9
   

Contradictions in the Bible...

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 07:27 pm
adnauseum. There are contradictions in many great works but we do not hear about them. As long as something is faith based, it seems to be open to advanced scrutiny
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claimed is that this book is the direct words of god to mankind so having problems/errors contain in such a work is a little puzzling<smile>.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 07:57 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

adnauseum. There are contradictions in many great works but we do not hear about them. As long as something is faith based, it seems to be open to advanced scrutiny
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claimed is that this book is the direct words of god to mankind so having problems/errors contain in such a work is a little puzzling<smile>.


If you use the quote function, other peoples words will not appear to be your own.

Who claims that this book is the direct words of God to mankind?
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 08:15 pm
@Intrepid,
If the Bible were to be compiled and edited today, it would be a cut-and-paste melange of various texts written not by historians but bloggers who are out to convice everyone their God exists, is to be feared and is the only God.
Despite the definite impression any reasonable person finds in reading it -- the God that's described is a paranoid schizophrenic comedian.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 04:00 am
@Lightwizard,
You are entitled to your opinion, however out of context it may be.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 04:08 am
@TexazEric,
I have been engaged in meaningful discussion--it is certainly no fault of mine that you take offense as the meaning of what i post dawns on you. I am under no obligation to painfully search out that to which you might be pleased to take offense. To say "your boy god" is not only to refer to your imaginary friend, but to make it clear that that particular speculation is one in which i do not participate.

So allow me to once again point out some home truths to you. This is a discussion form, this is what we do. Your beliefs are not automatically entitled to respect, nor are you automatically entitled to respect for espousing them. This is definitely one of those "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" situations.

As far as i can see, this has been a meaningful discussion. You just don't like what it means. Grow up.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 04:15 am
I comment on christianity and the fairy tales which are alleged to support it because we live in what is described as a christian nation, and people calling themselves christians presume to tell us that our society is founded upon the fairy tales they believe in. C.f. TexazEric's comment about the United States being founded upon Judeo-Christian principles (while not providing a shred of proof for the claim). Intrepid's whine about only the beliefs of people of faith being subject to such scrutiny is utterly false. Look in any of the longer political threads to see people's beliefs across the political spectrum being challenged every day. Anyone familiar with the academic world will know that virtually no one's pet thesis goes long unchallenged in the critical literature.

All i see here is special pleading for and whining about how difficult it is to be christian. One of our members once quoted a blog in which the author had said, roughly, that whenever you were speaking to someone who alleged that christians are persecuted in the United States, right there, you know you are talking to a moron. I cannot think of a more succinct statement of the case. What is really going on is the religionists whining because they have had a run of thousands of years lording it over everyone else, and they're petulant because they can't get away with it any longer.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 04:37 am
@Setanta,
You just don't get it do you. Set, you do overuse the word whine. Also, why do you bring up the political threads when we are discussing in a spirituality thread? Your comprehension of what I said is somewhat lacking based on your answer to it.

It is not difficult to be a Christian. It is interesting that you refer to "religionists whining" when you whine all the time about "religionists".

Your last line seems to indicate some kind of inferiority complex. You should stop whining and get over it. Nobody is trying to force anything down your throat.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 04:54 am
@Intrepid,
Quote:
You just don't get it do you. Set, you do overuse the word whine. Also, why do you bring up the political threads when we are discussing in a spirituality thread? Your comprehension of what I said is somewhat lacking based on your answer to it.


Bullshit--you specifically said that it is only people of faith who are subjected to such scrutiny. Here, let me go get you a quote . . .

In your post #3674617 . . .

You wrote:
As long as something is faith based, it seems to be open to advanced scrutiny.


It seems to me that you are the one who doesn't get it. To respond to something else you wrote in that extended example of special pleading, i don't indulge in innuendo--i speak out forthrightly about what i see as the moral turpitude of scripture. What you are pleased to call spiteful language, i consider a realistic statement of the case. Nobody in a discussion forum gets a pass because it might be offensive to them to have their belief set questioned, criticized or even ridiculed. If that is what they want, they have no business here.

Quote:
It is not difficult to be a Christian.


Certainly it is not--and that's why my remarks were not addressed to you. It was TexazEric who was whining about how i characterized his favorite superstition.

Quote:
It is interesting that you refer to "religionists whining" when you whine all the time about "religionists".


This is bullshit, too. I make statements about religion and scripture, and some joker like Eric here shows up to indulge in some righteous indignation and special pleading that somehow his superstition should be accorded a courtesy and respect that other non-religious belief sets don't get around here. That's the only time i make comments about the religionists, other than when some ranting fool comes along to say that the United States should be run along christian lines. In fact, on those occasion upon which, from time to time, someone advocates the abolition of religion, if i bother to comment at all on such stupidity, i comment that it ain'ta gonna happen, so forget about it.

Quote:
Your last line seems to indicate some kind of inferiority complex. You should stop whining and get over it. Nobody is trying to force anything down your throat.


Once again, bullshit. If it pleases you to assume some sense of superiority, help yourself. There has been no whining on my part. Eric chose of his own free will to engage me in a discussion, and at a discussion forum, ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances. And your buddy Eric certainly was trying to force something down my throat, and that is the notion that his favorite fairy tales are entitled to a respect which is not elsewhere accorded to peoples' beliefs on other topics--but that ain'ta gonna happen, neither.
0 Replies
 
tycoon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 05:08 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

It is not difficult to be a Christian.


How true. Never question anything. Never think critically.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 05:09 am
@tycoon,
tycoon wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

It is not difficult to be a Christian.


How true. Never question anything. Never think critically.


You must be talking to somebody else.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 05:10 am
@TexazEric,
Quote:
In my studies and what I find is that science is supporting the existence of some Intelligent designer every day. I choose to believe that this Intelligent designer is the God of the Bible
. The number of scientists who think this way is a very mall minority. o small, that thir biggest goals in life are to loudly vocalize their legitamacy as cientists.
Several recent courst decisions have taken apart the very concpt that such beliefs as "Scientific Creationism " or "Intelligent Design" are not scientific diciplines at all. THIS IS strictly nased upon clear evidence.

To say that your intelligent designer is the "God of the Bible" makes me feel all kind of comfortable that several millions of dollars were spent in the Dover Pa case, in which ALL the ID witnesses tried to convince a federal judge that there was never any intent to bring religion into ID, and that IDS was pure scientific research. Youve actually restated the very basis by which the Kitzmiller side took the school to court.

I hope youre familiar with Kitzmiller v Dover, its our "monkey girl" trial of the present millenium. Im sure there will be others because "Intelligent Design" has not been fully disassembled .
TexazEric
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 10:20 am
@farmerman,
My belief in ID really should not affect you at all. There are numerous examples in scientific history where scientific consensus has been wrong. But I do not fault any scientist who states the scientific evidence they see leads them to deny the existence of a designer. I argue the point and I find that their inability to adequately explain to my personal standards the origins of the universe and life.

I believe that ID can be considered a scientific theory just as credible as the alternatives. I believe that the theory that extraterrestrial introduction of life on this planet is a legitimate theory as well. As far as the Dover case, I agree with ID proponents that to teach evolution as fact and Darwinism as infallible is not intellectually honest. We simply desire to show that there are real scientific problems with the evolutionary theory and those problems should be presented. We also believe that ID does not endorse any ONE religion or even religion at all. The theory that extraterrestrial life billions of years advanced beyond our own intelligence could have created or introduced life is in line at least partially with ID theory.

My amazement is that scientists are so vehemently opposed to even introducing the weaknesses and unanswered questions that evolution produces into the discussion. Just seems intellectually dishonest.

If Evolution is fact then is must be proven. I have not seen this proof.
Here are some of the questions I have not yet seen answered adequately.
* Evolution is an information gaining process. For evolution to be true new genetic information MUST be introduced into the DNA of species? Where is evidence of the creation through RANDOM NATURAL PROCESSES of this new information.

* If macro evolution (molecule to man) is true then MILLIONS if not Billions of transitional species should exist. they don't.

* The statistical probabilities of life beginning and evolving through RNP is so astronomical, I have real difficulties with accepting a theory where the probabilities of just one single mutation string being 10 to the 27 power, (which is considered statistically impossible) being absolute fact.

* The fact that Mutation studies show that they only create a loss of genetic information or the copying of already existing genetic information, has me puzzled to the introduction of new genetic information.

These are just a few of the many questions that evolution has failed to answer for me. For many evolution has provided a satisfactory answer to questions they have.. not for me.


Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 10:32 am
@TexazEric,
Quote:

I believe that ID can be considered a scientific theory just as credible as the alternatives.


You shouldn't believe this, b/c it indicates a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the word 'theory.' You mean to use the word 'hypothesis' instead.

A few points -

Quote:

If Evolution is fact then is must be proven. I have not seen this proof.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

We have been studying this for a little over a century, and modern techniques really only have come into play for 40-50 years. Hell, we barely figured out what DNA is in 1953. It takes time for things to be tested and proven; but the theory of evolution has not been disproven in any way, and we keep getting more data supporting it all the time.

Quote:

Here are some of the questions I have not yet seen answered adequately.
* Evolution is an information gaining process. For evolution to be true new genetic information MUST be introduced into the DNA of species? Where is evidence of the creation through RANDOM NATURAL PROCESSES of this new information.


Evolution is not necessarily an information gathering process. It is in many cases random. This is a basic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory on your part.

Quote:
* If macro evolution (molecule to man) is true then MILLIONS if not Billions of transitional species should exist. they don't.


Why? Evolution often happens in leaps, not in inches; that is to say, major changes can take place quickly with no real transitional forms.

Secondly, we do not have a perfect record of history. Fossils provide evidence for less than 1% of the actual living species which inhabited the earth in history. The vast, vast majority of animals who lived did not become fossils. Therefore, it's extremely difficult to piece together an unbroken evolutionary chain; we don't have the data. But this is not indicative of a failure of the model but instead the limitations of physical data gathering when it is mostly buried underground - in random places.

Quote:

* The statistical probabilities of life beginning and evolving through RNP is so astronomical, I have real difficulties with accepting a theory where the probabilities of just one single mutation string being 10 to the 27 power, (which is considered statistically impossible) being absolute fact.


It is more statistically improbable that an unseen, unknowable, untestable, ineffable, and infallible persona of some type created everything around us for unknowable reasons, yet you seem to accept that theory just fine - likely because the implications of that acceptance provide social support you need in order to keep being happy in life. You should examine religion with the same critical eye towards proof if you want to be consistent.

* The fact that Mutation studies show that they only create a loss of genetic information or the copying of already existing genetic information, has me puzzled to the introduction of new genetic information.

Quote:
These are just a few of the many questions that evolution has failed to answer for me. For many evolution has provided a satisfactory answer to questions they have.. not for me.


Attempting to learn more of the actual science of evolution, and what we are now doing with modern techniques of scientific study, would probably help solve these answers for you.

Cycloptichorn
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 10:50 am
@TexazEric,
Quote:
My belief in ID really should not affect you at all.
I would agree with this but for the fact that the IDers keep trying to have their worldview taught IN science classes. Thats bogosity of the highest order. SO far ID has been clueless and evidence free, and has been rendered false, (Not falsifiable but false , by the same tests).

If it aint developed through evidence and the Scientific Method, then its no more science than Astrology.


Quote:
For evolution to be true new genetic information MUST be introduced into the DNA of species? Where is evidence of the creation through RANDOM NATURAL PROCESSES of this new information.
. Might I introduce you to a wonderful little book on this very subject. Its called RELICS OF EDEN by Daniel Fairbanks. Its an easily readable book with lots of data entries on how this has evidently been accomplished into the human genome.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 10:59 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
* If macro evolution (molecule to man) is true then MILLIONS if not Billions of transitional species should exist. they don't
No, to prove the concept, we need just one to show how it works. Crteationiwsts have been denying the evidence of archeopteryx, Tiktaliik,Mormoops, ambliocetus, (not to mention sevral hundreds of gymno/angiosperm intermediates all recorded within the covers of the Iternational Treatise on Paleontology.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 11:07 am
@TexazEric,
Quote:
* The fact that Mutation studies show that they only create a loss of genetic information or the copying of already existing genetic information, has me puzzled to the introduction of new genetic information.


This is really sad because it demonstrates that you only gather information from a series of pre-digested Creationist/ID sites/. You obviously have not done any reading or inquiry from your own need to understand.I always get yancy when I see these same tired questions that have been answered completely and with great patience by scientists and then are quickly ignored by the Craetioniwst mentors who have no idea what to say in response. Its always easy to deny without proof than it is to try to match evidence, cause youd lose big time.
The very existence of new proteins that are constructed by the reordering and recopying and reinsertion of sections of DNA into the chromosomes of animals can be seen by geneticists every day. The decoding of several key genomes have shown that, instead of "Mutation as some weird process involving a defective gene", remember that when a gene is transcribing itself it makes 2 strand replications and only needs one. The other is free to wander and mutate by mere transposition and recopying of small sections. The fact that the nucleic acids bundle into groups of 3 sequences (can be 3, 6, 9 12,15 etc etc) these additions , by transposition or random copy errors can get inserted anywhere on a genomic strand and be a possible source of wntirely new genetic material. Im sure that the Creationists dont want to consider the obvious.
TexazEric
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 11:54 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Hey Cyc
Quote:
lo,

Okay Hypothesis. Nonetheless I believe it is fully valid and fully legitimate with scientific evidence to back it up. (no different than evolution)


Quote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

We have been studying this for a little over a century, and modern techniques really only have come into play for 40-50 years. Hell, we barely figured out what DNA is in 1953. It takes time for things to be tested and proven; but the theory of evolution has not been disproven in any way, and we keep getting more data supporting it all the time.


Yes I have seen reports on this article. Some issues come to mind.

1) This was a controlled environment and as the article says glucose was introduced into the environment. What else was introduced by accident?
2) E-coli for (supposed millions of years) has not had this ability. How then in one test tube in one controlled experiment did this occur . The article states

Quote:
Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species.


3) This was a controlled experiment and did not occur through random natural processes.

4) The acquired ability does not in any way disprove the existence of existing DNA. The possibility of an inverse chromosome or other mutation within the genetic code was not disproven.

First of all I never said any of this "disproves" evolution. I accept it as a theory, but it has yet to be proven fact.
You must remember ID absolutely accepts the natural selection process. This article also fully supports our belief in changes within species, and we do not deny that mutation in some cases can be beneficial. We simply believe that mutations occur to existing information. But this article does not prove Macroevolution through RNP.

Quote:
Evolution is not necessarily an information gathering process. It is in many cases random. This is a basic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory on your part.


I do not believe I misunderstand it at all. Even the article you provided attempted to say that NEW genetic information had been introduced to the species. For simple life forms to "evolve" into more complex life forms there must be new genetic information introduced to the process. I agree that for "evolution" to work it
1) there must be new genetic information introduced to an existing species
2) It must occur through random natural processes.

Quote:
Why? Evolution often happens in leaps, not in inches; that is to say, major changes can take place quickly with no real transitional forms.

Secondly, we do not have a perfect record of history. Fossils provide evidence for less than 1% of the actual living species which inhabited the earth in history. The vast, vast majority of animals who lived did not become fossils. Therefore, it's extremely difficult to piece together an unbroken evolutionary chain; we don't have the data. But this is not indicative of a failure of the model but instead the limitations of physical data gathering when it is mostly buried underground - in random places.


Because I require it for evidence. Its a personal stipulation. I believe evolution is weak in this area and those who would make excuses must concede that fact. Of the millions of fossils that we have found, there are only a few (Lucy, archeoptrix, the monkey) that anyone even tries to attempt to call a transitional species. And whats more, many fossils show NO change in the species over hundreds of thousands of years. Many scientists do not agree with the "leap hypothesis". And even those so called leaps occur over thousands of years. There just should be more evidence.

Quote:
It is more statistically improbable that an unseen, unknowable, untestable, ineffable, and infallible persona of some type created everything around us for unknowable reasons, yet you seem to accept that theory just fine - likely because the implications of that acceptance provide social support you need in order to keep being happy in life. You should examine religion with the same critical eye towards proof if you want to be consistent.


Actually applying scientific principles to the supernatural is not possible. Because they are not observable and repeatable. The science of statistical probabilities is probably the greatest bit of scientific data that influenced me to accept the existence of God. It is my decision to choose that this God is the one of the Bible. I just don't have enough faith to believe that random natural processes over billions of years was able to evolve such inctricately and complex life forms. The complexity of a single cell is so complex and so balanced that just one small glitch and the evolution process was destroyed and must start over again. There are just too many inhospitable probabilities and improbable intracies that would have had to occur. I have faith.. but not that much.


Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 12:00 pm
@TexazEric,
TexazEric wrote:
Okay Hypothesis. Nonetheless I believe it is fully valid and fully legitimate with scientific evidence to back it up. (no different than evolution)


Would you please describe what scientific evidence "backs up" the concept of intelligent design?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 12:10 pm
@TexazEric,
Well, you are very loose in your terminology and incorrect on several points. But, just to focus on the main ones -

Quote:

1) This was a controlled environment and as the article says glucose was introduced into the environment. What else was introduced by accident?


The fact that it was a controlled environment is immaterial; it exactly replicates many such environments in nature. Additionally, there is no evidence that anything else was introduced by accident, so there is no legitimacy to your claim that there would have been, and no science behind the idea whatsoever.

Quote:

2) E-coli for (supposed millions of years) has not had this ability. How then in one test tube in one controlled experiment did this occur . The article states


The bacteria evolved to fit their environment. It is likely that in the natural environment, it was not necessary for the bacteria to evolve to do so, or there are side-effects which make that bacteria less competitive in the long run, which we haven't yet observed.

These are exceedingly easy to answer questions if you bother to look at them objectively.

Quote:


4) The acquired ability does not in any way disprove the existence of existing DNA. The possibility of an inverse chromosome or other mutation within the genetic code was not disproven.


An inverse chromosome which provides an evolutionary advantage, and then breeds true, is evolution of a species. You will note that this is consistent with evolutionary theory.



Quote:

I do not believe I misunderstand it at all. Even the article you provided attempted to say that NEW genetic information had been introduced to the species. For simple life forms to "evolve" into more complex life forms there must be new genetic information introduced to the process. I agree that for "evolution" to work it
1) there must be new genetic information introduced to an existing species
2) It must occur through random natural processes.


You discount the modern science which has disproven both 1 and 2. I refer you to Farmerman's above posts for excellent research you can do to learn the facts about this research.

Quote:


Because I require it for evidence. Its a personal stipulation. I believe evolution is weak in this area and those who would make excuses must concede that fact. Of the millions of fossils that we have found, there are only a few (Lucy, archeoptrix, the monkey) that anyone even tries to attempt to call a transitional species. And whats more, many fossils show NO change in the species over hundreds of thousands of years. Many scientists do not agree with the "leap hypothesis". And even those so called leaps occur over thousands of years. There just should be more evidence.


First, there are very few scientists who disagree with modern evolutionary theory at all. There is just too much evidence on the side of the theory and very little on the converse side.

There are thousands of species labeled as 'transitional' forms which you apparently are unaware of. It is not 'a few.' There are a few famous ones, but a lack of research into this issue on your part does not provide proof that they don't exist.

For example, let us take the modern horse. We know of hundreds, if not thousands, of precursors to this modern mammal; we can watch the Hoof evolve over time on these animals. I would suggest spending some time in Natural History museums looking at skeletons and measuring their change over time if you want to see the gigantic variety of transitional forms out there.

Quote:
Actually applying scientific principles to the supernatural is not possible. Because they are not observable and repeatable.


In that case, you will stop using the terms 'hypothesis' and 'theory' in respect to Intelligent design. These are very well-defined scientific terms which imply certain things not testable or provable when it comes to the 'supernatural.' Intelligent design has nothing to do with science whatsoever, is not a 'competing theory' with evolution, and has no place in any classroom discussing science at all. It is antithetical to the idea of science itself.

Quote:
The complexity of a single cell is so complex and so balanced that just one small glitch and the evolution process was destroyed and must start over again.


Even in your closing paragraph, you make basic mistakes re: the nature of evolution and the evolutionary process, for what you have written above is clearly untrue.

I implore, if you wish to continue discussing this topic with people who are on the other side of the fence than you, please - do some further research, and as FM stated, not on Intelligent Design websites. Try arguing the other side of the equation for a while. At the very least, the quality of your argumentation is sure to rise.

Cycloptichorn
TexazEric
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 12:18 pm
@farmerman,
You can feel "sad" if you like. Because in actuality you are completely wrong. I have read numerous published articles on the opposite side of the debate. They are well written and have some points. However in every case I have read not ONE of their observations came through Random natural processes. In most cases they only provide theories and some very good ones at that. However they have yet to prove any of those theories.

Even here in your own post you support my contention:

Quote:
The very existence of new proteins that are constructed by the reordering and recopying and reinsertion of sections of DNA into the chromosomes of animals can be seen by geneticists every day.


Geneticists are recopying and reinserting sections of DNA into animals. EXACTLY! Intelligent beings are playing with the genetic code. BUT THEY ARE NOT RANDOM NATURAL PROCESSES. In every case they are controlled experiments by intelligent people.

I completly agree with you about the genetic engineering, but I have yet to see any evidence of this occurring through RNP. We do not deny changes within species through mutation. I agree with natural selection. But there is absolutely ZERO evidence to support macroevolution between species. It just does not exist. The theories about it DO exist, but the proof of it through RNP does not.
For ME the statistical improbabilities of floating genetic material randomly creating a new protien that creates a newer more complex species or even a new genus are so beyond possibility that I reject it as the most likely cause of complex life forms.
For ME the complexity of Life clearly indicates a designer.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2022 at 02:24:09