one big honk’n wavelength


1.9 mm isn't a "big honking wavelength". Humans have generated radio waves with far longer wavelengths. Back when I was a child, the BBC had long wave radio transmitters that transmitted radio waves with a wavelength of 1500 m. Plus, once again, the CMBR is NOT coupled to time passing in a different reference frame, because ... wait for it ... the universe began with one reference frame. All that has happened is that local regions of that reference frame have become separated courtesy of metrical expansion. There were no gravity wells when the photons of the CMBR were initially emitted, because gravity had yet to assemble hydrogen atoms into large composite gravitating masses. The sort of gravity wells that would be needed to slow time to the extent required to force-fit 13.6 billion years into 6 days would be gravity wells associated with enormous black holes. That calculation you yourself cited with respect to the Sun's gravity well illustrates this nicely, since the Sun's gravity well only imposes deviations on the order of microseconds. Likewise, there were no high-speed motions of emitter sources that could have resulted in time dilation. We know this because the homogeneity of the CMBR would be far less if such high-speed sources had existed. Instead, the CMBR is homogeneous to such an extent that the error bars on the spectral power graph are too small to draw upon it.

rickstones wrote:we know that it represents a very slow ticking clock at its origin compared to our clock.


We know nothing of the sort, for the reasons I have already given. NONE of the conditions that could have produced your mythical "slower ticking clock" existed when those photons were emitted. This is established fact. It is established fact because the homogeneity of the signal is too great. The sort of conditions needed to produce time dilation of the sort you continue to insist took place simply did not exist, and we know this because if they had existed, they would have introduced enormous inhomogeneities into the signal that are simply not present.

rickstones wrote:TThat’s what it must represent.


Wrong. See above.

rickstones wrote:Since the relative velocity of EMR is identical in all reference frames (this fact alone is enough to make me give up), when photon A, (from reference frame “earth”) takes a look at photon B (from reference frame “CMBR”), no relative difference in velocity is observed; the variable that changed is “time”, as manifested in the redshift.


And as I have already stated, that redshift has nothing to do with time dilation, it is the product of metrical expansion. Which is why I exercised care to distinguish between cosmological redshift and Doppler redshift.

rickstones wrote:I think Dr. Schroeder attributes the time dilation to the expansion of the universe alone, but I’m not sure. I am not capable of representing his views. I’m only trying to provide a “book report” from my layman’s perspective.


And I, on the other hand, am providing what I know from having spent time studying physics.

rickstones wrote:I will only say that Schroeder is certainly more than qualified to theorize about this possibility. He received his PhD from M.I.T. in physics and oceanography, worked in the MIT physics department for several years before performing research for the US government developing methods for detecting underground nuclear explosions. He has worked at the Weizmann Institute of Science and then the Volcani Research Institute in Jerusalem, and performs research at the Hebrew University.


Mere argument from authority. I'll give you three guesses how little attention is paid to this here.

rickstones wrote:He likely understands the issues involved, and he still believes there is a possibility of time dilation at the location of original expansion verses this current location of expansion which we call “home”.


And I've just cited sound physical reasons why this is NOT possible, based upon the actual physical evidence. Which leads me to ask why Schroeder is ignoring this.

rickstones wrote:As regards the tenor and focus of this message board, even though I did receive some really interesting information to think about, I gotta tell y’all – you didn’t make it pleasant.


There is a reason for this. The regulars here are veterans of several years of battling with duplicitous ideological stormtroopers for doctrine. They have a habit of operating on a hair trigger as a consequence.

rickstones wrote:So here is just a little personal observation, a gift of feedback from me to you…


* Twiddles thumbs *

rickstones wrote:Hypocrisy


Interesting. I wonder what canards are going to be erected here?

rickstones wrote:I don’t know off the top of my head the definition of hypocrisy, but whatever it is, one of the observable manifestations must surely be the criticizing of someone for activity or behavior in which you, yourself, engage frequently – perhaps even instinctively. As an example, several people here seem to consider “apologetics” to be a negative term. As if it implies “covering up error”.


Actually, the reason that the veterans here consider apologetics to be worthless is because it is demonstrably the art of erecting convoluted semantic fabrications, for the purpose of providing the illusion of support for presuppositions with which to dazzle the gullible.

rickstones wrote: It actually means nothing of the sort. It refers to the discipline of defending one’s position through logic and systematic reason.


Wrong. The fabrications that are erected within the world of apologetics would be considered wholly invalid in genuine logical discourse. Since I spent some time studying this, I happen to know a thing or two about it. Indeed, when I was studying this, one of the seminal texts that was used to teach the subject was Willard Van Orman Quine's Methods of Logic. You might do well to pick it up and read it.

Indeed, having experienced examples of apologetics here and elsewhere, I can tell you that logic has precious little to do with it.

rickstones wrote:Nevertheless, it seems to be one of the “trigger” words that is used to toss in the faces of religious people, in an attempt embarrass them. As an example, Calilessia wrote this:

“Lame apologetics and nothing else… And please, spare us the apologetics that have been erected about this, because we've been there and done that before.”


And yet, when I wrote “The dominant view before Einstein, was of an eternal universe, one that had always existed.”

Calilessia also wrote this:

“That was because scientists took time alighting upon evidence for something other. How does this validate 3,000 year old mythology?”


It would appear that Apologetics is not reserved exclusively for the defense of religious subjects only, eh? (!)


It appears you require some education with respect to this.

The simple fact is, that 3,000 year old mythology erects specific assertions about the origin of the universe. Those assertions are now known to be wrong. We know that those assertions are wrong because REALITY tells us that they are wrong. The universe is a LOT older than 6,000 years, and the fatuous devices erected by various creationists to try and force-fit a 13.6 billion year universe into the limited, parochial vision of Bronze Age nomads all involve physically unreal phenomena. If the universe genuinely was only 6,000 years old, creationists wouldn't have to do this, because amongst other things, no rock sample would date to a greater age. Plus, a significant number of radionuclides would still be in existence within the planet's crust, because they have half-lives greater than 6,000 years, but are not in existence because the amount of time that has elapsed since the formation of the Earth is greater than 20 half-lives for each of those isotopes. This, along with objects being visible at distances greater than 6,000 light years, constitutes just one of the many consilient pieces of real world evidence that refutes the assertions of 3,000 year old mythology. No "apologetics" required.

rickstones wrote:Superficiality


I wonder what canards are to be erected here?

rickstones wrote:Some here appear to take offense when they detect someone may be treating their favorite subject areas in a superficial manner. For example, Calilessia wrote these things:

“Try 13.6 billion years old. This is the current scientific consensus based upon the evidence. It would be helpful if you could manage to state scientific postulates correctly.”


Well if you intend to critique valid science, and more to the point, overthrow its most robustly evidentially supported paradigms, then a certain minimum level of competence is required during the exercise.

rickstones wrote:And

“Actually, it's 2.725 K at present. Once again, do try and master the elementary facts.”


Yet, while railing against superficial treatment of science, you embarrass yourself by locating a list of superficial inconsistencies or contradictions in the Bible on some silly website, and then using these things to lob as though they are debate-ending hand-grenades.


Excuse me, but these "superficial" inconsistencies are anything but "superficial". They testify to the ignorance of the original authors. This includes instances of ignorance of basic biology that are of such a level, that a reasonably astute five year old child in the present day can determine that they are absurdly wrong, simply by paying attention to physical reality. The idea that any mythology containing such manifest absurdities can claim to have answers to profound questions is frankly ludicrous.

rickstones wrote:I was not being critical of science when I said it took an Einstein to to harmonize with the first word of Scripture.


Except that Einstein did nothing of the sort. Indeed, if you check the actual history of cosmology, you will find that the first evidence for something other than a steady-state universe was due to Edwin Hubble. Einstein's relativistic physics, however, provided a framework allowing this to be placed within a rigorous analytical framework. This, of course, neglects proper consideration of, and dispensation of credit to, the work of various others. Such as Emmy Noether, whose central theorem coupling symmetries of action principles with conservation laws, was a key step in the development of a rigorous relativistic physics.

rickstones wrote:The nature of science is that it must learn. That is its virtue. If you want to understand the scientific explanation for the origin of the universe would you select a text written in 1950 or one written in 2010? Science must learn.


Congratulations. A principle that several supernaturalists appear not to understand.

rickstones wrote:The Bible, on the other hand, is fixed. Thirty-One verses, five minutes of superficial reading, to describe subjects that could fill entire science libraries and occupy many people's lifetimes. Do you really think a superficial reading of these 31 verses will yield anything of value?


And in admitting this, you have just destroyed any chance of this mythology being of utility value with respect to such questions.

rickstones wrote:Superficiality is a loser in every endeavor my friends. You really should avoid it.


It is the very fact that this mythology fails to provide even an elementary connection to reality that is being pointed out. Because it erects assertions that are flatly refuted by diligent observation of physical reality.

rickstones wrote:Condescension


I wonder what canards are to be erected here?

rickstones wrote:Finally, I find it interesting that Calilessa would write, and apparently believe, this:

“Tell me, what should I pay attention to with respect to questions involving physics? The diseased ramblings of retarded Bronze Age nomads, who thought that you could change the genetic constitution of livestock by having them shag alongside different coloured sticks, and who couldn't count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses? Or actual research physicists who have spent decades labouring intensely with respect both to theory and experiment?


It would help if you could quote both my user name and my text constributions correctly. Since I exercise diligent effort in this vein with respect to the contributions of others, I am entitled to expect the same level of effort from those who claim to be in a position to refute my postulates.

rickstones wrote:So, when I consider the Bible, I see a collection of 66 books, written by at least 40 different people, with widely varying backgrounds and educations (kings, philosophers, poets, scholars, physicians, fishermen, shepherds…) over a period of at least 1,500 years, in three different continents, in three different languages, to address a wide variety of different and unique circumstances – and yet, when viewed together, there is a consistency of theme that is… well, miraculous and supernatural.


Actual scholars of the text, I hasten to inform you, would disagree with this.

rickstones wrote:This theme, from beginning to end, free of any contradiction (beyond the superficial),


Oh, you think that, for example, erecting two completely different genealogies, that are not even consistent with respect to the number of generations involved, both purporting to be the genealogy of the same individual, is a "superficial" matter? Particularly when that genealogy is that of the central character of that mythology?

If you think this is merely a "superficial" matter, then this once again illustrates why the critical thinkers regard apologetics with disdain at the very least.

rickstones wrote:is the unthinkable and relentlessly loving plan of your maker to save you from yourself.


Blind assertion and nothing more. Since when was this entity ever placed upon a rigorous footing? Because until the matter of the existence of this entity is placed upon a critically robust evidentially supported footing, all other assertions about this entity, including any purported "plan" that this entity may or may not have devised, are nothing more than speculation and fantasy.

Plus, with respect to the assertion that this entity "loves" us, there are enough holes in that idea to render it a two dimensional version of the Cantor Dust.

rickstones wrote:The Bible has been preserved through the tenacious dedication of the Hebrew people throughout these many centuries through a commitment and process that is barely conceivable.


No, it is comprehensible in elementary terms: these people decided that their mythology was the last word in knowledge, and consequently, they were motivated to hold on to it. Ideologies and doctrines have a habit of exerting a hold on human minds. Indeed, supernaturalism has been perfecting this process for five millennia.

rickstones wrote:When the great Isaiah scroll was discovered in Qumran, an extant document a full 1,000 years older than the oldest known Masoretic texts, there was understandable fear at the implications. A thousand year gap! What would this discovery reveal about our Bible? Would errors or inconsistencies be discovered that would invalidate significant doctrine? But, as a testimony to the generations of lives of a dedicated people, who really did know what it was to labor over a life-work, we found virtually no difference between the Qumran documents versus the Masoretic texts.


The Oxford Companion to Archaeology disagrees with you.

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.


Of course, this applies to the entire panoply of the scrolls considered as a whole. But the fact remains that not only do scholars who have studied the actual texts now consider them to be illustrative of differing traditions with respect to the compilation of these documents. The division is approximately 60% in conformity with later Masoretic text, 5% in conformity with the Septuagint version, 5% in conformity with the Samaritan text, 20% belonging to a tradition unique to the scrolls themselves, and 10% fall into a category described as "monaligned". This website covers the details more fully, but I notice that this website states that a feature of the production of these texts is deliberate emendation by the scribes. The picture would appear to be rather different than the simplistic one you have painted above.

rickstones wrote:Whether you know it or not, you owe these people a massive debt of gratitude.


What, for passing on manifest absurdity with respect to basic biology?

Tell me, do you really think that you can change the genetics of a livestock population in the manner described in that mythology, simply by having the animals shag next to different coloured sticks? Because if you wish to assert that this mythology is "inerrant" or some other such phrase, this is what you are signing up to. Unfortunately, reality says something different about genetics, as elucidated on a systematic basis first by Mendel, and later by a range of other scientists, including Crick & Watson.

rickstones wrote:The Bible has been handed down through the extreme dedication of thousands of people, fighting and dying against their own brethren to accomplish this mission.


As I said, doctrines have a habit of exerting a hold on human minds. It's why they ar regarded as a malign influence by many here.

rickstones wrote:People have willingly gone to the stake to be burned in order that the Bible could be preserved and translated into languages that we can read and understand


Because other people didn't want them to find out the actual text for themselves. Because, surprise, surprise, they were using it as a tool for political control. I recall Seneca the Younger had something to say on this matter.

rickstones wrote:and from which we can "quote-mine" superficial and meaningless inconsistencies - so that we can use them to gaze at our belly-buttons.


Excuse me, but since supernaturalists have been cherry-picking this work to support their assertions for nearly two millennia, it's a bit rich for the same supernaturalists to complain about others alighting upon the absurdities contained within this work, not to mention the rectally extracted blind assertions that are flatly contradicted by physical reality.

rickstones wrote:Thousands more have willingly given their lives in defense of their belief. Now that's what I call “Apologetics”.


As I said, doctrines have a habit of exerting a powerful influence over adherents. It's one of the reasons the critical thinkers regard them as malign.

rickstones wrote:So, let’s not hear any insulting and condescending nonsense about research physicists who spend decades laboring intensely.


If you think lots of scribes acting as human Xerox machines is in any way comparable to genuine scientific research, then I contend that you are in need of an education.

rickstones wrote:If they are successful in their labor, and they finally reach the summit of the scientific mountain they have been climbing these decades, what they will undoubtedly find is that summit of their mountain is filled with theologians who love them, and have been waiting patiently for them to arrive. PARTY TIME!!!


I'll treat this manifest wet dream with the scorn and derision that it deserves.

The idea that theologians have anything of use to say on the subject of cosmology, based upon mythological blind assertion, is fatuous in the extreme. The entire business of theology consists of making shit up to support a massive ex recto assertion that an invisible magic man in the sky exists. The idea that this constitutes a genuine intellectual discipline is one of those conceits that supernaturalists have been allowed to get away with for far too long.

rickstones wrote:And, even though I know it’s difficult to envision, I pray that God’s prevenient grace will find you all.


Ah yes ... "I'll talk to my magic man, and he will change your thinking". I'm minded to recall the amputees business at this juncture.

rickstones wrote:With God, all things are possible.


Another blind assertion. Yawn. Got any substance to contribute?

rickstones wrote:And at the very least, I have given hackenslash the satisfaction of being able to post another message crowing about his shaker prophecy has been fulfilled.


Supernaturalists before you have set the relevant precedents.

rickstones wrote:God’s peace and hope to you all my brothers and sisters. Agape!


Yawn.

So, you've now come out and admitted that you're here to propagandise for a doctrine. Quelle surprise. Tell me, was my effort educating you with respect to the actual physics completely wasted on you as a consequence? Only your latest excursion into the realms of supernaturalist blind assertion suggest strongly that this is the case.

Here's a little clue for you. We don't regard your mythology as anything other than the diseased scribblings of retarded Bronze Age nomads, who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses. We regard its blind assertions as falling into one of two categories, either completely unsupported by reality, or outright refuted by reality. Therefore, if you want us to change our views on this, you had better provide something a little more substantive than the presentation of yet more blind ex recto assertions, several of which fail to withstand even elementary scrutiny.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22634
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#82  Postby Goldenmane » Aug 05, 2010 1:22 am

rickstones wrote:
Wuffy wrote:Actually an ad hominem would be saying; Your argument is bullshit because you are acting like a twit.

Simply stating you are acting like a twit and handling the arguments separately, does not ad hominem make.

Edit: I'm not even sure which way the accusations are flying, decided just to clear up ad hominem

Thanks for clarifying this point. I apologize, and request an opportunity to correct my mistake. Goldenmane said this:
"Dr Seuss makes more sense than anything you've come out with."


So if you all would allow me a mulligan, I would modify my response to the following:
"Perhaps you are right. Dr. Seuss certainly is more widely published than me. But I do wish you would modify your behavior and stop acting like a tiny-fisted foot-stamper."


Uhuh.

More nonsensical bullshit.

:nono:
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

http://goldenmane.onlineinfidels.com/
User avatar
Goldenmane
 
Posts: 2383

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#83  Postby rickstones » Aug 05, 2010 2:33 am

Three things:

One
Calilasseia wrote: It would help if you could quote both my user name and my text constributions correctly. Since I exercise diligent effort in this vein with respect to the contributions of others, I am entitled to expect the same level of effort from those who claim to be in a position to refute my postulates.

I do apologize. It was not an attempt to offend. I will be more careful.

Two
Calilasseia wrote again: So, you've now come out and admitted that you're here to propagandise for a doctrine. Quelle surprise. Tell me, was my effort educating you with respect to the actual physics completely wasted on you as a consequence? Only your latest excursion into the realms of supernaturalist blind assertion suggest strongly that this is the case.

From my first post, I never attempted to conceal my worldview. I came here honestly seeking information and have offered my gratitude for that which you and others have provided. But I must admit, I didn’t expect the over-the-top animosity. I don’t know if I used the wrong approach, and came across as a “wise-guy”. If so, I regret it. I was really only attempting to break the ice with a bit of humor. But anyway, I came here begging for information, and beggars can’t define the terms of their endowments. So be it.

Three
I do not intend to respond to all the biblical inconsistencies and contradictions you have regurgitated. Frankly you and the others here know that I cannot “explain away” some of the things you have brought up. The Bible is not a cosmology, or entomology text. It is a “redemption” text, written in a diverse collection of literary styles. If you want to know how many legs various insects have, there are better sources than the Bible for discovering that information (I am truly surprised you haven’t regurgitated the inconsistency that I suspect would likely have the biggest impact on the people of a board such as this one – namely the apparent error in the formula for calculating the circumference of a circle in 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2...)

But, after having said that, I will, in fact, address the “canard you have erected” (wink) regarding the genealogies of Christ found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Calilasseia wrote: Oh, you think that, for example, erecting two completely different genealogies, that are not even consistent with respect to the number of generations involved, both purporting to be the genealogy of the same individual, is a "superficial" matter? Particularly when that genealogy is that of the central character of that mythology?

If you think this is merely a "superficial" matter, then this once again illustrates why the critical thinkers regard apologetics with disdain at the very least.

You have not asked for an explanation, so I assume you really do not want one, but this example does set the stage for a fairly decent illustration of my prior assertion regarding superficiality. So here it is…

God promised very early that the Jewish Messiah (Christ in Greek) would be brought forth from the tribe of Judah, and specifically from the lineage of King David (see Genesis 49:10 and 2 Samuel 7:11-16). The Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel with a Jewish audience in mind. He is presenting Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. In the first chapter, he presents His genealogy to establish the legal claim of Jesus to the throne of David according to God’s promise. By presenting the genealogy through King Solomon, he describes the direct line of descent to the throne of David through Jesus’ adoptive, or surrogate, father Joseph. Let’s consider a few points about the genealogy of Jesus:

1. Could Joseph himself have claimed a “legal” right to inherit the throne of David?

No, he could not. There happens to be a really big problem lurking here; a problem created by God Himself. Directly in the line of descent from King David to Joseph is a guy named Jeconiah (he is called by several names in Scripture: Jechonias, Jechoniah, Coniah). But by whatever name, Jeconiah was apparently the “last straw” from God’s perspective. Through the prophet Jeremiah, God pronounced a blood-curse on Jeconiah, and declared that no one descended through him would ever rule from David’s throne again, “Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.” (Jeremiah 22:30)

So every man listed in Matthew’s genealogy between Jechoniah and Joseph is disqualified on the basis of God’s proclamation.

2. Doesn’t God’s curse also disqualify Jesus from ever ruling from David’s throne?

It sure looks like God has painted Himself into a corner with this curse on Jeconiah. But hold on, this is where things begin getting exciting. Jesus, as it turns out, is not subject to the curse. Because of the virgin birth, Joseph is not Jesus’ blood-father. Therefore, Jesus is not descended (by blood) through the cursed line of Jeconiah, only legally through his surrogate father Joseph.

3. Does that mean that Jesus’ only claim to the throne is an inherited legal claim through Joseph and not by a physical, blood-relationship to King David?

To answer this question, we need to take a look at the other genealogy of Jesus which is given to us in the Gospel of Luke. The genealogies in Luke and Matthew are in lock-step until we arrive at King David (actually Luke’s genealogy traces Jesus’ ancestry back much further than Matthew’s, which begins with Abraham, but from Abraham to King David, the two are in harmony). But from King David forward, Luke’s genealogy makes a sharp departure from Matthew’s. Instead of tracing the lineage through King Solomon as we see in Matthew, Luke begins following the offspring of Nathan, another surviving son of David and Bathsheba (Solomon’s brother): “the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse” (Luke 3:31-32)

Here is where a superficial reading will get one in trouble. This is not a conflict with Matthew's genealogy. Luke is describing the lineage of Mary who, as it turns out, is also a direct descendant of King David, but through Nathan rather than through King Solomon. “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, (Luke 3:23)

Heli is Mary’s father, but because of the inheritance laws described in Numbers 27 and 36, Heli adopts Joseph as his legal son and heir (for reference, see: Ezra 2:61=Nehemiah 7:63; Numbers 32:41, cf. 1Chron 2:21-23, 34-35)

So then, Jesus’ legal claim to David’s throne is established in Matthew’s genealogy through Joseph, and His blood relationship to King David himself is established in Luke’s genealogy through Mary. Christ’s royal inheritance is fully and truly established, and the blood-curse on Jechoniah is completely by-passed.

Here’s the message God sent to Mary when the time came for Jesus to enter His creation: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to Him the throne of his father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” (Luke 1:30-33)

Wow. Don’t you just love this! When God paints Himself into a corner, He just knocks the walls down and keeps on painting! Why was the virgin birth necessary? Probably for many reasons, but isn't this end-run around the curse on Jeconiah one of the coolest you could imagine?

Many of the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions in Scripture, I believe, are placed here for a purpose. They represent what the rabbi’s would call a remez, a hint of something deeper; an opportunity to be drawn into a closer partnership of discovery with the loving being who created you. But there is a frightening verse of Scripture in 1 Corinthians that says this: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

There are two ways to know God. One is through the efforts of science as we (er… I mean you) attempt to explore and understand His creation around us. The other is to study and explore his revelation to us – i.e., the Bible. The frightening thing about Paul’s comment here in 1 Corinthians, is that I think he is saying that the Bible is necessary to know God, but God is necessary to know the Bible. That, of course, is the purpose for my prayers for you all.
rickstones
 
Name: Rick Stones
Posts: 34
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#84  Postby GenesForLife » Aug 05, 2010 3:43 am

Circular reasoning... what the babble says is true because the babble says it? despite the fact that elementary genetics and inheritance suggest virgin births are implausible by the natural mechanisms at work, so, if you allude magic took place you're bound to either bring up evidence that such a thing happened (which would require suspension of the laws of nature, and hasn't been recorded) or be treated with scorn and derision. This is the classical hallmark of apologetics, to assert that when doctrine and reality differ, doctrine is right and reality is wrong and in my view, scorn and derision is what it deserves.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 34
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#85  Postby Rumraket » Aug 05, 2010 7:08 am

I'd like to add that I still don't think there is anything inherently wrong with me that I need "saving" from. And perhaps even more importantly, to brutally torture and murder another man as some kind "payment" for "sins" I have yet to commit, is babaric and grotesque.

Additionally, the virgin birth assertion is entirely the product of nervous, perverted men who actively fear the mouth and vagina of experienced women, and therefore desired inexperienced girls purely because these girls wouldn't be able to tell them that their handling of their useless, flaccid cocks was amateurish, at best. lol.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13264
Age: 43

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#86  Postby Lizard_King » Aug 05, 2010 8:00 am

Rumraket wrote:I'd like to add that I still don't think there is anything inherently wrong with me that I need "saving" from. And perhaps even more importantly, to brutally torture and murder another man as some kind "payment" for "sins" I have yet to commit, is babaric and grotesque.

Additionally, the virgin birth assertion is entirely the product of nervous, perverted men who actively fear the mouth and vagina of experienced women, and therefore desired inexperienced girls purely because these girls wouldn't be able to tell them that their handling of their useless, flaccid cocks was amateurish, at best. lol.


:rofl:

Beautiful. Well said, mate. :clap:

Man, this thread is comedy gold...
"Yet again it is demonstrated that monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents."
- Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
Lizard_King
 
Posts: 1091
Age: 36
Male

Country: Austria
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#87  Postby rickstones » Aug 05, 2010 10:47 am

GenesForLife wrote:Circular reasoning... what the babble says is true because the babble says it? despite the fact that elementary genetics and inheritance suggest virgin births are implausible by the natural mechanisms at work, so, if you allude magic took place you're bound to either bring up evidence that such a thing happened (which would require suspension of the laws of nature, and hasn't been recorded) or be treated with scorn and derision. This is the classical hallmark of apologetics, to assert that when doctrine and reality differ, doctrine is right and reality is wrong and in my view, scorn and derision is what it deserves.


I wasn't attempting to convince you of the authenticity of the virgin birth (although I think I could accomplish one myself with a decent lab notebook and access to a high school chemistry lab). Whether you personally believe it or not is not the point. The authors of Matthew and Luke did in fact believe it, and had it in mind when they wrote their Gospels. My point was that people who open the Bible and see differences in the names listed there, and begin squealing about obvious contradictions, are baseing their assertions on a superficial treatment of the Bible.

So, if you choose to change the topic and meander off in other directions in your eagerness to be the first to treat the silly religious man with "scorn and derision", c'est la vie. But as I stated in an earlier post, superficiality is a loser in all endeavors, including penis measuring contests on internet message boards.
rickstones
 
Name: Rick Stones
Posts: 34
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#88  Postby DanDare » Aug 05, 2010 11:59 am

Ok, this has gone way off topic now. This thread is about creationism. If you want to argue that the bible is a flawed document full of errors (check) that has nothing to say about biology (check) but is a great “redemption” text (whatever that means) then argue it in a new thread under christianity.
Atheist. Ozzie.
Strange Flight
User avatar
DanDare
RS Donator
 
Posts: 1900
Age: 62
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#89  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 05, 2010 12:56 pm

rickstones wrote:Three things:

One
Calilasseia wrote: It would help if you could quote both my user name and my text constributions correctly. Since I exercise diligent effort in this vein with respect to the contributions of others, I am entitled to expect the same level of effort from those who claim to be in a position to refute my postulates.

I do apologize. It was not an attempt to offend. I will be more careful.


Accepted. We can now move on.

rickstones wrote:Two
Calilasseia wrote again: So, you've now come out and admitted that you're here to propagandise for a doctrine. Quelle surprise. Tell me, was my effort educating you with respect to the actual physics completely wasted on you as a consequence? Only your latest excursion into the realms of supernaturalist blind assertion suggest strongly that this is the case.

From my first post, I never attempted to conceal my worldview. I came here honestly seeking information and have offered my gratitude for that which you and others have provided. But I must admit, I didn’t expect the over-the-top animosity. I don’t know if I used the wrong approach, and came across as a “wise-guy”. If so, I regret it. I was really only attempting to break the ice with a bit of humor. But anyway, I came here begging for information, and beggars can’t define the terms of their endowments. So be it.


The problem here being that you continued to erect assertions after the information refuting those assertions was presented to you. I'd already dealt with Schroeder's wibble about time dilation by referring to the actual physics.

rickstones wrote:Three
I do not intend to respond to all the biblical inconsistencies and contradictions you have regurgitated. Frankly you and the others here know that I cannot “explain away” some of the things you have brought up. The Bible is not a cosmology, or entomology text.


Tell that to some of your fellow supernaturalists, who think that this mythology constitutes the last word in knowledge, and that science is wrong when it fails to genuflect before that mythology.

rickstones wrote:It is a “redemption” text, written in a diverse collection of literary styles. If you want to know how many legs various insects have, there are better sources than the Bible for discovering that information (I am truly surprised you haven’t regurgitated the inconsistency that I suspect would likely have the biggest impact on the people of a board such as this one – namely the apparent error in the formula for calculating the circumference of a circle in 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2...)


This has been noted elsewhere. Plus, there are problems even with the approach you are taking here, because the entire Adam and Eve fiction fails as a moral homily too. I'll let you think about that, and see if you can discover why that is.

rickstones wrote:But, after having said that, I will, in fact, address the “canard you have erected” (wink) regarding the genealogies of Christ found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.


Oh lovely. I can hardly wait.

rickstones wrote:
Calilasseia wrote: Oh, you think that, for example, erecting two completely different genealogies, that are not even consistent with respect to the number of generations involved, both purporting to be the genealogy of the same individual, is a "superficial" matter? Particularly when that genealogy is that of the central character of that mythology?

If you think this is merely a "superficial" matter, then this once again illustrates why the critical thinkers regard apologetics with disdain at the very least.


You have not asked for an explanation, so I assume you really do not want one


That's the problem with supernaturalists - they assume too much.

rickstones wrote:but this example does set the stage for a fairly decent illustration of my prior assertion regarding superficiality. So here it is…


* Twiddles thumbs waiting ... *

rickstones wrote:God promised very early that the Jewish Messiah (Christ in Greek) would be brought forth from the tribe of Judah, and specifically from the lineage of King David (see Genesis 49:10 and 2 Samuel 7:11-16). The Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel with a Jewish audience in mind. He is presenting Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. In the first chapter, he presents His genealogy to establish the legal claim of Jesus to the throne of David according to God’s promise. By presenting the genealogy through King Solomon, he describes the direct line of descent to the throne of David through Jesus’ adoptive, or surrogate, father Joseph.


Interesting ... let's see where this leads, shall we?

rickstones wrote:Let’s consider a few points about the genealogy of Jesus:

1. Could Joseph himself have claimed a “legal” right to inherit the throne of David?

No, he could not. There happens to be a really big problem lurking here; a problem created by God Himself. Directly in the line of descent from King David to Joseph is a guy named Jeconiah (he is called by several names in Scripture: Jechonias, Jechoniah, Coniah). But by whatever name, Jeconiah was apparently the “last straw” from God’s perspective. Through the prophet Jeremiah, God pronounced a blood-curse on Jeconiah, and declared that no one descended through him would ever rule from David’s throne again, “Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.” (Jeremiah 22:30)

So every man listed in Matthew’s genealogy between Jechoniah and Joseph is disqualified on the basis of God’s proclamation.


Which rather makes one wonder why Matthew bothered writing this, doesn't it? Surely he must have known about this 'big problem' before he set about constructing this genealogy? If he didn't, then this means that he didn't pay enough attention to the mythology he was using to base his construction upon. If he did know about this problem, then this leads to the inexorable conclusion that he lied. Incompetence or deceit are the only two valid explanations here.

rickstones wrote:2. Doesn’t God’s curse also disqualify Jesus from ever ruling from David’s throne?

It sure looks like God has painted Himself into a corner with this curse on Jeconiah. But hold on, this is where things begin getting exciting. Jesus, as it turns out, is not subject to the curse. Because of the virgin birth, Joseph is not Jesus’ blood-father. Therefore, Jesus is not descended (by blood) through the cursed line of Jeconiah, only legally through his surrogate father Joseph.


Ah, the appeal to magic. Wondered when this would turn up.

So the pseudo-argument that is being erected here, is that a magic entity engaged in some interesting mononuclear reproduction, using an ill-educated young Jewish girl as the lab bench for the purpose, and that this somehow circumvents the legal requirement that any occupant of the throne must be a lineal descendant of a past occupant. I'd really like to see you run that one through a court of law.

rickstones wrote:3. Does that mean that Jesus’ only claim to the throne is an inherited legal claim through Joseph and not by a physical, blood-relationship to King David?

To answer this question, we need to take a look at the other genealogy of Jesus which is given to us in the Gospel of Luke. The genealogies in Luke and Matthew are in lock-step until we arrive at King David (actually Luke’s genealogy traces Jesus’ ancestry back much further than Matthew’s, which begins with Abraham, but from Abraham to King David, the two are in harmony).


Oh really? Here's the two genealogies in question:

First, the Matthew genealogy (Matthew 1:6-16), a total of 41 entries, of which 28 are entries pertinent to David and beyond, which I've hihglighted in blue:

Abraham -> Isaac -> Jacob -> Judas -> Phares ->Esrom -> Aram -> Aminadab -> Naasson -> Salmon -> Booz -> Obed -> Jesse -> David -> Solomon -> Roboam -> Abia -> Asa -> Josaphat -> Joram -> Ozias -> Joatham -> Achaz -> Ezekias -> Manasses -> Amon -> Josias -> Jechonias -> Salathiel -> Zorobabel -> Abiud -> Eliakim -> Azor -> Sadoc -> Achim -> Eliud -> Eleazar -> Matthan -> Jacob -> Joseph -> Jesus

Here's the Luke genealogy (Luke 3:21-31), a total of 76 entries, of which 56 entries extend from Abraham onwards, and 43 from David onwards, which means that already it is widely divergent from the Matthew genealogy (Entries pertinent to David and beyond again highlighted in blue, pre-Abraham entries highlighted in green):

Adam -> Seth -> Enos -> Cainan -> Malaleel -> Jared -> Enoch -> Mathusala -> Lamech -> Noe -> Sem -> Arphaxad -> Cainan -> Sala -> Heber -> Phalec -> Ragau -> Saruch -> Nachor -> Thara ->Abraham -> Isaac -> Jacob -> Juda -> Phares ->Esrom -> Aram -> Aminadab -> Naasson -> Salmon -> Booz -> Obed -> Jesse -> David -> Nathan -> Mattatha -> Menan -> Melea -> Eliakim -> Jonan -> Joseph -> Juda -> Simeon -> Levi -> Matthat -> Jorim -> Eliezer -> Jose -> Er -> Elmodam -> Cosam -> Addi -> Melchi -> Neri -> Salathiel -> Zorobabel -> Rhesa ->Joanna -> Juda -> Joseph ->Semei ->Mattathias -> Maath -> Nagge -> Esli -> Naum -> Amos -> Mattathias -> Joseph -> Janna -> Melchi -> Levi -> Matthat -> Heli -> Joseph -> Jesus

The names in boldface above are the ONLY THREE that the post-David genealogies have in common, and they appear IN A DIFFERENT ORDER. In the case of the Luke genealogy, Eliakim is separated from the other two by sixteen succeeding generations, whereas in the Matthew genealogy, he is separated from the other two by one preceding generation. Hardly a model of factual consistency here I would say. Then of course, we have the fact that 1 Chr 3:19 lists Zorobabel as having descended from Pedaiah, a name absent from both of the above genealogies, whilst this individual is described as being descended from Salathiel in three other Old Testament books, along with the NT's Matthew & Luke. However, there is disagreement as to who was the father of Salathiel in the above genealogies - Matthew lists him as a direct descendent of Jechonias, whilst Luke lists him as a direct descendant of Neri. How did this individual come to have two fathers?

rickstones wrote:But from King David forward, Luke’s genealogy makes a sharp departure from Matthew’s. Instead of tracing the lineage through King Solomon as we see in Matthew, Luke begins following the offspring of Nathan, another surviving son of David and Bathsheba (Solomon’s brother): “the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse” (Luke 3:31-32)


Well first of all, this makes a mockery of the whole notion of primogeniture, doesn't it? Which is a principle that has applied to royal households for millennia, right back to the Sumerians, and which the Jews clearly also adopted for their kings. At what point was this abandoned, may I ask?

Another problem being that as we've just seen, Salathiel apparently had two fathers. And no magic is asserted to have intervened in the case of this individual.

Also, the step between Josias and Jeconias is inconsistent with 1 Chr 3: 15-16, which states that Josiah had four sons, named Johanan, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah and Shallum, and that Jeconias was the son of Jehoiakim, and thus clashes with the Matthew genealogy. Indeed, there are other inconsistencies between the Matthew genealogy and the earlier genealogy contained in 1 Chr 3 - the Matthew genealogy lists 14 generations from David to Jeconias, whilst 1 Chr 3 lists 18 generations. Again, hardly a model of consistency. Indeed, how come Joseph has two fathers, while we're at it? The fact that we have two individuals, namely Salathiel and Joseph, who apparently had two fathers, is one of those details that anyone who possesses an understanding of reproduction and inheritance would hardly regard as "superficial", and would particularly regard with suspicion with respect to the matter of royal descendancy.

Your attempt to hand-wave away these objections is yet another example of apologetic fabrication writ large.

rickstones wrote:Here is where a superficial reading will get one in trouble. This is not a conflict with Matthew's genealogy. Luke is describing the lineage of Mary who, as it turns out, is also a direct descendant of King David, but through Nathan rather than through King Solomon.


And this is another apologetic fabrication. ALL of the genealogies in this mythology prior to this time concentrate upon males without exception. Yet you wish to assert that an exception was now made for one particular woman, just because it happened to be apologetically convenient. I'll give you three guesses how I regard this erection.

rickstones wrote:“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, (Luke 3:23)

Heli is Mary’s father, but because of the inheritance laws described in Numbers 27 and 36, Heli adopts Joseph as his legal son and heir (for reference, see: Ezra 2:61=Nehemiah 7:63; Numbers 32:41, cf. 1Chron 2:21-23, 34-35)


Why do I get the feeling that this would be laughed out of a modern court of law set up to determine royal inheritance? It's a blatant fabrication all the way through.

rickstones wrote:So then, Jesus’ legal claim to David’s throne is established in Matthew’s genealogy through Joseph, and His blood relationship to King David himself is established in Luke’s genealogy through Mary. Christ’s royal inheritance is fully and truly established, and the blood-curse on Jechoniah is completely by-passed.


Except that this is more apologetic bollocks. Because a central assertion of the mythology is that Mr Invisible Magic Man in effect cloned himself and used Mary as nothing more than the incubator. Therefore the idea that there was a "blood connection" back to David is nonsense.

rickstones wrote:Here’s the message God sent to Mary when the time came for Jesus to enter His creation: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to Him the throne of his father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” (Luke 1:30-33)


I'm familiar with the Annunciation, thank you, it's something that we here in the UK have to endure in RE lessons. But as an attempt to hand-wave away the objections I've just listed, it fails.

rickstones wrote:Wow. Don’t you just love this! When God paints Himself into a corner, He just knocks the walls down and keeps on painting! Why was the virgin birth necessary? Probably for many reasons, but isn't this end-run around the curse on Jeconiah one of the coolest you could imagine?


No, it's a plot so bad and so riddled with holes that the people responsible for The Colbys would have thrown it out, and these were the people who had Fallon Colby abducted by anal-probing aliens in the last episode.

rickstones wrote:Many of the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions in Scripture, I believe, are placed here for a purpose. They represent what the rabbi’s would call a remez, a hint of something deeper; an opportunity to be drawn into a closer partnership of discovery with the loving being who created you.


Oh yes, the apologetic fabrication that factual inconsistency leads to "deeper truth". Ha ha ha.

rickstones wrote:But there is a frightening verse of Scripture in 1 Corinthians that says this: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14


Another apologetically convenient blind assertion. But then that's why these assertions are erected, to try and stop people from asking awkward questions when the plot clashes with reality.

rickstones wrote:There are two ways to know God.


Always assuming that this merely asserted entity actually exists, of course. I note with interest how this entity was purportedly able to stage all manner of Cecl B. deMille style pyrotechnics, when his audience consisted of ignorant and superstitious Bronze Age nomads, but once the audience consisted of people armed with space based telescopes, radar, television cameras and particle accelerators, this entity was apparently reduced to engaging in minor acts of vandalism perpetrated against a range of food products.

rickstones wrote:One is through the efforts of science as we (er… I mean you) attempt to explore and understand His creation around us.


Strange how 300 years of diligent effort in understanding the real world has led to the conclusion that magic is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

rickstones wrote:The other is to study and explore his revelation to us – i.e., the Bible.


Strange how this assertd entity was unable to make the two consistent with each other, isn't it? Now if the authors of this badly written Bronze Age mythology had written words to the effect that humans would, 2,000 years in the future, discover tiny particles that behaved like waves when passed through a pair of slits, this would be pretty impressive. At this point, suspicion would be aroused that these people actually knew something substantive, and that there might be something to this "revelation" assertion. Instead, what we see is the narrow, parochial vision of Bronze Age nomads struggling to make the world around them less mysterious, courtesy of the familiar device humans have been adopting since prehistory, namely to imagine that there's a bigger, but invisible, version of themselves hanging around engaging in various acts in order to trigger various noteworthy natural events.

rickstones wrote:The frightening thing about Paul’s comment here in 1 Corinthians, is that I think he is saying that the Bible is necessary to know God, but God is necessary to know the Bible. That, of course, is the purpose for my prayers for you all.


Oh look, it's circular reasoning time once again.

Meanwhile, moving on ...

rickstones wrote:
GenesForLife wrote:Circular reasoning... what the babble says is true because the babble says it? despite the fact that elementary genetics and inheritance suggest virgin births are implausible by the natural mechanisms at work, so, if you allude magic took place you're bound to either bring up evidence that such a thing happened (which would require suspension of the laws of nature, and hasn't been recorded) or be treated with scorn and derision. This is the classical hallmark of apologetics, to assert that when doctrine and reality differ, doctrine is right and reality is wrong and in my view, scorn and derision is what it deserves.


I wasn't attempting to convince you of the authenticity of the virgin birth (although I think I could accomplish one myself with a decent lab notebook and access to a high school chemistry lab).


If it was that easy to do, why haven't eminent scientists already done this? Only I don't recall any papers appearing in relevant scientific journals establishing the validity of human parthenogenesis. Now, since you have asserted that it is possible to establish the validity of this via testable natural means, how about providing us with the details of the experimental setup required for this?

rickstones wrote:Whether you personally believe it or not is not the point. The authors of Matthew and Luke did in fact believe it, and had it in mind when they wrote their Gospels.


So, because superstitious pre-scientific humans believed it was possible, and wrote about this in mythology, this makes it true?

rickstones wrote:My point was that people who open the Bible and see differences in the names listed there, and begin squealing about obvious contradictions, are baseing their assertions on a superficial treatment of the Bible.


Bollocks. Exactly what is "superficial" about noting that at least two mortal individuals in those genealogies allegedly have two fathers? And noting in turn that this is a biological impossibility?

rickstones wrote:So, if you choose to change the topic and meander off in other directions in your eagerness to be the first to treat the silly religious man with "scorn and derision", c'est la vie. But as I stated in an earlier post, superficiality is a loser in all endeavors, including penis measuring contests on internet message boards.


I don't need to wave my e-peen about, I merely have to point to reality and note how it sticks the middle finger to mythological blind assertion on a regular basis.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22634
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#90  Postby rickstones » Aug 05, 2010 4:05 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
rickstones wrote:3. Does that mean that Jesus’ only claim to the throne is an inherited legal claim through Joseph and not by a physical, blood-relationship to King David?

To answer this question, we need to take a look at the other genealogy of Jesus which is given to us in the Gospel of Luke. The genealogies in Luke and Matthew are in lock-step until we arrive at King David (actually Luke’s genealogy traces Jesus’ ancestry back much further than Matthew’s, which begins with Abraham, but from Abraham to King David, the two are in harmony).


Oh really? Here's the two genealogies in question:

First, the Matthew genealogy (Matthew 1:6-16), a total of 41 entries, of which 28 are entries pertinent to David and beyond, which I've hihglighted in blue:

Abraham -> Isaac -> Jacob -> Judas -> Phares ->Esrom -> Aram -> Aminadab -> Naasson -> Salmon -> Booz -> Obed -> Jesse -> David -> Solomon -> Roboam -> Abia -> Asa -> Josaphat -> Joram -> Ozias -> Joatham -> Achaz -> Ezekias -> Manasses -> Amon -> Josias -> Jechonias -> Salathiel -> Zorobabel -> Abiud -> Eliakim -> Azor -> Sadoc -> Achim -> Eliud -> Eleazar -> Matthan -> Jacob -> Joseph -> Jesus

Here's the Luke genealogy (Luke 3:21-31), a total of 76 entries, of which 56 entries extend from Abraham onwards, and 43 from David onwards, which means that already it is widely divergent from the Matthew genealogy (Entries pertinent to David and beyond again highlighted in blue, pre-Abraham entries highlighted in green):

Adam -> Seth -> Enos -> Cainan -> Malaleel -> Jared -> Enoch -> Mathusala -> Lamech -> Noe -> Sem -> Arphaxad -> Cainan -> Sala -> Heber -> Phalec -> Ragau -> Saruch -> Nachor -> Thara ->Abraham -> Isaac -> Jacob -> Juda -> Phares ->Esrom -> Aram -> Aminadab -> Naasson -> Salmon -> Booz -> Obed -> Jesse -> David -> Nathan -> Mattatha -> Menan -> Melea -> Eliakim -> Jonan -> Joseph -> Juda -> Simeon -> Levi -> Matthat -> Jorim -> Eliezer -> Jose -> Er -> Elmodam -> Cosam -> Addi -> Melchi -> Neri -> Salathiel -> Zorobabel -> Rhesa ->Joanna -> Juda -> Joseph ->Semei ->Mattathias -> Maath -> Nagge -> Esli -> Naum -> Amos -> Mattathias -> Joseph -> Janna -> Melchi -> Levi -> Matthat -> Heli -> Joseph -> Jesus

Exactly my point when I said, "from Abraham to King David, the two are in harmony". Not sure where we are in disagreement here...

rickstones wrote:Here is where a superficial reading will get one in trouble. This is not a conflict with Matthew's genealogy. Luke is describing the lineage of Mary who, as it turns out, is also a direct descendant of King David, but through Nathan rather than through King Solomon.


Calilasseia wrote:
And this is another apologetic fabrication. ALL of the genealogies in this mythology prior to this time concentrate upon males without exception.

Oh, but there are exceptions. In fact, Matthew's genealogy provides more than a few of them. This is one of the many things that makes Matthew's genealogy so remarkable. In a culture where women were, in fact, largely ignored in the genealogical records, Matthew includes five women in the genealogy of Christ. This is most unusual (although you have more hubris than me if you are willing to say it is "without exception". I personally don't know if there are no other exceptions, but I do know it was exceedingly rare). In his genealogy, Matthew includes:

1. Tamar (a gentile bride of Judah’s son. She tricked Judah into having sexual relations with her by posing as a prostitute, see Genesis 38)
2. Rahab (a Gentile prostitute from Jericho who saved herself and her family by assisting Joshua’s two “spies”, see Joshua 2)
3. Ruth (a Gentile from Moab – a people descended from the incestuous relationship between Lot and his oldest daughter, see Genesis 19:30-38)
4. Bathsheba (committed adultery with King David, see 2Samuel 11)
5. Mary, the mother of Jesus

And to make things even more shocking for the Jewish audience targeted by Matthew, three of the five women listed above had pretty questionable past histories (Rahab-prostitution, Bathsheba-adultery, Tamar-incest). The point he was making is that every person listed in this genealogy, not only these women, were sinners and in desperate need of the provision God was making for them through the man for whom the genealogy is written.

But to your point, the Gospel writers were more than willing to use new wine-skins for new wine. Luke's genealogy does indeed trace the ancestry of Mary, and if this fact causes you to throw away your favorite erected canard, that cannot be helped.

I will just say, there are at least five (maybe more) interpretations for the these genealogies. The one I have given you here (and by the way, I just want to point out that I gave it to you free and gratis), simply happens to be the correct one. But all five offer legitimate reconciliations for the differences you have superficially noted. It becomes extremely difficult due to the Jewish laws and customs regarding inheritance in cases where no male progeny exists, and the practice of Levirate marriage (which by the way is the solution to the Zorobabel/Pedaiah/Salathiel puzzle that seems to be causing you difficulty. "I'll let you think about that, and see if you can discover why that is." (wink).
rickstones
 
Name: Rick Stones
Posts: 34
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#91  Postby Sityl » Aug 05, 2010 4:39 pm

This is a wonderful thread, but incase anyone isn't reading the longer posts, I fel that this was worth a remention...

Hackenslash wrote:1 John 4:8 (NLT) - "God is love." 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NLT) - "Love is not jealous." Exodus 20:5 (NLT) - "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

Since this goes directly to the attributes of your cosmic curtain-twitcher, demonstrating him to be logically absurd, and therefore non-existent, I'd call that rather more than a superficial contradiction.
Stephen Colbert wrote:Now, like all great theologies, Bill [O'Reilly]'s can be boiled down to one sentence - 'There must be a god, because I don't know how things work.'


Image
User avatar
Sityl
 
Name: Ser Sityllan Payne
Posts: 5131
Age: 42
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#92  Postby rickstones » Aug 05, 2010 4:55 pm

Oops, I meant to respond to one additional point:

Calilasseia wrote:
rickstones wrote:

Calilasseia wrote again: So, you've now come out and admitted that you're here to propagandise for a doctrine. Quelle surprise. Tell me, was my effort educating you with respect to the actual physics completely wasted on you as a consequence? Only your latest excursion into the realms of supernaturalist blind assertion suggest strongly that this is the case.

From my first post, I never attempted to conceal my worldview. I came here honestly seeking information and have offered my gratitude for that which you and others have provided. But I must admit, I didn’t expect the over-the-top animosity. I don’t know if I used the wrong approach, and came across as a “wise-guy”. If so, I regret it. I was really only attempting to break the ice with a bit of humor. But anyway, I came here begging for information, and beggars can’t define the terms of their endowments. So be it.


The problem here being that you continued to erect assertions after the information refuting those assertions was presented to you. I'd already dealt with Schroeder's wibble about time dilation by referring to the actual physics.

Yes, I had received conflicting information. One from a source whose scientific qualifications I have listed, and whose approach and opinion appealed to me a great deal because his stated intention was to attempt to tear down the unnecessary walls between science and religion (for him, simply two dimensions of the same inquiry) and find common ground upon which both sides could stand. My other source of information was you. I do not know you qualifications. You seem very well versed in the necessary disciplines, but frankly, your extreme bias and animosity was so overt that I viewed your opinion with some degree of reservation. I would certainly like to present your objections to Dr. Schroeder's personally and listen to his response. But until I am able to do something like that, I'll sit on the fence and keep all doors open.
rickstones
 
Name: Rick Stones
Posts: 34
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#93  Postby GenesForLife » Aug 05, 2010 5:05 pm

Well, you can actually read up the requisite physics and find out for yourself, attempting to make a decision on credentials alone would be illogical because it is based on an argument from authority/appeal to authority.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 34
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#94  Postby rickstones » Aug 05, 2010 5:09 pm

DanDare wrote:Ok, this has gone way off topic now. This thread is about creationism. If you want to argue that the bible is a flawed document full of errors (check) that has nothing to say about biology (check) but is a great “redemption” text (whatever that means) then argue it in a new thread under christianity.

Objection noted. I will stop. But, please allow me just a bit of an opportunity to defend my action...

Others began lobbing a large assortment of "ready-to-use" Bible/religion bombs very soon after the discussion thread began. I tried to bite my tongue and not react to them. So it seems a bit unfair (if I may be so bold) that no objections were made while these traps were being baited, and yet when I took the bait just one time, it is immediately flagged as a transgression.

Be that as it may, I will stop.
rickstones
 
Name: Rick Stones
Posts: 34
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#95  Postby rickstones » Aug 05, 2010 5:25 pm

GenesForLife wrote:Well, you can actually read up the requisite physics and find out for yourself, attempting to make a decision on credentials alone would be illogical because it is based on an argument from authority/appeal to authority.

Good advice. But there are barriers:

I don't know if I am capable of fully comprehending all the necessary physics to make my own determinations on the necessary points. I don't think I'm stupid, but I do get lost in the weeds in more than a few areas. The time I have to spend in this endeavor is limited. And for my final excuse... I just turned 54 years old. I hear that physics is considered a "young man's game".

So I do in fact attempt to rely on the opinions of those who have more training and knowledge in these areas. In fact, when I read Dr. Schroeder's material, I believe that I was reading up on the requisite physics. Since I know that all "reading up" on the relevant subject necessarily involves also absorbing a person's bias, I try to understand other opinions as well. That's why I came here.
rickstones
 
Name: Rick Stones
Posts: 34
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#96  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 07, 2010 3:39 am

Right, it's time to do some mathematics.

First of all, we need some basic relations, all of which can be found in appropriate physics textbooks. The first we need is the relationship between the present-day temperature of the CMBR, and its temperature in the past. If TP is the present day temperature, and T is the temperature in the past, then these are related to redshift, z, by the following formula:

T = TP(1+z) [1]

Since TP is, according to the latest measurements, 2.728 K, and T (temperature in the past) is around 3,000 K (the temperature at which neutral hydrogen atoms can form), this gives us a value for the redshift z of:

z = (T/TP) - 1 = 1,098.706

However, it is more useful for us to use (1+z) at this point, because the relationship between observed wavelength λo and emitted wavelength λe is given by:

(1+z) = (λoe) [2]

Given that (1+z) = 1,099.706, and λo = 1.9 mm = 1.9 × 10-3 m, an elementary algebraic rearrangement gives us:

λe = λo/(1+z)

Therefore, when the radiation was initially emitted, it had a wavelength of 1.727 × 10-6 m.

Now we come to the matter of time dilation. In special relativity, time dilation is given by:

t = t0 γ(v) [3]

where t0 is the time measured in the reference frame considered to be "stationary", and t is the time measured in the reference frame considered to be "moving". Of course, in relativistic physics, the two are coupled symmetrically, but for the time being, this symmetry is not required for the continuing analysis. The function γ(v) in the above formula is given by:

γ(v) = (1-(v2/c2)) [4]

and is known as the Lorentz Gamma Factor.

Now, we can work out how much velocity would be required to dilate 6 days of "stationary" time into 13.6 billion years of "moving" time. 6 days equals 86,400×6 = 518,400 seconds, and 13.6 billion years is (13.6 × 109) × (31,536,000) seconds (there are 31,536,000 seconds in a year) which gives us 428,889,600,000,000,000 seconds (approximately 4.2889 × 1017 seconds). This allows us to compute the value of γ(v), which is t/t0, which is 827,333,333,333.333, or approximately 8.273 × 1011. So, we can now work out what speed would be required to produce this degree of time dilation. We do this by letting Γ equal our computed value of γ(v) above, and rearranging algebraically to find v, which gives us:

v = c(1-(1/Γ2))½

which equals 0.99999999999999999999999926951894 × c. For the moment I'll ignore the implications this has for the mass of a hydrogen atom moving at this speed. :)

Now, at this point, we are able to work out the relativistic Doppler shift that would result from this speed, which is given by:

(1+z) = γ(v) (1 + v/c)

An object moving away from our eventual position in comoving coordinates would have a Doppler redshift at the time the photon was emitted of:

(1+z) = 1,654,666,666,666.666 (approximately)

which means that the Doppler redshift for a photon emitted from a source moving away from the two relevant points in space in comoving coordinates would be around nine orders of magnitude greater than the cosmological redshift we calculated above. Since this applies to the photon at the time of emission, then this would be further redshifted by the cosmological redshift, which would multiply the redshift already bestowed upon it by Doppler effects. This would mean that any anisotropy resulting from such a moving source would be twelve orders of magnitude different from the currently measured anisotropies. Likewise, a Doppler blueshift would result in a like anisotropy difference. To put it into perspective, instead of seeing radiation from that source now shifted to 1.9 mm, we would see it shifted to a wavelength of 1.9 million kilometres.

I think we can safely conclude, on the above basis, that such high-speed moving sources of photons did not exist at that past time.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22634
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#97  Postby Sityl » Aug 07, 2010 3:47 am

Am I the only one who hopes that Rick Stones sticks around a bit? It's nice to have a theist who is willing to listen. It's a rare thing indeed, but I was in your exact spot once, and the ultimate key to figuring out the truth is the ability to listen to evidence. It's not easy, but it's important.
Stephen Colbert wrote:Now, like all great theologies, Bill [O'Reilly]'s can be boiled down to one sentence - 'There must be a god, because I don't know how things work.'


Image
User avatar
Sityl
 
Name: Ser Sityllan Payne
Posts: 5131
Age: 42
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#98  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Aug 07, 2010 5:54 am

rickstones wrote:-

Good advice. But there are barriers:

I don't know if I am capable of fully comprehending all the necessary physics to make my own determinations on the necessary points. I don't think I'm stupid, but I do get lost in the weeds in more than a few areas. The time I have to spend in this endeavor is limited. And for my final excuse... I just turned 54 years old. I hear that physics is considered a "young man's game".

So I do in fact attempt to rely on the opinions of those who have more training and knowledge in these areas. In fact, when I read Dr. Schroeder's material, I believe that I was reading up on the requisite physics. Since I know that all "reading up" on the relevant subject necessarily involves also absorbing a person's bias, I try to understand other opinions as well. That's why I came here.


I know the feeling. Advanced mathematics and physics [biology and evolutionary theory can be included in this, because there are mathematical models and data analysis as well as "verbal theories"] take a lot of work to take on board, especially as one gets older [I am nearly 56].

Nevertheless, the amount of effort put into these posts by people versed in science [and also the debunking of religious myths] do not do it for fun[1] It would be non-parsimonious to imagine that each and every scientist is a bad person, who enjoys de-bunking dearly-held fantasies. These fantasies can sometimes kill. They also affect law and public policy, such as in education and medicine. Eating from the tree of knowledge is deeply embedded in many religious cultures, whereas "virtue" is seen in "faith". Hence skeptics and non-believers are characterized by some as "baby-eaters"

[1] [Well, not totally true, a well known fundamentalist regularly visits rationalist forums like this one with his own hilarious "theory" on "why Polar Bears are white"-it is because, {according to him}-polar bears fear man.]
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 69

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#99  Postby DanDare » Aug 07, 2010 7:00 am

rickstones wrote:
DanDare wrote:Ok, this has gone way off topic now. This thread is about creationism. If you want to argue that the bible is a flawed document full of errors (check) that has nothing to say about biology (check) but is a great “redemption” text (whatever that means) then argue it in a new thread under christianity.

Objection noted. I will stop. But, please allow me just a bit of an opportunity to defend my action...

Others began lobbing a large assortment of "ready-to-use" Bible/religion bombs very soon after the discussion thread began. I tried to bite my tongue and not react to them. So it seems a bit unfair (if I may be so bold) that no objections were made while these traps were being baited, and yet when I took the bait just one time, it is immediately flagged as a transgression.

Be that as it may, I will stop.

Not asking you to stop, or fail to defend your position. Just start a new thread over in the section on Christianity and drop a link in here about where you have taken that part of the conversation. 8-)
Atheist. Ozzie.
Strange Flight
User avatar
DanDare
RS Donator
 
Posts: 1900
Age: 62
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#100  Postby rickstones » Aug 08, 2010 4:32 am

Calilasseia wrote:Right, it's time to do some mathematics.

Three things...

One
I am now officially grateful that you do not engage in "e-peen waving". That could become embarrassing for people such as myself who have more modest mathematical "e-packages".

Two
To put it into perspective, instead of seeing radiation from that source now shifted to 1.9 mm, we would see it shifted to a wavelength of 1.9 million kilometres.

Uhhhh... Yikes! (not yet totally given up... still holding out hope you have introduced some invalid assumption somewhere... but reeling pretty badly at this point).

Three (with multiple parts)
3a) Just out of curiosity... How often do you need to resort to mathematics to try to debunk a super naturalist's position?

3b) Should I wear this as a badge of honor, or was it only required because of my persistence (sort of a mathematical fly-swatter if you will...)

3c) A corollary question: What theorem would you use to debunk Darwinsbulldog's favorite fundamentalist who believes snow bears are white because they are afraid of man? The Bendixson–Dulac approach for studying dynamic systems?

3d) and finally ("unless of course the Shaker Oracle is in reality a prophet of God): What a total wacko that fundie must be! Everyone with any brains at all knows that Polar bears are white because their ancestors were forced to breed while standing in front of stripped willow branches!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq-yoorI7lo[/youtube]
rickstones
 
Name: Rick Stones
Posts: 34
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest