Serious bible question

[chiplee]

 

 

Seems equally compelling to the arguments presented in this thread.

 

Look, he was a well documented liar. If you're willing to get your "knowledge" from sources like that, I think you're using that "knowledge" like a drunk uses a street lamp, more for support than illumination.

[Shelby]

Chip said ( I warned you I wouldn't read fiction )

i hope you ment that in relation to this thread and other topics , cause with out imagination we'd still be liveing in caves ,

just like a child growing up a mind needs play time

[john82wa]

Look, he was a well documented liar. If you're willing to get your "knowledge" from sources like that, I think you're using that "knowledge" like a drunk uses a street lamp, more for support than illumination.

 

Yes, I see thats what your post was implying - but where is the rebuttal? Sure the author that you quoted is clearly in disagreement with him and stating:

 

Morris has plucked “quotes” from various sources, allegedly asserting that: no one has ever seen evolution happen; mutations are always either neutral or harmful; evolutionists can’t determine the mechanism that causes evolution; there are no transitional fossils; there is no chronological sequence for fossils; the second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible; etc. It’s all there. And it’s all been debunked for generations.

 

I guess I would have to see where it was debunked and would involve more research. Like I mentioned, I just simply did a surface level search using the internet. Perhaps I will dive into those few that were just mentioned above.

 

Im not trying to argue, this is all very compelling and truly interesting to me

[chiplee]

Chip said ( I warned you I wouldn't read fiction )

i hope you ment that in relation to this thread and other topics , cause with out imagination we'd still be liveing in caves ,

just like a child growing up a mind needs play time

 

I did mean on this topic, shelby. But in general my non-fiction reading list is too long. I watch the Walking Dead. Does that count as mental play time?

[chiplee]

 

 

Yes, I see thats what your post was implying - but where is the rebuttal? Sure the author that you quoted is clearly in disagreement with him and stating:

 

Morris has plucked “quotes” from various sources, allegedly asserting that: no one has ever seen evolution happen; mutations are always either neutral or harmful; evolutionists can’t determine the mechanism that causes evolution; there are no transitional fossils; there is no chronological sequence for fossils; the second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible; etc. It’s all there. And it’s all been debunked for generations.

 

I guess I would have to see where it was debunked and would involve more research. Like I mentioned, I just simply did a surface level search using the internet. Perhaps I will dive into those few that were just mentioned above.

 

Im not trying to argue, this is all very compelling and truly interesting to me

 

People who break the rules of rational argument as grossly as Morris did don't get "rebutted". They get (or should get) ignored. The many websites where you can find people putting into context the quotes that he has taken out of context are just people correcting his intellectual dishonesty. They're not "rebutting" him. I don't want to argue either. I'm just setting the story straight on the source you provided.

Edited March 28, 2012 by chiplee

[Chad]

we know as much about science as we do "gods will", very little. Why did the big bang happen? is that how it all started or did something preceedit? why is the magnetic force so much stronger than gravity? there are so many things we just don't know.

 

My point? with scince we don't know it all either, but what we do know, we can repeat/reproduce/study wtih absolute ceartanty. I know that if I mix a pure base and pure acid, I will get salt water every time. I klnow if I drop an object, that it will fall towards the gravitational center of this planet unless something gets in it's way or an external force acts upon it, every time, with 100% certanty.

 

I can't do that with anything that relates to gods will, it's a crap-shoot every time. Therein lies the faith vs science debate. Some scinece we do take on faith, but much of it not so. All of religion is faith based. If I live my life the way god wants and has commanded me in the bible, and I pray that I wll be blessed and saved from harm if I drink turpentine, arsnic, and play with poisinous snakes, that does not predict that I will indeed be safe every time. It is not certain.

 

faith has proven inadequate in both science and religion, but Science has an edge on religion in that some elemnts require no faith at all, they are 100% certain.

 

Personaly, I haven't made up my mind, so I dont' subscribe to any one side of this debate.

[john82wa]

Well said Chad -

 

I tried reading up on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the claim that it proves Evolution impossible and quite frankly I must bow down and admit this one is far above my head to understand

 

I did look on both sides and here is a link that does rebute my quoted article - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

Part of it makes sense but the other ??????? I need to go back to school for

 

The truth is certainly out there - finding it is completely another story

[patra_is_here]

WHY DO ALL OF YOU EXPECT SCIENCE TO ANSWER EVERYTHING!?!?!?!??!?

 

science has provided ten-fold more answers than religion ever has. is that not enough for you to at least accept the mechanics and the system of science.?

 

ALL of you who are supported ANY of the faith based concepts are ALL making the same fundamental flaw in logic. I don't understand how you're so incapable of seeing the break in your line of reasoning?

 

FAITH requires the break in logic, therefore ANY conclusions you derive from faith is illogical, and can't be used to PROVE any point using the system of logic.

 

I don't know how many times we have to go over this, but many of you keep committing the same fallacies over and over again. I hate to assume it's due to lack of education regarding the formalized system of logic, debate, and science, but it seems like it is. It's getting to the point in the conversation where we (the sciences backers) shouldn't have to continue to defend science. THERES NOTHING TO DEFEND. it's a formalized closed system.

 

IF YOU FIND AN ERROR IN SCIENCE, WRITE YOUR THESIS, GET IT PEER-REVIEWED, AND COLLECT YOUR NOBEL PRIZE. that is how it works!! people are proving things wrong in science all the time, and when they do, science now contains the corrections. it doesn't hold on to the errors.

 

SO AGAIN, if you're so smart, prove science is wrong and science will accept your proof IF it is a valid proof. THAT IS THE NATURE OF SCIENCE.

[patra_is_here]

AND NOW TO COUNTER THE CREATIONISTS

The basic laws of science are firmly opposed to evolution, especially The Second Law of Thermodynamics which insists that all real processes yield less organization and information in their products than in the original. This basic law leads to de-volution, not evolution. The presence of abundant external energy has never, as far as science has observed, produced beneficial mutations or added information to the genome as evolutionists claim. Instead, an abundance of incoming energy will hasten the deterioration of living things, especially the DNA. It will not bring about their evolution. Evolution is against the Law

this conclusion is met due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the second law. things lead to LESS organization ONLY when no energy is put in to the system. BUT, all life has had continuous energy put in to the system (THE SUN, food, covelent bonds, radiation, electron transport chain, Angular velocity of the earth, the tides, GRAVITY) all of these are always putting energy in to the system in which LIFE exists, THEREFORE, LIFE can become MORE organized (and evolve)

 

 

there, i just destroyed the entirety of morris' thesis in three sentences.

Edited March 28, 2012 by patra_is_here

[patra_is_here]

You're right, absolutely. The reemergence of Israel as a nation happened because Israelites planned from the moment they're country was no more to be re-established 1876 yrs later, There was no divine plan for it. A nation the size of rhode island defeated Egypt, Iran, and other surrounding countries 100 times bigger than them in 1948 to reestablish themselves as a nation. And to be a dominantly safe country in that region with military superiority with no divine plan or intervention.

 

do you have reading comprehension issues? I never said that israel reemerged because the israelites planned it almost 2000 years ago.

 

for a moment, pretend you're a jew 2000 years ago. the egyptians come and ruin your day, so it would be nice if YOUR FAITH told you that one day you'd get your land back. the fact that they got it back doesnt mean it was pre-ordained. it just means that they got it back.

 

I could write a letter saying tomorrow i'll get a cup of coffee, and when tomorrow comes I may get a cup of coffee. it doesn't imply divine intervention. it just means that I worked towards getting a cup of coffee.

 

the jews have been working towards getting their land back for 1872 years. they finally got it when it was politically and militarily strategic for the western world for israel to be there. that's all. any other conclusions are FAITH BASED, and not valid proofs. why don't you understand that?

Edited March 28, 2012 by patra_is_here

[john82wa]

I can certainly begin to feel that your getting frustrated Patra - It's too bad really, because if anything these argument have only been helping your side. So why is it when we the believers are asking questions to you, the frustration is just spewing out? When there is a theory in place it is truly just theory and its argued by hundreds of people far more inteligent then you or I - there is no reason that I can't be on one side & you the other.

 

The information I brought forward is certainly to help my argument but also to hear the opinion of yourself and others because I value the opinion & insight of others. It certainly doesn't mean I have to take it and agree.

 

I have felt that I have been very open minded in listening to all that has been said in this forum and I do feel more educated in the matter. Hopefully I continue to learn more in this area - I think I would be doing myself an injustice to just stop asking questions and utilizing theories from both sides to come to a conclusion.

[patra_is_here]

Nothing you say will sway My thought or belief in God or his word.

 

perfect!!!! tell me which version of his word you will be believing in. which specific verses and psalm you'll be believing in. and which commandments you will choose to follow. I look forward to your consistent, closed, formalized version of what you believe in. seriously!! I'm not being sarcastic. if you can do that regarding your faith, i think that would be a great step for religion and faith.

[Shelby]

I did mean on this topic, shelby. But in general my non-fiction reading list is too long. I watch the Walking Dead. Does that count as mental play time?

 

yes it does but reading Tolkins books of the Rings or Dune counts much more

no movie can hold up to the power of a well writen book

[patra_is_here]

I can certainly begin to feel that your getting frustrated Patra - It's too bad really, because if anything these argument have only been helping your side.

 

im just frustrated that i have to explain 'science' over and over again, when we're adults and these things should have been taught to us already. You've been a very civil discussion partner btw. it's funny how there are 'sides' to such things. when really, we should all be on the same side, which is how do we work together to share our understandings of the world. my understanding of the world deals primarily with a formal system of interaction. things which have specific definition and attributes and behave a specific way and can be replicated, shown, proven, shared, and expanded upon all within the same system. that's what I deal with. I used to be a much more spiritual person until I realized that they required these leaps in logic. I didnt need faith. I found myself enjoying life, and this universe by the quest to understand this universe. and if god created it, then by default I am appreciating god's creation more than any religious person ever could, simply because i'm appreciating god's details. I'm not sitting back and saying "oh hey god thanks for helping beat pneumonia" i'm saying "oh hey god, thanks for making a universe with the atom, molecules, cells, evolution, my physical body, the physical ability of the body to fight sickness, the knowledge of mankind to fight sickness, the will power of my brain to continue in life"

 

that's what I'm saying, in the event that god exists. if god doesn't exist, everything I said still stands, except i'm thanking no one. it doesn't change the fact that i'm very thankful for all the beauty and details of this universe.

 

I think that is the hardest thing for faith-based people to understand about agnostics and atheists. they assume that without faith we can't appreciate god's splendor. but we appreciate it all the same, or even moreso. we just don't apply a source to it, because the source isn't needed in order to appreciate it. also, unlike faith-based people, we don't get to shift the blame. we can't curse at god for making us sad, or for letting us get injured in a car accident. we don't get a scape-goat for our moral and ethical dilemmas.

Edited March 28, 2012 by patra_is_here

[lmwii]

D. Evolution can't happen at all.

The basic laws of science are firmly opposed to evolution, especially The Second Law of Thermodynamics which insists that all real processes yield less organization and information in their products than in the original. This basic law leads to de-volution, not evolution. The presence of abundant external energy has never, as far as science has observed, produced beneficial mutations or added information to the genome as evolutionists claim. Instead, an abundance of incoming energy will hasten the deterioration of living things, especially the DNA. It will not bring about their evolution. Evolution is against the Law!

 

 

 

just to add to patra's post on this, entropy will win in the end, but the final score isn't tallied until the end of the universe. by the way this idiot (and others iv'e heard) posits it, you can't build a house or a car, or make pancakes, or have a baby without god's direct contravention of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. the 'systems' required to organize materials into those things increases the overall entrop of the universe even as the local effect is a greater degree of organization. by the way the moron WANTS it to read, nothing ever gets more complex except for the hand of god.

 

PURE GARBAGE.

[patra_is_here]

just to add to patra's post on this, entropy will win in the end, but the final score isn't tallied until the end of the universe. the way morris (and others iv'e heard) posits it, you can't build a house or a car, or make pancakes, or have a baby without god's direct contravention of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

yup. morris completely misuses the 2nd law.

[john82wa]

 

yes it does but reading Tolkins books of the Rings or Dune counts much more

no movie can hold up to the power of a well writen book

 

Huge fan of Michael Chrichton - explain that one?? lol

 

Patra - The bible holds so many truths that for the most part science seems to be catching up to that truth. For example:

 

Ecclesiastes 1:6 "The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit." This was written years upon years ago by Solomon who reigned around 750 BC way ahead of when we even discovered or even thought of the 'jet stream' as we know it today.

 

Psalm 19:6 'The sun goes in a circuit'. It was believed the Sun was stationary and it was Earth that rotated around the sun correct? Yes, but the Sun actually rotates around the center of the Milky Way galaxy. This one is harder to put a time stamp on this book because the Psalms was a compilation. But estimates are 1400 BC - 550 BC.

 

Genesis 1:9-10 The continents were created in one land mass. Written by Moses in 1450 BC. It wasnt until geological oceanographers were able to really see the ocean floor and determine this.

 

Hebrews 11:3 'By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God's command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen.' All visible matter consists of invisible elements and this wasn't found until the 19th Century.

 

Job 26:7 'God stretches the northern sky over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing.' Written 2000-1800 BC. Well before there was the understanding of space, gravity and of course the earth being a globe / sphere.

 

There is far more - but I just dont believe the bible as a whole to be a conjured up story when there are several truths to it. I don't know, its just some food for thought at least...

Edited March 28, 2012 by john82wa

[lmwii]

but isn't everything in the bible right from your POV? there is no passage i can cite that will cause you to agree that it has falsehood in it as well. that's the problem with the circular reasoning that is required to try to justify your belief. just stand on your faith and let it go. i cannot assail what you believe if you choose to ignore reason and logic, but in turn, you cannot make any argument that will prove your point. every logical argument you can make, any so-called evidence you try to present, will be destroyed by any objective standard.

[john82wa]

I wouldn't call it from my point of view at all. Im reading it and if its clearly pointing out a known idea (such as the sun being on a circuit) that wasn't truly discovered till years later - I would call that pretty impressive would you not? Or is that just coincidence?

 

Now how about taking the bible and give me something from the bible where it is proven to be wrong. I would certainly be all ears to that.

Edited March 28, 2012 by john82wa

[Chad]

Ecclesiastes 1:6 is right, except where it is wrong. the jet sterams travel in different directions, depending on where you are on the planet. See :

http://en.wikipedia....Circulation.jpg

 

Psalm 19:6 'The sun goes in a circuit' the milky way is also in motion, why is that not mentioned?

 

Hebrews 11:3 'By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God's command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen.' define visible? I think the author was implying devine godly "magic", not atomic particles (which can be seen with man made tools BTW ). Air isn't visible either, but I can feel it.

 

Job 26:7 'God stretches the northern sky over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing. what about the sourthern sky? It's kind of vague don't you think?

 

I can go into most any book/novel/story and pick out statements that will make the case for just about any belief/faith. many do so to commit horrible acts. Doesnt' make that OK now does it?

[patra_is_here]

Patra - The bible holds so many truths that for the most part science seems to be catching up to that truth.

you are misusing the word "Truth". simply because something is sorta true, doesn't make it a "Truth"

 

For example:

Ecclesiastes 1:6 "The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit."

this is true EXCEPT WHEN ITS NOT TRUE. meaning, there are places in which the WIND DOES NOT DO THIS. THEREFORE, you can't claim it to be a 'Truth' unless it's true all the time. sometimes the wind blows north then south.

 

Psalm 19:6 'The sun goes in a circuit'. It was believed the Sun was stationary and it was Earth that rotated around the sun correct? Yes, but the Sun actually rotates around the center of the Milky Way galaxy. This one is harder to put a time stamp on this book because the Psalms was a compilation. But estimates are 1400 BC - 550 BC.

'the sun goes in a circuit' is not the same thing as defining the path in which it travels through the galaxy. 'going in a circuit' means that they observed it behaving cyclically.

 

Genesis 1:9-10 The continents were created in one land mass. Written by Moses in 1450 BC. It wasnt until geological oceanographers were able to really see the ocean floor and determine this.

by "ALL" one can only deduce they meant "all they observed" which at that point was essentially A SINGLE LAND MASS.

 

and here's a finer detail which you are overlooking. at no point in the bible does the word "continent" exist. that word did not exist at the time of the bible, let alone in the original hebrew. so all your proofs are based on an english translation, which is COMPLETELY subjective to whomever is translating it, since the languages do not directly translate from each other.

 

I dont feel like dismissing the other points you make, but my line of reasoning will be the same. all of your examples are subjective. they are rough translations. and they are INEXACT. they are not valid proofs.

 

 

 

I will say that I do agree with you in that the bible isn't exclusively lies. there are things in it which are logically true things. swarms of locusts existed during that time, and there is documentation of such swarms in the bible. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN ALL OF THE BIBLE IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

 

I don't know what your level of education might be, but I have the feeling that you need to learn more about the world, and about history, and about critical thinking, from many different sources.

[Chad]

Isaiah 11:12 : And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH

 

where are these 4 corners on this spehere we live on? The earth was widely beliveved to be a flat square. Where else will you find a geometric shape with 4 corners? If you write enough stuff in a book, some of it's bound to be found to be correct some day. Problem lies in how much one must contradict ones self to accomplish this feat. Is the corerct stuff "early wisdom", and the incorrect sfuff just dismissed ? It's hard to take that approach seriously.

[Chad]

If you think of the earth as the center of the universe, as they all did in the old bible days, then indeed, the sun does travel in a circuit : purely by perception. Try this on a merry-go-round, sit in the middle, presume you are the center of the universe, and watch everythying arround you that you can see travel in a circuit/ regardless of which way you look. Look up at the sun while spinning and watch it have an eliptical (circuit-like) orbit.

 

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5

 

Apparenlty the earth doesnt' move at all... there are so many contradictions, it's hard to take any facts as facts. I find it very useful and fulfilling to read, but I dont' take it like a book of facts, but rather a book of morals and lessons.

[john82wa]

Never implied I was all knowing and certainly stated I was open to learning more about the subject as well from different sources. That is precisely why im speaking on this particular thread.

 

Chad - very good with Isaiah 11. But like it was mentioned, there are several translations and the one you are quoting from is not the oldest translation. The translation im looking at states "He will gather the scattered people of Judah from the ends of the earth" NLT. Or if you go to an older translation, Douay-Rheims it states, "the four quarters of the earth".

 

This obviously brings up the very question of the bibles accuracy through the different translations. The general meaning stays the same, but that certainly means what I have quoted from the bible holds little value in this argument as well...

 

You guys make my head hurt

Edited March 28, 2012 by john82wa

[Chad]

So where is the end of the earth? on a sphere there is no beginnig, nor end, nor edge. it's a unique shape in that way. no edge, no beginning, no end, not even a delineation point of any sort.

 

there are several translations and the one you are quoting from is not the oldest translation. The

 

This obviously brings up the very question of the bibles accuracy through the different translations.

 

This is why the bible can not be taken seriously from a scientific view, ever. It's all subject to interpretation, and there is an excuse or explanation for everything. Who says the oldest known version isn't actulay the 3rd or 4th oldest and we just lost the first ones, thus makign the "oldest ones" just a mere "interpretation"? there is no end to the doubtability of the text we have today. Thus it shouldn't be used in such a way, it diminishes the value contained within the text. I think both sides have merit, and you can benifit from both if you free your mind enough. I am quite pleased with the realization that I will never have absolute knowledge of anything, and that I don't have to. I will take some things on faith, and others no so much.