The Creationist Myth - 500,000-Year-Old Stone Tools, Butchered Elephant Bones Found in Israel

a reply to: Develo

notice it is talking about stars. it has a double meaning. but gethyped wanted to talk about astronomy in the bible. that's why i talked about the precession of draco, and didn't discuss the other symbols of the verse

a reply to: Krazysh0t

krazy, do you really consider me to be an idiot?

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

notice it is talking about stars. it has a double meaning. but gethyped wanted to talk about astronomy in the bible. that's why i talked about the precession of draco, and didn't discuss the other symbols of the verse

Notice it says about a dragon casting 1/3rd of the stars on earth.

Notice it's you who made the association with Draco constellation when nothing points to it.

Notice it's been a trend in this thread that you made associations between unrelated stuff that only you thinks makes sense.

Notice I already told it's what happen to those who obsess over mixing Sumerian texts, biblical prophecies and aliens.



Notice even if for you it seems like everything you says makes perfect sense, for everyone else here you barely make any.

a reply to: undo

Self delusion and idiocy are quite different.


The idiot doesn't get it. The self-deluded thinks he's the only one to get it.

originally posted by: Develo
a reply to: undo

Self delusion and idiocy are quite different.


The idiot doesn't get it. The self-deluded thinks he's the only one to get it.

i've been pretty calm about your insults thus far, but it's time you step off

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Krazysh0t

krazy, do you really consider me to be an idiot?

No I don't. The idea of Creationism is idiotic, but that doesn't make the people who believe it necessarily idiotic. There are plenty of examples of smart and rational people holding irrational beliefs in our past. I also understand that the smarter someone gets, the better they get at defending their confirmation biases.

PS. That's kind of a loaded question. If I said yes, even if it didn't upset you, it would violate the T&C and the post would be removed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

it wasn't my intention to entrap you. lol i just wanted you to clarify and you did, so yeah, thanks for the clarification.

originally posted by: undo
i've been pretty calm about your insults thus far, but it's time you step off

It's not an insult to inform you that you don't seem like making any sense for an outside observer.

I'm sorry if this upsets you but it's reality.

Being upset about it wont make it disappear.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: nenothtu

Talk about back peddling. Face it, there is nothing of scientific merit in the bible. In fact, a good chunk of the claims about the universe are incorrect.

When did the conversation swing around to modern astronomy? I thought the discussion was on an ancient book - why would you expect to find modern anything in it?

Because that was the topic of my post that you responded to? But now when pushed to back up your claims you try and change the topic or use a simple typo as an excuse not to engage.

Actually, the topic of your post I responded to was astrology, not astronomy at all - astronomers are acutely aware of the difference, and are pretty touchy about it. It was NOT a "typo" - typos involve transposed, missing, or additional letters, not entirely erroneous concepts.

You are in error if you think there is going to be "modern" anything in ancient books - and it's ludicrous to demand such. "Die Principia" is not "modern" astronomy, either - do you deny there is any astronomy in it? Edwin Hubble's observations do not mesh with "modern" astronomy - are they not astronomical?

Are you trying to find OOPARTS in ancient texts? The insistence on "modern" astrophysics in primitive observations seems to indicate so.

Would an entire book on the subject by E Walter Maunder suffice to demonstrate to you that there is, indeed, astronomy in the bible?

Or should we raise the bar again?

a reply to: nenothtu

Lots of words, but nothing but ducking and weaving. Funny how when your bluff is called you revert to strawmen and side stepping. Not terribly surprising considering we both know you cannot deliver the goods (for obvious reasons).

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: undo

I think there's evidence of people retrospectively trying to link a statement in the bible to a scientific understanding of a phenomena.

Why is this? Why do you really need to try so hard to make the bible seem scientifically "credible"? Is your faith that weak that you have to try and bolster it with faulty retconning?

Scientifically credible?

It's not a science book. Don't worry - you won't have to study it in science class when you get to high school.

To use your example of "Moby Dick", there is a boat in that book... but that does not make it a treatise on shipbuilding.

a reply to: Develo

back off.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: nenothtu

Lots of words, but nothing but ducking and weaving. Funny how when your bluff is called you revert to strawmen and side stepping. Not terribly surprising considering we both know you cannot deliver the goods (for obvious reasons).

Two minutes.

There were two minutes between my post and your dismissive response.

You'll never convince me you read the links in two minutes.

That means you only want to argue, rather than arrive at a conclusion or discuss anything...

... and THAT means we're done here, butter cup.

BTW - you are also misusing "strawmen", "bluff calling", and "ducking and weaving". You might want to look those up and find their meanings before engaging anyone else in depths that are over your head. Just add them to "astrology vs. astronomy" on your list of things to look up.

You have a nice day now.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: nenothtu

Lots of words, but nothing but ducking and weaving. Funny how when your bluff is called you revert to strawmen and side stepping. Not terribly surprising considering we both know you cannot deliver the goods (for obvious reasons).

did you read my response?

a reply to: nenothtu

2 minutes vs how many times have I asked, already? Just post up some specific examples, including source text. Come on, it's not that hard, is it?

a reply to: undo

The one where you quoted some vague text about a dragon? Yes, and others have rightly addressed the incredible motivated reasoning it took you to even make the connection you made.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: undo

The one where you quoted some vague text about a dragon? Yes, and others have rightly addressed the incredible motivated reasoning it took you to even make the connection you made.

the verse right before it, is also about stars. what could it possibly be talking about if not stars, when it says it's about stars?

a reply to: undo

You mean this?

And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Nice try but no dice.

If it requires you to only notice in retrospect and do a mind boggling amount of linguistic and logical fudging, that should be enough of a red flag.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: nenothtu

2 minutes vs how many times have I asked, already? Just post up some specific examples, including source text. Come on, it's not that hard, is it?

why should he when you would just do to his efforts, what you did to mine?

a reply to: undo

Your efforts were beyond daft. However, after an absurd amount of prompting, nenothtu hasn't even come up with anything except bluster.

Like I said:

If it requires you to only notice in retrospect and do a mind boggling amount of linguistic and logical fudging, that should be enough of a red flag.