Ok please explain to me how the nephilim remains i posted possibly exist in an evolutionary world. specifically the 2nd one because there isno doubt that its real.

Can you link to an impartial source on the nephilim remains?

Wow, that article actually contains this highlighted quote:

What a stunningly limited, restricted and biased viewpoint, and people get cross with me when I say that religions have a closed paradigm and anything that doesn't fit into it is simply ignored as irrelevant or meaningless.

That quote is a perfect example of how that closed organizational level paradigm can affect the thinking of religious individuals.


The text in that image says 'So could this actually be a nephilim mummy". How do you get from there to 'Nephilim Skeleton remains'...?

In what way does this Skeleton disprove Evolution?

People get annoyed because you do the sorts of thing you are doing here. Young Earth Creationists are a particularly closeminded and dogmatic subset of Christians yet you extrapolate from their existence that the larger set of religious people are similarly close-minded.

And before you reply that "'god created everything' is a limited paradigm" you should try to appreciate that "natural mechanistic created everything" is not an open paradigm either, and there are agnostics who tend towards both beliefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=6sYNw1rMgdY

I'd agree that would be annoying if that's what I was doing but it's not. "Young Earth Creationists" are just one of many many examples of how religion hinders our search for understanding. I really don't understand why there are people who don't agree or who do agree but don't think it's as significant as I do. I used that quote because it was in a link that the OP used, it was on topic.

Why does nooberftw think that Evolution is "Biggest myth in world history" in the first place? The whole thread is an example of what I'm talking about.

Agreed. How is that relevant? Two wrongs don't make a right. In fact, I wonder if I should amend my position to include the equally restricted Atheists who would never seek a divine explanation for the origins of the universe because of their certainty that there isn't one. Possibly the reason I don't is that's not the official position of a global organization like it is with religions.

How do you think people are getting on convincing nooberftw that Evolution is a valid theory and why might they fail to succeed? What's informing his opinion?

The point of natural selection is that it throws up anomalies, natural deviations from the rest of the gene pool and if those variations have a survival benefit they're often passed on and become the norm.

In the case of this infant, that didn't happen, they were clearly born deformed and died. Why would you think it was anything else than that? If you'd never heard of nephilim would you have seen one deformed skeleton as proof of the existence as some paranormal being?

I guess this is where I throw my hands up in the air and give up.
Noob you didn't address any of my questions in post #30 in a logical way.

Instead you jumped to talking about algae, dinosaurs, and Revelation. (I have no idea which questions this is supposed to address).

I think you all need to understand why Christians like piers and noober believe what they do. If a high number of biologists (41%) are outright atheists, and most atheists they meet don't demonstrate an iota of objectivity (say- on this forum,) then it is understandable that they don't fully trust the findings of this atheistic scientific community.

When I was attending college and picking a major, I would visit faculty web sites and read their CV, published papers and such in order to get an idea on what kind of output the profession requires. I was shocked by how many uni-profs and undergrads had anti-theism blogs or article sections devoted to agnostic-atheist issues, and especially in the hard sciences.

But what really confuses me is that you have these two groups holding opposing beliefs, and the atheists claim that the creation scientists and creationists regularly cover-up and hide relevant discovery while working together in a conspiratorial fashion (as bunny just suggested of the fluoride gang,) but at the same time they are ridiculing creationists as "conspiracy nuts."

*shrug*

because its not human

no this is some of the ways you prove the bible is true
the verse shows that the prophecy is beginning to happen


heres another one

Isaiah 34:4
And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

which is happening around the world
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...f451681f84.jpg

Where are you getting that from?

You didn't answer my question about how you got from 'So could it actually be a nephilim' to 'It's a nephilim'... Even the article writer isn't as sure as you seem to be.

The strangely shaped head - almost as big as its 50cm (20in) body - has baffled anthropologists. It was one of two sets of remains found in Peru. The skeletal sets were discovered in south-eastern Peru. The eye cavities are far larger than normally seen in humans. There is a soft spot in the skull - called an open fontanelle - which is a characteristic of children in their first year of life, yet the skull also has two large molars, only found in much older humans. It is said three anthropologists, from Spain and Russia, have arrived at a Peruvian museum to investigate the findings and agreed they were ‘not a human being’ and would conduct further studies.

Genetic abnormalities explain all of that. Presumably you have the results of DNA tests done that show that this skeleton didn't have human DNA? That would be the proof that would support your claim that it's not human.

Also, can you link the source for the quote above?

One sec, I don't get the confusion or why you put the "but" in there. If atheists are right that creationists are covering up and hiding discovery while conspiring together they are RIGHT at the same time to ridicule them as a "conspiracy nuts". What is the problem that makes you substitute "they are right" for "but"?

Wow. Honestly at a loss for words here. This guy is a class act.
Noob, have you read Hovind's Wiki? You can't quote someone like this and expect to be taken seriously.

The guy has a theme park behind his house?!!?
Thats a red flag. Only other guy I know like that was MJ.

Good post Zumby.

Can't emphasize "subset" here enough.

Why is that confusing? The whole point of mentioning anti-fluoride nutters was that they share characteristics of "method" with the creationists.

thanks for your posts ITT Bunny.
Nobody feels like doing the work to debunk stuff that is obviously wrong but it is refreshing.

It was a passing comment on methodology - turns out nooberftw accepts their nonsense in defiance of the evidence as well, so a tangent developed.

It had ancestors who lived in various environments whose specific features resulted in certain traits being naturally selected for.
Can you locate the museum for me? I can't find it's address and the various creationist websites name it differently and list different cities where it is located.

I'd also be interested to know where Pablo Bayabar earned his degree and whether he has any publications to his name. I had a look and couldn't find any (but he is widely cited wrt this story).

Did you put as much effort into debunking this claim as you have into researching the "myth" of evolution?

My point is that, within Christianity, they are something of an extreme of this kind of problem. E.g. YECs are in the subset of Christians that are Biblical inerrantists and in the further subset of Biblical inerrantists who are Biblical literalists. You show a marked lack of knowledge about the range of Christian thought that exists.

As an example, there was an Ipso-MORI poll done on UK people who had ticked the box marked "Christian" in the last census. From that data we can look at some of your common claims and arguments:

(All participants are self-identifying Christians)

46% of Christians gave the main reason for considering themselves Christians as "I was christened/baptised into this religion" and 13% as "One or both of my parents are/were members of this religion". Only 18% gave "I believe in the teachings of this religion" as the main reason for their religious identity.

This suggests that a majority of self-identifying Christians are already well-aware that Childhood Indoctrination© is the primary reason for their religious beliefs, undermining your argument that pointing this fact out is likely to make the foundations of their faith crumble into dust.

But you do also argue that the range of religious faiths that exist should give Christians pause to consider that their faith is likely to be wrong. Unfortunately, the top answer (37%) to the question "Which of the following statements best describes YOUR personal view of God? " was "I believe in God and I believe that Christianity is just one way of knowing him". A further 23% advocate for some form of vague pantheism/deism. So again, it seems a majority of UK Christians are not very dogmatic about their faith and your argument is likely to fall flat as a consequence.

Moving on to your arguments that Christians are forcing children to be indoctrinated into Christianity, a majority (57%) of Christians state that there views on Religious Education are best summarised as "Teach knowledge about the world’s main faiths even-handedly, without any bias towards any particular religion". On the subject of the Daily Act of Worship, opinion is fairly evenly split between those who support (39%) and those who oppose (36%).

The point of all this is to show you that, even among Christians, there is a broad range of thought on every issue and just because the most dogmatic voices are the loudest doesn't mean those voices accurately reflect the broad trends within the population. Having a one-size-fits-all approach to debating religion is not going to be effective.

And do read the whole survey, it's quite eye-opening.

To recap then, Christians turn to creationism because the the majority (according to your figure) of people actually educated on the subject don't hold the same beliefs that they do? Yea, they should probably grow up.

I'd also be interested to hear you name names. Which atheists posting as regulars would you say "don't demonstrate an iota of objectivity"? Could you name enough that they would actually be the majority on this forum?

edit: Not quite the majority: quick reading/ I'm dumb... still, point stands. Actually it enhances... why shouldn't the other 59% of biologists who are not atheists who accept evolution hold sway?

oh the glories of somebody who can actually be assed to make proper posts, praise be, praise be

About 2/3 of the reason RGT exists is so that threads like this one don't appear monthly in SMP.

Also, lol OP.

misread, sorry bad almost post