Jump to content


Photo

Good Questions.


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 17 August 2017 - 04:54 AM

a thread to post your good and thought provoking questions.

first question:
why did historians use the abbreviations BC and AD when giving historical dates?
why would they use an alleged mythical event that never happened to reckon dating?

next question:
why did the apollo 8 crew read from the book of genesis, and broadcast that reading to the entire planet?

#2 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 17 August 2017 - 05:54 AM


What if said:

Posted 17 August 2017 - 05:54 AM
a thread to post your good and thought provoking questions.

first question:
why did historians use the abbreviations BC and AD when giving historical dates?
why would they use an alleged mythical event that never happened to reckon dating?

From what I understand BC means before Christ and AD means after death. Who knows what thingking caused them to do so.
But that's what they did.

Look at your phrase "alleged mythical event that never happened." Think about your thinking! The word alleged means we are awaiting proof of an event one way or another. But in the rest of your statement you contradict the first part. In it you conclude the event never happened. That does not makes sense. How would you know what actually happened since you were not there to observre it? Your current age is the big give away.

[why did the apollo 8 crew read from the book of genesis, and broadcast that reading to the entire planet?

I often chide my clients when they start asking alot of why questions. Those sort of questions promote circular reasoning.

At this time what the astronaus did is considered an historical event. In the final analysis that's what they chose to do at that time.

#3 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 17 August 2017 - 12:55 PM

first question:
why did historians use the abbreviations BC and AD when giving historical dates?
why would they use an alleged mythical event that never happened to reckon dating?

 

Because the system of BC/AD was made up by Christians, and Christianity was virtually the only game in town for centuries.

 

My understanding is that almost no professional historian doubts the existence of Jesus, although there is disagreement on just about everything that has to do with the historical Jesus.

 

From what I understand BC means before Christ and AD means after death. Who knows what thingking caused them to do so.

But that's what they did.

 

That's what I thought too when I was kid, but I always thought it strange that Jesus died around 33 AD and not 1 AD or 1 BC. As it turns out the AD is Latin for anno domini; anno meaning year and domini meaning master/lord, and so you get year of the lord.



#4 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 17 August 2017 - 04:59 PM

Because the system of BC/AD was made up by Christians, and Christianity was virtually the only game in town for centuries.

christian or not, it's undeniable that these were men of science.
our current animal classification was from a religious man.
where does he ever say that "poof, god did it"?
he was very methodical in his analysis.
there is nothing anywhere that says you cannot be a devote religious person and a methodical science person.
the above led me to ask the next question, why do these men of science read from a religious book, especially in regards to origins?
you cannot possibly say they weren't men of science

#5 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 August 2017 - 07:51 PM

What if said:


why did historians use the abbreviations BC and AD when giving historical dates?
why would they use an alleged mythical event that never happened to reckon dating?

From what I understand BC means before Christ and AD means after death. Who knows what thingking caused them to do so.
But that's what they did.

Look at your phrase "alleged mythical event that never happened." Think about your thinking! The word alleged means we are awaiting proof of an event one way or another. But in the rest of your statement you contradict the first part. In it you conclude the event never happened. That does not makes sense. How would you know what actually happened since you were not there to observre it? Your current age is the big give away.

Close on AD, but not quite.

 

AD stands for "Anno Domini" or "Year of Our Lord."  It's supposed to be based on the year of His birth, not His death.

 

My understanding, like Goku's, is that historians pretty much agree that there was a historical person "Jesus."

 

next question:
why did the apollo 8 crew read from the book of genesis, and broadcast that reading to the entire planet?

After researching a number of sources....

 

My understanding is that they had already been told they were going to be speaking to a billion people .... more than had ever listened to a single broadcast to that time.  (The world population then was about 3.5 billion.)  The astronauts were told they should think of something appropriate.

 

All of them were devout Christians and felt it an appropriate message especially considering the (Christmas) season.

 

#### Edit ####

OOPS ! ! !  Didn't notice, Goku had commented on "AD" in his post.  Like him, I was taught in the early years of my schooling that AD meant "After Death."



#6 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 17 August 2017 - 09:37 PM

What if said:

why did historians use the abbreviations BC and AD when giving historical dates?
why would they use an alleged mythical event that never happened to reckon dating?

From what I understand BC means before Christ and AD means after death. Who knows what thingking caused them to do so.
But that's what they did.
Look at your phrase "alleged mythical event that never happened." Think about your thinking! The word alleged means we are awaiting proof of an event one way or another. But in the rest of your statement you contradict the first part. In it you conclude the event never happened. That does not makes sense. How would you know what actually happened since you were not there to observre it? Your current age is the big give away.
Close on AD, but not quite.
 
AD stands for "Anno Domini" or "Year of Our Lord."  It's supposed to be based on the year of His birth, not His death.
 
My understanding, like Goku's, is that historians pretty much agree that there was a historical person "Jesus."
 

next question:
why did the apollo 8 crew read from the book of genesis, and broadcast that reading to the entire planet?

After researching a number of sources....
 
My understanding is that they had already been told they were going to be speaking to a billion people .... more than had ever listened to a single broadcast to that time.  (The world population then was about 3.5 billion.)  The astronauts were told they should think of something appropriate.
 
All of them were devout Christians and felt it an appropriate message especially considering the (Christmas) season.
 
#### Edit ####
OOPS ! ! !  Didn't notice, Goku had commented on "AD" in his post.  Like him, I was taught in the early years of my schooling that AD meant "After Death."

"My understanding, like Goku's, is that historians pretty much agree that there was a historical person "Jesus."


Much to your chagrin (Apparently)..


"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination."

(Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

#7 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 18 August 2017 - 07:09 AM

 

Because the system of BC/AD was made up by Christians, and Christianity was virtually the only game in town for centuries.

christian or not, it's undeniable that these were men of science.
our current animal classification was from a religious man.
where does he ever say that "poof, god did it"?
he was very methodical in his analysis.
there is nothing anywhere that says you cannot be a devote religious person and a methodical science person.
the above led me to ask the next question, why do these men of science read from a religious book, especially in regards to origins?
you cannot possibly say they weren't men of science

 

 

So I looked up where the dating system came from, and it was devised by some monk in 6th century (wiki page), and it looks like his big 'scientific' achievement was writing a treatise on elementary mathematics. He was certainly an intelligent and well educated person within his own time, but I would not describe him as a scientist.

 

Carl Linnaeus in the 1700's is considered the first person to rigorously and scientifically classify animals, and yes he was Christian - in fact he was a creationist.

 

If you look at the history of science you'll find that many of the big names were Christian, and often highly devout Christians. While I could list names like Newton and Mendel which probably everyone reading this is familiar with, one name that I think is salient to this specific site of EFF is Alfred Russel Wallace. He was a devout Christian, and although most people don't know him he actually co-founded the theory of evolution independently from Darwin. What happened was that both Darwin and Wallace arrived at the same basic theory of evolution independently, and while Darwin was sitting on his work waiting for the right time to publish he was informed that Wallace had a very similar theory and was getting ready to publish. After the two exchanged correspondence the end result was that both of them co-authored a paper on evolution. Darwin had been working on evolution for longer and had more data, so it is only fair that Darwin's name was immortalized as the father of evolutionary theory, but Wallace is certainly a name to remember if you are looking to participate in the evolution-creation controversy.
 

I agree a religious person can be a good scientist, but the caveat is that a good scientist does not let their religious views dictate their science.

 

As to why scientists sometimes read things like Genesis 1, I think it is a combination of the work being of literary and cultural significance, and at least in the case of Genesis many people take the story allegorically rather than literally. Taking Genesis as allegory has a long history in both Jewish and Christian theology which predates any modern science about evolution or big bang or anything like that.



#8 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 18 August 2017 - 07:26 AM

"My understanding, like Goku's, is that historians pretty much agree that there was a historical person "Jesus."



Much to your chagrin (Apparently)..

 

Not at all; I don't think this presents any serious problem for the non-believer, and Piasan is a Christian anyway so he clearly believes Jesus existed and was more than a mere human.
 



#9 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 20 August 2017 - 08:05 PM

I agree a religious person can be a good scientist, but the caveat is that a good scientist does not let their religious views dictate their science.

in principle.
the reality is very different.
seldom do you see religious material on a scientists website.
i'm not talking about some uni or corp. site either.


question, how can you let the concept of god dictate your science?
any scientist worth their salt would laugh you out of the room with "POOF, there it is".
i bet every religious person on this planet is scratching their head wondering just how god did all of this.
if there was or is a god, then it's 1000s of years in advance of us.
i agree, it's the most ludicrous thing i've ever heard, but yet i cannot deny what i'm looking at.
i hate to say it, but who really cares?
i wanna know how this stuff works.

am i making any sense?

#10 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 21 August 2017 - 01:38 AM

 

"My understanding, like Goku's, is that historians pretty much agree that there was a historical person "Jesus."



Much to your chagrin (Apparently)..

 

Not at all; I don't think this presents any serious problem for the non-believer, and Piasan is a Christian anyway so he clearly believes Jesus existed and was more than a mere human.
 

 

 

​"Not at all; I don't think this presents any serious problem for the non-believer, and Piasan is a Christian anyway so he clearly believes Jesus existed and was more than a mere human."

 

Does he now....

 

Then surely you will enjoy reading a letter I sent to the famous theistic evolutionist Mary Schweitzer (It all applies to Piasan as well) I haven't heard back from her...  LOL

 

Hello Mary
Sadly you have gone VERY astray Mary.. I pray that you have a "Road to Damascus" moment before it is too late.. As a Brother I care for you.
Why must you continue to promote Satan's Lie of evolution against the Truth of the Bible?

THERE are 2 pieces of Corroborating HARD DATA that confirm what is written in Genesis and God DID INDEED create

Large Reptiles (Called "Dinosaurs for 200 years ago) THE SAME WEEK that he created Man, JUST LIKE THE BIBLE CLEARLY SAYS)..

why must you allow Satans Greatest Lie of Evolution to blind you?   Scott Buchanon says that you claim that those were
NOT really red blood cells that you found? Were they? How about THESE?
https://www.theguard...ossil-fragments
Maybe we should trust God about HIS creation as HE was there and NOT Man

http://www.smithsoni...cker-115306469/

Scott claims that Carbon 14 Data is reliable.. do YOU Believe that Carbon 14 is reliable?
How about now, that it shows the Bible is true?
Does this bother you? Does that suddenly mean carbon 14 is NOT reliable?   Why cant we just get ONE test of Dino remnants

with ZERO measureable carbon 14? That would prove more than 50-100K Years old and end the story of Genesis once and for all..

That appears what you would like to happen, but Alas, The Data aren't cooperating are they..
Here, check it out Mary! Let me know what you think!
http://newgeology.us...entation48.html

I have read some of your articles yet, you have provided ZERO evidence to support Darwinian Evolution that conforms to the Scientific Method.. 

ZERO...  NONE... Why no science?? You give ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support the Mindless MYO Mud to MAN Myth..

Why did God state over 10 Times in the Bible that he "Stretched out the Heavens"
What do you think that he meant Mary? It sounds like God thought it was important
so he said it OVER 10 TIMES... Sounds to me like God is saying that he added Photons
to light while he was creating the universe (Time Space and Matter Mary) therefore
giving the impression to lowly man that the light from all of stars and galaxies that
he created took a lot longer to reach Earth THAN IT ACTUALLY DID Mary... What do YOU
think God meant Mary?

Lenin coined a phrase for people who supported his cause of the Communist revolution while knowing full well that they were going to be the FIRST ones to face the firing squad Mary...

He called them "Useful Idiots",, Atheists know full well why Darwinian Evolution was made popular and why it must be protected at all cost IN SPITE OF all of the Evidence AGAINST IT Mary..

Atheists are Laughing at you Mary while Christians Mourn for you and the
damage you are doing to Gods kingdom because of your arrogance that
you somehow know more than God does about HIS Creation Mary..

How about the Garden of Eden Mary? God described it in detail in his word
Mary. What do YOU have to say about Mary? Should we believe God? Or Mary?

"The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.”  American Atheist

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god.  Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing." G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, 

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, as secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint, the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today” (Ruse).

.“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level-preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new-the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.” John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist



"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"
Richard Dawkins

 

 

 

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"

(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)



#11 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 21 August 2017 - 01:40 AM

 

I agree a religious person can be a good scientist, but the caveat is that a good scientist does not let their religious views dictate their science.

in principle.
the reality is very different.
seldom do you see religious material on a scientists website.
i'm not talking about some uni or corp. site either.


question, how can you let the concept of god dictate your science?
any scientist worth their salt would laugh you out of the room with "POOF, there it is".
i bet every religious person on this planet is scratching their head wondering just how god did all of this.
if there was or is a god, then it's 1000s of years in advance of us.
i agree, it's the most ludicrous thing i've ever heard, but yet i cannot deny what i'm looking at.
i hate to say it, but who really cares?
i wanna know how this stuff works.

am i making any sense?

 

 

 

i wanna know how this stuff works.

am i making any sense?   

 

 

Only if   "i wanna know how this stuff works."

 

Doesn't mean that you discount the supernatural..



#12 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:20 AM

Only if   "i wanna know how this stuff works."
 
Doesn't mean that you discount the supernatural..

i've said it over and over, i'm in no position to categorically say "there is no god".
i also cannot categorically state "there is a god".

all i can do is sift through the evidence and pick up the things of relevance.

in my opinion, the biblical god hasn't been ruled out, or rather hasn't been ruled impossible.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users